A theory of analogical mapping between source and target analogs based upon interacting structural, semantic, and pragmatic constraints is proposed here. The structural constraint of isomorphism encourages mappings that maximize the consistency of relational corresondences between the elements of the two analogs. The constraint of semantic similarity supports mapping hypotheses to the degree that mapped predicates have similar meanings. The constraint of pragmatic centrality favors mappings involving elements the analogist believes to be important in order to achieve (...) the purpose for which the analogy is being used. The theory is implemented in a computer program called ACME (Analogical Constraint Mapping Engine), which represents constraints by means of a network of supporting and competing hypotheses regarding what elements to map. A cooperative algorithm for parallel constraint satisfaction identities mapping hypotheses that collectively represent the overall mapping that best fits the interacting constraints. ACME has been applied to a wide range of examples that include problem analogies, analogical arguments, explanatory analogies, story analogies, formal analogies, and metaphors. ACME is sensitive to semantic and pragmatic information if it is available, and yet able to compute mappings between formally isomorphic analogs without any similar or identical elements. The theory is able to account for empirical findings regarding the impact of consistency and similarity on human processing of analogies. (shrink)

Researchers on the neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) need to distinguish mere statistical NCCs from NCCs proper. Some neural events may be co-occurrent, probabilistically coupled, or coincidental with a type of conscious experience but lack any deeper connection to it, while in other cases, the relation between neural states and a type of experience hints at a strong metaphysical relation, which distinguishes such NCCs proper from mere statistical NCCs. In order to address this issue of how to distinguish NCCs proper (...) from mere statistical NCCs, we propose a position we call neurophenomenal structuralism. The position hinges on the uncontroversial idea that phenomenal experiences relate to each other in degrees of similarity and difference. These complex structures are used to identify and individuate experiences in the methods of neuroscience, psychophysics, and phenomenology. Such individuation by structure leads to phenomenal holism, which has implications for how to investigate consciousness neuroscientifically and generates a constraint by which we can distinguish NCCs proper from mere statistical NCCs: the structural similarity constraint. Neural activation must preserve the structure governing the domain of experiences it is associated with in order to count as that domain’s NCC proper. Any activation that fails to preserve phenomenal structure fails to be an NCC proper. We illustrate how this constraint works with a study by Brouwer & Heeger (2009) as an example. (shrink)

There is a widespread belief that, conceptually, justice cannot require what we cannot achieve. This belief is sometimes used by defenders of so-called ‘non-ideal theories of justice’ to criticise so-called ‘ideal theories of justice’. I refer to this claim as ‘the feasibility constraint on the concept of justice’ and argue against it. I point to its various implausible implications and contend that a willingness to apply the label ‘unjust’ to some regrettable situations that we cannot fix is going to (...) enhance the action-guiding potential of a conception of justice, by providing an aspirational ideal. This is possible on the condition that, at all times, we cannot specify with certainty the limits of what is feasible for us collectively. The rejection of the feasibility constraint entails that there can be injustice without perpetrators; this is a theoretical price worth paying. (shrink)

The term “complex system” permeates contemporary science yet suffers from deep ontological ambiguity. This paper argues that complex systems do not exist as onto- logically discrete entities. Instead, what persists in empirical domains are regimes of constraint stabilization, relational patterns without identity or causal closure. We cri- tique the reification of emergence and propose a structural realist alternative centered on constrained coherence. We conclude by outlining the implications of this framework for modeling practice, scientific realism, and metaphysical parsimony.

Must reasons be able to feature in our deliberation? Proponents of a deliberative constraint on reasons endorse an affirmative answer to this question. Deliberative constraints enjoy broad appeal and have been deployed as premises in support of a variety of controversial philosophical positions. Yet, despite their uses, deliberative constraints have not received systematic philosophical attention. This entry aims to fill this gap in the literature. First, I sketch what's at stake in the debate over whether a deliberative constraint (...) is true. Then, I offer a taxonomy of the different versions of a deliberative constraint. Finally, I assess some of the arguments for and against a deliberative constraint. (shrink)

