The paper offers a solution to the generality problem for a reliabilist epistemology, by developing an “algorithm and parameters” scheme for type-individuating cognitive processes. Algorithms are detailed procedures for mapping inputs to outputs. Parameters are psychological variables that systematically affect processing. The relevant process type for a given token is given by the complete algorithmic characterization of the token, along with the values of all the causally relevant parameters. The typing that results is far removed from the typings of (...) folk psychology, and from much of the epistemology literature. But it is principled and empirically grounded, and shows good prospects for yielding the desired epistemological verdicts. The paper articulates and elaborates the theory, drawing out some of its consequences. Toward the end, the fleshed-out theory is applied to two important case studies: hallucination and cognitive penetration of perception. (shrink)

In this paper, I argue that what counts as the proper function of a trait is a matter of the de facto perspective that the biological system, itself, possesses on what counts as proper functioning for that trait. Unlike non-perspectival accounts, internal perspectivalism does not succumb to generality problems. But unlike external perspectivalism, internal perspectivalism can provide a fully naturalistic, mind-independent grounding of proper function and natural norms. The attribution of perspectives to biological systems is intended to be neither (...) metaphorical nor anthropomorphic: I do not mean to imply that such systems thereby must possess agency, cognition, intentions, concepts, or mental or psychological states. Instead, such systems provide the grounding for norms of performance when they internally enforce their own standard of (i.e., their own perspective on) what constitutes proper functioning or malfunctioning. By operating with a fixed, determinate level of generality, such systems provide the basis for an account of proper function that is immune to generality problems. (shrink)

Visual experiences seem to exhibit phenomenological particularity: when you look at some object, it – that particular object – looks some way to you. But experiences exhibit generality too: when you look at a distinct but qualitatively identical object, things seem the same to you as they did in seeing the first object. Naïve realist accounts of visual experience have often been thought to have a problem with each of these observations. It has been claimed that naïve realist views (...) cannot account for the generality of visual experiences, and that the naïve realist explanation of particularity has unacceptable implications for self- knowledge: the knowledge we have of the character of our own experiences. We argue in this paper that neither claim is correct: naïve realism can explain the generality of experiences, and the naïve realist explanation of particularity raises no problems for our self-knowledge. (shrink)

Scientific theories are often treated as deeper when they apply across more domains, scales, or classes of phenomena. This inference is unsafe. A principle may travel widely because it captures a genuine common structure, but it may also travel widely because its terms are too under-specified to resist application. This paper proposes disciplined generality as a methodological standard for broad theories and reconsiders a central question: when can a theory be regarded as having a scientific structure? I argue that (...) explanatory breadth requires not only familiar theory-quality virtues such as falsifiability, consistency, scope, simplicity, and fruitfulness, but also internal specifications governing cross-domain travel. A broad theory should state the observational grounds from which its principle is derived, what follows and does not follow from that principle, what would count against it, how its concepts transform across levels and perturbations, and which variables are preserved, transformed, hidden, integrated, or eliminated during explanatory transfer. The argument is developed through illustrative stress cases: free-energy and active-inference accounts, string theory, and evolutionary adaptationist explanation as cases of under-disciplined breadth, and plate tectonics and the periodic system as positive contrasts. The paper further argues that formal coherence does not establish realizability, and that Ockham’s razor should be understood not merely as a preference for simplicity but as a constraint against redescription without criteria. Without such discipline, explanatory breadth is not yet a theory, principle, mechanism, framework, or model. It is an illusory label that allows redescription to pass as explanation. (shrink)

This paper aims to show that Selim Berker’s widely discussed prime number case is merely an instance of the well-known generality problem for process reliabilism and thus arguably not as interesting a case as one might have thought. Initially, Berker’s case is introduced and interpreted. Then the most recent response to the case from the literature is presented. Eventually, it is argued that Berker’s case is nothing but a straightforward consequence of the generality problem, i.e., the problematic aspect (...) of the case for process reliabilism (if any) is already captured by the generality problem. (shrink)

The optimality approach to modeling natural selection has been criticized by many biologists and philosophers of biology. For instance, Lewontin (1979) argues that the optimality approach is a shortcut that will be replaced by models incorporating genetic information, if and when such models become available. In contrast, I think that optimality models have a permanent role in evolutionary study. I base my argument for this claim on what I think it takes to best explain an event. In certain contexts, optimality (...) and game-theoretic models best explain some central types of evolutionary phenomena. ‡Thanks to Michael Friedman, Helen Longino, Michael Weisberg, and especially Elliott Sober for comments on earlier drafts of this paper. †To contact the author, please write to: Department of Philosophy, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-2155; e-mail: [email protected]. (shrink)

Our aim in this paper is to extend the semantics for the kind of logic of ground developed in deRosset and Fine (2023). In that paper, the authors very briefly suggested a way of treating universal and existential quantification over a fixed domain of objects. Here we explore some options for extending the treatment to allow for a variable domain of individuals.

