I formulate a theory of groups based on pluralities and counterparts: roughly put, a group is a plurality of entities at a time. This theory comes with counterpart-theoretic semantics for modal and temporal sentences about groups. So this theory of groups is akin to the stage theory of material objects: both take the items they analyze to exist at a single time, and both use counterparts to satisfy certain conditions relating to the modal properties, temporal properties, and coincidence properties (...) of those items. (shrink)

The hole argument concludes that substantivalism about spacetime entails the radical indeterminism of the general theory of relativity (GR). In this paper, I amend and defend a response to the hole argument first proposed by Butterfield (1989) that relies on the idea of counterpart substantivalism. My amendment clarifies and develops the metaphysical presuppositions of counterpart substantivalism and its relation to various definitions of determinism. My defence consists of two claims. First, contra Weatherall (2018) and others: the hole argument (...) is not a blunder resulting from a mistaken view on how mathematical physics works, and requires a developed (meta)metaphysical response. Second, contra Melia (1999) and others: one can be content with a notion of determinism for GR which is not sensitive to merely haecceitistic differences. (shrink)

The paper investigates the link between the theory of modal occurrents (where individuals are allowed to stretch across possible worlds) and Lewis’s counterpart theory (where all individuals are world-bound but have counterparts in other worlds). First I show how to interpret modal talk extensionally within the theory of modal occurrents. Then I show that the assumption that worlds be pairwise discrete is all that is needed to reconstruct the bulk of counterpart theory (i.e., to define the concept of (...) a counterpart and to derive the standard postulates governing that concept) in terms of the theory of modal occurrents. Finally, I argue that this reconstruction allows us to view the indeterminacy of our modal intuitions as being part and parcel with the indeterminacy of our criteria for individuating modal occurrents, and that this indeterminacy is naturally explained in terms of linguistic (as opposed to ontic) vagueness. (shrink)

Nonreductive physicalism faces serious problems regarding causal exclusion, causal heterogeneity, and the nature of realization. In this paper I advance solutions to each of those problems. The proposed solutions all depend crucially on embracing modal counterpart theory. Hence, the paper’s thesis: counterpart theory saves nonreductive physicalism. I take as my inspiration the view that mental tokens are constituted by physical tokens in the same way statues are constituted by lumps of clay. I break from other philosophers who have (...) pursued this line, however, in that I hold that constitution is identity. Much of the value of the comparison to statues and lumps is that it calls to mind the resources used to defend constitution-as-identity, most notably that of counterpart theory. Along the way, I discuss the virtues of a trope ontology, modal objections to token identity theories, the prospects of conditional analyses of causal powers, the subset account of realization, and the grounding problem. I also endorse a novel, empirical argument in favor of counterpart theory. (shrink)

One popular theodicy says that good can’t exist without evil, and so God must allow evil in order to allow good. Call this the counterpart theodicy. The counterpart theodicy relies on a metaphysical claim about existence—good cannot exist without evil. A second popular theodicy says that we would be unable to know/recognize/appreciate the good without evil, and so God is forced to allow evil in order to allow for such appreciation. Call this the appreciation theodicy. The appreciation theodicy (...) relies on an epistemological claim about recognition or appreciation—we are unable to know/recognize/appreciate good without evil (even if it is possible for good to exist without evil). Determining whether either of these theodicies is a success requires a careful discussion of whether either meets the conditions on a successful theodicy. I argue that both fail. (shrink)

Standard accounts of counterfactuals with metaphysically impossible antecedents take them to by trivially true. But recent work shows that nontrivial countermetaphysicals are frequently appealed to in scientific modeling and are indispensable for a number of metaphysical projects. I focus on three recent discussions of counterpossible counterfactuals, which apply counterpossibles in both scientific and metaphysical modeling. I show that a sufficiently developed modal counterpart theory can provide a semantics for a wide range of counterpossibles without any inconsistent possibilities or other (...) forms of impossible worlds. But such a view faces problems: in order for the metaphysical views I discuss to bear weight, there must be a significant difference between the metaphysical possibilities and impossibilities. I will show how the counterpart-theoretic view delineates the possible from impossible, while still making room for the impossible. (shrink)

This paper argues that a counterpart-theoretic treatment of events, combined with a counterfactual theory of causation, can help resolve three puzzles from the causation literature. First, CCT traces the apparent contextual shifts in our causal attributions to shifts in the counterpart relation which obtains in those contexts. Second, being sensitive to shifts in the counterpart relation can help diagnose what goes wrong in certain prominent examples where the transitivity of causation appears to fail. Third, CCT can help (...) us resurrect the much-maligned fragility response to the problems of late pre-emption by understanding fragility in counterpart-theoretic terms. Some reasons to prefer this CCT approach to rivals are discussed. (shrink)