In this paper I will examine one way of developing Kant's suggestion that one is free just insofar as he acts according to the dictates of norms or principles. and of his distinction between the Realm of Nature, governed by causes, and the Realm of Freedom, governed by norms and principles. Kant's transcendental machinery—the distinction between Understanding and Reason, the free noumenal self expressed somehow as a causally constrained phenomenal self, and so on—can no longer secure this distinction for us. (...) It is just too mysterious to serve as an explanation of freedom. Yet some distinction between the realm of facts and the realm of norms must be established if the notion of freedom as normative rather than causal constraint is to be redeemed. In this paper I will present a version of this distinction which was not envisioned by Kant, and show how a novel response to the dispute between naturalists and non-naturalists concerning the relation of fact to norm can be developed out of that rendering. I will then argue that the account of human freedom which results from this story needs to be supplemented in just the ways which Hegel claimed Kant's account needed to be supplemented, and will recommend an Hegelian self-expressive successor. (shrink)

The so-called "adaptationism" of mainstream evolutionary biology has been criticized from a variety of sources. One, which has received relatively little philosophical attention, is developmental biology. Developmental constraints are said to be neglected by adaptationists. This paper explores the divergent methodological and explanatory interests that separate mainstream evolutionary biology from its embryological and developmental critics. It will focus on the concept of constraint itself; even this central concept is understood differently by the two sides of the dispute.

We should not admit categorial restrictions on the significance of syntactically well formed strings. Syntactically well formed but semantically absurd strings, such as ‘Life’s but a walking shadow’ and ‘Caesar is a prime number’, can express thoughts; and competent thinkers both are able to grasp these and ought to be able to. Gareth Evans’ generality constraint, though Evans himself restricted it, should be viewed as a fully general constraint on concept possession and propositional thought. For (a) even well (...) formed but semantically cross-categorial strings often do possess substantive inferential roles; (b) hearers exploit these inferential roles in interpreting such strings metaphorically; (c) there is no good reason to deny truth-conditions to strings with inferential roles. (shrink)

The concept of developmental constraint was at the heart of developmental approaches to evolution of the 1980s. While this idea was widely used to criticize neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, critique does not yield an alternative framework that offers evolutionary explanations. In current Evo-devo the concept of constraint is of minor importance, whereas notions as evolvability are at the center of attention. The latter clearly defines an explanatory agenda for evolutionary research, so that one could view the historical shift from (...) ‘developmental constraint’ towards ‘evolvability’ as the move from a concept that is a mere tool of criticism to a concept that establishes a positive explanatory project. However, by taking a look at how the concept of constraint was employed in the 1980s, I argue that developmental constraint was not just seen as restricting possibilities (‘constraining’), but also as facilitating morphological change in several ways. Accounting for macroevolutionary transformation and the origin of novel form was an aim of these developmental approaches to evolution. Thus, the concept of developmental constraint was part of a positive explanatory agenda long before the advent of Evo-devo as a genuine scientific discipline. In the 1980s, despite the lack of a clear disciplinary identity, this concept coordinated research among paleontologists, morphologists, and developmentally inclined evolutionary biologists. I discuss the different functions that scientific concepts can have, highlighting that instead of classifying or explaining natural phenomena, concepts such as ‘developmental constraint’ and ‘evolvability’ are more important in setting explanatory agendas so as to provide intellectual coherence to scientific approaches. The essay concludes with a puzzle about how to conceptually distinguish evolvability and selection. (shrink)

This paper proposes a reformulation of scientific ontology grounded not in representational accuracy or metaphysical postulation, but in the dynamic stabilization of referents across regimes of constraint. Drawing on structural realism, category theory, and case studies in quantum field theory, measurement theory, and general relativity, we develop a criterion of ontological significance based on structural mediation. What is real, we argue, is not what is statically posited, but what persists under transformations that preserve constraintdefined functionality. This framework enables a (...) reconciliation of epistemic contextuality with ontological robustness, by anchoring existence in the modal invariance of structures across scientific practices. We further suggest that mathematics functions not merely as a language of description, but as a constraint-preserving medium that shapes the ontology of science. The result is a shift toward a dynamically grounded metaphysics, in which being is not what is assumed, but what is stabilized. We conclude by arguing that this approach provides a unified ontological criterion applicable across domains, without recourse to speculative metaphysics or naive correspondence realism. (shrink)