Even with obvious deficiencies, large prompt-commanded multimodal models are proving to be flexible cognitive tools representing an unprecedented generality. But the directness, diversity, and degree of user interaction create a distinctive “human-centred generality” (HCG), rather than a fully autonomous one. HCG implies that —for a specific user— a system is only as general as it is effective for the user’s relevant tasks and their prevalent ways of prompting. A human-centred evaluation of general-purpose AI systems therefore needs to reflect (...) the personal nature of interaction, tasks and cognition. We argue that the best way to understand these systems is as highly-coupled cognitive extenders, and to analyse the bidirectional cognitive adaptations between them and humans. In this paper, we give a formulation of HCG, as well as a high-level overview of the elements and trade-offs involved in the prompting process. We end the paper by outlining some essential research questions and suggestions for improving evaluation practices, which we envision as characteristic for the evaluation of general artificial intelligence in the future. (shrink)

There are no unicorns, but there are representations of them, hence motivating an explanation of discourse about the property 'unicorn' in terms of discourse about representations of unicorns. I show how to extend this strategy to apply to any kind or property terms. References to property instances may be explained as references to comprehensive representations of them, which represent all of the (supposed) properties of such an instance--unlike 'ordinary' representations, which are distinctive in that they represent only some limited subset (...) of such properties, through use only of some proper subset of their own (supposed) properties. This representationalist approach results in a very economical naturalist ontology, which has no need for properties. (shrink)

This essay argues that certain cases involving what I shall term complexly based belief, where a belief is formed via complex inference to the best explanation, pose a serious difficulty for reliabilist theories of epistemic justification or warrant. Many of our most important beliefs appear to be of this character. The problem, in short, is that in such cases we cannot identify any belief-forming process type that is such as to yield an intuitively correct verdict on the epistemic status of (...) the agent’s belief. If this is correct, then no proposed solution to the generality problem can succeed. (shrink)

In this essay I defend a solution to a skeptical paradox. The paradox I focus on concerns epistemic justification (rather than knowledge), and skeptical scenarios that entail that most of our ordinary beliefs about the external world are false. This familiar skeptical paradox hinges on a “closure” principle. The solution is to restrict closure, despite its first appearing as a fully general principle, so that it can no longer give rise to the paradox. This has some extra advantages. First, it (...) suggests a general strategy that provides solutions to other versions of the paradox, not just those that depend on closure. Second, it clarifies the relation between the paradox and other kinds of skeptical problem. (shrink)

People attribute purposes in both mundane and profound ways—such as when thinking about the purpose of a knife and the purpose of a life. In three studies (total N = 13,720 observations from N = 3,430 participants), we tested whether these seemingly very different forms of purpose attributions might actually involve the same cognitive processes. We examined the impacts of four factors on purpose attributions in six domains (artifacts, social institutions, animals, body parts, sacred objects, and human lives). Study 1 (...) manipulated what items in each domain were originally created for (original design) and how people currently use them (present practice). Study 2 manipulated whether items are good at achieving a goal (effectiveness) and whether the goal itself is good (morality). We found effects of each factor in every domain. However, whereas morality and effectiveness had remarkably similar effects across domains, the effects of original design and present practice differed substantially. Finally, Study 3 revealed that, within domains, the effects of original design and present practice depend on which entities design and use items. These results reveal striking similarities in purpose attributions across domains and suggest that certain entities are treated as authorities over the purposes of particular items. (shrink)

The long-standing dispute between absolutists and relativists traditionally focuses on whether there are absolute truths, absolute epistemic norms, and absolute.

Artificial intelligence chatbots driven by large language models (LLMs) have the potential to increase public science literacy and support scientific research, as they can quickly summarize complex scientific information in accessible terms. However, when summarizing scientific texts, LLMs may omit details that limit the scope of research conclusions, leading to generalizations of results broader than warranted by the original study. We tested 10 prominent LLMs, including ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-4.5, DeepSeek, LLaMA 3.3 70B, and Claude 3.7 Sonnet, comparing 4900 LLM-generated summaries to (...) their original scientific texts. Even when explicitly prompted for accuracy, most LLMs produced broader generalizations of scientific results than those in the original texts, with DeepSeek, ChatGPT-4o, and LLaMA 3.3 70B overgeneralizing in 26–73% of cases. In a direct comparison of LLM-generated and human-authored science summaries, LLM summaries were nearly five times more likely to contain broad generalizations (OR = 4.85, 95% CI [3.06, 7.70], p < 0.001). Notably, newer models tended to perform worse in generalization accuracy than earlier ones. Our results indicate a strong bias in many widely used LLMs towards overgeneralizing scientific conclusions, posing a significant risk of large-scale misinterpretations of research findings. We highlight potential mitigation strategies, including lowering LLM temperature settings and benchmarking LLMs for generalization accuracy. (shrink)

Many scientists routinely generalize from study samples to larger populations. It is commonly assumed that this cognitive process of scientific induction is a voluntary inference in which researchers assess the generalizability of their data and then draw conclusions accordingly. We challenge this view and argue for a novel account. The account describes scientific induction as involving by default a generalization bias that operates automatically and frequently leads researchers to unintentionally generalize their findings without sufficient evidence. The result is unwarranted, overgeneralized (...) conclusions. We support this account of scientific induction by integrating a range of disparate findings from across the cognitive sciences that have until now not been connected to research on the nature of scientific induction. The view that scientific induction involves by default a generalization bias calls for a revision of the current thinking about scientific induction and highlights an overlooked cause of the replication crisis in the sciences. Commonly proposed interventions to tackle scientific overgeneralizations that may feed into this crisis need to be supplemented with cognitive debiasing strategies against generalization bias to most effectively improve science. (shrink)

In a series of drafts, under the name of “Fuzzy time and the impact of it on Science,” we try to show how fuzzy modeling of time could impact science especially Complexity theory and Physics. Throughout this paper, by introducing Generalized Surprise Exam Paradox (GSEP) we show the problem is more general than concept of time.

