In yesterday’s ScAm,

(http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=moral-call-of-the-wild&sc=CAT_MB_20091202), Wesley Schultz reports research showing that when people experience nature, apart from the obvious health benefits and good feelings, they also come to be less focused on themselves and more on others. Marcial Losada found that most business teams show significantly more self-focus than other-focus but the most successful teams balance self and other focus equally.

In “Bowling Alone”, http://www.bowlingalone.com/Robert Putman showed that watching television reduces community engagement, but it is increasing. In office after office we see people stuck at their desks staring at computer screens. Is it any wonder that they feel alone and that self-interest is the only interest, even though it does not satisfy. In those circumstances, it is up to the leadership teams to lead the way.

So maybe we should have more meetings outside, even in the park or al least put plenty of flowers and plants in our meeting rooms. It seems that these things do have a measurable positive impact. By making the workplace healthier and more natural, we make it measurably more effective.

Hey folks,

Every year, on the first Saturday of December, is the time for Putnam Math Competition. For the exam,  there will be 12 questions in total, divided into 2 sections of six. Students then have 3 hours for each question. Most of the question for this exam are usually hard, and thus, making the Putnam one of the hardest Math competition in the U.S. (Well, comparing to the Putnam, SDSU’s Problem of the Fortnight looks like a trivial, a.k.a. petty, problem)

The exam began in the late 30s, aiming to promote healthy rivalry in Math studies for college students. The exam is named after Mr. William Lowell Putnam, and is found by his widow Mrs. Elizabeth Lowell Putnam.

Each university can sand as many students as they want to participate in the challenge yet only the grade of the officially assigned three will be counted toward the team’s grade. First place team the goes home with $25,000, and each team member gets $1,000. Second place gets $20,000 with $800 for each. Third has $15,000/$600.

Beside the team prize, there are also prizes for individuals, in which top five guys has $2,500 each. (dunno if the prize stacks or not ^.^)

This is the advice from to do well on the exam, from Ask Dr.Math forum:

“The level of mathematics covered typically includes that which is studied by undergraduate mathematics majors, and draws from algebra, geometry, number theory, combinatorics, and calculus/real analysis.”

“Doing well on the Putnam, in my opinion, has less to do with your mathematics background than it does with constant practice and exposure to similar problems. In other words, you need to get access to as many prior problems and other similar competition problems as possible, as well as their solutions. Analyze the solution as well as the problem–this is how you learn what strategies work and what is likely to lead you in the right direction. No doubt you will encounter areas of math that you are unfamiliar with; research them and learn the basic concepts. Most often this happens with algebra and combinatorics, and less so with calculus or geometry.”

Ok, that helps. Go to the following website for the past problems and their solutions: http://www.unl.edu/amc/a-activities/a7-problems/putnamindex.shtml

Well, for most of the years, the top five winners are mostly from Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Stanford… (in short, the top schools in the country, even in the world) So this Saturday, while the Math freaks from the Ivy League come to the competition, aiming for the top place (which usually implies a lot of prize money, scholarship for graduate school, and, of course, a bright future ^.^), our guys in SDSU come to the exam only to have fun. Well, SDSU does suck, comparing to the Ivy League guys, so we are gonna get owned ^.^ The good thing is, SDSU Math department will buy lunch for all competitors, so I guess some of them join mostly for the lunch. Sadly (or luckily?) I’m not gonna participate next Saturday.

Thats it for today’s post, tune in later for more fun stuff.

Good luck to all participants for this year. May the Force be with you.

An article at the blog, The Accidental Mathematician, reflects on the experience of being on the committee that chooses the questions for the William Lowell Putnam Competition. Several rejected questions are discussed and the reasons for their rejection are also discussed.

[Hat tip: The Accidental Mathematician]

Putnam’s “Brain in the Vat” (BIV) argument is introduced in the first chapter of Reason, Truth and History.  Putnam devotes the first two chapters of his book to “intentionality” and the misconceptions concerning “reference”. The nature of “reference”, which Putnam defines as the “relation between a word (or other sort of sign, symbol or representation) and something that actually exists”[1], and it’s supposed dependence on “intentionality” leads Putnam to introduce the BIV example as a refutation of “intentionality”.  Putnam argues that philosophers who hold that ““intentionality” is necessary for “reference”” posit irreducible conclusions that logically imply the mind is something non-physical.  “Magical Theories of Reference” are unacceptable to Putnam, and those who endorse “intentionality” as integral to “reference” must eventually accept “magical theories of reference”.

Putnam claims that pictures have no necessary connection with their referent; the relationship is non-necessary and contingent. He quickly dismisses this claim as common sense, but the focus of the chapters is that “mental representations” are as contingent and non-necessary as “physical images”.   Putnam uses an anecdote about an ant randomly leaving a path in the sand that happens to be a remarkable caricature of Winston Churchill.  The ant obviously has no idea or concept that the line it is tracing resembles a caricature of Churchill. Actually the ant does not even comprehend that it is tracing a line in the sand; it is just walking, or scurrying, or crawling; whatever method ants use to move. But, to a person who is familiar with Churchill, the ant’s path suddenly seems to refer to the actual Churchill. The person does not even have to be familiar with Churchill; the image will still be recognized as the shape of a human head.  The meaning or interpretation of the presentation is determined mentally; we are naturally anthropomorphic.  The caricature “Churchill” DOES NOT refer to Winston Churchill, the ant has no knowledge of Churchill and the accidental “Churchill” created by his trek for food does not depict Churchill.  In the highly improbable situation that the ant is familiar with Churchill, then the “Churchill” image in the sand could possibly refer to Churchill, if the ant intended to do so (I am assuming that the ant possess “intentionality”).

