Keyboard Shortcuts?

×
  • →Next step
  • ←Previous step
  • ↓Skip this slide
  • ↑Previous slide
  • mShow slide thumbnails
  • nShow notes
  • hShow handout latex source
  • NShow talk notes latex source

Click here and press the right key for the next slide.

(This may not work on mobile or ipad. You can try using chrome or firefox, but even that may fail. Sorry.)

also ...

Press the left key to go backwards (or swipe right)

Press n to toggle whether notes are shown (or add '?notes' to the url before the #)

Press m or double tap to slide thumbnails (menu)

Press ? at any time to show the keyboard shortcuts

 

Week 09 Questions:

Moral Psychology

Jego

Is a poverty of stimulus argument necessary for advancing a moral innateness theory? I'm not sure what evidence for this argument would look like.

‘There would seem not to be enough ambient information available to account for the functional architecture that minds are found to have’

(Fodor, 1983, p. 35).

It is hard to detect an argument here. At least, if there is an argument, an equally compelling argument can be obtained by deleting the word ‘not’ from this sentence.
### Poverty of stimulus arguments
The best argument for innateness is the poverty of stimulus argument.
We need to step back and understand how poverty of stimulus arguments work.
Here I'm following Pullum & Scholz (2002), but I'm simplifying their presentation.
How do poverty of stimulus arguments work? See Pullum & Scholz (2002).
First think of them in schematic terms ...

Poverty of stimulus argument

    \begin{enumerate}
  1. \item
    Human infants acquire X.
  2. \item
    To acquire X by data-driven learning you'd need this Crucial Evidence.
  3. \item
    But infants lack this Crucial Evidence for X.
  4. \item
    So human infants do not acquire X by data-driven learning.
  5. \item
    But all acquisition is either data-driven or innately-primed learning.
  6. \item
    So human infants acquire X by innately-primed learning .
    7. \end{enumerate}

compare Pullum & Scholz 2002, p. 18

Poverty of stimulus ingredients

  1. The Knowledge : Specify what is known
  2. Evidence of Acquisition : Show that humans do have The Knowledge
  3. Crucial Evidence : Identify what is indispensable to the learner if The Knowledge is to be learnt
  4. Evidence of Inaccessibility : show that actual learners do not get the Crucial Evidence

Example where this is done: Lidz, Waxman, & Freedman (2003)

Jego

Is a poverty of stimulus argument necessary for advancing a moral innateness theory? I'm not sure what evidence for this argument would look like.

Baldouin

In how far should we really speak of two independent systems? Couldn’t it also be the case that there is just one cognitive capacity, that is sensitive to time and cognitive load.

Shadlen & Kiani (2013, p. figure 2)

aux. hypothesis: only the slow process ever flexibly and rapidly takes into account differences in the more distal outcomes of an action

Prediction 1: limiting the time available to make a decision will reduce the influence of distal outcomes.

Aux hypothesis would be a bit unmotivated.
The important thing for me isn’t whether you find the argument compelling or not. There’s surely much more to say. It’s that the motivating for it gives us a good question, a puzzle even.

puzzle

Why are moral intuitions sometimes, but not always, a consequence of reasoning from known principles?

Baldouin

In how far should we really speak of two independent systems? Couldn’t it also be the case that there is just one cognitive capacity, that is sensitive to time and cognitive load.

The unreliability then would be gradual, and there is no fast and slow but a range of different speeds?

Why was it that people untrained in physics so often predicted a spiral, even though they could not have seen such a thing (because it’s physically impossible)?

McCloskey, Caramazza, & Green (1980, p. figure 2D)

why?

because fast processes make it appear so
(Kozhevnikov & Hegarty, 2001)

So does the fast process directly influence the slow judgement?

No. (Or not significantly.)

fast process

-> representational momentum

-> phenomenology of experience

-> thinking about experience

-> (tacit) belief in principles

-> explicit judgement

The fast process provides phenomenal material for slow judgement.

Baldouin

In how far should we really speak of two independent systems? Couldn’t it also be the case that there is just one cognitive capacity, that is sensitive to time and cognitive load.

The unreliability then would be gradual, and there is no fast and slow but a range of different speeds?

Where is the cut of point where we switch from slow to fast or vice versa?

All responses are a consequence of multiple processes.

Baldouin

In how far should we really speak of two independent systems? Couldn’t it also be the case that there is just one cognitive capacity, that is sensitive to time and cognitive load.

The unreliability then would be gradual, and there is no fast and slow but a range of different speeds?

Where is the cut of point where we switch from slow to fast or vice versa?

practical questions

Can I expand on a 500-word essay for the 70% essay?

Yes, but change the question!

Must I expand?

No!

How to choose a question for the 70% essay?

There’s a list of pre-approved questions.

There’s an index of puzzles.

Can I make my own question?

Yes, but you must get it approved by me and added to the list.

Discuss with your seminar tutor. Then email me the question to add to the list.

What support can I get for the 70% essay?

Up to 2 weeks before the deadline: some.

Within 2 weeks of the deadline: none.

Office hours with your seminar tutor.

more questions?