I present and defend the generalized selected effects theory (GSE) of function. According to GSE, the function of a trait consists in the activity that contributed to its bearer’s differential reproduction, or differential retention, within a population. Unlike the traditional selected effects (SE) theory, it does not require that the functional trait helped its bearer reproduce; differential retention is enough. Although the core theory has been presented previously, I go significantly beyond those presentations by providing a new argument for GSE (...) and defending it from a recent objection. I also sketch its implications for teleosemantics and philosophy of medicine. (shrink)

According to generalism, the world is fundamentally general –– ultimately, there are no individuals. I distinguish two versions of this view. ‘Permissive generalism’ holds that facts involving individuals are non-basic: they are generated by purely general basic facts. I argue that permissive generalists will struggle to provide suitably systematic and non-arbitrary explanations for facts involving individuals. These problems are avoided by switching to ‘strict generalism’: the view that truths about individuals are non-perspicuous, and reduce to purely general perspicuous truths. I (...) illustrate this alternative approach by proposing a metaphysical semantics for individualist truths in general terms. This serves both as a recommendation to generalists and, more broadly, as a case study in two different approaches to metaphysical explanation: one centered on generation, the other on reduction. (shrink)

Lawvere’s 1969 diagonal argument shows that Cantor’s theorem, Gödel’s incompleteness, Turing’s halting problem, and Tarski’s undefinability of truth are four instances of one fixed-point theorem in cartesian closed categories. The theorem’s conditions are structural — cartesian closure and the failure of weak point-surjectivity — and make no reference to arithmetic or any specifically mathematical content. It is an established result of categorical logic, due to Lambek, that the syntactic category of a deductive system presenting the positive intuitionistic propositional calculus — (...) one satisfying the deduction theorem under the standard structural rules — is cartesian closed. This paper draws the consequence of combining the two: any such system generates a cartesian closed syntactic category, and incompleteness follows for any system meeting the further expressive-power condition Lawvere’s theorem requires. Because these conditions are properties of the derivability relation rather than of the content derived, arithmetic, typed lambda calculi, and formal logic fall within the same category and inherit incompleteness by the same argument. The content of the primitives plays no role. (shrink)

I argue that moral principles, construed as moral generalizations, can be genuinely explanatory. Specifically, I present and respond to a challenge according to which moral generalizations are explanatorily redundant. In response, I present and defend an explanatory dimension of moral generalizations that is based on the idea of unification. I do so in the context of motivating a realist-friendly moral explanatory pluralism (i.e., the view that there can be many, equally legitimate, explanations of moral facts). Finally, I appeal to the (...) same theoretical resources to tackle an objection from explanatory circularity. (shrink)

This paper focuses on how experiences of trauma can lead to generalized fear of people, objects and places that are similar or contextually or conceptually related to those that produced the initial fear, causing epistemic, affective, and practical harms to those who are unduly feared and those who are intimates of the victim of trauma. We argue that cases of fear generalization that bring harm to other people constitute examples of injustice closely akin to testimonial injustice, specifically, mnemonic injustice. Mnemonic (...) injustice is a label that has been introduced to capture how injustice can occur via the operation of human memory systems when stereotypes shape what is remembered. Here we argue that injustices can also occur via memory systems when trauma leads to a generalized fear. We also argue that this calls for a reformulation of the notion of mnemonic injustice. (shrink)

Humans express generalizations using both generics (e.g., “Dogs bark”) and explicit quantifiers (e.g., “All dogs bark”). Quantified statements are systematically misremembered as generics more than vice versa, a phenomenon known as the Generic Recall Bias. Yet, the memory processes underlying this bias remain unclear. We investigate whether this phenomenon arises during memory encoding, retention, or retrieval. Here, we taught adults (N = 1,189) generic or quantified statements about a novel social category, and assessed recall immediately and one week later. Replicating (...) and extending prior findings, we found that “all”, “most”, and “some” statements were each significantly misremembered as generics. Critically, longitudinal analyses revealed that misrecall patterns were stable across time and consistent within items, supporting an encoding-based account: quantified information is often encoded without its specific proportional information from the outset. Overall, these results clarify the memory mechanisms underlying human generalization. (shrink)

According to Intellectualism knowing how to V is a matter of knowing a suitable proposition about a way of V-ing. In this paper, I consider the question of which ways of acting might figure in the propositions which Intellectualists claim constitute the object of knowledge-how. I argue that Intellectualists face a version of the Generality Problem – familiar from discussions of Reliabilism – since not all ways of V-ing are such that knowledge about them suffices for knowledge-how. I consider (...) various responses to this problem, and argue that none are satisfactory. (shrink)