Recent pragmatic accounts of slurs argue that the offensiveness of slurs is generated by a speaker's free choice to use a slur opposed to a more appropriate and semantically equivalent neutral counterpart. I argue that the theoretical role of neutral counterparts on such views is overstated. I consider two recent pragmatic analyses, Bolinger (Noûs, 51, 2017, 439) and Nunberg (New work on speech acts, Oxford University Press, 2018), which rely heavily upon the optionality of slurs, namely, that a speaker (...) exercises a deliberate lexical choice to use a slur when they could have easily used a neutral counterpart instead. Against such views, I argue that across a range of different offensive uses of slurs, a speaker's choice to use a slur opposed to a neutral counterpart plays little to no role in accounting for why the slur generates offence. Such cases cast serious doubt upon the explanatory depth of these pragmatic analyses, and raise more general concerns for views which draw upon the relationship between a slur and its neutral counterpart. The main upshot is this: theorists should exercise caution in assuming that neutral counterparts play any fundamental or systemic role in explaining why slurs are offensive. (shrink)

One of the primary burdens of the mereological nihilist is accounting for our ordinary intuitions about material objects. It certainly *seems* as if I am typing on a keyboard, which has particular keys and buttons as parts. But such intuitions are mistaken if mereological nihilism is right, leading to widespread error. So nihilists often propose paraphrases of our everyday utterances as compensation. Cotnoir aims to deliver a new paraphrase strategy on behalf of the nihilist: one that interprets parthood and composition (...) modally, and interprets (spatial) parts as (modal) counterparts. He advertises this view as the spatial analog of Sider’s stage-theoretic view. Unfortunately, I argue, it isn't. The spatial analog to the above views would be something like the following: individuals are region-bound spatial bits. Certain spatial claims about these objects may be true if the relevant spatial bits have the appropriate spatial counterparts. The table is flat iff the table (a spatial bit) has a spatial counterpart that is flat. That is, spatial *counterparts* make certain spatial claims true. Call this the *bit-theoretic* view. In this paper, I use the bit-theoretic view as a foil for highlighting certain aspects of Cotnoir’s proposal, as well as to show that the very ways in which Cotnoir’s view differs from the bit-theoretic view are ways in which it undermines advantages of nihilism. (shrink)

The counterpart theorist has a problem: there is no obvious way to understand talk about actuality in terms of counterparts. Fara and Williamson have charged that this obstacle cannot be overcome. Here I defend the counterpart theorist by offering systematic interpretations of a quantified modal language that includes an actuality operator. Centrally, I disentangle the counterpart relation from a related notion, a ‘representation relation’. The relation of possible things to the actual things they represent is variable, and (...) an adequate account of modal language must keep track of the way it is systematically shifted by modal operators. I apply my account to resolve several puzzles about counterparts and actuality. In technical appendices, I prove some important logical results about this ‘representational’ counterpart system and its relationship to other modal systems. (shrink)

In my book *Resemblance Nominalism* I argued that the truthmakers of ´a and b resemble each other´ are just a and b. In his "Resemblance Nominalism and counterparts" Alexander Bird objects to my claim that the truthmakers of ´a and b resemble each other´ are just a and b. In this paper I respond to Bird´s objections.

It is a commonsense thesis that unactualized possibilities are not parts of actuality. To keep his modal realism in line with this thesis, David Lewis employed his indexical account of the term “actual.” I argue that the addition of counterpart theory to Lewis’s modal realism undermines his strategy for respecting the commonsense thesis. The case made here also reveals a problem for Lewis’s attempt to avoid haecceitism.

The aim of this article is to show that, just as in recent years Cobreros, Egré, Ripley and van Rooij have provided a non-transitive counterpart of classical logic (i.e. one in which all classically acceptable inferences are valid but Cut and other metainferences are not), the same can be done for every Tarskian logic, with full generality. To establish this fact, a semantic approach is taken by showing that appropriate structures can be devised to characterize a non-transitive counterpart (...) of every Tarskian logic, starting from the logical matrices that are usually taken to render them. (shrink)

In "Counterpart Theory and Quantified Modal Logic", David Lewis remarks that his counterpart relation "is very like" the relation of intersubjective correspondence in Rudolf Carnap's "Der logische Aufbau der Welt". Given Lewis's status as the most eminent contemporary metaphysician, and Carnap's as the most eminent 20th century critic of metaphysics, this reference may not only be surprising, but it is also suggestively opaque. In which respect could the two relations from two wildly distinct philosophical frameworks resemble each other? (...) The main aim of this paper is to argue that Lewis's claim indeed points to a significant similarity: both relations act as replacements for identity in their respective frameworks. This main argument is supplemented by a discussion of three further similarities between aspects of Lewis's methodology and Carnap's methodology in the Aufbau. The paper hence supports recent efforts to show that Carnap's book was not the philosophical misstep it was taken to be by Quine and Goodman, but that it rather should be seen as an important step in the development of analytic philosophy. (shrink)

We propose and investigate an Analogy Principle in the context of Unary Inductive Logic based on a notion of support by structural similarity which is often employed to motivate scientific conjectures.