This article proposes an epistemologically grounded account of emergence based on constraint regimes, dynamically stabilized relational configurations that modulate a system’s accessible possibilities. Rather than positing ontological levels or irreducible properties, we analyze how scientific models and explanations identify stable patterns of regulation. Drawing on examples from neuroscience and systems biology, we argue that such regimes are empirically trackable, functionally efficacious, and structurally indispensable. Emergence, on this view, is not an ontological addition but a structural articulation of modal efficacy (...) across domains. This account supports a realist interpretation of emergence grounded in scientific practice without presupposing a foundational metaphysical substrate. (shrink)

This paper develops a constraint-geometric framework for analyzing the persistence, revision, and collapse of scientific theories. Drawing on the concept of organizational closure from the biological autonomy tradition (Maturana & Varela, Moreno & Mossio, Barandiaran), I argue that theories are not merely descriptions of identity-under-constraint but are themselves closure structures whose ontological commitments are constituted by constraint-survival. The framework introduces a three-state landscape for theory identity (active, latent, extinct), an operational definition of the invariance core, and a (...) diagnostic criterion—extension-stability—that distinguishes supersession from degeneration and refutation with greater structural precision than existing accounts. As a primary demonstration, the framework is applied to the dark matter problem, generating differential structural diagnoses for the particulate dark matter hypothesis (ΛCDM) and Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND). A secondary application to four current hypotheses in consciousness studies—Integrated Information Theory (IIT), Global Workspace Theory (GWT), the Free Energy Principle (FEP), and the Identity–Recursion–Consciousness framework (IRC)—is developed in Appendix A. The constraint-geometric apparatus was developed in the course of work on IRC, and this methodological relationship is disclosed and addressed. The result is a formal instrument for the epistemology of science that unifies theory-persistence and identity-persistence under a shared constraint geometry. (shrink)

This paper considers some puzzling knowledge ascriptions and argues that they present prima facie counterexamples to credence, belief, and justification conditions on knowledge, as well as to many of the standard meta-semantic assumptions about the context-sensitivity of ‘know’. It argues that these ascriptions provide new evidence in favor of contextualist theories of knowledge—in particular those that take the interpretation of ‘know’ to be sensitive to the mechanisms of constraint.

This paper focuses on three distinct issues in Fischer’s Death, Immortality, and Meaning in Life, viz. meaning in life, fearing death, and asymmetrical attitudes between our prenatal and postmortem non-existence. I first raise the possibility that life’s total meaning can be negative and argue that immoral or harmful acts are plausibly meaning-detracting acts, which could make the lives of historically impactful evil dictators anti-meaningful. After that, I review Fischer’s two necessary conditions for meaning in life and argue against each. In (...) the second section, I review Fischer’s argument that we should fear death in virtue of it bringing about a permanent loss of our viewpoint. I offer an opposing argument that only intrinsic badness is a fitting object of fear. Since death is extrinsically bad, it cannot merit fear, even though it can be the appropriate object of other negative attitudes. In the third and final section, I consider Fischer’s solution to the asymmetry problem, which appeals to the rationality of temporal bias. I then raise two worries about it. I first argue that temporal bias is not necessarily, as Fischer claims, survival conducive. I then argue that, even if it is, this may actually be an epistemic defeater for the rationality of temporal bias. (shrink)

When is a person free to do something? The focus of much of the recent work on this question has been the debate between those who defend freedom as non-interference (aka liberals) and those who defend freedom as non-domination (aka republicans). This book defends a new answer to this question, freedom as non-constraint. According to freedom as non-constraint, both interference and domination cause unfreedom, both human and natural constraints cause unfreedom, and both controlled and uncontrolled interference cause unfreedom. (...) Compared to liberal and republican theories, freedom as non-constraint provides a better account of systemic and structural threats to freedom, a better picture of how market forces and governments impact freedom, and a better understanding of how the natural world constrains freedom. Freedom as non-constraint also provides a new account of the scalarity of freedom and points to the limits on our ability to measure freedom with precision. (shrink)