Putnam proposes (although his proposition is meant to advance a reductio argument) that thoughts must have “intentionality” in order to refer. “Intentionality” is the property that some philosophers claim as the salient characteristic that distinguishes between “physical objects” and “thoughts”.   Initially, “intentionality” is a plausible explanation for the ability of thoughts to refer, but if one holds that thoughts must necessarily have “intentionality”, it follows that there is an irreducible non-physical characteristic of the mind. Because physical objects do not necessarily refer, but thoughts in the mind DO refer there must be a quality that mentalities have, that physical objects lack. Putnam, correctly, will not accept the conclusion that there is an irreducible aspect to thoughts based on their ability to refer and their “intentionality”.

Putnam invites us to imagine a scenario in which an evil scientist removes your brain from your body, puts it in a vat filled with nutrient fluid and connects electrodes that perfectly mimic the reality from which you have just been extracted.  The scientist makes you forget the operation, and for you, the “external world” is now only an image created by electrical stimuli within your brain. The Brain-in-the-Vat (BIV) argument, Putnam writes, is typically used in Epistemology to raises questions about skepticism and knowledge.  But Putnam’s argument does not directly concern epistemology; he is interested in metaphysics.

However, Putnam updates the scenario because he realizes a potential issue concerning causality and Kripke’s “Causal Chain”.  If the BIV was previously in the actual world, there is a causal chain that grounds the reference between her thoughts and physical objects.  If the BIV sees a “dog” in the illusory world there is a causal chain between her illusory experience of a “dog” and an actual dog.  A causal chain between the “vat” illusory world and the actual world refutes Putnam’s BIV argument.  There are actually two causal chains in Putnam’s initial example, the causal chain leading from the evil-scientist to the actual world, and a causal chain from the BIV to the actual world.  If the BIV had always been a BIV, there would exist no direct causal chain from the BIV to the actual world.  But, if the evil scientist created the illusory world as an analogue to the actual world, the “dog” in the illusory world is connected to an actual dog through a causal chain via the evil scientist. The BIV was once a physiologically normal woman, and though she does not realize that she is a BIV, when she refers in the “vat world”, the illusory physical objects have a causal chain that lead to the real world.  Mindful of the potential causal chain leading back to an actual world, Putnam quickly annihilates the mad scientist, proposes a collective imaginary reality for all sentient beings (who are all BIVs), and decides that the machinery controlling and the BIVs themselves arose by chance.  Putnam’s argument against the possibility of BIVs requires that the machinery and BIVs have arisen by chance; it will not work if a causal chain exists.  Putnam claims that the idea of BIV’s is metaphysically incomprehensible (however, the entire argument is based on the physical possibility of the  situation); we cannot possibly be BIVs, and in the illusory world the BIVs cannot think or say  “we are in fact BIVs”.  Reference and the ability to refer are what make thinking “I am a BIV” in the illusory world false and incoherent.

He introduces the Turing test to clarify the methodology that he will use to prove the claim.  If a machine has been engineered so that it can pass the Turing test, although it can carry on a conversation and answer questions in a manner that is indistinguishable from a human, it still does not refer in the same way as humans.  The machine can talk of “apples”, but it does not refer to them, its knowledge of “apples” is only the result of its programming, compliments of its programmer who undeniably has had experience in the external world with “apples”.  Since the BIV and machinery arose by chance, there is no causal chain leading from the experiences of the BIVs in the “image” to an external world.  The possibility does not exist in the BIV’s image that they can refer to the “vat” in which they are housed.  Their reality or experiences have been generated within the parameters of the machinery governing the “vats”.  The BIVs can refer to “vats” using their own language, but only “vats” that exist in their world.  There is no logical possibility that the BIVs can ask if they are “BIVs” because they cannot refer to the “vat” where they are housed; it is impossible to refer to the “brains” or “vats”, as it is impossible for the ant to intend that the “Churchill caricature” refers to Churchill.

What is Putnam arguing?  He claims at the end of the first chapter that “Contrary to the accepted doctrine that has been with us since the seventeenth century, meanings just aren’t in the head.[2]”  Putnam’s powerful conclusion to the argument is that the understanding of our own thoughts is not an inherent quality; we have the ability to understand our own thoughts, and it is possible that a person lacks that ability. Putnam creates another science fiction parable to demonstrate this possibility. He introduces the idea that a man has been taught to go through the process of “thinking” in Japanese.  He is not actually “thinking”, “thoughts” in the Japanese language are going through his brain.  The man does not know what he is “thinking”; yet his Japanese thoughts are of such a high quality that he can fool a Japanese telepath. It is possible, Putnam argues, to have the occurrence of language mentally, but to lack the ability to understand it. Putnam also uses an example of the contrary: a man who has no mental occurrence of understanding, but when he speaks aloud, he understands everything that he says though he is lacking the first person internal narrative that philosophers attribute to mentalities and concepts.