General relativity is conventionally understood as a geometric theory of spacetime curvature sourced by matter-energy. This paper proposes an alternative interpretation grounded in the contological framework (C1–C5) and its mathematical topology companion. We show that: (1) special relativity emerges at the boundary between C2 (space as lattice) and C3 (matter as braids), with the invariant speed cc arising from topological constraints on exchange morphisms; (2) general relativity emerges at C4 (cognition as self-modeling subspaces), where curvature is the failure of global (...) attention; (3) the Einstein field equations are derived from the consistency condition of a self-modeling subspace attempting to map its own boundary; (4) the Schwarzschild solution is reframed as a linking number problem in C2, with the mass parameter encoded by Qij=Lk(∂Si,∂Sj)Qij​=Lk(∂Si​,∂Sj​). Key distinctions are drawn: photons are C2 excitations (pure exchange, no Fold 3 complexity), while electrons, muons, protons, and nuclei are C3 matter with non-zero fractal thickness. Curvature pre-exists in C2; matter probes resonate with it, with inertia and mass reinterpreted as measures of mismatch between Fold 3 thickness and local curvature gradient. Thus, general relativity is not a theory of spacetime—it is a cognitive fold: the necessary inconsistency between C2 (space) and C3 (matter), resolved by C4 (cognition) through curvature. Keywords. (shrink)

Hossack's 'The Metaphysics of Knowledge' develops a theory of facts, entities in which universals are combined with universals or particulars, as the foundation of his metaphysics. While Hossack argues at length that there must be negative facts, facts in which the universal 'negation' is combined with universals or particulars, his conclusion that there are also general facts, facts in which the universal 'generality' is combined with universals, is reached rather more swiftly. In this paper I present Hossack with three (...) arguments for his conclusion. They all draw, as does Hossack's theory of facts, on views Russell expressed in various writings. Two arguments are based on Russell's explanation of universals as aspects of resemblance; the third on Russell's observation that general propositions do not follow logically from exclusively particular premises. Comparison with other metaphysics of generality show them to be wanting and Russell's and Hossack's accounts superior. (shrink)

A distinction is drawn among predicates, open sentences (or open formulas), and general terms, including general-term phrases. Attaching a copula, perhaps together with an article, to a general term yields a predicate. Predicates can also be obtained through lambda-abstraction on an open sentence. The issue of designation and semantic content for each type of general expression is investigated. It is argued that the designatum of a general term is a universal, e.g., a kind, whereas the designatum of a predicate is (...) a class (or its characteristic function) and the designatum of an open sentence is a truth-value. Predicates and open sentences are therefore typically non-rigid designators. It is argued further that certain general terms, including phrases, are invariably rigid designators, whereas certain others (general definite descriptions) are typically non-rigid. Suitable semantic contents for predicates, open sentences, and general terms are proposed. Consequences for the thesis of compositionality are drawn. (shrink)

General Relativity (GR) is widely regarded as a paradigmatic example of a background independent theory, a feature often taken to mark a decisive conceptual advance over its Newtonian and special relativistic predecessors. Yet the notion of background independence admits multiple formalizations, and its precise physical and philosophical significance remains contested. This chapter offers a systematic analysis of the strategies that have been proposed to capture background independence in classical spacetime physics. The discussion then turns to a central open question: whether, (...) and in what sense, a successor theory of GR—such as a theory of quantum gravity—should be expected to inherit GR's background independence. Drawing on contemporary debates and a range of case studies, the chapter argues that background independence is best understood as a diagnostic and comparative tool rather than as a necessary physical requirement. The resulting perspective highlights both the conceptual virtues and the interpretive costs of eliminating background structures, and helps to explain why background independence remains an open problem in contemporary foundational research. (shrink)

Ontic structural realism (OSR) claims that all there is to the world is structure. But how can this slogan be turned into a worked-out metaphysics? Here I consider one potential answer: a metaphysical framework known as generalism (Dasgupta, 2009, 2016). According to the generalist, the most fundamental description of the world is not given in terms of individuals bearing properties, but rather, general facts about which states of affairs obtain. However, I contend that despite several apparent similarities between the positions, (...) generalism is unable to capture the two main motivations for OSR. I suggest instead that OSR should be construed as a meta-metaphysical position. (shrink)

[Edited from Conclusion section:] We have looked at various challenging issues to do with getting connectionism to cope with high-level cognitive activities such a reasoning and natural language understanding. The issues are to do with various facets of generalization that are not commonly noted. We have been concerned in particular with the special forms these issues take in the arena of propositional attitude processing. The main problems we have looked at are: (1) The need to construct explicit representations of generalizations, (...) not just generalize correctly to individual cases; (2) The need to be able to match two or more complex short-term information structures, to enable rapid generalization from recent examples rather than from long-term memories; (3) The need to represent and reason with anomalous combinations of concepts; (4) The need to perform embedded reasoning. This presents special problems for systems using non-concatenative representations (as in mainstream connectionist approaches). We also touched on vague quantification in attitude report complements. Neither this topic nor that of analogies between short-term structures (point 2) has been adequately addressed in the symbolic framework, let alone in connectionism. The opportunities and problems covered are put forward as things worth being optimistic about or pessimistic about, respectively. They are not put forward as decisive arguments for or against connectionism. The hope is that this chapter contributes to a greater understanding of the connectionist/symbolist gap by presenting some unusual issues and by throwing new light on some well known ones. (shrink)