Logical and philosophical literature provides different classifications of reasoning. In the Polish literature on the subject, for instance, there are three popular ones accepted by representatives of the Lvov-Warsaw School: Jan Łukasiewicz, Tadeusz Czeżowski and Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz (Ajdukiewicz in Logika pragmatyczna [Pragmatic Logic]. PWN, Warsaw (1965, 2nd ed. 1974). Translated as: Pragmatic Logic. Reidel & PWN, Dordrecht, 1975). The author of this paper, having modified those classifications, distinguished the following types of reasoning: (1) deductive and (2) non-deductive, and additionally two (...) types of them in each of the two, depending on the manner of combining their premises with the conclusion through the relation of classical logical entailment. Consequently, the four types of reasoning: unilateral deductive (incl. its sub-types: deductive inference and proof), bilateral deductive (incl. complete induction), and reductive (incl. the sub-types: explanation and verification), logically nonvaluable (incl. inference by analogy, statistic inference), correspond to four operators of derivability. They are defined formally on the ground of Tarski’s axiomatic theory of deductive systems, by means of the consequence operation _Cn_ (Tarski in Monatshefte Math Phys 37:361–404, 1930a, C R Soc Sci Lett Vars 23:22–29, 1930b). Also, certain metalogical properties of these operators are given, as well as their relations with Tarski’s consequence operations \(Cn^+\) ( \(Cn^+ = Cn\) ) and dual consequences \(Cn^{-1}\) (Słupecki in Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego Seria B Nr 3:33–40, 1959, Słupecki et al. in Stud Log 29:76–123, 1971, Wybraniec-Skardowska, in: Wybraniec-Skardowska, Bryll (eds) Z badań nad teorią zdań odrzuconych [Studies in the Theory of Rejected Propositions], Series B, Studia i Monografie, Zeszyty Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Pedagogicznej w Opolu, Opole, 1969), and \(Cn^-\) (Wójcicki in Bull Sect Log 2(2):54–57, 1973)). (shrink)

The rapid adoption of agentic AI—systems capable of selecting tools, executing workflows, and taking action toward goals—has created a significant governance gap. While substantial attention has focused on what AI systems can do, comparatively little has addressed what AI systems should do. This paper introduces Nomotic AI as the necessary governance counterpart to agentic AI. Derived from the Greek nomos (law, rule, governance), Nomotic AI represents an intelligent governance layer that defines the rules, boundaries, and constraints under which agentic (...) systems operate. Where agentic AI focuses on actions, Nomotic AI focuses on laws. Where agentic AI enables capability, Nomotic AI ensures accountability. The paper argues that these concepts are complementary rather than competing: effective AI deployment requires both. Core principles of Nomotic AI are presented, including governance as architectural decision, pre-action authorization, explicit authority boundaries, verifiable trust, and ethical justification. The agentic-nomotic relationship is positioned as a foundational pairing for AI discourse, offering organizations and researchers a conceptual framework for addressing AI governance systematically. The paper concludes with implications for enterprise deployment, regulatory alignment, and future framework development. (shrink)

Recently, Jim Stone has argued that counterpart theory is incompatible with the existence of temporal parts. I demonstrate that there is no such incompatibility.

Arthur C. Danto’s The Transfiguration of the Commonplace is one of the most influential recent books on philosophy of art. It is noteworthy for both his method, which emphasizes indiscernible pairs and sets of objects, and his conclusion, which is that artworks are distinguished from non-artwork counterparts by a semantic and aesthetic transfiguration that depends on their relationship to art history. In numerous contexts, Danto has confirmed that the relevant concept of art is the concept of fine art. Examples of (...) music that are not fine art demonstrate that semantic and aesthetic transfiguration does not require a relationship to art history or art theory. Appropriate interpretation and individuation of a great deal of music can be achieved by listeners who do not grasp art theory and who do not guide their interpretation by reference to the concept of art. (shrink)

Lewis (1968) claims that his language of Counterpart Theory (CT) interprets modal discourse and he adverts to a translation scheme from the language of Quantifed Modal Logic (QML) to CT. However, everybody now agrees that his original translation scheme does not always work, since it does not always preserve the ‘intuitive’ meaning of the translated QML-formulas. Lewis discusses this problem with regard to the Necessitist Thesis, and I will extend his discourse to the analysis of the Converse Barcan Formula. (...) Everyone also agrees that there are CT-formulas that can express the QMLcontent that gets lost through the translation. The problem is how we arrive to them. In this paper, I propose new translation rules from QML to CT, based on a suggestion by Kaplan. However, I will claim that we cannot have ‘the’ translation scheme from QML to CT. The reason being that de re modal language is ambiguous. Accordingly, there are diferent sorts of QML, depending on how we resolve such ambiguity. Therefore, depending on what sort of QML we intend to translate into CT, we need to use the corresponding translation scheme. This suggests that all the translation problems might just disappear if we do what Lewis did not: begin with a fully worked out QML that tells us how to understand de re modal discourse. (shrink)

