Nowhere to Run? Punishing War Crimes

This paper’s aim is to pose problems appropriate for the first paper of this issue, to provide something of an overview of the punishment of war crimes. It considers first the rationale of the law of war, the identification and scope of war crimes, and proceeds to consider the justification of punishing war crimes, arguing for a consequentialist view with side-constraints. It then considers the alternative of reconciliation.     

‘About’ Puzzles,Muddles and First Person Inferences

Often we have coarsely grained knowledge: for example, we know about how many people are present. In possessing such knowledge, we also have finer grained knowledge of what is not: there certainly is nothing like that number of people here. The combination of such knowledge types, through sorites, generates contradiction and bafflement. This paper seeks to resolve the bafflement: it rejects a Timothy Williamson proposal, introduces muddle numbers and inference gaps, and shows how the different grains of knowledge do not always meet. In so doing, the paper identifies a distinctive first‐person inferring.     

With and Without End

Ways and words about infinity have frequently hidden a continuing paradox inspired by Zeno. The basic puzzle is the tortoise's – Mr T's – Extension Challenge, the challenge being how any extension, be it in time or space or both, moving or still, can yet be of an endless number of extensions. We identify a similarity with Mr T's Deduction Challenge, reported by Lewis Carroll, to the claim that a conclusion can be validly reached in finite steps. Rejecting common solutions to both challenges, we use a Wittgensteinian approach for dissolution, noting also that other paradoxes, such as the Surprise Examination and Yablo's, trap us inconsistently into similar endlessnesses. In so doing, we encounter a hopping flea, generate a proportionality paradox and consider the knight's move in chess.     

Selection can be performed effectively without temporal binding,but could be even more effective with it

Experiments using spatial cues and spatial probes provide strong evidence for an attention mechanism that chooses a location and selects all information at that location. This selection process can work very quickly; so quickly that selection probably begins before segmentation and grouping. It can be implemented in a neural network simply and efficiently without temporal binding. In conjunction with this spatial attention, however, temporal binding can potentially enhance visual selection in complex scenes. First, it would allow a target object to be selected without also selecting a superimposed distractor. Second, it could maintain representations of objects after attention has moved to another object. Third, it could allow multiple parts of an object or scene to be selected, segmented, and analysed simultaneously. Thus, temporal synchrony should be more likely to appear during tasks with overlapping targets and distractors, and tasks that require that multiple objects or multipart objects be analysed and remembered simultaneously.     

Evidence for two types of spatial representations: hemispheric specialization for categorical and coordinate relations

Analyses of human object recognition abilities led to the hypothesis that 2 kinds of spatial relation representations are used in human vision. Evidence for the distinction between abstract categorical spatial relation representations and specific coordinate spatial relation representations was provided in 4 experiments. These results indicate that Ss make categorical judgments--on/off, left/right, and above/below--faster when stimuli are initially presented to the left cerebral hemisphere, whereas they make evaluations of distance--in relation to 2 mm, 3 mm, or 1 in. (2.54 cm)--faster when stimuli are initially presented to the right cerebral hemisphere. In addition, there was evidence that categorical representations developed with practice.