Blog

Which of the following ideas best expresses how Democritus understood the universe?

Describe the Presocratic philosophers’ view of wisdom and knowledge. From this point of view, why might we say the sophos is always a “stranger to the world”? How does their understanding of wisdom and knowledge compare to your own view?

The term “logos” is associated with all the following ideas EXCEPT:

Midterm Exam — Science Fiction & EthicsFormat: This is a multi-day in-class writing assignment. You will write your essay across two class sessions (Monday and Wednesday, 85 minutes each). This exam is administered through Blackboard using Honorlock screen recording and Browser Guard. You may not access any outside materials, devices, or applications during the exam.Between Sessions: After Day 1, you will be able to view your Day 1 writing, but you will not be able to edit it. Use the time between sessions to think about your argument, consider what you want to revise or expand, and plan how to use your Day 2 session. You will not be able to bring notes with you to Day 2.Day 2: You will receive the full text of your Day 1 writing along with a fresh essay box. You may copy and paste from your Day 1 text to restructure, revise, and continue your work. Your Day 2 submission is what will be graded.Quotation Bank: You have access to the quotation bank you prepared and uploaded in advance if you did so.Target Length: 800–1,500 words (but there is no real maximum/minimum word count). Quality matters more than quantity.Requirements:Present a clear thesis and argue for it.Engage substantively with at least two of our primary sources (Parfit, Siderits, Huemer).Consider at least one serious objection to your position and respond to it.Observe the Forbidden Case Constraint (explained below).The Forbidden Case Constraint:For the purposes of this exam, the judiciary has been thoroughly convinced of both Parfitian Reductionism and the Buddhist Doctrine of No-Self. You may not argue that the clones are straightforwardly different persons from Sam Bell whose independent consent is required. The most obvious objection: that the clones are separate people and this is simply slavery,  is not available to you. You must work within the reductionist framework to make your case.Stipulated Facts (unless your scenario modifies them):Sam Bell Prime was aware of the cloning arrangement and consented to it.Sam Bell Prime completed the first authentic three-year contract under the same isolated conditions as the clones.Sam Bell Prime is being compensated for all labor performed by the clones.The clones are designed with a biologically limited lifespan of approximately three years.Each clone experiences only its own three-year stint with no cumulative effects from prior cycles.The clones were never intended to discover the truth. The events of the film represent a malfunction.Robotic or AI-based solutions are not viable alternatives for this operation.The Corporation’s Concession: The corporation concedes that the specific events of the film, where two clones discover the truth, represent a failure and a breach of its duty. It owes Sam Bell compensation for this negligence. However, it maintains that the underlying arrangement, when operating as designed, is morally permissible.Sam Bell Prime Is DeadScenario Modification:Suppose that Sam Bell Prime dies of natural causes five years into the ongoing clone cycles, long after the arrangement began, but while clones are still being activated and performing contracts on the lunar base. His estate, including the ongoing compensation from Lunar Industries, passes to his daughter, Eve. Eve is aware of the arrangement and chooses to continue it. The corporation continues operating exactly as before.Your Task:Does the death of Sam Bell Prime change the moral status of the arrangement? Write an essay in which you argue either that the arrangement can remain morally permissible after Sam Bell Prime’s death, or that his death undermines a crucial element of the corporation’s defense. Your argument must operate within the reductionist framework (observe the Forbidden Case Constraint) and engage substantively with at least two of our primary sources.