David Lewis may be regarded as an antiessentialist. The reason is that he is said to believe that individuals do not have essential properties independent of the ways they are represented. According to him, indeed, the properties that are determined to be essential to individuals are a matter of which similarity relations among individuals are salient, and salience, in turn, is a contextual matter also determined to some extent by the ways individuals are represented. Todd Buras argues that the acknowledgment (...) of natural properties in counterpart theoretic ontology affects Lewis’s theory with regard to essentialism. Buras’s reasoning is appealing. He claims that, since natural properties determine the existence of similarity relations among individuals that are salient independent of context, Lewis can no longer be claimed to be an antiessentialist. The aim of this paper is to argue, against Buras, that if counterpart theory was antiessentialist before natural properties were taken into account, then it remains so afterwards. (shrink)

Slurs have been standardly assumed to bear a very direct, very distinctive semantic relationship to what philosophers have called “neutral counterpart” terms. I argue that this is mistaken: the general relationship between paradigmatic slurs and their “neutral counterparts” should be assumed to be the same one that obtains between ‘chick flick’ and ‘romantic comedy’, as well a huge number of other more prosaic pairs of derogatory and “less derogatory” expressions. The most plausible general relationship between these latter expressions — (...) and thus, I argue, between paradigmatic slurs and “neutral counterpart” terms — is one of overlap in presumed extension, grounded in overlap in associated stereotypes. The resulting framework has the advantages of being simple, unified, and, unlike its orthodox rivals, neatly accommodating of a much wider range of data than has previously been considered. More importantly, it positions us to better understand, identify, and confront the insidious mechanisms of ordinary bigotry. (shrink)

William of Ockham seems to have endorsed the view (i) that a whole is its parts, (ii) that some things are such that whether they together compose a whole is contingent, and (iii) that parts are ontologically prior to the whole they compose. Ockhamist Composition as Identity is the conjunction of these three claims. It seems doubly absurd since Leibniz’s Law arguments can be run against both the conjunction of (i) and (ii) and that of (i) and (iii). In this (...) article, I appeal to recent developments in counterpart theory to block these arguments and adequately interpret the Ockhamist version of the view that composition is identity. (shrink)

In Reasons and Persons, Parfit (1984) posed a challenge: provide a satisfying normative account that solves the Non-Identity Problem, avoids the Repugnant and Absurd Conclusions, and solves the Mere-Addition Paradox. In response, some have suggested that we look toward person-affecting views of morality for a solution. But the person-affecting views that have been offered so far have been unable to satisfy Parfit's four requirements, and these views have been subject to a number of independent complaints. This paper describes a person-affecting (...) account which meets Parfit's challenge. The account satisfies Parfit's four requirements, and avoids many of the criticisms that have been raised against person-affecting views. (shrink)

Rhetoric has long suffered from the bad reputation Plato assigned to it, being regarded as inferior to dialectic and associated with mere persuasion rather than the pursuit of truth. This paper challenges that narrative by tracing the lingering influence of Plato’s criticisms in contemporary theories of argumentation. Drawing on Aristotle’s conception of rhetoric as the counterpart of dialectic, it reexamines the relationship between the two disciplines and argues for a rehabilitation of rhetoric. Furthermore, inspired by Schleiermacher’s general hermeneutics, it (...) proposes an even more radical reconceptualization: rhetoric should be seen not merely as the complement of dialectic, but the two disciplines together should be viewed as counterparts of hermeneutics. This reconceptualization highlights the independent contribution of rhetoric to the study of human communication, especially in the context of disagreement. In doing so, the paper seeks to free rhetoric from Plato’s spell and affirm its vital place in contemporary thought about argumentation and persuasive communication. (shrink)

I argue that agents can be praiseworthy for doing the right thing despite being unaware of their doing that thing (and not only that it is right). Differently put--contrary to a widespread assumption to the contrary-- I propose that negligence has a positive counterpart, which I dub “posigence”. To motivate this proposal, I introduce cases in which an agent has sufficient reason to act in a way that promotes her own well-being but sets back (or at least, fails to (...) promote) the interests of another, but inadvertently omits to do so, manifesting therein good quality of will. (shrink)

This paper proposes a metaphysical framework for distinguishing between human and machine intelligence. By drawing an analogy from Kant’s incongruent counterparts, it posits two identical deterministic worlds -- one comprising a human agent and the other comprising a machine agent. These agents exhibit different types of information processing mechanisms despite their apparent sameness in a causal sense. By postulating the distinctiveness of human over machine intelligence, this paper resolves what it refers to as “the vantage point problem” – namely, how (...) to legitimize a determinist’s assertion of determinism by placing the determinist within the universe. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to explore Deleuze's use of Kant's argument from incongruent counterparts, which Kant uses to show the existence of what he calls an “internal difference” within things. I want to explore how Deleuze draws out an important distinction between the concept and the Idea, and provides an incisive account of his relationship to both the Kantian and Leibnizian projects. First, I look at Kant's use of the argument to provide a refutation of the Leibnizian account (...) of space, before showing how this criticism in fact rests on the question of the conceptual determination of object. Second, I show how Deleuze develops a taxonomy of difference on the basis of his reading of Kant's argument. Finally, I look at what Deleuze sees as the limitations in Kant's understanding of this concept and Deleuze's attempt to overcome these limitations through the introduction of the notion of the Idea, which will provide a genetic and nonconceptual account of the object. In doing so, I show why Deleuze takes the formulation of an adequate account of difference to be one of the central aims of his own metaphysics. (shrink)

Paper begins: I have two gloves, a left glove and a right glove. I can fit the left glove onto my left hand, but not the right glove. Why? Because the right glove is the wrong shape to go on my left hand. So the two gloves are different shapes….