It is unclear if Putnam is endorsing any specific theses in the first two chapters of the book, however it is very clear that he is arguing against intentionality and magical theories of reference.  Later in the book, Putnam uses his refutation of intentionality to explore the mind/body problem from various other  philosophical perspectives.  Though he does not explicitly refer to the denial of intentionality in all of his later arguments, the consequences of the refutation of intentionality are the foundation of the philosophy explored and promoted in Reason, Truth and History.

[2] Putnam, p 19

This Saturday, 28th Oct, the Guardian (daily newspaper in the UK) will include for FREE the new movie by Lord Putnam and Sir Michael Barber, named We Are The People We’ve Been Waiting For. It looks at the UK education system throughout history and how it is not keeping up with the fast changing world we are living in.  The UK school system (as most other European counterparts) was created during the industrialisation and wanted students who listened well, did what they were told and thought very little for themselves. As our society is every day more service based, this kind of schooling is not only out of pace, it is counteractive.

Have a look at this trailer, fascinating stuff:

As far as I can deduct from the trailer I believe this movie is relevant to most countries and cultures today, at least it appears to cover some pretty basic stuff relevant to the school systems I am familiar with.  The start of the trailer is very much “doom and gloom”, but considering the people involved (Sir Ken Robinson, Bill Bryson and Sir Richard Branson)  I suspect that the overall message will both uplifting and inspirational.

I am having a copy sent from my good friend Emily, so will come back with my opinions on this as soon as I have seen it. For all of you who don’t live in the UK, or can have it sent, I will figure out how you can get your hands on it.

Stay tuned for more information…

När vi litar på andra mår vi bra säger Mikael Rostila i DN. Håller med. Problemet är bara att mångkultur gör tilliten inom den egna gruppen såväl som mellan olika grupper mindre. Det “sociala kapitalet” minskar som Putnam uttryckte det.

Jag har tidigare skrivit om detta på nedlagda SD Blogg och även i Ökad mångkultur leder till ökad korruption.

Det är därmed inte så konstigt att just homogena länder, som de nordiska länderna varit tills alldeles nyligen,

hör till de länder där invånarna litar ovanligt mycket på varandra

DN:s artikel refererar uttryckligen till Robert Putnam men väljer passande att inte ta upp hans slutsatser om det mångkulturella samhället. Något Putnam också skriver är att människor i mångkulturella samhällen tenderar att delta mindre i samhället och får mindre motivation att bidra till det gemensamma. Just denna utvecklingen och situation visar USA upp, där samhället är fragmentariserat  samtidigt som människor litar på sig själva och har egna skolor, sjukhus, säkerhetsstyrkor etc – d.v.s. en minskning i det sociala kapital som Putnam pratar om.

Jag är positivt till privata initiativ, men det är intressant att se hur denna utveckling nu, i kölvattnet av mångkulturen, även kommer till Sverige, där inslag av s.k. “gated communities” poppar upp i Malmö, privata skolor blir mer attraktiva eftersom vanlgit folk vill komma bort från de islamiserade skolorna i t.ex. Malmö osv osv.

Min gissning är att vi framöver kommer få se minskad tillit i det svenska samhället, som ett resultat av mångkulturen.

http://www.dn.se/insidan/tillit-och-halsa-hor-ihop-1.1000048

In his book ‘Reason, Truth and History’, Hilary Putnam revisits one of the oldest problems that philosophy has to offer us. Where Descartes once sought to dispel the possibilities that we are being deceived by an Evil Demon, Putnam attempts to prove – once and for all – that we are not brains in vats.

The sceptical scenario is as such: All sentient beings are brains, submerged in nutrient-fluid containing vats, connected to a super-computer which sends electrical impulses to neurons that give the illusion that one is living exactly as we perceive that we live. So, my ‘Brain in Vat’ twin perceives and feels all the same sensations as I do. Our ‘experiences’ are qualitatively identical. If I was to suddenly switch places with this Brain in a Vat, I would not notice anything different. How, then, does Putnam construct his argument that it is never true to say or think ‘I am a Brain in a Vat’?

Putnam postulates an ant who draws a picture of what closely resembles Winston Churchill in the sand. In what ways does the ant’s ‘drawing’ represent Winston Churchill? Does representation require understanding of the subject? Putnam believes that it does, in the same way that if I was to quite accidentally utter a phrase in a language I did not understand then it could not be said that my words refer to what they would if a native-speaker uttered them. Hence, Putnam argues, in order for a thought or a sentence to refer to a sense-object or ‘concept’ (which by all intensive purposes are the same) the bearer or those thoughts/sentences must have had a causal interaction with that object. So, if I have only come into contact with black cats but I simply call these  ‘cats’, then my word ‘cats’ refers (assuming that I am the only person in my language community – see Wittgenstein) to black cats.

By the same logic, a Brain in a Vat – who only causally interacts with virtual images as opposed to what we would call ‘actual objects’ – can only refer to these virtual images. Hence, the word ‘Brain’ (for a Brain in a Vat) refers to images of brains. ‘Vats’ refers to images of vats and so on ad infinitum.