Vogel argues that sensitivity accounts of knowledge are implausible because they entail that we cannot have any higher-level knowledge that our beliefs are true, not false. Becker and Salerno object that Vogel is mistaken because he does not formalize higher-level beliefs adequately. They claim that if formalized correctly, higher-level beliefs are sensitive, and can therefore constitute knowledge. However, these accounts do not consider the belief-forming method as sensitivity accounts require. If we take bootstrapping as the belief-forming method, as the discussed (...) cases suggest, then we face a generality problem. Our higher-level beliefs as formalized by Becker and Salerno turn out to be sensitive according to a wide reading of bootstrapping, but insensitive according to a narrow reading. This particular generality problem does not arise for the alternative accounts of process reliabilism and basis-relative safety. Hence, sensitivity accounts not only deliver opposite results given different formalizations of higher-level beliefs, but also for the same formalization, depending on how we interpret bootstrapping. Therefore, sensitivity accounts do not fail because they make higher-level knowledge impossible, as Vogel argues, and they do not succeed in allowing higher-level knowledge, as Becker and Salerno suggest. Rather, their problem is that they deliver far too heterogeneous results. (shrink)

Lipsey and Lancaster's "general theory of second best" is widely thought to have significant implications for applied theorizing about the institutions and policies that most effectively implement abstract normative principles. It is also widely thought to have little significance for theorizing about which abstract normative principles we ought to implement. Contrary to this conventional wisdom, I show how the second-best theorem can be extended to myriad domains beyond applied normative theorizing, and in particular to more abstract theorizing about the normative (...) principles we should aim to implement. I start by separating the mathematical model used to prove the second-best theorem from its familiar economic interpretation. I then develop an alternative normative-theoretic interpretation of the model, which yields a novel second best theorem for idealistic normative theory. My method for developing this interpretation provides a template for developing additional interpretations that can extend the reach of the second-best theorem beyond normative theoretical domains. I also show how, within any domain, the implications of the second-best theorem are more specific than is typically thought. I conclude with some brief remarks on the value of mathematical models for conceptual exploration. (shrink)

What explains the truth of a universal generalization? Two types of explanation can be distinguished. While an ‘instance-based explanation’ proceeds via some or all instances of the generalization, a ‘generic explanation’ is independent of the instances, relying instead on completely general facts about the properties or operations involved in the generalization. This intuitive distinction is analyzed by means of a truthmaker semantics, which also sheds light on the correct logic of quantification. On the most natural version of the semantics, this (...) analysis vindicates some claims made—without a proper defense—by Michael Dummett, Solomon Feferman, and others. Where instance-based explanations are freely available, classical logic is shown to be warranted. By contrast, intuitionistic logic remains warranted regardless of what explanations are available. (shrink)

The dynamics of general relativity is encoded in a set of ten differential equations, the so-called Einstein field equations. It is usually believed that Einstein's equations represent a physical law describing the coupling of spacetime with material fields. However, just six of these equations actually describe the coupling mechanism: the remaining four represent a set of differential relations known as Bianchi identities. The paper discusses the physical role that the Bianchi identities play in general relativity, and investigates whether these identities (...) --qua part of a physical law-- highlight some kind of a posteriori necessity in a Kripkean sense. The inquiry shows that general relativistic physics has an interesting bearing on the debate about the metaphysics of the laws of nature. (shrink)

Multiple generality has long been known to cause confusion. For example, “Everyone has a donkey that is running” has two readings: either (i) there is a donkey, owned by everyone, and it is running; or (ii) everyone owns some donkey or other, and all such donkeys run. Medieval logicians were acutely aware of such ambiguities, and the logical problems they pose, and sought to sort them out. One of the most ambitious undertakings in this regard is a pair of (...) massive logical diagrams (magnae figurae) which map out the logical interrelations of two sets of doubly-general forms. These appear in a fourteenth-century MS of John Buridan’s Summulae de Propositionibus. In this paper, I present these diagrams, and determine the truth conditions of their different forms. To that end, I have developed a bespoke system of diagrams to display their truth conditions. As we will see, such forms present significant difficulties for an all-encompassing account of the role form plays in logic. Accordingly, they can tell us important things about the role logical form plays in Buridan’s account of logical foundations. (shrink)

Debates about Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) frequently conflate cross-domain competence with the emergence of autonomous artificial agents. Contemporary definitions of general intelligence converge on adaptive goal achievement across open environments under resource constraints. While these performance-oriented accounts capture general competence, they remain neutral regarding whether a system constitutes a unified deliberative subject. This article introduces the Ontological Continuity Condition (OCC) as a necessary structural threshold for agency attribution. A system satisfies OCC only if it exhibits non-interchangeability under reset, identity risk, (...) and unified diachronic arbitration such that its historical trajectory is constitutive of its present deliberation. Adaptation under constraint is therefore necessary but insufficient for AGI understood as governance-relevant agency. Current AI systems, including large-scale language models and hybrid architectures, do not meet this threshold: they remain restartable, forkable, and externally corrigible. The article proposes a threshold definition of AGI integrating performance-based criteria with ontological continuity and argues that, absent such continuity, claims of AGI denote expanding general competence rather than the emergence of governance-relevant agency. (shrink)