Day 2 InstructionsWelcome to Day 2 of the Midterm Exam. Below you will find the full text of what you wrote on Day 1. You may copy and paste from it freely as you continue working.Your Day 2 submission is what will be graded. Use this session to:Continue writing where you left off.Revise, restructure, or strengthen your argument.Add engagement with sources you did not address on Day 1.Develop your response to objections more fully.Reminder: Your essay should be 800–1,500 words. All original exam instructions and constraints still apply. Day 2 Wrinkle: “The corporation’s legal team notes that your essay frequently describes the clones as ‘their own agents with their own moral obligations.’ They argue this violates the Forbidden Case Constraint. As you revise, restate your strongest objection in a way that works entirely within the reductionist framework, without treating the clones as independent persons, and explain why it still succeeds.” Your Day 1 Writing: Lunar Industries efforts to revise the protocol and inform each clone of the full truth does not change the fact that this arrangement is morally wrong. In the film, it is known that the only Sam Bell that was fully aware of the entire project was the original. The clones were not aware of the operation and their role as a clone. Each one was deceived and under the guise that they were going to work on the moon for 3 years then return home. This seemed to have worked for many years until one clone decided to return to the crash site where the previous clone “died.” Despite the operation’s success for many years without error, each clone was “suffering” due to a fabricated reality; with or without their knowledge.Siderits argues that the “self” is not fixed, which breaks moral concern with all persons. It would be accurate to say that Siderits would agree that the original Sam Bell is not a “fixed” Sam, despite being the original. He would say, however, that each individual Sam carry similar skandhas [mental and physical processes]. The clones would not necessarily be the “same” as the original Sam Bell, but they all carry very similar qualities. As for Parfit’s perspective, each clone is their own identity, or agent, but they all have the same personality, memories, and intentions as the original Sam. This is due to Relation R, or their shared psychological connectedness. The idea of “cloning” an individual would not copy and paste their soul or spirit, but the existing memories and intentions from the original would carry on to the others. A great example of this would be two candles being lit by the first candle, which was lit with a lighter. All three candles carry a flame that physically looks similar and intentionally burns similarly. Would it be accurate to say that the candle lit by a lighter is different from the second and third candle being lit by the first? The flame is not entirely the “same” but the it’s process is split off into three connectedness processes, continuing on the entity.In this arrangement, Siderits’ Doctrine of No-Self would imply that each Sam Bell being deceived, and/or harmed, would be the same as harming your future self since there is no real, true self. If this experiment were to ethically cater to the original Sam, it would be natural to ethically cater to the clones as well. They would not be recognized as the exact same person as Sam Bell Prime but deception and suffering is still morally wrong nonetheless. Parfit’s Relation R would also argue that the clones are not the same to the original Sam Bell but they are still in fact psychologically connected through the past memories that all clones share.Now, with the modified scenario it is stated that each clone will be fully informed of the arrangement, who they are, and why they must proceed through the operation. However, “If it refuses, it is painlessly euthanized and a new clone is activated. Sam Bell Prime has consented to this revised protocol.” Is this modified scenario any different from the original arrangement? If the clones are not aware of who they are, how can they make meaningful decisions. If the clones are fully aware of who they are, why would their decision not matter the same as the original’s decision? The only difference now is that each clone isn’t being deceived of their fabricated reality but now informed of the truth and in some way made to feel that they do not have a “choice” in continuing or not. Either way, their cloned-life will be terminated. If Parfit’s Relation R is accepted as truth, would this modification consider euthanizing the original Sam Bell just as the clones would? Clone or not, an agent is receiving pain and harm – which a majority of opinions can agree that any person receiving harm is morally and ethically wrong. The original same is not defined as the ultimate basis, as Siderits would argue. As mentioned, he is not a fixed self therefore each individual Sam Bell become their own agent with their own moral obligations. From these perspectives, it would seem appropriate to say any reasonings to ethically care for the original Sam would therefore transition to the exact same reasonings to care for the clones as well.Having the first Sam Bell complete his 3-year mission on the moon and returning home does not label him as more important or better than his clones. Each cloned version become their own self and being painlessly euthanized may not cause any real affect on Earth, however; the clones do experience pain and do suffer from the actions of their original self. That alone is not permissible. If somehow the clones could feel nothing and not care of their role, this fixed arrangement would probably not ethically matter. Despite that, each carry memories and intentions that the original has and Relation R in that matter cannot be separated nor broken.