From these assumptions, Putnam infers that if a Brain in a Vat were to exclaim ‘I am a Brain in a Vat’ the truth-value of its utterance would be false. For, in the sceptical scenario at hand, the Brain in Vat does not ‘exist’ as a brain inside a vat. He/she perceives his/her existence exactly as we do ours.

Putnam’s argument can be roughly broken down into the following inference steps…

1. If I am a Brain in a Vat, then my words ‘Brain’ and ‘Vat’ refer to images of virtual brains and virtual vats.
2. If I am a Brain in a Vat, then I do not appear to be a brain in a vat.
3. If I am a Brain in a Vat, then ‘I am a Brain in a Vat’ is false.
4. If I am a Brain in a Vat, then ‘I am not a Brain in a Vat’ is true.
5. If I am not a Brain in a Vat, then ‘I am not a Brain in a Vat’ is also true.
6. I am either a Brain in a Vat, or I am not a Brain in a Vat.
7. Either way, ‘I am not a Brain in a Vat’ is true.

Uma Análise do Conceito de Racionalidade à Luz de Putnam

Em seu Reason, Truth, History, Putnam sugere que a dicotomia: “… ou cânones imutáveis e ahistóricos de racionalidade ou relativismo cultural é uma dicotomia […] ultrapassada”. Ao fazer isso, ele está pondo a prova um debate secular na filosofia, tentando descontruí-lo, de maneira quase derridiana. Este é o debate entre os relativistas culturais e os racionalistas universais, que acreditam que a razão seja uniforme no espaço-tempo.

Uma das características que separa Putnam dentre seus contemporâneos é sua afirmação de que a separação tradicional entre fato e valor não é total como muitos defendem. Como a racionalidade é definida em termos de objetivos, e meios para atingí-los, e os bons objetivos são determinados por valores do que é bom e ruim, as dicotomias racionalidade universal/relativismo, e fato/valor, estarão bastante relacionadas.

A razão pela qual ambas essas dicotomias podem surgir diz respeito a possibilidade de indeterminações. Isto é, se tudo no mundo fosse determinado, e nunca houvesse um grau de indeterminação entre algo e outra coisa, dificilmente estes pontos de contraste teriam surgido na história. Tudo seria, por assim dizer, preto no branco. Mas este não é o caso, existem vários graus de indeterminação na natureza, aqui, nos concentraremos na indeteminação intencional. Isto é, a indeteminação que existe entre um X que é a respeito de Y e o Y a respeito do qual ele é. Vários objetos do mundo são desse tipo, possuidores de intencionalidade, em maior ou menor grau. A palavra “John” quando escrita em uma folha por exemplo pode ser a respeito de John Lennon, ou de John Travolta, ou do apóstolo João, entre outras pessoas. Isto é, a capacidade de constrição que o termo que refere possui deixa espaço para várias interpretações possíveis. Isso sempre é o caso quando estamos tratando de uma linguagem formal, segundo o teorema de Lowenheim-Skölem, que diz que para qualquer formalização que se adequa a um modelo, existem infinitos modelos de cardinalidades superiores à este que também são modelos da mesma formalização. Ou seja, mesmo nos domínios mais abstratos do conhecimento humano, a indeterminação permanece. Não apenas para nomes numa folha (ou numa pedra), ou linguagens formais, vale a indeterminação. Também o vocabulário mentalista padece dessa fraqueza, por assim dizer, de não conseguir refererir unicamente a um único objeto jamais (Dennett 1980 Putnam 1981). Possuímos mundos nocionais que poderiam ser reflexo de infinitos mundos diferentes atuando sobre nosso sistema perceptivo, e não temos como descobrir em qual desses mundos estamos. Em termos Kantianos, existem infinitos mundos numenais que atendem as nossas representações fenomenais.

Não é de se espantar, se a indeterminação vale entre quaisquer duas linguagens, que uma questão que desde logo preocupou os filósofos da ciência é se o mesmo ocorreria com as teorias. Será que existem infinitos mundos compatíveis com qualquer teoria científica? Se sim, como sustentar um conceito de que a ciência nos diz a verdade sobre mundo, ou que ela é racional? Ao longo do tempo, algumas tentativas foram feitas na literatura para escapar do inescapável, e criar uma formalização filosófica de teorias que não possibilitasse o mesmo grau de indeterminação que Quine nos mostrou ter a linguagem natural (1960), Lowenheim-Skölem as linguagens formais e Dennett (1978) o vocabulário mentalista. A mais famosa é a tentativa de Carnap¹, usando as sentenças de Ramsey, que tentou modelar a modificação de termos teóricos entre teorias subsequentes de maneira análoga a relação entre sistemas formais e seus modelos. O problema é que mesmo uma sequência de teorias com termos bem definidos ainda deixava bastante espaço para varias realizações possíveis daquela teoria. O problema é bem sumarizado em Lewis “How to Define Theoretical Terms” (1971) seja “T” uma teoria científica:

“There remains the case in which T is multiply realized. In this case, the Carnap sentence tells us that the T-terms name the components of some realization or other. But it does not tell us which; and there seems to be no nonarbitrary way to choose one of the realizations. So either the T-terms do not name anything, or they name the components of an arbitrarily chosen one of the realizations of T, Either of these alternatives concedes too much to the instrumentalist view of a theory as a mere formal abacus. Neither does justice to our naive impression that we understand the theoretical terms of a true theory, and without making any arbitrary choice among realizations. We should not accept Carnap’s treatment in this case if we can help it. Can we?

