Nils Kürbis

It is a widespread assumption in contemporary philosophy of mind that a naturalistic explanation of intentionality must answer to what I will call the ‘question of aboutness’: what makes it the case that any intentional mental state is about something? Furthermore, it is assumed that an adequate answer to this question must not employ any intentional notions, and that it should apply in broadly the same way to all the various kinds of intentional phenomena (perception, desire, intention etc). The aim of this paper is to dispute this popular conception of what a naturalistic explanation of intentionality must involve. Not only does the question of aboutness lack a general motivation, but the accompanying assumptions are not compulsory for a naturalistic explanation. The outlines of an alternative naturalistic picture are sketched.

People are keen to exploit cooperative artificial agents for selfish gain. While this phenomenon has been observed in numerous Western societies, we show here that it is absent in Japan. We examined people’s willingness to cooperate with artificial agents and humans in two classic economic games requiring a choice between self interest and mutual benefit. Our participants in the United States cooperated with artificial agents significantly less than they did with humans, whereas participants in Japan exhibited equivalent levels of cooperation with both types of co-player. We found a notable difference in how people felt about exploiting their cooperative partner: people in Japan emotionally treated artificial agents and humans alike, whereas people in the United States felt bad about exploiting humans, but not machines. Our findings underscore the necessity for nuanced cultural considerations in the design and implementation of such technology across diverse societies.

In this article we compare Fine’s theory of arbitrary objects with the theory of variables that Russell formulated in his Principles of Mathematics. We argue that Russell’s early theory of variables can be seen as a prefiguration of Fine’s theory of arbitrary objects. The main difference between Russell’s theory and Fine’s account lies in their account of dependence relations between variables. Fine develops a stable view of dependence between arbitrary objects, whereas no such view is presented in Principles of Mathematics. We then sketch how Russell developed the notion of dependence between arbitrary objects in some of his subsequent works.

The paper is structured into two main sections. Following a brief introduction, the second section delves into various overarching topics regarding Mark Textor’s work The Disappearance of the Soul and the Turn against Metaphysics. Specifically, it examines certain omissions within Textor’s portrayal of the history of philosophy of mind, notably the oversight of Freud and Du Bois-Reymond, and considers some general issues concerning Brentano’s understanding of the mind. In the subsequent third section, the paper advocates Mach’s neutral monism from an epistemological perspective, aiming to circumvent potential metaphysical problems associated with the concept of mind.

I present the traditional debate about the so called explanation of Russell’s paradox and propose a new way to solve the contradiction that arises in Frege’s system. I briefly examine two alternative explanatory proposals—the Predicativist explanation and the Cantorian one—presupposed by almost all the proposed solutions of Russell’s Paradox. From the discussion about these proposals a controversial conclusion emerges. Then, I examine some particular zig zag solutions and I propose a third explanation, presupposed by them, in which I emphasise the role of an implicit premise in the derivation of the paradox. In conclusion, I propose a different zig zag solution obtained by the adoption of a negative free logic.

Function talk is a constant across different life sciences. From macro-evolution to genetics, functions are mentioned everywhere. For example, a limb’s function is to allow movement and RNA polymerases’ function is to transcribe DNA. Biochemistry is not immune from such a characterization; the biochemical world seems to be a chemical world embedded within biological processes. Specifically, biochemists commonly ascribe functions to biomolecules and classify them accordingly, and this has been noted in the recent philosophical literature on biochemical kinds. But while a lot has been written on biological and psychological functions, little has been said explicitly about biochemical functions. Here, I explore functional attribution to biochemical molecules. I argue that if we accept this attribution, then biochemical functions are constituted by chemical dispositional properties that causally contribute to selected biological processes. In section 2, I discuss the controversy concerning the characterization of biochemical functions. In section 3, I consider whether a biological or a chemical understanding of function can be applied to biochemical functions, illustrating the account with the example of vitamin B12. The result is that none of these theories on their own can provide an adequate characterization. In section 4, I present an account of biochemical functions. In section 5, I assess this account, taking into consideration common requirements for a theory of functions and an objection.

By a `denoting phrase' I mean a phrase such as any one of the following: a man, some man, any man, every man, all men, the present King of England, the present King of France, the center of mass of the solar system at the first instant of the twentieth century, the revolution of the earth round the sun, the revolution of the sun round the earth. Thus a phrase is denoting solely in virtue of its form. We may distinguish three cases: (1) A phrase may be denoting, and yet not denote anything; e.g., `the present King of France'. (2) A phrase may denote one definite object; e.g., `the present King of England' denotes a certain man. (3) A phrase may denote ambiguously; e.g. `a man' denotes not many men, but an ambiguous man. The interpretation of such phrases is a matter of considerably difficulty; indeed, it is very hard to frame any theory not susceptible of formal refutation. All the difficulties with which I am acquainted are met, so far as I can discover, by the theory which I am about to explain.