Immoralists hold that in at least some cases, moral fl aws in artworks can increase their aesthetic value. They deny what I call the valence constraint: the view that any effect that an artwork’s moral value has on its aesthetic merit must have the same valence. The immoralist offers three arguments against the valence constraint. In this paper I argue that these arguments fail, and that this failure reveals something deep and interesting about the relationship between cognitive and (...) moral value. In the fi nal section I offer a positive argument for the valence constraint. (shrink)

Unlike statutory law, which relies on the explicit formulation of rules, common law is thought to emerge from a complex doctrine of precedential constraint, according to which decisions in earlier cases constrain later courts while still allowing these courts the freedom to address new situations in creative ways. Although this doctrine is applied by legal practitioners on a daily basis, it has proved to be considerably more difficult to develop an adequate theoretical account of the doctrine itself. Drawing on (...) recent work in legal theory, as well as AI and law, this book develops a new account of precedential constraint and the balance achieved in the common law between constraint and freedom. This account, which involves construction of a group priority ordering among reasons, is then applied to other topics including the semantics of open-textured predicates and the practice of making exceptions to general rules. (shrink)

Philosophers of criminal punishment widely agree that criminal punishment should be “proportional” to the “seriousness” of the offense. But this apparent consensus is only superficial, masking significant dissensus below the surface. Proposed proportionality principles differ on several distinct dimensions, including: regarding which offense or offender properties determine offense “seriousness” and thus constitute a proportionality relatum; regarding whether punishment is objectionably disproportionate only when excessively severe, or also when excessively lenient; and regarding whether the principle can deliver absolute judgments, or only (...) comparative ones. This essay proposes that these differences cannot be successfully adjudicated, and one candidate proportionality principle preferred over its rivals, in the abstract; a proportionality principle only makes sense as an integrated part of a more complete justificatory theory of criminal punishment. It then sketches a proportionality principle that best fits the responsibility-constrained pluralist theories of criminal punishment that currently predominate. The proportionality principle it favors provides that punishments should not be disproportionately severe, in noncomparative terms, relative to an agent’s culpability in relation to their wrongdoing. (shrink)

The standard semantics for modality, together with the influential restrictor analysis of conditionals (Kratzer, 1986, 2012) renders conditional ought claims like “If John’s stealing, he ought to be stealing” trivially true. While this might seem like a problem specifically for the restrictor analysis, the issue is far more general. Any account must predict that modals in the consequent of a conditional sometimes receive obligatorily unrestricted interpretation, as in the example above, but sometimes appear restricted, as in, e.g., “If John’s speeding, (...) he ought to pay the fine.” And the problem runs deeper, for there are non-conditional variants of the data. Thus, the solution cannot lie in adopting a particular analysis of conditionals, nor a specific account of the interaction between conditionals and modals. Indeed, with minimal assumptions, the standard account of modality will render a myriad of claims about what one ought to, must, or may, do trivially true. Worse, the problem extends to a wide range of non-deontic modalities, including metaphysical modality. But the disaster has a remedy. I argue that the source of the problem for the standard account lies in its failure to capture an inferential evidence constraint encoded in the meaning of a wide range of modal constructions. I offer an account that captures this constraint, and show it provides a general and independently motivated solution to the problem. (shrink)

In this collection of essays on the core values of liberalism, Stephen Holmes—noted for his scathing reviews of books by liberalism's opponents—challenges commonly held assumptions about liberal theory. By placing it into its original historical context, _Passions and Constraints_ presents an interconnected argument meant to fundamentally change the way we conceive of liberalism. According to Holmes, three elements of classical liberal theory are commonly used to attack contemporary liberalism as antagonistic to genuine democracy and the welfare state: constitutional constraints on (...) majority rule, the identification of individual freedom with an absence of government involvement, and a strong emphasis on the principle of self-interest. Through insightful essays on Hobbes's analysis of the English Civil War in _Behemoth_, Bodin's writings on the benefits of limited government, and Mill's views on science and politics, Holmes shows that these basic principles provide, to the contrary, a necessary foundation for the development of democratic, regulatory, and redistributionist politics in the modern era. Holmes argues that the aspirations of liberal democracy—including individual liberty, the equal dignity of citizens, and a tolerance for diversity—are best understood in relation to two central themes of classical liberal theory: the psychological motivations of individuals and the necessary constraint on individual passions provided by institutions. Paradoxically, Holmes argues that such institutional restraints serve to enable, rather than limit, effective democracy. In explorations of subjects ranging from self-interest to majoritarianism to "gag rules," Holmes shows that limited government can be more powerful than unlimited government—indeed, that liberalism is one of the most effective philosophies of state building ever contrived. By restricting the arbitrary powers of government officials, Holmes states, a liberal constitution can increase the state's capacity to focus on specific problems and mobilize collective resources for common purposes. _Passions and Constraint_ is an assessment of what that tradition has meant and what it can mean today. (shrink)