We might say instead that the theoretical terms of multiply realized theories do not name anything. If multiple realization is a defect that theorists can reasonably hope to avoid, then we can afford to treat multiply realized theories as failures: call them false, and call their theoretical terms denotationless. But if multiple realization is inevitable, we cannot afford to disdain multiply realized theories. We can have denotations arbitrarily chosen, or no denotations at all.

A uniquely realized theory is, other things being equal, certainly more satisfactory than a multiply realized theory. We should insist on unique realization as a standard of correctness unless it is a standard too high to be met. Is there any reason to think that we must settle for multiply realized theories? I know of nothing in the way scientists propose theories which suggests that they do not hope for unique realization. And I know of no good reason why they should not hope for unique realization.”

Essa esperança de Lewis ressoa nas intuições de muitos cientistas e de alguns filósofos, mas exemplos como os Gettier problems, que demonstram que sempre há uma nova forma de destruir o conceito de justificação, vão contra essa intuição de que há uma explicação única. Mais forte do que os Gettier problems são os argumentos de Putnam, Rorty, Kuhn, Foucault e outros a favor do papel forte da determinação parcialmente histórica de qual dentre as interpretações possíveis é a escolhida. Isso depende, de acordo com esses autores qual é a época na qual se está pensando sobre a realização daquela teoria.

Viemos examinando até aqui como uma única teoria pode representar vários mundos, sem fazer distinções entre eles. Para nossos propósitos entretanto, a observação contrária é mais interessante, um mesmo mundo pode ser modelado por diversas teorias, ou seja, existe indeterminação na “ida” e na “volta” do processo. Essa indeterminação de várias teorias para um único mundo é o que gera o problema da racionalidade discutido por Putnam. ¿Ora, como terei uma concepção deteminada do que é racional se existem várias maneiras de agir que são condizentes com o mesmo mundo? Várias teorias da ação racional são igualmente razoáveis como formas de conviver com o mundo, assim sendo, não faz sentido falar numa única racionalidade, que perpassa culturas e civilizações e que é a única que se adequa ao mundo.

Alguns filósofos, mas não muitos, tranformaram o conhecimento desse fato num oba-oba, ou seja, supuseram que, uma vez que existem várias maneiras de se ser racional no mundo, então vale-tudo, qualquer coisa está bom, ou tudo é relativo a uma pessoa ou a outra, suas concepções, suas crenças e seus valores particulares. Mas não é bem assim. Os filósofos mais sérios (que em seu livro curiosamente Putnam chama de mais “inteligentes”) não se submetiveram a uma visão tão ingênua dessa complexa problemática. Encontraram versões interessantes (como as epistemes de Foulcault, as indeterminações de tradução semânticas de Kuhn, as noções de época de Rorty etc…) de casos nos quais, com efeito, um grupo justifica uma racionalidade diferente da de outro grupo, que está em algum contexto diferente (social, histórico, semântico, científico). Ou seja, para eles a racionalidade não é mais uma noção que está fixada. Mas tampouco está a deriva, deixada a seu bel-prazer e sem direção. Temos aqui o nascimento da concepção que Putnam está defendo, a de uma racionalidade ancorada. Mas ancorada com uma âncora de cabo bastante longo e flexível. Ou seja, nem todo curso de ação, ou curso de raciocínio poderá ser considerado racional. Existirão constrições no espaço lógico do que é admissível como racional, constrições que, na nossa metáfora marinha, podem ser pensadas como a elasticidade do cabo, e seu comprimento. Existem lugares que simplesmente não podem ser alcançados pela racionalidade, segundo Putnam, por mais que ela se estique, enrosque e dê piruetas no ar.

Cabe então analisarmos aqui critérios de constrição do que é permissivelmente considerável como racionalidade, para vermos se de fato é o caso que podem haver racionalidades não totalmente maleáveis, e ao mesmo tempo não unas. Precisamos de critérios de constrição que não sejam critérios que deixem apenas um elemento final. Um desses critérios é a forma como Wittgenstein pensa a idéia de “sentido” de um termo. O sentido, para Wittgenstein, é deteminado pelo uso que se faz de um termo, por uma miríade de jogos de linguagem que se interpolam e determinam um espaço lógico de possibilidades que é o sentido daquele termo. O termo círculo significa as ações que ele causa nas pessoas. Pois bem, temos aqui um grau de restrição. Virão muitos outros. Um outro grau de restrição que se adequa a concepção de racionalidade é a restrição evolutiva, e este talvez tenha sido tomado como mais importante pelos filósofos da segunda metade do século XX. A evolução constringe o espaço acessível de mundos nocionais, na medida em que nos obriga a habitar um mundo nocional que nos permita sobreviver e ter filhos. Ou seja, nosso design, arquitetado cuidadosamente pela mãe natureza (cega, surda, deprivada de emoções etc…) é tal que nos faz só poder habitar uma certa quantidade de mundos nocionais, sob pena de morte, literalmente! A racionalidade humana é produto da evolução genética que configura nossas mentes, e também da evolução memética, que modifica, com algumas restrições, nossa cultura, nossas idéias etc…. Ambos estes processos darwinianos geram fortes constrições (sobrevivência do mais apto) no que podemos pensar, e na nossa visão do que é racional, e do que é bom. Nossa racionalidade é constrita por uma séries de outros sub produtos desses fatores evolutivos: Fatores deonticos, fatores emocionais, bias cognitivos (erros sistemáticos de cognição), fatores econômicos etc… Putnam enfatiza essa idéia, e insere também um inovativo e diferenciado tipo de fator para adentrar o grupo. Os valores morais.