When it comes to empty names, we seem to have reached very little consensus. Still, we all seem to agree, first, that our semantics should assign truth to negative singular existence statements in which an empty name occurs and, second, that names are used in such statements. The purpose of this paper is to show that ruling out that the names are mentioned is harder than it has been thought. I will present a new metalinguistic account for negative singular existence statements in which an empty name occurs, and I will show that the account can deal both with the objections to the traditional metalinguistic account and with other objections that seem to target my new proposal.

Now with extra footnotes, by editorial demand! Final version accepted by Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy. This essay consists in a trick and a potential insight. The trick consists in a minimalist interpretation of color mixture. The account of color mixture is minimalist in the sense that, given certain background assumptions, there is no more to Timaeus’ account of color mixture than the list of the chromatic pathēmata and the list of how these combine to elicit perceptions of all the colors. The only potential controversial elements of the minimalist interpretation are the relevant background assumptions and the interpretation of the chromatic pathēmata. The potential insight concerns a motive that Plato, in the guise of Timaeus, may have for presenting an account of color mixture. Specifically, I shall argue that on the minimalist interpretation, Plato may be read as reconciling the Democritrean four color scheme with an older tradi- tion where white and black are the fundamental chromatic opposition. As we shall see, this bears on the interpretation of the chromatic pathēmata.

This paper aims to build a bridge between two areas of philosophical research, the structure of kinds and metaphysical modality. Our central thesis is that kinds typically involve super-explanatory properties, and that these properties are therefore metaphysically essential to natural kinds. Philosophers of science who work on kinds tend to emphasize their complexity, and are generally resistant to any suggestion that they have “essences”. The complexities are real enough, but they should not be allowed to obscure the way that kinds are typically unified by certain core properties. We shall show how this unifying role offers a natural account of why certain properties are metaphysically essential to kinds.

Logical realism is a view about the metaphysical status of logic. Common to most if not all the views captured by the label ‘logical realism’ is that logical facts are mind- and language-independent. But that does not tell us anything about the nature of logical facts or about our epistemic access to them. The goal of this paper is to outline and systematize the different ways that logical realism could be entertained and to examine some of the challenges that these views face. It will be suggested that logical realism is best understood as a metaphysical view about the logical structure of the world, but this raises an important question: does logical realism collapse into standard metaphysical realism? It will be argued that this result can be accommodated, even if it cannot be altogether avoided.

We present and defend the Australian Plan semantics for negation. This is a comprehensive account, suitable for a variety of different logics. It is based on two ideas. The first is that negation is an exclusion-expressing device: we utter negations to express incompatibilities. The second is that, because incompatibility is modal, negation is a modal operator as well. It can, then, be modelled as a quantifier over points in frames, restricted by accessibility relations representing compatibilities and incompatibilities between such points. We defuse a number of objections to this Plan, raised by supporters of the American Plan for negation, in which negation is handled via a many-valued semantics. We show that the Australian Plan has substantial advantages over the American Plan.

In their fascinating and timely article, Blumenthal-Barbyand Ubel (2018) argue that it is often unclear whether patients exhibit hope, are unrealistically optimistic, or are in denial or self-deceived, as distinctions made on the basis of belief accuracy are problematic. The authors maintain that, in most cases, we should respect patients' decisions, even when they exhibit some optimistic bias. We agree on all key points and intend to provide additional evidence to support the authors’ arguments, drawing attention to the fact that in the health domain, as in other areas of life, being unrealistically optimistic can be an asset, leading to self-fulfilling prophecies and giving people a higher chance of living the life they desire.

The game theoretic notion of best-response reasoning is sometimes criticized when its application produces multiple solutions of games, some of which seem less compelling than others. The recent development of the theory of team reasoning addresses this by suggesting that interacting players in games may sometimes reason as members of a team – a group of individuals who act together in the attainment of some common goal. A number of properties have been suggested for team-reasoning decision-makers’ goals to satisfy, but a few formal representations have been discussed. In this paper we suggest a possible representation of these goals based on the notion of mutual advantage. We propose a method for measuring extents of individual and mutual advantage to the interacting decision-makers, and define team interests as the attainment of outcomes associated with maximum mutual advantage in the games they play.