Philosophy Today

Dr. William FitzPatrick, a professor of philosophy at the University of Rochester, explores the relations between scientific and philosophical questions about morality.

Dr. Sahotra Sarkar of the Department of Philosophy and Department of Integrative Biology at the University of Texas at Austin discusses what the human genome project achieved and whether it had any medical importance at all. He says that the most important outcome was biological, the G-value paradox that there is no correlation between organismic “complexity” and the number of genes. He concludes that the results of the human genome project were not those predicted. He asks why genome sequences contribute so little to functional biology and concludes that human nature has little to do with DNA sequencing alone and that which is inherited depends instead on the exposure to specific environments.

Dr. Alyssa Ney (University of California, Davis) discusses physicalism, the view the world is the way physics says it is. “Physicalism is something that’s guided all my work,” Ney said. “You can state it really simply at first as the view that the world is the way physics says it is, but what I’m going to be trying to argue here is that that really simple characterization is not really going to work out.”

Why do professional performing artists sometimes “choke” during a performance? Perhaps thirteen-time PGA winner Dave Hill has the answer, “Golf is like sex. You can’t be thinking about the mechanics of the act while you are performing.” But why not? To answer this question, Barbara Gail Montero will rely both on her philosophical expertise and her experience as a professional ballet dancer. The talk is related to her forthcoming book: The Myth of ‘Just do it’: Thought and Effort in Expert Action.

Prinz argues, based partly on empirical findings, that values are central to personal identity. He discusses how values are social in nature, often deriving from the groups to which we belong.

In her lecture, Bar-On will discuss what separates human linguistic communication from all forms of nonhuman animal communication. She will argue that the focus on the role of communicative intentions renders the evolutionary emergence of language more ambiguous than it needs to be. Instead, she proposes that meaningful linguistic communication should be seen as lying on a continuum with animals’ expressive communication.

In her lecture, Bar-On will discuss what separates human linguistic communication from all forms of nonhuman animal communication. She will argue that the focus on the role of communicative intentions renders the evolutionary emergence of language more ambiguous than it needs to be. Instead, she proposes that meaningful linguistic communication should be seen as lying on a continuum with animals’ expressive communication.

Prinz argues, based partly on empirical findings, that values are central to personal identity. He discusses how values are social in nature, often deriving from the groups to which we belong.

Why do professional performing artists sometimes “choke” during a performance? Perhaps thirteen-time PGA winner Dave Hill has the answer, “Golf is like sex. You can’t be thinking about the mechanics of the act while you are performing.” But why not? To answer this question, Barbara Gail Montero will rely both on her philosophical expertise and her experience as a professional ballet dancer. The talk is related to her forthcoming book: The Myth of ‘Just do it’: Thought and Effort in Expert Action.

Pamela Hieronymi addresses traditional questions involving free will and moral responsibility: Is it reasonable to believe that humans are "in control" of their behavior in such a way that they can be morally responsible? Do the findings of physics and neuroscience imply that humans cannot be responsible for what they do? Professor Hieronymi carefully explains why she resists efforts to preserve free will and moral responsibility in terms of "other-wordly souls," undetermined brain events, and "emergent powers" of the brain. She closes her presentation by sketching an account of control that, she believes, will allow her to preserve a sense of moral responsibility that is consistent with our being purely material beings subject to the laws of physics.

Philosopher John Searle opens his lecture by explicating what he believes to be seven philosophical mistakes about the nature of consciousness. He then sketches his own view that consciousness is what the brain does in the same way that digestion is what the stomach does. Professor Searle notes his optimism that the problem of consciousness will some day cease to be a philosophical problem and will fall squarely under the purview of neuroscience (in the same way that, with the development of modern biology, animism ceased to be a problem addressed by philosophers).

In his lecture at The University of Alabama, Dr. Block discusses inattentional blindness or selective attention, which is the failure to notice something in one's visual field while performing attention-demanding tasks. Block discusses the meaning and significance of the phenomenon from a philosophical perspective.

The possibility of time travel to the past is discussed using the two leading theories about the nature of time: the Static Theory of Time and the Dynamic Theory of Time. Markosian argues that on the Dynamic Theory, time travel to the past is not possible. He will also consider the question of what people are thinking about when thinking about time travel to the past, given that such travel is not possible.

Gimbel discusses how the Nazis tried to denigrate Einstein’s theory of relativity by labeling it “Jewish physics.” Now, with Einstein’s theories as the cornerstone of much of modern science, Gimbel explores the Nazi assertion in a new light.

Lycan’s talk will address some reasons why abortion is such a sensitive topic in society today.

Dr. Frank Jackson's evolving research on the answer to the question: can science explain consciousness?

This lecture will discuss disagreements about climate change and ways to move forward from polarizing viewpoints about the issue.

Professor McMahan argues that the values of state sovereignty and territorial integrity are not always, or even generally, sufficiently important on their own to justify the mass killing that war normally involves. Referring to several historical examples, he makes a case for a more limited right of national self-defense.

Metaphysical Debates and Problems.

Philosophy of the Mind.

Philosophies of religion & atheism.

Darwin and His Critics

Non life threatening aggression that threatens lesser values or rights.

Topics, Arguments, Rights, & Restrictions of Immigration

Goldman argues that the success of democracy requires citizens to vote on the basis of knowledge of what candidate would be best by their own lights.

Goldman argues that the success of democracy requires citizens to vote on the basis of knowledge of what candidate would be best by their own lights.

Genetically modified agricultural plants (cotton, soybeans, corn and canola, for example) have been grown in North America for 16 years and food derived from them marketed for almost as long. “Contrary to the impression the Greenpeace label “Frankenfood” conveys, increasing the food derived from genetically modified plants is essential for environmental protection and a safe abundant supply of food in the future,” Thompson said. In his lecture, Thompson will present the case supporting his claim. Thompson holds appointments as a professor and director in the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology; in the departments of ecology and evolutionary biology, cell and systems biology, and philosophy; and also with the Joint Centre for Bioethics. He has published extensively on evolutionary theory, population genetics, mathematical modelling in biology, theory structure in biology, and ethics. He is the author of three books “The Structure of Biological Theories,” “The Moral Question,” and “Agro-Technology,” available in July from Cambridge University Press, and he is editor of Issues in Evolutionary Ethics. He has held numerous consulting positions with governments and industry. He is a member of the Research Integrity Committee and the standing committee on Ethics of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and is a member of The Expert Panel on Biodiversity sponsored by Council of Canadian Academies. He is a past president and a director of the Green Door Alliance Inc., a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving agricultural land. UA’s department of philosophy is part of UA’s College of Arts and Sciences, the University’s largest division and the largest liberal arts college in the state.

“Are human actions freely chosen? Can we deserve blame and praise for what we do? The common-sense answer to both of these questions is yes,” Pereboom said. “But this answer is threatened by the fact that our best scientific theories support the view that factors beyond our control produce all of our actions. I will set out my argument that free will of the sort required for deserved blame and praise is indeed ruled out, but that this does not undermine the core elements of morality, value and meaning in life.” Pereboom’s research areas are in free will and moral responsibility, philosophy of mind, history of modern philosophy and philosophy of religion. His second book, “Consciousness and the Prospects of Physicalism” is scheduled for publication in 2011. Pereboom earned his doctorate in philosophy from the University of California, Los Angeles. Prior to joining Cornell University in 2007, he had taught at the University of Vermont since 1985.