Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
---|---|---|---|
Hierarchies | Minsky | Minsky I 34 Hierarchies/Minsky: (…) we should not try to extend very far the analogy between [software agents] and human supervisors and workers. Furthermore, (…), the relations between mental agents are not always strictly hierarchical. Which agents choose which others to do what jobs? Who will decide which jobs are done at all? Who decides what efforts to expend? How will conflicts be settled? >Conflicts/Minsky. Minsky I 35 Heterachies: (…) hierarchies do not always work. Consider that when two agents need to use each other's skills, then neither one can be on top. Later, we'll see more cross-connected rings and loops - when we are forced to consider the need for memory. >Memory/Minsky. |
Minsky I Marvin Minsky The Society of Mind New York 1985 Minsky II Marvin Minsky Semantic Information Processing Cambridge, MA 2003 |
Hierarchies | Parsons | Habermas IV 371 Hierarchies/Systems/System Theory/Parsons/Habermas: Parsons adopts a control mechanism for systems that in turn requires energy, but little compared to the consumption of the overall system. Parsons equates cultural values with controlling control values and treats the organic foundations of the action system as a source of energy. Then he establishes a hierarchy between behavioral system, personality, social system and culture in such a way that the lower level is in line with the respectively Habermas IV 372 higher system of energy used, which is superior to the lower system in terms of information and control performance. This gives the cultural system the position of a sovereign of control. Habermas: Parsons not only sets the course for a cultural determinism, but differentiates between two categories of environments: a) at the lower pole the natural or empirical environment, b) at the opposite pole an environment of a non-empirical, supernatural nature.(1) >Levels/order, >Description Levels. 1. T. Parsons, “Social Systems”, in: Parsons, Social Systems, 1977, p. 181. |
ParCh I Ch. Parsons Philosophy of Mathematics in the Twentieth Century: Selected Essays Cambridge 2014 ParTa I T. Parsons The Structure of Social Action, Vol. 1 1967 ParTe I Ter. Parsons Indeterminate Identity: Metaphysics and Semantics 2000 Ha I J. Habermas Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne Frankfurt 1988 Ha III Jürgen Habermas Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns Bd. I Frankfurt/M. 1981 Ha IV Jürgen Habermas Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns Bd. II Frankfurt/M. 1981 |
Hierarchies | Beauvoir | Brocker I 302 Hierarchy/Gender Roles/Beauvoir: the different starting position of the sexes - ((s) the immanence on the part of women, the transcendence on the part of men - see Immanence/Beauvoir, Transcendence/Existentialism, Gender Roles/Beauvoir) - cannot adequately justify the obvious renunciation of a designed life on the part of women. What is the root of the gender hierarchy? From the point of view of essentialism, it is not possible to assert any determinations of nature. In view of the permanence of gender roles, no contingent historical conditions can be brought into the field. Solution/Beauvoir: the sources must lie in the subjectivity itself. (cf. Heinz, 2002 (1)) 1. Marion Heinz, , »Humanistischer Feminismus. Simone de Beauvoir«, in: Sabine Doyé/Marion Heinz/Friederike Kuster (Hg.), Philosophische Geschlechtertheorien. Ausgewählte Texte von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, Stuttgart 2002, S. 425.. Friederike Kuster, „Simone de Beauvoir, Das andere Geschlecht (1949)“ in: Manfred Brocker (Hg.) Geschichte des politischen Denkens. Das 20. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt/M. 2018 |
Brocker I Manfred Brocker Geschichte des politischen Denkens. Das 20. Jahrhundert Frankfurt/M. 2018 |
Hierarchies | Psychological Theories | Corr I 136 Hierarchies/psychological theories/traits/Five-Factor Model/De Raad: Throughout the history of developing personality trait structures, hierarchy has played an inherent role. Possibly the most well-known hierarchy of traits is the strict hierarchy hypothesized by Eysenck (1970)(1). Leves are: type level (e.g. extraversion), trait level (e.g. sociability), habitual response level (e.g. entertaining strangers) and specific response level (e.g. telling jokes). Corr I 138 An interesting way of looking at hierarchy, which has been applied increasingly over the last decade (e.g., De Raad and Szirmák 1994(2); Saucier, Georgiades, Tsaousis and Goldberg 2005(3)), is by giving the correlations between factors from different levels of extraction. E.g. First level: 1 factor (virtue) Second level: two factors (virtue and dynamism) Third level: three factors (virtue, anxiety and dynamism) Fourth level: four factors (virtue, anxiety, pleasure, and competence) (4) >J. Eysenck, >Personality traits/Eysenck. Corr I 139 Tests/hierarchies/traits/De Raad: Hierarchy is not only brought about psychometrically, through factoring variables or through factoring factors. Hampson, John and Goldberg (1986)(5) explicitly searched for indexes of hierarchy according to principles of Category Breadth and Concept Asymmetry, to enable an empirical test of hierarchy. Hampson, John and Goldberg (1986)(5) provided supportive empirical evidence for expected two-tiered (e.g., talkative is a way of being social) and three-tiered (e.g., musical is a way of being artistic, and artistic is a way of being talented) hierarchies for different types of descriptors (adjectives, verbs, nouns). Hampson et al. suggested that well-differentiated hierarchies are found in certain domains of the Big Five and not in others. >Big Five, >Five-factor model. For example, when overt occurrence of behaviour is signalled by a trait (e.g., Emotional Instability), differentiated hierarchies are more frequent than when non-occurrence (e.g., being passive, silent, reserved) of behaviour is signalled by a trait (e.g., Introversion). >Extraversion, >Introversion, >Behavior. 1. Eysenck, H. J. 1970. The structure of human personality, 3rd edn. London: Methuen 2. De Raad, B. and Szirmák, Z. 1994. The search for the ‘Big Five’ in a non-Indo-European language: the Hungarian trait structure and its relationship to the EPQ and the PTS, European Review of Applied Psychology 44: 17–24 3. Saucier, G. and Goldberg, L. R. 1996. Evidence for the Big Five in analyses of familiar English personality adjectives, European Journal of Personality 10: 61-77 4. De Raad, B. and Barelds, D. P. H. 2008. A new taxonomy of Dutch personality traits based on a comprehensive and unrestricted list of descriptors. descriptors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 94: 347–64 5. Hampson, S. E., John, O. P. and Goldberg, L. R. (1986). Category breadth and hierarchical structure in personality: studies of asymmetries in judgments of trait implications, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 37–54 Boele De Raad, “Structural models of personality”, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.) 2009. The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press |
Corr I Philip J. Corr Gerald Matthews The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009 Corr II Philip J. Corr (Ed.) Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018 |
Hierarchies | Evolutionary Psychology | Corr I 362 Hierarchy/Evolutionary Psychology: One major alteration in revised RST (>Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory) is the inclusion of a hierarchical arrangement of distributed brain systems that mediate specific defensive behaviours associated with level of threat experienced, ranging from the prefrontal prefrontal cortex, at the highest level, to the periaqueductal grey, at the lowest level. To each structure is assigned a specific class of mental disorder (McNaughton and Corr 2008a)(1). According to this perspective, separate emotions (e.g., fear, panic, etc.) may be seen as reflecting the evolution of specific neural modules to deal with specific environmental demands (e.g., flee in the face of a predator) and, as these separate systems evolved and started to work together, some form of regulatory process (e.g., when one module is active, others are inactivated) evolved. >Anxiety. The resulting hierarchical nature of this defence system reflects the fact that simpler systems must have evolved before more complex ones, which provides a solution to the problem of conflicting action systems: the later systems evolved to have inhibitory control on lower-level systems. The result of this process of evolution is the existence of hierarchically ordered series of defensive reactions, each appropriate for a given defensive distance (i.e., level of threat perceived). This hierarchical arrangement (…) can be conveniently summarized in terms of a two-dimensional scheme, consisting of ‘defensive distance’ and ‘defensive direction’. >Terminology/Corr, >Order, >Classification. 1. McNaughton, N. & Corr, P. J. 2008a. The neuropsychology of fear and anxiety: a foundation for reinforcement sensitivity theory, in P. J. Corr (ed). The reinforcement sensitivity theory of personality, pp. 44–94. Cambridge University Press Philip J. Corr, „ The Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality“, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.) 2009. The Cambridge handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press |
Corr I Philip J. Corr Gerald Matthews The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009 Corr II Philip J. Corr (Ed.) Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018 |
Disputed term/author/ism | Author Vs Author |
Entry |
Reference |
---|---|---|---|
