Fifth-order isotropic descartes tensor and its existence theorem and representation problems are researched, then a general representation formula of fifth-order isotropic descartes tensor is got.
There is a broad distinction in Descartes’writings between doctrine and method.The staying power of these two elements has been unequal.Descartes’doctrinal influence on contemporary epistemology has been largely as ...There is a broad distinction in Descartes’writings between doctrine and method.The staying power of these two elements has been unequal.Descartes’doctrinal influence on contemporary epistemology has been largely as a foil against which some of its major currents have been developed.The situation is brighter on the methodological side.Here Descartes’practice of beginning with common sense and moving,step by step,to philosophical conclusions is a practice much admired by contemporary philosophers.Still,the negative verdict on doctrine stands as the main verdict overall.I maintain that this verdict is undeserved.I first distinguish between Descartes’general epistemology and the purpose to which he puts it—the quest for certainty.I then argue for a positive verdict for his general epistemology.I do so by showing that Descartes has a non-normative account of knowledge but an“ethics of belief”in which the knowing comes first.Descartes thus anticipates what Sylvan calls the“knowledge-first”approach in general epistemology,which I defend.Relying on Audi’s distinction between“sources”and“reasons,”I show that Descartes’analysis of knowledge proper,which I also defend,anticipates and improves the“factive access”analysis of knowledge due to McDowell.展开更多
以往虚拟流法主要用于处理流体-流体界面。在虚拟流方法的基础上,提出了一种基于虚拟流的浸入式边界方法,用于研究强不间断的复杂激波-障碍物相互作用,在界面附近构造Riemann问题并采用HLLC(Harten Lax and van Leer contact)方法对其...以往虚拟流法主要用于处理流体-流体界面。在虚拟流方法的基础上,提出了一种基于虚拟流的浸入式边界方法,用于研究强不间断的复杂激波-障碍物相互作用,在界面附近构造Riemann问题并采用HLLC(Harten Lax and van Leer contact)方法对其进行求解,达到求解流体与固体相互作用的目的。文中给出了几个测试算例来验证该方法的适用性。首先将该方法用于求解超声速流绕过圆柱体和90°台阶,并与实验结果进行对比验证,然后将激波冲击三棱柱相互作用的结果与文献的实验结果进一步进行了对比,结果表明,在激波传播以及涡度发展和传输方面,文章方法与实验结果有很好的一致性,在激波冲击障碍物初期的波系演化有很好的适用性。展开更多
I shall deserve the Reputation of having beene ye first to lay the grounds of two Sciences,"wrote Thomas Hobbes in 1646,"this of Optiques and yt other of natural Justice."For him,optics and politics wer...I shall deserve the Reputation of having beene ye first to lay the grounds of two Sciences,"wrote Thomas Hobbes in 1646,"this of Optiques and yt other of natural Justice."For him,optics and politics were two prongs of the same effort:to naturalize humans’relations to their world and to each other.It was Descartes’Dioptrique,handed to him by Kenelm Digby in 1637,that cleared for him the path:naturalizing humans required physicalizing vision–as Kepler taught in his own optics–and removing from nature of all cognitive entities such as"species visible and intelligible."Between 1639 and 1646 Hobbes produced three professional,innovative treatises on optics founded upon"the opinion of the excellent Monsieur Des Cartes"but,finally,diverging from it in the most crucial point.For Descartes,ridding"Matter[of all]such Descriptions…as belong but to Spiritual Beings"required a spiritual,non-material entity to interpret the physical effects of the senses.Hobbes,however,insisted that the interpretation can and should be understood physically and mechanically,for"Vision is the judgement itself.展开更多
Descartes＇ metaphysical doubts in the Third and Fifth Meditations present a scenario like this： it is possible that I （the Meditator） am so imperfect as to be deceived by my author （i.e., an omnipotent God/Decei...Descartes＇ metaphysical doubts in the Third and Fifth Meditations present a scenario like this： it is possible that I （the Meditator） am so imperfect as to be deceived by my author （i.e., an omnipotent God/Deceiver） in the matters which I think I perceive clearly and distinctly. The metaphysical doubts attempt to cast doubt on beliefs based on present or recollected clear and distinct perceptions. This paper clarifies the intension of the metaphysical doubts by answering the question of how an omnipotent God/Deceiver might exercise a deceptive influence on clear and distinct perception. My analysis shows： （1） the memory interpretation and the retrospective interpretation to be implausible; （2） the incoherence interpretation to be ill-founded, though its conclusion is partly right, such that we should accept a weaker version of it; （3） the misrepresentation interpretation, the defective-origin interpretation, the truth-value variation interpretation and the radical interpretation to be plausible; （4） all of these credible interpretations to be compatible with each other as well.展开更多
The emergence of Large Language Models(LLMs)has renewed debate about whether Artificial Intelligence(AI)can be conscious or sentient.This paper identifies two approaches to the topic and argues:(1)A“Cartesian”approa...The emergence of Large Language Models(LLMs)has renewed debate about whether Artificial Intelligence(AI)can be conscious or sentient.This paper identifies two approaches to the topic and argues:(1)A“Cartesian”approach treats consciousness,sentience,and personhood as very similar terms,and treats language use as evidence that an entity is conscious.This approach,which has been dominant in AI research,is primarily interested in what consciousness is,and whether an entity possesses it.(2)An alternative“Hobbesian”approach treats consciousness as a sociopolitical issue and is concerned with what the implications are for labeling something sentient or conscious.This both enables a political disambiguation of language,consciousness,and personhood and allows regulation to proceed in the face of intractable problems in deciding if something“really is”sentient.(3)AI systems should not be treated as conscious,for at least two reasons:(a)treating the system as an origin point tends to mask competing interests in creating it,at the expense of the most vulnerable people involved;and(b)it will tend to hinder efforts at holding someone accountable for the behavior of the systems.A major objective of this paper is accordingly to encourage a shift in thinking.In place of the Cartesian question-is AI sentient?-I propose that we confront the more Hobbesian one:Does it make sense to regulate developments in which AI systems behave as if they were sentient?展开更多
文摘Fifth-order isotropic descartes tensor and its existence theorem and representation problems are researched, then a general representation formula of fifth-order isotropic descartes tensor is got.