Day 2 InstructionsWelcome to Day 2 of the Midterm Exam. Below you will find the full text of what you wrote on Day 1. You may copy and paste from it freely as you continue working.Your Day 2 submission is what will be graded.Use this session to:Continue writing where you left off.Revise, restructure, or strengthen your argument.Add engagement with sources you did not address on Day 1.Develop your response to objections more fully.Reminder: Your essay should be 800–1,500 words. All original exam instructions and constraints still apply.A note on your Day 1 essay: Your essay uses this passage from Parfit: “each person’s existence just involves the existence of a brain and body, a doing of certain deeds, the thinking of certain thoughts, the occurrence of certain experiences” as a checklist: the clone has a brain, a body, does deeds, thinks thoughts, therefore Sam Bell is still alive. But Parfit is not offering a diagnostic test for whether someone counts as the same person. He is describing what all of personal identity reduces to: there is no further fact beyond these elements. The question Parfit is actually asking is whether Relation R (psychological continuity and connectedness) holds between two beings, and what follows morally when it does or doesn’t. Your essay needs to engage with Relation R directly, not treat the passage you’ve quoted as a parts list. When you do this, you’ll find that some of your best ideas (especially the argument about Lunar Industries owing Eve a version of Sam) become significantly stronger, because you’ll be able to ground them in what Parfit actually argues rather than in speculation about what Sam Prime probably wanted. Day 2 Wrinkle: As you continue your essay, consider the following claim from Parfit: the reductionist view does not entail that we should be less concerned about our future welfare rather it entails that we should be more concerned about the welfare of others. How does this claim bear on the argument you are making?  Your Day 1 Writing: Does the death of Sam Bell Prime change the moral status of the arrangement?            In order to give any merit to the claim that something should or should not change in the agreement between Sam Bell and Lunar Industries we must first examine if this fact is even true. According to Parfitian reduction-ism the death of Sam Prime is completely irrelevant to the case of whether or not the clones should be morally permissible to work on the moon.  Based solely on the fact that Sam Bell is not dead. Parfit clear lays outs reductinism by its components (almost ironically). He states INSERT NEW QUOTE”On the reductionist view each person’s existence just involves the existence of a brain and body, a doing of certain deeds, the thinking of certain thoughts, the occurrence of certain experiences and so on”. While he does leave some room open for interpretation the interpretation falls on the idea that there is more things that can make and individual qualitatively the same. With all of the premises he has listed for us we can see that Sam Bell is still alive. Sam Bell still has a brain and body, he is doing the same certain deeds, Sam is still thinking the same certain thoughts, and has similar experiences to the original Sam Prime. By all matters of reductionism Sam Bell is still a live and well, working on the moon to provide for his daughter and his society at home.transition sentenceWhat would stay the same?                Sam Bell prime was fully aware that at one point there would be an end to his life. Assuming that Sam Prime is aware of this fact and wants what is best for him and his family we can assume that he would want the work to continue. It is hard to imagine the alternative where a loving father would not want his children to be supported even after his death. Many people take out large life insurance policies to ensure the safety of their kids. I have heard of a specific case where a stock broker even suffered such a loss that he committed suicide in order for the life insurance policy to take care of his kids financially instead of them having to suffer the burden of financial instability of the father selling all assets in order to make up for his estates.transition sentence                 In addition to the previous idea of Sam Prime’s probable wants for his loved one’s. I think it can be implied that Sam likely had planned to die before the clones ran out. Assuming a starting point of 25 (this is cutting into the younger side of what was more than likely to be his age given that he was qualified to operate multi-billion dollar assets on the moon) and adding three years for each additional clone that was present on the moon ; we can see that Sam Prime did in fact plan for the clones to outlive him. In the scene with the “hidden room” that the clones find we can see that there is well more than 30 clones of Sam Prime, all ready to pick up where the next one left off. With a little calculations (25 Sam Prime years + 3*30 clones= 115 years of Sam Prime’s life)  it is evident that Sam Prime would be irrational to believe that he could live out the clones. This concept further asserts that Sam Prime would want the clones to continue his service as a part of lunar industries.Transitional Paragraph What would change about the agreement?          I personally believe that while the death of Sam Prime does not really change the agreement of his obligation to work on the moon I think it does raise an interesting moral question about the responsibilities of Lunar industries to return Sam Bell back home to his daughter. While Sam Prime most likely foresaw that the the clones would outlive him; Sam Prime probably did not imagine that he would die a premature death on Earth. We must then look at what the agreement said about Sam’s return trip. If the Lunar industries had any responsibilities in the death of Sam Prime should they not be held accountable to provide eve with a father? The entire agreement sits on this Idea that if Sam does his duties he will get to live a happy and fruitful life with his family and not be strained by financial hardship or time away for work ever again. I believe there is a case to be made about the obligation of Lunar Industries to ship home a clone or even possibly clones in order to be with his family. If there is no version of Sam Bell at home then the argument can be made that there is no longer a Sam Bell. We can see this through the violation of reductionist beliefs on what a makes a person. Parfit states  “On the reductionist view each person’s existence just involves the existence of a brain and body, a doing of certain deeds, the thinking of certain thoughts, the occurrence of certain experiences and so on”. If there is no Sam at home taking care of his family then we are missing the criteria of “a doing of certain deeds”. If the elements of reductionism are missing then we no longer have a person. If Sam Bell still had the same body, brain and doing of deeds but no similar thinking of thoughts then we would not have the same person. We just have a shell that partakes in similar behaviors of Sam Bell. Twins are not the same person if the are identical and go to the same school and participate in the same activities. So why do we get to claim that the Sam Bell that is no longer taking care of his family the same person? 

How is sound stored digitally?

Match the Outputs of these Operations given the two possible inputs A and B Input A: P is 1Q is 1 Input B:P is 0Q is 1

Convert the hexadecimal number 10A to decimal.

What is the “cults” controversy as discussed both by our author Young and by me in this week’s Lecture?After having examined/thought about this controversy yourself, do you feel the term “cult” is still a useful/valuable one? Why or why not (discuss the specific reasons justifying your view)?⚠️ Reminder: This Learning Evaluation is a CLOSED-BOOK, CLOSED-NOTE, CLOSED-INTERNET.The use of any unauthorized aid is strictly prohibited. This includes all generative AI tools (ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, etc.), AI-enhanced writing/editing tools, or any external person/resource.Like other forms of plagiarism, using AI tools or other unauthorized aid is academic misrepresentation or fraud—because you are submitting work generated by someone or something else as your own (see Syllabus).