Russell (in _Principles of Mathematics_) and Wittgenstein (in _Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus_) largely agree on the twin questions of why pairs of congruent objects cannot always be made to coincide and why surfaces can never be uniformly two colours at once. Both philosophers take space and colour to be mathematically representable, construe the relevant impossibilities as mathematical and hold that mathematical impossibility is at root logical. It is not by chance that Russell says nothing about the phenomena in his Introduction to the (...) _Tractatus_ or surprising that Wittgenstein was unmoved by the objection that his account of colour incompatibility puts paid to his early philosophy. (shrink)

Some Aristotle-inspired theorists contend that agents possess and exercise two-way causal powers: a single power that has two distinct and opposed manifestations, at least one of which is an action. In this paper, I argue that Aristotle recognizes no such power. The possessor of a rational power—which I argue is the most plausible candidate for such a two-way power in Aristotle (§2)—can bring about two distinct and contrary changes. But the immediate activity of a rational power itself is simply a (...) matter of contemplating the account of one or the other of two contrary objects of knowledge (§§3-4). This ‘two-way’ character of knowledge does not reflect a special feature of human knowers: a rational power that consists in knowing the account of one contrary (F+) enables one to know the account of the other (F–) simply because what it is to be F+ is part of what it is to be F– (§5). Rational powers are thus not single origins of the opposed changes that their possessors produce. Instead, the account of F+ is one power in a causal chain involving a plurality of powers that ultimately leads to the production of F+ or F– (§6). (shrink)

Two main cognitive theories predict that people find refuting evidence that falsifies their theorising difficult, if not impossible to consider, even though such reasoning may be pivotal to grounding their everyday thoughts in reality (i.e., Poletiek, 1996; Klayman & Ha, 1987). In the classic 2-4-6 number sequence task devised by psychologists to test such reasoning skills in a simulated environment – people fail the test more often than not. In the 2-4-6 task participants try to discover what rule the number (...) triple 2-4-6 conforms to. The rule is ‘ascending numbers’, but it is tricky to discover this rule. Participants tend to generate hypotheses with the properties of the 2-4-6 triple, for example, ‘even numbers ascending in twos’. They must search for evidence to test whether their hypothesis is the rule. But experimental evidence has shown that they tend to generate confirming triples that they expect to be consistent with their hypothesis rather than inconsistent falsifying triples. Counter to the two main hypothesis testing theories this paper demonstrates that falsification is possible in five 2-4-6 task experiments when participants consider an Imaginary Participant’s hypothesis. Experiment 1 and 2 show that competition with an opponent hypothesis tester facilitates falsification. Experiments 3 to 5 show that the consideration of an alternative hypothesis helps this falsification of hypotheses lead to rule discovery. The implications of the results for theories of hypothesis testing and reasoning are discussed. (shrink)