Putnam pontua por exemplo que numa visão de mundo na qual conectamos fato e valor, torna-se verdadeiro dizer que “Os nazistas eram irracionais” na medida em que nossos critérios de racionalidade entraram numa interação promíscua com nossos valores. O ponto dele é que, além de todos os demais fatores (dos quais, é fato, ele apenas destaca o fator evolutivo) devemos também utilizar nossos valores morais como forma de constrição do que pode ser considerado razoável. Note que esse argumento não necessita de prova. Ele está sugerindo que, na falta de outros critérios para racionalidade, uma boa forma de constringirmos o espaço do que consideramos racional, isto é, de dimnuir o cabo que ancora a racionalidade, é inserir os nossos valores como critério legítimo de avaliação do que é racional. Evidente que não se segue disso que ele não tenha outros argumentos em favor da união entre fato e valor, mas estes não concernem o presente trabalho.

Então ao mesmo tempo que Putnam aceita que não estamos mais diante de uma noção fundacionista de racionalidade, ele oferece caminhos para evitar um relativismo total. Não se coloca dessa maneira de nenhum dos lados dessa dicotomia que por tanto tempo populou as mentes filosóficas. Não é necessário ter uma visão convergente de racionalidade, ou acerca da verdade, para que não se tenha uma visão de deriva divergente, em suma esse é o ponto de Putnam. É possível derivar numa raia única, ou num espaço circunscrito, contanto que haja coisas (como nossos valores e a evolução) que constrinjam nosso espaço possível de racionalidade.

Putnam encerra seu capítulo “Two Conceptions of Rationality” com as palavras:

“I will not discuss here the expectation aroused in some by Chomskian Linguistics that cognitive psychology will discover algorithms which define rationality. I myself think that this is an intellectual fashion which will be disappointed as the logical positivist hope for a symbolic inductive logic was disappointed.

All this suggests that part of the problem with present day philosophy is a scientism inherited from the nineteenth century – a problem that affects more that one intellectual field, I do not deny that logic is important. I do tend to think that they are rather peripheral to philosophy, and that as long as we are too much in the grip of formalization we can expect this kind of swinging back and forth between the two sorts of scientism I described. Both sorts of scientism are attempts to evade the issue of giving a sane and human description of the scope of reason. “

A revelia dos desejos dos tais psico-linguistas Chomskianos, a hipótese de Putnam tem se mostrado correta, na medida em que não encontramos algorítmos exatos que definem a racionalidade humana. Encontramos, com efeito, uma gramática universal que subjaz as linguagens humanas, encontramos também, como o psicólogo e nobel de Economia Daniel Kahneman (2002) mostrou, uma série de erros sistemáticos (cognitive bias) que estamos propensos a cometer, como se fossem “falhas” do nosso algoritmo com relação a nossa concepção de uma racionalidade ideal. Ou seja, existe desacordo entre o que consideramos racional, quando perguntados, e o que sabemos sobre como funciona a cognição humana, esses erros são chamados de bias cognitivos, ou viéses cognitivos. Segue que não encontramos um único e paradigmático conceito universal de racionalidade, e também que o lugar para procurar isso não seria na mente humana. A invenção durante o racionalismo do Homo Economicus, e do Homo Racionalis havia criado nas pessoas uma ilusão de que pudesse ser o caso que, se a racionalidade enquanto tal existe, o lugar para encontrá-la seria a mente humana. É interessante que, apesar de Putnam colocar nas mãos de Chomsky uma das últimas possíveis chaves para encontrar a racionalidade dentro de nós, haja sido justamente a ciência que surgiu a partir de Chomsky (ciência cognitiva) que nos deu a garantia, de uma vez por todas, que o Homo Economicus e o Homo Racionalis são apenas uma fantasia de época. ²

Mas haveria uma definição de racionalidade pura, independente dos humanos e seus algorítmos mentais? Uma tentativa interessante de defender a racionalidade vem de Yudkowsky (2007):

“Optimization Process:

A physical system which hits small tagets in large search spaces to produce coherent real-world effects.”