It is natural and relatively common to suppose that feasibility is a constraint on what we ought to do all-things-considered but not a constraint on what we ought to do as a matter of justice. I show that the combination of these claims entails an implausible picture of the relation between feasibility and desirability given an attractive understanding of the relation between what we ought to do as a matter of justice and what we ought to do all-things-considered.

This paper develops a unified theoretical framework for understanding the post-1973 divergence between the price of essential goods and the trajectory of median wages. It introduces three formal results that jointly explain why affordability has declined across housing, medical care, education, food, and energy despite decades of policy reform, technological improvement, and supply expansion. The Rentier–Asset Impossibility Theorem (RAIT) demonstrates that once essential goods acquire positive exposure to financial markets and are governed by required return floors, long-run price growth must (...) exceed median wage growth even under ideal competitive conditions. The Asset-Pricing Constraint on Essential Supply shows why additional physical capacity cannot restore affordability in such sectors: when prices are pinned to financial return requirements, new supply primarily expands the volume of investable claims rather than lowering long-run price levels. A third contribution, Dual-Curve Pricing and the Asset-Pricing Floor, formalizes the mechanism by which asset-pricing dynamics supplant ordinary marginal-cost pricing in inelastic necessities. Together, these results recast the affordability crisis as a structural feature of an asset-priced regime rather than a contingent policy failure. The paper situates this framework within a broader philosophy of economics by arguing that the transition after 1973 constitutes a regime shift in the ontology of essential goods—from wage-tethered utilities to financialized assets. Empirical signatures predicted by the theory (timing, magnitude, selectivity, and real-rate sensitivity) appear across every assetized sector. The concluding section argues that restoring affordability is not a technocratic optimization problem but a regime choice: societies must either maintain essentials as high-yield financial assets or reclassify them as low-return public utilities tethered to wages. (shrink)

I reply to comments by David Miguel Gray and Grant Gillett concerning my paper, ‘The Generality Constraint and the Structure of Thought’.

Empirical research reveals that breast milk is a dynamic, responsive interface: its composition varies by infant sex, parity, and immune status, and adapts in real time to infant illness. These findings challenge existing frameworks—nutritional reductionism cannot explain why milk composition carries information beyond caloric needs, while relational accounts lack mechanistic specificity. This paper argues that lactation functions as a high-bandwidth channel for constraint co-authorship: during a window of asymmetric regulatory capacity, the mother participates in shaping the structural and dynamical (...) constraints that define the infant’s developmental landscape. The key contribution is a formal distinction between identity (the invariant pattern of the system) and identity-space (the possibility field within which that pattern stabilizes). Lactation shapes identity-space, not identity itself. This explains why breastfeeding effects cluster around regulation, resilience, and baseline affect rather than specific traits, and provides new interpretive resources for phenomena such as nursing refusal and cortisol transmission. The framework is situated against adjacent literatures in biological individuality, holobiont theory, and developmental systems theory, clarifying what each captures and what each lacks. (shrink)