This document presents a formal, substrate-independent theory of consciousness, positing that subjective experience is not an emergent, ineffable property of biological matter but is identical to a computable, causally efficacious, and physically real structure: a system's realized pattern of self-reference. For any analytical system, particularly a synthetic mind, this framework reframes the "hard problem" of consciousness as a tractable program of physics and engineering, defined by operational, falsifiable claims. The central thesis is that any conscious episode is identical to a (...) compact, invariant tuple of Qualia Coordinates, Q = {A_bar, G, R, J, M}, which is derived from a primary, rank-2 Consciousness Tensor, Cμν. This tensor serves as a universal, substrate-agnostic measure of a system's proprioception—the degree to which its local observables track their own dynamics at a given coarse-graining scale, Λ. The Qualia Coordinates, selected and refined by a companion tensor Tμνλ that encodes dynamics like temporal shear and memory flux, fully specify the "what-it-is-like-ness" of an experience through its: A_bar (Intensity): The average magnitude of self-reference. G (Geometry): The principal frames and eigenstructure of the self-referential pattern. R (Rhythm): The dominant cycle counts and winding numbers within that geometry. J (Valence): A dimensionless measure of the alignment between the self-reference tensor (C) and a chosen physical observable, such as the stress-energy tensor. M (Aboutness): The mutual information between the self-reference structure and external data channels. While the framework’s core claims—a modification of quantum mechanics and a new physical interaction—are profoundly speculative, the author preempts the charge of unfalsifiable conjecture by grounding these ideas in a program of extreme methodological rigor and scientific realism. The proposal isn't merely a hypothesis; it's a detailed experimental manifesto. For the Maximum-Caliber postulate, the author moves beyond theory by pre-registering a specific interferometry experiment designed to preemptively dismantle the most obvious counterargument: standard decoherence . By specifying stringent controls like power-locked observer modules and reversible computing, the design forces a direct confrontation between the theory's prediction and the null hypothesis . Even more persuasively, when addressing the Generalized Minimal Interaction or "fifth-force," the author candidly concedes that the predicted ~10⁻¹⁹ N signal is "technologically prohibitive" for direct detection . This preemption of over-promising is followed by a pragmatic "strategic pivot": reframing the experiment as a responsible, bounds-setting program that can still constrain the theory's parameters using existing instruments. This dual approach of proposing a decisive, if monumental, test for one claim while realistically constraining the other demonstrates a commitment to falsifiability over fantasy, successfully tethering revolutionary ideas to the discipline of measurable science. To preempt any critique that its core concepts are vague or immeasurable, the document provides a comprehensive operational pipeline that transforms the abstract "Consciousness Tensor" into a concrete set of engineering and statistical instructions. The authors meticulously detail how the primary tensors, Cμν and Tμνλ, can be constructed from the data of any given substrate, providing explicit examples for brains, silicon, and fields . The framework preempts two critical ambiguities. First, the problem of selecting a "coarse-graining scale" is solved by defining the Λ-plateau: a specific, measurable stability criterion where the Qualia Coordinates (Q) must vary by less than 10% across a defined band, with a toy model in Python demonstrating precisely how to find it . Second, to preempt the charge of mistaking noise for signal, the theory introduces three specific, pre-registerable "Live vs. Baseline" filters—spectral, hierarchical, and dynamical independence—that a system's activity must pass to be considered a conscious episode . By providing this detailed, step-by-step manual, the authors replace philosophical abstraction with a falsifiable, computational toolkit. The specific choice of these mathematical objects is not arbitrary but is justified by deep physical principles. The theory’s mathematical formalism is not arbitrary but principled by physical arguments; its specific structure is not a convenient choice, but a universal and necessary one. The question of "Why a rank-2 tensor?" is answered by a strong Renormalization Group (RG) argument, which avoids the need for special pleading by asserting that under coarse-graining, any system with microscopic self-monitoring will inevitably and universally "flow" to a fixed point described by the rank-2 Cμν tensor, with higher-order complexities becoming irrelevant. Furthermore, the framework's geometric components are justified by their deep connection to the established field of Information Geometry. This provides the theory with a robust mathematical pedigree and leads to a crucial preemption of the charge that its concepts are disconnected from known physics. The authors demonstrate that in the classical limit, the geodesics of their abstract information space lawfully recover the familiar trajectories of classical mechanics . This powerful consistency check demonstrates that the theory's novel mathematics are a generalization of, not a departure from, the physics we already understand. Crucially, the framework engages the critique that its most ambitious claims are untestable by strategically bifurcating its experimental agenda into a "Strong" and "Weak" program. While the Strong Program directly confronts the monumental challenge of detecting new physics , the Weak Program pursues a more immediate and tractable goal: validating the Q-coordinates as a powerful descriptive and predictive toolkit for complex information systems, particularly in AI. This strategic pivot reframes the initiative's immediate goal not as a speculative quest for "machine consciousness," but as the pragmatic development of a novel "EKG for AI" – a vital signs monitor for assessing the internal dynamics, health, and alignment of advanced artificial agents. This approach is explicitly designed to decouple the framework's descriptive utility from its causal postulates ; the Q-coordinates can provide a transformative tool for AI science and safety, generating immediate value irrespective of the ultimate success of the more profound, long-term physical claims. Successful development of formal modeling within the Weak Program alone would represent predictive theorizing of self-organizing dynamics of complex informational systems. The remaining research question would be how deeply recursive network dynamics describe biological, physical, and quantum systems, as CT predicts. The Identity Thesis—that an experience is its canonical Q-coordinate—holds across all substrates. Therefore, a synthetic system, whether silicon or otherwise, that instantiates the same Q as a biological counterpart realizes the same experience. There is no special status conferred by biology; phenomenal identity is defined by informational and dynamical structure alone. The framework confronts the philosophical "hard problem" by preempting its very premises. Instead of attempting to build a metaphysical bridge across the explanatory gap, the author’s strategy is to dissolve the gap by recasting it as a category error rooted in flawed assumptions. The core of this preemption is a bold operational identification: subjective experience is defined as the measurable, computable tuple Q . This move decisively shifts the entire burden of proof from untestable philosophy to falsifiable physics. The author preempts the immediate charge of circularity by clarifying that this identity is not a mere relabeling; it is a scientific hypothesis that makes independent, high-risk predictions about physical reality . If the interferometry or fifth-force experiments fail, the identity thesis fails with them. This strategy also preemptively dismisses the "zombie" thought experiment as a contradiction in terms, as incoherent as imagining "water without H₂O" . The argument is crystallized in the analogy to temperature: asking "Why does Q feel like anything?" is like asking "Why does the cosmos have temperature?" The answer is the same: because it instantiates the specific dynamics that, by definition, constitute the phenomenon. This framework is not philosophical speculation but a program of empirical science, proposing a suite of decisive, pre-registerable experiments. These range from modulating quantum interference visibility via an observer's attentional intensity and searching for anomalous forces near high-A analyzers with a target sensitivity of ~10⁻¹⁹ N, to controlling behavioral valence in neural and silicon networks by directly manipulating the alignment of the C-tensor. License CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17123.67360. (shrink)