Notamos aqui em primeiro lugar um enfraquecimento da concepção de racionalidade para uma concepção de racionalide condicional. “O que é racional?” deixa de ser uma pergunta que faz sentido, e o que faz sentido passa a ser perguntar “O que é racional dado que meu objetivo é X”. Mas mesmo uma concepção como essa, enfraquecida, pode sofrer modificações ao longo da história, das mudanças das ações humanas, dos nossos objetivos, etc…

Talvez possamos dividir as concepções filosóficas a respeito da racionalidade entre aquelas que sugerem que racionalidade esteja acima do triângulo

As flechas indicam influências e constrições ao longo do desenvolvimento da ciência.

e aqueles que acreditam que a racionalidade está subscrita a um desses aspectos da ciência. Nagel, por exemplo, almeja uma racionalidade acima e além dos vértices do triângulo, a concepção de Yudkowsky é enfraquecida justamente para poder se manter acima do triângulo, como um árbitro, definindo o que é ou não racional. Putnam está no outro time, ele insere a racionalidade no triângulo. Não apenas emaranhando-a com os valores, mas também compreendendo que existe numa medida uma concepção particular de racionalidade subjacente nos métodos e possivelmente nas teorias. A racionalidade, quando não está absolutizada, acima do triângulo, ela está dentro dele, e assim como ele se define por suas inter-relações, e pelas constrições que os elementos de um vértice exercem sobre os elementos do outro, se é assim, ela não pode variar indefinidamente, ela funciona como o cidadão da democracia, livre, mas com deveres.

Referências:

Dennett, D. 1978. Brainstorms: Philosophical Essays on Mind and Psychology. Cambridge: Bradford Books/MIT Press

Dennett, Daniel. 1980, Beyond Belief IN A. Woodfield, ed., Thought and Object, Oxford Univ. Press, pp. 1-95.

Gray, John.2002. Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals

David Lewis, 1971. How to define theoretical terms IN Philosophical Papers Vol I

Putnam, H. 1981. Reason, Truth, and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Rorty, Richard.1979. Philosophy and the mirror of nature / Richard Rorty Princeton University Press, Princeton :

T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, and Daniel Kahneman [eds.]. 2002 Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment New York: Cambridge University Press,

Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1953) Philosophical Investigations (Oxford: Blackwell)

Yudkowsky, E.2006. World’s Most Important Math Problem IN Singularity Conference 2006 Technology-Conferences-and-Events.

“Valley Forge” is another of those iconic phrases used to describe American history that fewer Americans understand than one might think. It is hardly ever explained; “Valley Forge,” someone will say, using the two words to convey worlds of meaning. The Revolution is Yorktown, Washington Crossing the Delaware, and Valley Forge.

Of those three moments in the war, Valley Forge at least conjures up a concrete image: barefoot soldiers leaving footprints of blood in the snow. We are urged to study the bravery and devotion of those patriots, and with good reason. But first, some important questions must be answered. Why on earth was the Continental Army in such bad shape during the winter encampment of 1777-8? Was it incompetence on the part of their commander, General Washington, or unconcern? Or was it just the way the Americans experienced the war, always worse off than the British army?

Let’s start at the beginning. In the fall of 1777, the British had taken Philadelphia, the American capital. Washington’s army had attempted to stop the British, led by General Howe, at the Brandywine River, but failed. Now the British Army occupied Philadelphia, and settled in there for the winter.

The Continental Army, as it had the previous winter, wanted to stay close to the British during the winter hiatus. That way, when fighting resumed in the spring, the Continentals would be ready to stop the British from any further moves. Washington decided to make winter camp at Valley Forge.

Remember, at that time there was no shudder of doom at the very name of Valley Forge. And in fact, it was a good location. Valley Forge was in a settled area, where local people could provide food and clothing if they wished (Washington never forced locals to contribute), and it was the area where the British would have gone outside Philadelphia to forage for food. Cities weren’t like they are today, with abundant food through the winter. The British Army would quickly go through the stores of food in town, and would want to go into the countryside to hunt game, just as the people of Philadelphia would have done. Washington made that a lot harder. Valley Forge was also very well situated for defense, making it very difficult for the British to pull off an off-season surprise attack.

So his army began to build cabins. It was December, and while there was never a lot of snow—our mental image of huge drifts freezing the men is incorrect—it was constantly wet and cold. The Continentals were worn out from their fall campaign, low on supplies, and wearing pretty tattered clothes. Their marching had torn apart their shoes. And while it was never easy for Congress to supply the army (it levied no taxes and had no power over the colonies), it was now impossible for Congress to do anything to help. Congress, meeting in Philadelphia, had been forced to flee when the town fell. Washington’s army was on its own.

The local people could do little to help. The British had raided their towns before the end of the fall campaign, taking their stores of food and ammunition and burning some houses.

So the Continental soldiers began building their cabins, which they did very quickly. Shelter was not so much a problem as food and clothing. The army quartermaster, Thomas Mifflin, did a terrible job finding supplies for the men. He was replaced by General Nathanael Green, who did a much better job of coaxing contributions from local people and doing deals with merchants in unoccupied cities. The soldiers never actually starved, but the food they got was often lacking in nutrition, and there was never enough. Weak and dispirited, the man let all rules of hygiene go, leaving the rotting carcasses of horses (dead from fatigue and little food) lay throughout the camp and refusing to use latrines (relieving themselves throughout the camp). The poor diet and bad hygiene made it easier for soldiers to get sick, and dysentery, typhus,  and other camp diseases took many lives.