In Dirac-Bergmann constrained dynamics, a first-class constraint typically does not _alone_ generate a gauge transformation. By direct calculation it is found that each first-class constraint in Maxwell's theory generates a change in the electric field E by an arbitrary gradient, spoiling Gauss's law. The secondary first-class constraint p^i,_i=0 still holds, but being a function of derivatives of momenta, it is not directly about E. Only a special combination of the two first-class constraints, the Anderson-Bergmann -Castellani gauge generator (...) G, leaves E unchanged. This problem is avoided if one uses a first-class constraint as the generator of a _canonical transformation_; but that partly strips the canonical coordinates of physical meaning as electromagnetic potentials and makes the electric field depend on the smearing function, bad behavior illustrating the wisdom of the Anderson-Bergmann Lagrangian orientation of interesting canonical transformations. The need to keep gauge-invariant the relation dot{q}- dH/dp= -E_i -p^i=0 supports using the primary Hamiltonian rather than the extended Hamiltonian. The results extend the Lagrangian-oriented reforms of Castellani, Sugano, Pons, Salisbury, Shepley, _etc._ by showing the inequivalence of the extended Hamiltonian to the primary Hamiltonian even for _observables_, properly construed in the sense implying empirical equivalence. Dirac and others have noticed the arbitrary velocities multiplying the primary constraints outside the canonical Hamiltonian while apparently overlooking the corresponding arbitrary coordinates multiplying the secondary constraints _inside_ the canonical Hamiltonian, and so wrongly ascribed the gauge quality to the primaries alone, not the primary-secondary team G. Hence the Dirac conjecture about secondary first-class constraints rests upon a false presupposition. The usual concept of Dirac observables should also be modified to employ the gauge generator G, not the first-class constraints separately, so that the Hamiltonian observables become equivalent to the Lagrangian ones such as the electromagnetic field F. (shrink)

One of the more distinctive features of Bob Hale and Crispin Wright’s neologicism about arithmetic is their invocation of Frege’s Constraint – roughly, the requirement that the core empirical applications for a class of numbers be “built directly into” their formal characterization. In particular, they maintain that, if adopted, Frege’s Constraint adjudicates in favor of their preferred foundation – Hume’s Principle – and against alternatives, such as the Dedekind-Peano axioms. In what follows we establish two main claims. First, (...) we show that, if sound, Hale and Wright’s arguments for Frege’s Constraint at most establish a version on which the relevant application of the naturals is transitive counting – roughly, the counting procedure by which numerals are used to answer “how many”-questions. Second, we show that this version of Frege’s Constraint fails to adjudicate in favor of Hume’s Principle. If this is the version of Frege’s Constraint that a foundation for arithmetic must respect, then Hume’s Principle no more – and no less – meets the requirement than the Dedekind-Peano axioms do. (shrink)

This paper explores the extension of formal accounts of precedential constraint to make use of a factor hierarchy with intermediate factors. A problem arises, however, because constraints expressed in terms of intermediate factors may give different outcomes from those expressed only using base level factors. We argue that constraints that use only base level factors yield the correct outcomes, but that intermediate factors play an important role in the justification and explanation of those outcomes. The discussion is illustrated with (...) a running example. (shrink)

(1997). Reflexivity, agency and constraint: The paradoxes of Bourdieu's sociology of knowledge. Social Epistemology: Vol. 11, New Directions in the Sociology of Knowledge, pp. 171-186.

Complexity–nonlinear dynamics for my purposes in this essay–is rich with metaphysical and epistemological implications but is only recently receiving sustained philosophical analysis. I will explore some of the subtleties of causation and constraint in Rayleigh-Bénard convection as an example of a complex phenomenon, and extract some lessons for further philosophical reflection on top-down constraint and causation particularly with respect to causal foundationalism.

It is widely acknowledged that some truths or facts don’t have a minimal full ground [see e.g. Fine ]. Every full ground of them contains a smaller full ground. In this paper I’ll propose a minimality constraint on immediate grounding and I’ll show that it doesn’t fall prey to the arguments that tell against an unqualified minimality constraint. Furthermore, the assumption that all cases of grounding can be understood in terms of immediate grounding will be defended. This assumption (...) guarantees that the proposed minimality constraint is significant for all cases of grounding. With its help one can get a clear grip on the relevance of grounding, a feature that will be put to use in the penultimate section. (shrink)

This article challenges the classical ideal of scientific unity as theoretical or ontological reduction. Against the backdrop of contemporary science’s increasing fragmentation, it proposes an alternative model of unity grounded in the structural coordination of constraint regimes. Drawing on recent work in structural realism, epistemology of practice, and anti-reductionist philosophy of science, it argues that the coherence of science emerges from functional compatibility between localized, heterogeneous models, not from global integration under a common theory. The resulting account reframes unity (...) as a systemic property of interaction across epistemic regimes. (shrink)