I distinguish two ways an ability might be general: (i) an ability might be general in that its possession doesn't entail the possession of an opportunity; (ii) an ability might be general in virtue of pertaining to a wide range of circumstances. I argue that these two types of generality – I refer to them with the terms ‘general’ and ‘generic’, respectively – produce two orthogonal distinctions among abilities. I show that the two types of generality are sometimes (...) run together by those writing on free will and argue that both types of generality are relevant to understanding the modality of abilities. (shrink)

It is unknown to what extent medical researchers generalize study findings beyond their samples when their sample size, sample diversity, or knowledge of conditions that support external validity do not warrant it. It is also unknown to what extent medical researchers describe their results with precise quantifications or unquantified generalizations, i.e., generics, that can obscure variations between individuals. We therefore systematically reviewed all prospective studies (n = 533) published in the top four highest ranking medical journals, Lancet, New England Journal (...) of Medicine (NEJM), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), and the British Medical Journal (BMJ), from January 2022 to May 2023. We additionally reviewed all NEJM Journal Watch clinical research summaries (n = 143) published during the same time. Of all research articles reporting prospective studies, 52.5% included generalizations beyond specific national study populations, with the numbers of articles with generics varying significantly between journals (JAMA = 12%; Lancet = 77%) (p < 0.001, V = 0.48). There was no evidence that articles containing broader generalizations or generics were correlated with larger or more nationally diverse samples. Moreover, only 10.2% of articles with generalizations beyond specific national populations reported external validity strengthening factors that could potentially support such extrapolations. There was no evidence that original research articles and NEJM Journal Watch summaries intended for practitioners differed in their use of broad generalizations, including generics. Finally, from the journal with the highest citation impact, articles containing broader conclusions were correlated with more citations. Since there was no evidence that studies with generalizations beyond specific national study populations or with generics were associated with larger, more nationally diverse samples, or with reports of population similarity that may permit extensions of conclusions, our findings suggest that the generalizations in many articles were insufficiently supported. Caution against overly broad generalizations in medical research is warranted. (shrink)

Generalized Harm-Avoidance Monism has proved that generalized harm-avoidance is the sole ultimate motivation for all conscious behaviors of the mainstream human group, and seeking benefit is essentially indirect harm-avoidance. On this basis, this paper systematically proposes and demonstrates the complete mechanism of the transformation from conscious harm-avoidance to unconscious harm-avoidance, revealing its status as the core underlying logic of life evolution and individual adaptation. Firstly, this paper defines the categories and dialectical relationship between the two types of harm-avoidance behaviors, and (...) clarifies the core concepts of "Harmless Baseline" and "Preemptive Negative Drive". Then, it systematically reveals the internal mechanism of the transformation from two dimensions: neuroscience (automated coding of basal ganglia, amygdala warning system, mirror neuron system) and evolutionary biology (epigenetic modification, Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics, cultural evolution). Logical verification is completed through typical cases such as dietary adaptation of Inuit, domestication of domestic animals, carbohydrate mouth rinse method of athletes, and human empathic behavior. Finally, it clearly distinguishes two types of subjective experiences, homeostatic pleasure and high-arousal pleasure, for the first time, pointing out that existing neuroscientific research has only fully explained the former, while the "overdraft" and "sense of disparity" nature of the latter constitutes an important direction for future research. This paper improves the theoretical architecture of Generalized Harm-Avoidance Monism, and provides a unified and verifiable explanatory framework for understanding the origin of human instincts, habits, culture and emotions. (shrink)

What does it mean for a general term to be rigid? It is argued by some that if we take general terms to designate their extensions, then almost no empirical general term will turn out to be rigid; and if we take them to designate some abstract entity, such as a kind, then it turns out that almost all general terms will be rigid. Various authors who pursue this line of reasoning have attempted to capture Kripke’s intent by defining a (...) rigid general term as one that applies to the objects in its extension essentially. I argue that this account is significantly mistaken for various reasons: it conflates a metaphysical notion (essentialism) with a semantic one (rigidity); it fails to countenance the fact that any term can be introduced into a language by stipulating that it be a rigid designator; it limits the extension of rigid terms so much that terms such as ‘meter’, ‘rectangle’, ‘truth’, etc. do not turn out to be rigid, when they obviously are; and it wrongly concentrates on the predicative use of a general term in applying a certain test offered by Kripke to determine whether a term is rigid. (shrink)