Redundancy Theory | Austin Vs Redundancy Theory | I 19 AustinVsRedundancy theory: a statement has other functions than just being true or false. Statements, not propositions (as in Tarski), are candidates for the predicates "true" and "false". "Is true" describes a satisfactory relationship between words and the world. (StrawsonVs). --- I 234 AustinVsRedundancy theory: it has been argued that saying that an assertion is true is not another assertion. It is logically redundant. Austin: but that’s not true. DAdA refers to the world outside of dAdA. That is, to everything except this statement itself! DAdAW refers to the world including dAdA, although the statement itself, i.e. dAdAW, in turn is excluded! DadAW is appropriate only if one imagines that dAdA is already made and verified. --- I 236 AustinVsRedundancy theory: a statement that says that it is true is just as absurd as one with the content that it is wrong itself! The crreation of hierarchies formation is not a solution either. --- Strawson II 263 AustinVsRedundancy Theory: AustinVsRamsey and StrawsonVsRamsey: we contradict the thesis that the expression "is true" is logically superfluous. "True" has its own tasks. When we use it, we do not simply assert that something is so, we assert it as we could not do it if certain conditions were not fulfilled. We can also grant, deny, confirm something etc. StrawsonVsAustin: but that does not mean the assumption of the thesis that we assert something about a statement by the use of "true". It is not a new assertion at all! II 265 By looking ((s) by pointing) one can also determine whether a statement is true without the performative use of "true". E.g. someone reported, "he saw that the statement was true". What does he report? He reports that I've seen a cat on the mat. But only in certain circumstances. This also means that one has heard such a statement. |
Austin I John L. Austin "Truth" in: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume 24 (1950): 111 - 128 In Wahrheitstheorien, Gunnar Skirbekk Frankfurt/M. 1977 Austin II John L. Austin "A Plea for Excuses: The Presidential Address" in: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Volume 57, Issue 1, 1 June 1957, Pages 1 - 3 German Edition: Ein Plädoyer für Entschuldigungen In Linguistik und Philosophie, Grewendorf/Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1974/1995 Strawson I Peter F. Strawson Individuals: An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics. London 1959 German Edition: Einzelding und logisches Subjekt Stuttgart 1972 Strawson II Peter F. Strawson "Truth", Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Suppl. Vol XXIV, 1950 - dt. P. F. Strawson, "Wahrheit", In Wahrheitstheorien, Gunnar Skirbekk Frankfurt/M. 1977 Strawson III Peter F. Strawson "On Understanding the Structure of One’s Language" In Truth and Meaning, G. Evans/J. McDowell Oxford 1976 Strawson IV Peter F. Strawson Analysis and Metaphysics. An Introduction to Philosophy, Oxford 1992 German Edition: Analyse und Metaphysik München 1994 Strawson V P.F. Strawson The Bounds of Sense: An Essay on Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. London 1966 German Edition: Die Grenzen des Sinns Frankfurt 1981 Strawson VI Peter F Strawson Grammar and Philosophy in: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Vol 70, 1969/70 pp. 1-20 In Linguistik und Philosophie, G. Grewendorf/G. Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1974/1995 Strawson VII Peter F Strawson "On Referring", in: Mind 59 (1950) In Eigennamen, Ursula Wolf Frankfurt/M. 1993 |
Various Authors | Poundstone Vs Various Authors | I 238 Olbers' Paradox/Solution: The solution can only lie in the premises. I 239 Charlier: when assuming an endless chain of hierarchies, it is possible to escape the paradox even if the number of stars is infinite. E.g. There could be a super super star cluster that would be so far away that its light disappeared behind the tiny disk of a star. In this model (Charlier) we could continue indefinitely in any direction without encountering a star. VsCharlier: Does not describe the actual geometry: there are nearby galaxies that appear larger than the stars. I 240 The Virgo cluster that is invisible to the naked eye is spread over the entire constellation! Modern Solution: redshift. I 241 Olbers' Paradox: if one assumes "cases" around the earth for the universe, and the light intensity decreases with the square of the distance, then the light from each case should be equally intense: Reason: each area section from a remote case holds four times as many stars. Then there is a sum of x + x + x + x ... which adds up to infinity! Red shift changes everything. x + 0.9x + 0,81x + 0,729x + 0,6561x ... I 68/69 VsNicod: E.g. all humans are less than 100 feet tall. Every person you saw confirms that. In the circus you see a man who is 99 feet tall. Surely, when you walk out of the circus you are no longer quite so convinced that all humans are less than 100 feet tall. Why? The man in the circus was only an additional confirmatory example! This paradox arises from two sources: 1) a) We do not always say exactly what we say. b) The exact number of 100 was not important at all! 2) Suppose this is a bet where there is no way to recognize irrelevant information. Then the circus man would not have made the bet more unlikely! The problem arises in the same way in the study of genes and subatomic particles. |
Poundstone I William Poundstone Labyrinths of Reason, NY, 1988 German Edition: Im Labyrinth des Denkens Hamburg 1995 |