Adrian Kind

The brain is an operationally closed system. At it’s boundary, every incoming signal gets translated into neural activity. The intrinsic nature of the distal causes perturbing the brain at its sensory surfaces cannot be grasped from the inside. Moreover, the brain exploits change detection and relational coding. Hence, the external relations between any distal causes are transformed into internal relations between neural activities. The picture of a thoroughgoing structuralism about the mind emerges: all mental states are relationally individuated and thereby provide structural representations. But structuralism is vulnerable to a rather generic logico-mathematical problem: the Newman problem. The specific “Newman problem of the brain” is the concern that the brain’s operational closure is accompanied by a representational closure, where neither the intrinsic nature of the distal causes nor the nature of the external relations can be grasped from the inside. Potentially, this applies to any operationally closed structural representation system, including brains and AI systems. If the Newman problem persists, then such systems “know” nothing, the outside world remains completely hidden. This is nothing less than a skeptical scenario of the most extreme form. However, I will present a solution to this conundrum. It works by “spatio-temporal grounding”: spatial and temporal relations are unalteredly transferred from the external world to systems of structural representation.

This paper distinguishes the drug-centered view of psychedelics (DCP) and the drug-assisted view of psychedelics (DAP). While these approaches differ conceptually, both rely on the methodology of evidence-based medicine, using randomized controlled trials to validate therapeutic efficacy. Using MDMA-assisted psychotherapy as a case study of DAP, we reconstruct the causal reasoning underlying its proposed therapeutic effects, identify two key causal assumptions, and critically examine them. Our analysis shows that the DAP community’s reliance on evidence-based medicine is not merely methodological, but also reflects questionable epistemological assumptions inherited from the empirically supported therapy tradition. We conclude by proposing value-based practice as a complementary methodology better suited to the relational and value-laden dimensions of DAP.

Grammatical errors and orthographic mishaps are often played for laughs, but this subtle sanctioning by the sticklerocracy can have real social consequences too. Attention to prescriptive spelling and grammar rules is insidious and harmful. As Jessica Flanigan argues in Why It’s OK to Have Bad Spelling and Grammar, grammarianism often maintains hierarchies, entrenches the advantages of privileged groups, and imposes arbitrary barriers to knowledge production and innovation. For example, the stigmatization of bad spelling and grammar disadvantages linguistic minorities, non-native speakers, and people with disabilities. Spelling and grammar norms are also frequently arbitrary and unnecessary. The petty grammandos among us, who cling to pedantic linguistic conventions, are standing in the way of innovative forms of communication and efficient speech, such as the emoji ☺. For these reasons, Flanigan argues that bad spelling and grammar are OK. It’s time to break free from the tyranny of the grammilitia in the name of comprehension and creativity. As long as speakers and writers can effectively communicate to charitable listeners and readers, people shouldn’t care about bad spelling and grammar.

Publication of scientific and biomedical manuscripts in “high impact factor” (IF) journals is important in advancing careers, obtaining funding, and developing a field of research. Rejection by prestigious journals is not infrequent and usually painful, especially to young investigators. Reasons provided by an editor are often confusing. We assess the language of the rejection letter from a specific philosophical stance, originated by Ludwig Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein’s late writings on language as usage and as inherent to human activity have profoundly influenced many of the humanities but have been less frequently applied to the sciences. However, Wittgenstein’s ideas about language have relevance for understanding editorial correspondence and also, more broadly, for our thinking about scientific work and “science.”