An updated and extended second edition supporting the findings of its well-known predecessor which claimed that courts employ common-sense notions of causation in determining legal responsibility.

Upshot: In this response, I address the points raised in the commentaries, in particular those related to the scalability and robustness of the mechanism CALM, to its relation with the CAES architecture, and to the transition from sensorimotor to symbolic.

Finley’s life during and just after World War II, although neglected by biographers and others interested in his career, was a formative period for him. A successful activist for Soviet-solidarity organizations, he learned lessons in public outreach that would affect his teaching and later public activity, and absorbed experiences that found their way into his first well-known book, The World of Odysseus. During this period he changed his name from Finkelstein to Finley, a shift emblematic of his adjustment to a (...) postwar situation that would prove professionally difficult for him, yet intellectually fruitful. (shrink)

First published in 1931 and originally delivered as the Deems Lectures at New York University in 1929, this book examines what scientific discoveries in many different branches of science reveal, and the implications of such discoveries for philosophy. Esteemed philosopher F. S. C. Northrop surveys a variety of advances, including relativity and quantum mechanics, and how they correlate to his epistemological theory of concepts. This book will be of value to anyone with an interest in the history of science and (...) the connection between science and philosophy. (shrink)

Context: The advent of a general artificial intelligence mechanism that learns like humans do would represent the realization of an old and major dream of science. It could be achieved by an artifact able to develop its own cognitive structures following constructivist principles. However, there is a large distance between the descriptions of the intelligence made by constructivist theories and the mechanisms that currently exist. Problem: The constructivist conception of intelligence is very powerful for explaining how cognitive development takes place. (...) However, until now, no computational model has successfully demonstrated the underlying mechanisms necessary to realize it. In other words, the artificial intelligence (AI) community has not been able to give rise to a system that convincingly implements the principles of intelligence as postulated by constructivism, and that is also capable of dealing with complex environments. Results: This paper presents the constructivist anticipatory learning mechanism (CALM), an agent learning mechanism based on the constructivist approach of AI. It is designed to deal dynamically and interactively with environments that are at the same time partially deterministic and partially observable. CALM can model the regularities experienced in the interaction with the environment, on the sensorimotor level as well, as by constructing abstract or high-level representational concepts. The created model provides the knowledge necessary to generate the agent behavior. The paper also presents the coupled agent environment system (CAES) meta-architecture, which defines a conception of an autonomous agent, situated in the environment, embodied and intrinsically motivated. Implications: The paper can be seen as a step towards a computational implementation of constructivist principles, on the one hand suggesting a further perspective of this refreshing movement on the AI field (which is still too steeped in a behaviorist influence and dominated by probabilistic models and narrow applied approaches), and on the other hand bringing some abstract descriptions of the cognitive process into a more concrete dimension, in the form of algorithms. Constructivist content: The connection of this paper with constructivism is the proposal of a computational and formally described mechanism that implements important aspects of the subjective process of knowledge construction based on key ideas proposed by constructivist theories. (shrink)

F. S. McNeilly; XIII—Immorality and the Law, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Volume 66, Issue 1, 1 June 1966, Pages 167–182, https://doi.org/10.1093/ar.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:IntroductionF. S. [email protected] and Richard [email protected] state that there are no sound bites or video clips from classical antiquity is to repeat the obvious. But it is a surprise perhaps to realize how seldom we can recall our field’s most influential scholars even of the very recent past through such now commonplace media. Moreover, the chance to view and hear personal reflections articulated by any such figures about their (...) career, influences, and impact is rare indeed. It was precious opportunities of this type that Pat Thane, Alastair Reid, and Michael Thompson had the foresight to capture from the mid-1980s by developing a video Interviews with Historians series between 1985 and 1996.1 The series was produced by the Publications Department of the Institute of Historical Research at the University of London. In each instance (eventually a total of twenty-eight), a leading historian is interviewed—usually in a studio—by a younger colleague in the same field; three cameras are used, one long shot and one close-up of each participant.2The interview with Sir Moses Finley was one of the first two made (in October 1985) and, as it turned out fortuitously, only months before his sudden death in June 1986 at age 74. The interviewer is Keith Hopkins (a youthful 51), Finley’s one-time graduate student, who had himself just become Cambridge’s professor of ancient history, the position that Finley occupied from 1970 to 1979. They talked in the studio for approximately one hour, and Alastair Reid then edited the master tape with notable skill [End Page 167] to shorten the interview to thirty-five minutes; once both participants had given their approval, the interview was released.3 Meantime, the hour-long U-Matic master tape was archived, but otherwise forgotten. Fortunately, however, in response to inquiries made by Richard Talbert during summer 2013, the Institute proved able to retrieve the tape and—despite its fragility and long outmoded format—to arrange for a successful transfer of the interview to DVD by Soho Broadcast, London.4Our original intention was to offer a transcript of the edited thirty-five-minute version,5 but once the hour-long tape surfaced, we decided instead to offer the interview in its entirety. Our transcript (below, p. 179) inevitably has its limitations and can make no claim to substitute for the video itself.6 It cannot reproduce the unfailingly good-humored atmosphere throughout the interview, nor the range of tones and emphases, nor Finley’s New York accent, nor the marked variations in the pace at which he makes his points, nor of course his constant, characteristic gestures. The variations in pace have influenced how we resolved to punctuate some passages, an unavoidably subjective exercise. Above all, however, we have resisted the recurrent temptation to “clean up” the conversation, so that repetitious, inconsequential, and incomplete remarks are eliminated, and readers are left with a text that more readily approximates to standard written prose.7 Au contraire, our transcript consciously aims to preserve the untidiness and immediacy of the interview; in consequence, very little in the way of repetitive and inconsequential remarks has been omitted.The transcript must be approached, therefore, as the opportunity to listen in on a cordial conversation. One might fairly wonder how far Hopkins had settled in advance with Finley the directions that it might take. No more than minimally, we may suspect, beyond their mutual acknowledgment of the general scope and purpose outlined by the series organizers—hence Hopkins’ unfailing deference towards Finley and his [End Page 168] successive cues to advance the conversation instructively. But recalling the stage where Hopkins asks, “How did you come to cross the Atlantic?” and Finley blithely declines to offer more than the briefest response, we can only speculate whether this was a prearranged rejection of a question which it was reasonable for Hopkins to pose but which Finley preferred not to pursue; or whether Hopkins failed to anticipate quite such a rapid, firm rebuff, and so had to introduce a fresh line of questioning sooner than expected. After all, if Finley had opted to take up the... (shrink)

The age of digital technology has introduced new complications into the issues of fair and private use of copyrighted material. In fact, the question of private use of another's work has been transformed from a side issue in intellectual property jurisprudence into the very center of intellectual property discussions about rights and privileges in a networked world. This paper will explore the nuanced difference between fair and private use as articulated in the US and the European Copyright Laws. Part One (...) will explain the legal use and meaning of fair use and its justifications. We maintain that it is almost impossible to resolve the issue of the fair/private use's legal nature, if one has not previously resolved copyright's legal nature. Legal resolution of such conflicts, as we shall demonstrate, follows different rules, and the messages sent to users and authors vary greatly depending on the jurisdiction. Part Two will examine the issue of Private Use as Fair Use by Design. We will look at the impact of Digital Rights Management on fair use and explore if the nature of private use as fair use has changed because we are dealing with the protection of digital content. We will show that protecting digital works by code, via various digital rights management schemes is shrinking the public domain of information and restricting private use as fair use. (shrink)