Quantum mechanics and general relativity provide incompatible descriptions of time. In QM, states evolve unitarily with respect to an external time parameter; in GR, time is a coordinate in a dynamical spacetime geometry. We propose that both quantum and relativistic time emerge from a pre-geometric structure we call Prototime (PT): represented by an orthomodular lattice of consistency relations with zero von Neumann entropy at the fundamental level. PT has no background time, space, or metric—only algebraic relations of compatibility and orthogonality. (...) We formalize PT using an orthomodular lattice Lequipped with a foliation functor F: I →Ctx(L) that maps orderedi ndices to Boolean sublattices (classical contexts). A spectral redundancy functional Φs measures coherence preservation across embeddings. We show that: 1. Stable foliations satisfying Piron-Solèr conditions admit Hilbert-space representa- tions, recovering standard QM with Schrödinger dynamics via Stone’s theorem; 2. The partial order on decoherence events across foliations, together with a natural volume measure, reconstructs Lorentzian spacetime structure; 3. Time—both quantum (parameter along unitary flows) and relativistic (causal or- der)—supervenes on Φs-monotone decoherence gradients. Critically, we provide a computationally tractable implementation of Φs using spectral graph theory on mutual information networks (Bailey and Schneider, forthcoming). Testing this on simulated multi-agent systems—including combinatorial threshold-linear networks (CTLNs) that model graph-constrained neural dynamics—we demonstrate that Φs exhibits characteristic signatures during basin formation, attractor convergence, and coherence-to-classicality transitions. These results provide the first quantitative bridge between abstract PT formalism and testable physical predictions. We identify concrete empirical tests via quantum biology (photosynthetic complexes), quantum decoherence exper- iments, and neural ensemble dynamics. We also resolve the Wheeler delayed-choice experiment within PT, where apparent retrocausality dissolves because decoherence times vary across system components, creating asymmetric basin formation that only appears backward-causal when projected onto classical time. PT thus provides a kine- matical unification of QM and GR with testable predictions, offering a pre-geometric foundation for both fundamental physics and, potentially, theories of consciousness grounded in informational irreducibility. -/- (This piece is the formalism for our “Superpsychism” piece for our forthcoming target paper at The Journal of Consciousness Studies and our paper on Spectral Phi. Comments are very welcome.). (shrink)

We generalize, by a progressive procedure, the notions of conjunction and disjunction of two conditional events to the case of n conditional events. In our coherence-based approach, conjunctions and disjunctions are suitable conditional random quantities. We define the notion of negation, by verifying De Morgan’s Laws. We also show that conjunction and disjunction satisfy the associative and commutative properties, and a monotonicity property. Then, we give some results on coherence of prevision assessments for some families of compounded conditionals; in particular (...) we examine the Fréchet-Hoeffding bounds. Moreover, we study the reverse probabilistic inference from the conjunction Cn+1 of n + 1 conditional events to the family {Cn,En+1|Hn+1}. We consider the relation with the notion of quasi-conjunction and we examine in detail the coherence of the prevision assessments related with the conjunction of three conditional events. Based on conjunction, we also give a characterization of p-consistency and of p-entailment, with applications to several inference rules in probabilistic nonmonotonic reasoning. Finally, we examine some non p-valid inference rules; then, we illustrate by an example two methods which allow to suitably modify non p-valid inference rules in order to get inferences which are p-valid. (shrink)

Scientists may sometimes generalize from their samples to broader populations when they have not yet sufficiently supported this generalization. Do such hasty generalizations also occur in experimental philosophy? To check, we analyzed 171 experimental philosophy studies published between 2017 and 2023. We found that most studies tested only Western populations but generalized beyond them without justification. There was also no evidence that studies with broader conclusions had larger, more diverse samples, but they nonetheless had higher citation impact. Our analyses reveal (...) important methodological limitations of many experimental philosophy studies and suggest that philosophical training may not protect against hasty generalizations. (shrink)

In this paper, we address the question of how an agent can guide its behavior with respect to aspects of the sociomaterial environment that are not sensorily present. A simple example is how an animal can relate to a food source while only sensing a pheromone, or how an agent can relate to beer, while only the refrigerator is directly sensorily present. Certain cases in which something is absent have been characterized by others as requiring ‘higher’ cognition. An example of (...) this is how during the design process architects can let themselves be guided by the future behavior of visitors to an exhibit they are planning. The main question is what the sociomaterial environment and the skilled agent are like, such that they can relate to each other in these ways. We argue that this requires an account of the regularities in the environment. Introducing the notion of general ecological information, we will give an account of these regularities in terms of constraints, information and the form of life or ecological niche. In the first part of the paper, we will introduce the skilled intentionality framework as conceptualizing a special case of an animal’s informational coupling with the environment namely skilled action. We will show how skilled agents can pick up on the regularities in the environment and let their behavior be guided by the practices in the form of life. This conceptual framework is important for radical embodied and enactive cognitive science, because it allows these increasingly influential paradigms to extend their reach to forms of ‘higher’ cognition such as long-term planning and imagination. (shrink)

Bilateral proof systems, which provide rules for both affirming and denying sentences, have been prominent in the development of proof-theoretic semantics for classical logic in recent years. However, such systems provide a substantial amount of freedom in the formulation of the rules, and, as a result, a number of different sets of rules have been put forward as definitive of the meanings of the classical connectives. In this paper, I argue that a single general schema for bilateral proof rules has (...) a reasonable claim to inferentially articulating the core meaning of all of the classical connectives. I propose this schema in the context of a bilateral sequent calculus in which each connective is given exactly two rules: a rule for affirmation and a rule for denial. Positive and negative rules for all of the classical connectives are given by a single rule schema, harmony between these positive and negative rules is established at the schematic level by a pair of elimination theorems, and the truth-conditions for all of the classical connectives are read off at once from the schema itself. (shrink)