文摘There is a broad distinction in Descartes’writings between doctrine and method.The staying power of these two elements has been unequal.Descartes’doctrinal influence on contemporary epistemology has been largely as a foil against which some of its major currents have been developed.The situation is brighter on the methodological side.Here Descartes’practice of beginning with common sense and moving,step by step,to philosophical conclusions is a practice much admired by contemporary philosophers.Still,the negative verdict on doctrine stands as the main verdict overall.I maintain that this verdict is undeserved.I first distinguish between Descartes’general epistemology and the purpose to which he puts it—the quest for certainty.I then argue for a positive verdict for his general epistemology.I do so by showing that Descartes has a non-normative account of knowledge but an“ethics of belief”in which the knowing comes first.Descartes thus anticipates what Sylvan calls the“knowledge-first”approach in general epistemology,which I defend.Relying on Audi’s distinction between“sources”and“reasons,”I show that Descartes’analysis of knowledge proper,which I also defend,anticipates and improves the“factive access”analysis of knowledge due to McDowell.
文摘以往虚拟流法主要用于处理流体-流体界面。在虚拟流方法的基础上,提出了一种基于虚拟流的浸入式边界方法,用于研究强不间断的复杂激波-障碍物相互作用,在界面附近构造Riemann问题并采用HLLC(Harten Lax and van Leer contact)方法对其进行求解,达到求解流体与固体相互作用的目的。文中给出了几个测试算例来验证该方法的适用性。首先将该方法用于求解超声速流绕过圆柱体和90°台阶,并与实验结果进行对比验证,然后将激波冲击三棱柱相互作用的结果与文献的实验结果进一步进行了对比,结果表明,在激波传播以及涡度发展和传输方面,文章方法与实验结果有很好的一致性,在激波冲击障碍物初期的波系演化有很好的适用性。
文摘I shall deserve the Reputation of having beene ye first to lay the grounds of two Sciences,"wrote Thomas Hobbes in 1646,"this of Optiques and yt other of natural Justice."For him,optics and politics were two prongs of the same effort:to naturalize humans’relations to their world and to each other.It was Descartes’Dioptrique,handed to him by Kenelm Digby in 1637,that cleared for him the path:naturalizing humans required physicalizing vision–as Kepler taught in his own optics–and removing from nature of all cognitive entities such as"species visible and intelligible."Between 1639 and 1646 Hobbes produced three professional,innovative treatises on optics founded upon"the opinion of the excellent Monsieur Des Cartes"but,finally,diverging from it in the most crucial point.For Descartes,ridding"Matter[of all]such Descriptions…as belong but to Spiritual Beings"required a spiritual,non-material entity to interpret the physical effects of the senses.Hobbes,however,insisted that the interpretation can and should be understood physically and mechanically,for"Vision is the judgement itself.
文摘Descartes＇ metaphysical doubts in the Third and Fifth Meditations present a scenario like this： it is possible that I （the Meditator） am so imperfect as to be deceived by my author （i.e., an omnipotent God/Deceiver） in the matters which I think I perceive clearly and distinctly. The metaphysical doubts attempt to cast doubt on beliefs based on present or recollected clear and distinct perceptions. This paper clarifies the intension of the metaphysical doubts by answering the question of how an omnipotent God/Deceiver might exercise a deceptive influence on clear and distinct perception. My analysis shows： （1） the memory interpretation and the retrospective interpretation to be implausible; （2） the incoherence interpretation to be ill-founded, though its conclusion is partly right, such that we should accept a weaker version of it; （3） the misrepresentation interpretation, the defective-origin interpretation, the truth-value variation interpretation and the radical interpretation to be plausible; （4） all of these credible interpretations to be compatible with each other as well.
文摘The emergence of Large Language Models(LLMs)has renewed debate about whether Artificial Intelligence(AI)can be conscious or sentient.This paper identifies two approaches to the topic and argues:(1)A“Cartesian”approach treats consciousness,sentience,and personhood as very similar terms,and treats language use as evidence that an entity is conscious.This approach,which has been dominant in AI research,is primarily interested in what consciousness is,and whether an entity possesses it.(2)An alternative“Hobbesian”approach treats consciousness as a sociopolitical issue and is concerned with what the implications are for labeling something sentient or conscious.This both enables a political disambiguation of language,consciousness,and personhood and allows regulation to proceed in the face of intractable problems in deciding if something“really is”sentient.(3)AI systems should not be treated as conscious,for at least two reasons:(a)treating the system as an origin point tends to mask competing interests in creating it,at the expense of the most vulnerable people involved;and(b)it will tend to hinder efforts at holding someone accountable for the behavior of the systems.A major objective of this paper is accordingly to encourage a shift in thinking.In place of the Cartesian question-is AI sentient?-I propose that we confront the more Hobbesian one:Does it make sense to regulate developments in which AI systems behave as if they were sentient?