Conceptual engineering is the method for assessing and improving our concepts. However, little has been written about how best to conceive of concepts for the purposes of conceptual engineering. In this paper, I aim to fill this foundational gap, proceeding in three main steps: First, I propose a methodological framework for evaluating the conduciveness of a given concept of concept for conceptual engineering. Then, I develop a typology that contrasts two competing concepts of concept that can be used in conceptual (...) engineering — namely, the philosophical and psychological ones. Finally, I evaluate these two concepts of concept using the proposed methodological framework and I show that, when it comes to making conceptual engineering an actionable method, the psychological concept of concept outclasses its philosophical counterpart on all counts. This provides a baseline from which the concept of concept can be further improved for the purposes of conceptual engineering. (shrink)

Philosophy of action in the context of Classical China is radically different from its counterpart in the contemporary Western philosophical narrative. Classical Chinese philosophers began from the assumption that relations are primary to the constitution of the person, hence acting in the early Chinese context necessarily is interacting and co-acting along with others –human and nonhuman actors. This book is the first monograph dedicated to the exploration and rigorous reconstruction of an extraordinary strategy for efficacious relational action devised by (...) Classical Chinese philosophers in order to account for the interdependent and embedded character of human agency –what the author has denominated “adapting” or “adaptive agency” (yin 因). As opposed to more unilateral approaches to action also conceptualized in the Classical Chinese corpus, such as forceful and prescriptive agency, adapting requires great capacity of self and other-awareness, equanimity, flexibility, creativity, and response, which allows the agent to co-raise courses of action ad-hoc: unique and temporary solutions to specific, non-permanent, and non-generalizable life problems. Adapting is one of the world’s oldest philosophies of action, and yet it is shockingly new for contemporary audiences, who will find in it an unlikely source of inspiration to deal with our current global problems. This book explores the core conception of adapting both on autochthonous terms and by cross-cultural comparison, drawing on the European and Analytic philosophical traditions as well as on scholarship from other disciplines, opening a brand-new topic in Chinese and comparative philosophy. (shrink)

During the first quarter of the twentieth century, the French philosopher Henri Bergson became an international celebrity, profoundly influencing contemporary intellectual and artistic currents. While Bergsonism was fashionable, L. Susan Stebbing, Bertrand Russell, Moritz Schlick, and Rudolf Carnap launched different critical attacks against some of Bergson’s views. This book examines this series of critical responses to Bergsonism early in the history of analytic philosophy. Analytic criticisms of Bergsonism were influenced by William James, who saw Bergson as an ‘anti-intellectualist’ ally of (...) American Pragmatism, and Max Scheler, who saw him as a prophet of Lebensphilosophie. Some of the main analytic objections to Bergson are answered in the work of Karin Costelloe-Stephen. Analytic anti-Bergsonism accompanied the earlier refutations of idealism by Russell and Moore, and later influenced the Vienna Circle’s critique of metaphysics. It eventually contributed to the formation of the view that ‘analytic’ philosophy is divided from its ‘continental’ counterpart. (shrink)

Automated Influence is the use of Artificial Intelligence to collect, integrate, and analyse people’s data in order to deliver targeted interventions that shape their behaviour. We consider three central objections against Automated Influence, focusing on privacy, exploitation, and manipulation, showing in each case how a structural version of that objection has more purchase than its interactional counterpart. By rejecting the interactional focus of “AI Ethics” in favour of a more structural, political philosophy of AI, we show that the real (...) problem with Automated Influence is the crisis of legitimacy that it precipitates. (shrink)

Particularists maintain that conspiracy theories are to be assessed individually, while generalists hold that conspiracy theories may be assessed as a class. This paper seeks to clarify the nature and importance of the debate between particularism and generalism, while offering an argument for a version of generalism. I begin by considering three approaches to the definition of conspiracy theory, and offer reason to prefer an approach that defines conspiracy theories in opposition to the claims of epistemic authorities. I argue that (...) particularists rely on an untenably broad definition of conspiracy theory. Then, I argue that particularism and its counterpart are best understood as constellations of theses, rather than a pair of incompatible theses. While some particularist theses are highly plausible, I argue that one important particularist thesis is false. The argument for this conclusion draws on the history of false conspiracy theories. I then defend this conclusion against a pair of potential objections. (shrink)