I defend moral generalism against particularism. Particularism, as I understand it, is the negation of the generalist view that particular moral facts depend on the existence of a comprehensive set of true moral principles. Particularists typically present "the holism of reasons" as powerful support for their view. While many generalists accept that holism supports particularism but dispute holism, I argue that generalism accommodates holism. The centerpiece of my strategy is a novel model of moral principles as a kind of "hedged" (...) principles that incorporate an independently plausible "basis thesis" concerning the explanation of moral reasons. The model implies that moral reasons requires the existence of a comprehensive set of true hedged principles, and so it captures generalism. But the model also offers an alternative explanation of holism, and so it undercuts much of the motivation for particularism. I defend this moderate (because holism-tolerating) form of generalism against a number of objections, and show how it can be used to defeat three distinct arguments from holism to particularism. (shrink)

The generality problem is widely considered to be a devastating objection to reliabilist theories of justification. My goal in this paper is to argue that a version of the generality problem applies to all plausible theories of justification. Assume that any plausible theory must allow for the possibility of reflective justification—S's belief, B, is justified on the basis of S's knowledge that she arrived at B as a result of a highly (but not perfectly) reliable way of reasoning, (...) R. The generality problem applies to all cases of reflective justification: Given that is the product of a process-token that is an instance of indefinitely many belief-forming process-types (or BFPTs), why is the reliability of R, rather than the reliability of one of the indefinitely many other BFPTs, relevant to B's justificatory status? This form of the generality problem is restricted because it applies only to cases of reflective justification. But unless it is solved, the generality problem haunts all plausible theories of justification, not just reliabilist ones. (shrink)

Jeff Paris proves a generalized Dutch Book theorem. If a belief state is not a generalized probability then one faces ‘sure loss’ books of bets. In Williams I showed that Joyce’s accuracy-domination theorem applies to the same set of generalized probabilities. What is the relationship between these two results? This note shows that both results are easy corollaries of the core result that Paris appeals to in proving his dutch book theorem. We see that every point of accuracy-domination defines a (...) dutch book, but we only have a partial converse. (shrink)

In this paper, I present a general theory of topological explanations, and illustrate its fruitfulness by showing how it accounts for explanatory asymmetry. My argument is developed in three steps. In the first step, I show what it is for some topological property A to explain some physical or dynamical property B. Based on that, I derive three key criteria of successful topological explanations: a criterion concerning the facticity of topological explanations, i.e. what makes it true of a particular system; (...) a criterion for describing counterfactual dependencies in two explanatory modes, i.e. the vertical and the horizontal; and, finally, a third perspectival one that tells us when to use the vertical and when to use the horizontal mode. In the second step, I show how this general theory of topological explanations accounts for explanatory asymmetry in both the vertical and horizontal explanatory modes. Finally, in the third step, I argue that this theory is universally applicable across biological sciences, which helps to unify essential concepts of biological networks. (shrink)

Large scale models have delivered extraordinary capabilities, yet scaling alone is unlikely to achieve the reliability, structural coherence, and adaptive intelligence required for real world general intelligence. These limitations stem not from insufficient training or missing data, but from the absence of stable identity, grounded distinctions, long horizon coherence, and continuous real world feedback. Structural General Intelligence (SGI) is introduced as a system level framework that unifies existing machine learning components, including world models, large and small language models, state space (...) models, evaluators, routing mechanisms, inference time compute, and sleep time compute. SGI proposes that intelligence arises not from enlarging a single model but from the interaction of heterogeneous subsystems whose distinctions, constraints, and internal states converge toward a structural fixed point. The architecture centers on three interacting loops that support real time correction, intermediate reasoning, and slow structural consolidation. SGI reframes intelligence as coherence rather than magnitude, enabling systems to develop stable identity, self correction, specialization, and emergent reliability over long horizons. The framework explains why scaling hits structural and economic limits, how internal distinguishability underwrites emergent accuracy, and how SGI provides an integrative architecture that current ML systems can adopt without requiring new computational primitives. (shrink)

The theoretical interpretation of human behavioral motivation has long been constrained by the traditional dual parallel cognitive framework of benefit pursuit and harm avoidance. Rooted in empirical cognition and classical theoretical constructs, this framework classifies benefit pursuit and harm avoidance as two independent, coequal dual driving logics of behavior. It remains confined to the superficial induction of behavioral phenomena, failing to penetrate beyond appearances to the essential nature of underlying behavioral motivation. This ultimately leads to the fragmentation of behavioral interpretation (...) and the non-self-consistency of theoretical construction. Centered on a single, empirically verifiable axiom, Generalized Harm-Avoidance Monism conducts a fundamental deconstruction of the dualistic cognition of benefit pursuit and harm avoidance, establishes the core proposition that generalized harm avoidance is the sole ultimate motivation for all conscious human behaviors, and completes the unified reconstruction of the system of human behavioral motivation. It provides a new, logically closed theoretical framework for understanding the fundamental logic of human behavior. This paper strictly adheres to the principle of value neutrality, and only carries out an objective academic interpretation of behavioral motivation at the level of what is, without involving value judgments or behavioral norms at the level of what ought to be. (shrink)