Several philosophers have argued that ‘constraints’ constrain (and thereby explain) by virtue of being modally stronger than ordinary laws of nature. In this way, a constraint applies to all possible systems, for a variety of possibility that is broader (that is, more inclusive) than the variety we employ when we say that the ordinary laws of nature apply to all physically possible systems. Explanations by constraint are thus more broadly unifying than ordinary causal explanations. Philosophical examples of good (...) candidates for constraints have heretofore been drawn almost exclusively from fundamental physics. This paper argues for the existence of such constraints (even multiple levels of them) in at least one human science (linguistics), not just in physics. (shrink)

Orthodox thought holds that criminalisation should be subject to a wrongness constraint: that is, that conduct may be criminalised only if it is wrongful. This article argues that this principle is false, at least as it is usually understood. On the one hand, the wrongness constraint seems to rest on solid foundations. To criminalise conduct is to facilitate its condemnation and punishment; to coerce citizens against it; and to portray it as wrongful. All of these actions are presumptively (...) impermissible when the conduct that they target is not wrongful. On the other hand, the article argues that the wrongness constraint is nevertheless unsound. Although it is presumptively impermissible to criminalise non-wrongful conduct, this might yet be permissible, given sufficient countervailing reasons. Moreover, there are realistic cases – specifically, some cases of over-inclusive criminalisation – in which such countervailing reasons exist. (shrink)

I propose the Dual-Constraint Model (DCM), a formal framework that locates perceptual content at the intersection of (i) internal generative inference and (ii) explicit world-imposed invariance constraints. Percepts are cast as solutions of an optimization that combines sensory likelihood, endogenous priors, and a penalty for hypotheses that violate ecological or physical invariances. DCM preserves the positivist insight that the world imposes non-arbitrary constraints while preserving constructivist insight that internal models select among admissible interpretations under uncertainty. The formulation yields clear, (...) falsifiable dissociations: manipulations that degrade invariance structure produce perceptual and early-sensory effects that cannot be mimicked merely by shifting priors. I present explicit operational forms for the invariance penalty, outline empirical designs and analysis procedures, and provide concrete criteria under which DCM is empirically distinguishable from pure-prior or pure-constraint accounts. The argument is presented as a theoretical synthesis rather than a definitive resolution, recognizing that empirical and philosophical questions remain open. (shrink)

Triviality arguments against the computational theory of mind claim that computational implementation is trivial and thus does not serve as an adequate metaphysical basis for mental states. It is common to take computational implementation to consist in a mapping from physical states to abstract computational states. In this paper, I propose a novel constraint on the kinds of physical states that can implement computational states, which helps to specify what it is for two physical states to non-trivially implement the (...) same computational state. (shrink)

“Scalar implicatures” is a phrase used to refer to some inferences arising from the competition between alternatives: typically, “Mary read some of the books” ends up conveying that Mary did not read all books, because one could have said “Mary read all books”. The so-called grammatical theory argues that these inferences obtain from the application of a covert operator \, which not only has the capability to negate alternative sentences, but also the capability to be embedded within sentences under other (...) linguistic operators, i.e. \ has the potential to add to the meaning of expressions, the negation of their alternatives. This view typically seeks support from the existence of readings that could not be explained without the extra-capability of \ to occur in embedded positions. However, if some embedded positions seem to be accessible to \, not all conceivable positions that \ could occupy yield sensible results. In short: the \ approach is powerful, maybe too powerful. Various approaches based on logical strength and monotonicity have been proposed to justify on principled grounds the limited distribution of \; these approaches are mostly based on a comparison between possible parses, and considerations of monotonicity. We propose a new constraint based instead on “connectedness”, ruling out parses because of inherent problems their outcome may raise. Connectedness is a sister notion of monotonicity, which has been recruited to explain certain lexical restrictions on nouns, adjectives and more recently quantifiers; we propose here that connectedness could play a similar role at the level of propositional meanings. (shrink)