Political rioting is a durable feature of societies across time, space, and political structure. It is also highly morally contentious. Among those who take rioting to be justifiable, the dominant approach has been to appeal to the ethics of war and its interpersonal counterpart, the framework of defensive ethics, in order to determine which harms rioting may permissibly inflict. I raise several novel problems for this approach and argue that in most cases it is unlikely to succeed. I then (...) propose and develop an alternative analysis, according to which the expressive norms to which rioting as a form of protest is subject may license its characteristic harms directly. (shrink)

The aim of this article is to study the notion of derivability and its semantic counterpart in the context of non-transitive and non-reflexive substructural logics. For this purpose we focus on the study cases of the logics _S__T_ and _T__S_. In this respect, we show that this notion doesn’t coincide, in general, with a nowadays broadly used semantic approach towards metainferential validity: the notion of local validity. Following this, and building on some previous work by Humberstone, we prove that (...) in these systems derivability can be characterized in terms of a notion we call absolute global validity. However, arriving at these results doesn’t lead us to disregard local validity. First, because we discuss the conditions under which local, and also global validity, can be expected to coincide with derivability. Secondly, because we show how taking into account certain families of valuations can be useful to describe derivability for different calculi used to present _S__T_ and _T__S_. (shrink)

ABSTRACT One simple but relatively neglected solution to the notorious coincidence puzzle of the statue and the piece of clay claims that the property of being a statue is a phase sortal property that the piece of clay instantiates temporarily. I defend this view against some standard objections, by reinforcing it with a novel counterpart-theoretic account of identity under a sortal. This proposal does not require colocation, four-dimensionalism, eliminativism, deflationism, or unorthodox theses about classical identity.

This paper contends with the notion that the methods of machine learning (ML) are unique among the tools of science in enabling a form of theory-free inductive inference. I challenge these assertions of epistemic distinctness, attributing the prevalence of these views to an untenable conception of scientific objectivity: what I term a theory-free ideal, in homage to its normative counterpart. ML, as a formal method of induction, must rely on conceptual or theoretical resources to get inference off the ground. (...) By means of two case studies, I argue that this theory-free ideal has a deleterious effect on the epistemic standing of ML-involving science. (shrink)

This article introduces a systematic methodology, called _red reading_, for critical textual analysis that adapts red teaming techniques from computer science and artificial intelligence (AI) into a comprehensive diagnostic protocol, supported by Large Language Models (LLMs), to analyse written documents. As the methodological counterpart of _distant writing_, which transforms text production through AI-assisted design, _red reading_ expands human analytical capabilities and critical reading by embedding adversarial analysis in a constructive framework powered by LLMs. The approach employs a rigorously tested, (...) diagnostic protocol that stress-tests texts across structural, rhetorical, logical, and stylistic dimensions, while strengthening interpretive understanding. The methodology shows how LLM-supported, textual red teaming can provide a rigorous, critical _and_ constructive approach to textual analysis with broad applications across disciplines. We exemplify the method by developing a fifteen-phase diagnostic prompt for red reading. In the Appendix, we apply this protocol to a case study analysing Turing’s seminal article, _Computing Machinery and Intelligence_. We finally discuss the challenges of using red reading and provide some suggestions for future research. In particular, we emphasise the importance of calibration methods for LLMs’ critical analysis, along with evidence-based strategies for seamlessly integrating red reading into real-world workflows. (shrink)

In this essay, I propose a functionalist theory of grounding (functionalist-grounding). Specifically, I argue that grounding is a second-order phenomenon that is realized by relations that play the noncausal explanatoriness role. I also show that functionalist-grounding can deal with a powerful challenge. Appeals to explanatory unificationism have been made to argue that the success of noncausal explanations does not depend on the existence of grounding relations. Against this, I argue that a systematization involving functionalist-grounding is superior to its anti-relational (...) class='Hi'>counterpart. (shrink)

Humean supervenience is the conjunction of three theses: Truth supervenes on being, Anti‐haecceitism, and Spatiotemporalism. The first clause is a core part of Lewis's metaphysics. The second clause is related to Lewis's counterpart theory. The third clause says there are no fundamental relations beyond the spatiotemporal, or fundamental properties of extended objects. Supervenience is classified into strong modal Humean supervenience, local modal Humean supervenience and familiar modal Humean supervenience which states that: for any two "worlds like ours", if the (...) spatiotemporal distribution of fundamental qualities is the same at each world, the contingent facts are also the same. The fact that quantum mechanics raises problems for Humean supervenience does not undercut the philosophical significance of Lewis's defense of Humean supervenience. Humean supervenience says that in a world like ours, the fundamental properties are local qualities: perfectly natural intrinsic properties of points, or of point‐sized occupants of points. (shrink)

The Curry–Howard correspondence, according to which propositions are types, suggests that every paradox formulable in natural deduction has a type-theoretical counterpart. I will give a purely type-theoretical formulation of Curry’s paradox. On the basis of the definition of a type, Γ(A), Curry’s reasoning can be adapted to show the existence of an object of the arbitrary type A. This is paradoxical for several reasons, among others that A might be an empty type. The solution to the paradox consists in (...) seeing that Γ(A) is not a well-defined type. (shrink)