The stench of bodily waste and rotting horses finally drove Washington to issue an order than any man seen not using a latrine would get five lashes of the whip. Washington was very  much a part of the camp. He did not retreat to officers’ quarters. He visited the makeshift hospitals and walked the camps daily. He also had 3-4,000 men vaccinated against smallpox at a time when most people did not believe in vaccination because they did not understand this medical innovation.

He also took their side. Washington wrote a letter on December 23, 1777, describing the terrible state of the men—and angrily blasting the ridiculous attitude of some “Gentlemen” who ignore their hardships:

“[W]e find Gentlemen …reprobating the [decision to make a winter camp rather than attack Philadelphia] as much as if they thought Men [the Soldiery] were made of Stocks or Stones and equally insensible of frost and Snow and moreover, as if they conceived it [easily] practicable for an inferior Army under the disadvantages I have describ’d ours to be to confine a superior one (in all respects well appointed, and provided for a Winters Campaign) within the City of Phila., and [to protect] the States of Pensa., Jersey, &ca. but what makes this matter still more extraordinary in my eye is, that these very Gentn. who were well apprized of the nakedness of the Troops …advised me, near a Month ago, to postpone the execution of a Plan, I was about to adopt  for seizing Cloathes… [they] think a Winters Campaign and the covering these States from the Invasion of an Enemy so easy a business. I can assure those Gentlemen that it is a much easier and less distressing thing to draw remonstrances in a comfortable room by a good fire side than to occupy a cold bleak hill and sleep under frost and Snow without Cloaths or Blankets; however, although they seem to have little feeling for the naked, and distressed Soldier, I feel superabundantly for them, and from my Soul pity those miseries, wch. it is neither in my power to relieve or prevent…”

The soldiers were not alone, though we picture them in complete, miserable isolation. They were helped by women and even children, wives and children of soldiers who were known as “camp followers.” Some women decided to join their husbands in the off-season, when there was less work to do at the farm at home, and their ceaseless, voluntary labor and care saved many men. Women and older children did laundry, worked in hospitals, foraged for food, cooked, wrote letters, and generally eased the suffering at camp even as they shared in it. It is estimated that about 500 women and children camped at Valley Forge, raising spirits and preventing more deaths.

In the spring of 1778, an unsung hero arrived at camp. Christopher Ludwig was a baker in Philadelphia who came to Valley Forge with 60-70 men and started baking. He used his own supplies and ovens, and he refused to take payment. He baked bread night and day so that every soldier would get the daily pound of fresh bread he had been promised by Congress. Fish also started running, and the soldiers went fishing every day to round out their meager diet.

They needed the extra food. The Baron von Steuben had arrived in February to drill the army, and he was untiring in his efforts to get them ready to face the British army and win a set battle. The tired and still under-nourished men withstood hours of training and were much improved by May, when they heard the marvelous news that France had joined the war on their side.

When at last it came time to break camp, the Continental Army was still mostly intact. The hordes of desertions even the most optimistic observer would have expected had not taken place, and while there had been many deaths (we don’t know how many; some say 3,000 men) from disease, those who were left were relatively well-fed and very well-trained, and ready for a spring campaign. The survivors were also even more loyal to their commander. Washington had shared their terrible experiences, living in a cabin and suffering cold and hunger and endangering himself by visiting the sick. His wife Martha had been a camp follower, serving not only her husband but enlisted men as well, working alongside other American women to relieve the suffering of the soldiers.

The British left Philadelphia in June. Now that France was in the war, they feared a French navel attack from the east far more than an American attack inland, and they removed to New York. Washington broke camp in June, leaving Valley Forge for a site closer to Philadelphia, but he dispatched men to go back to Valley Forge and clean it up. This kind of consideration for local people was unheard of, and endeared the general to the common American people.

The Continentals re-occupied Philadelphia once the British left, then followed the army and waged battle at Monmouth Courthouse on June 28. The newly trained Continentals were fighting well, but bad leadership by General Lee was costing them the battle until Washington found out Lee was retreating. Furious, he overtook Lee and led the men back into the attack, forcing a British retreat.

It wasn’t quite a win, but it was a powerful affirmation for the Continental army that had suffered so much at Valley Forge. We see that camping there was not some terrible mistake, Washington was not an uncaring ogre, and the men were not abandoned in their suffering. Valley Forge was a good location, Washington was a good leader, and hundreds of average Americans volunteered to help their army. It was really the hardship of having the capital of Philadelphia occupied, and Congress scattered, that ensured a terrible winter camp for the army in 1777-8.

The bad news is that the next winter camp of 1778-9 was even worse. This time the Continentals were in two places: part of the army led by Washington camped in Middlebrook, New Jersey (to guard against the British leaving New York to the south), and had a fairly easy winter camp. But the part led by General Putnam encamped in Connecticut (to keep the British from leaving New York to the east) had a terrible winter. The usual lack of supplies was causing problems, but the army felt experienced enough to deal with this when suddenly, one of the biggest blizzards in New England history struck in December. Foraging was impossible, and the cabins could not keep out the cold. It was a terrible winter camp that made Valley Forge seem bearable.

Why don’t we remember “Putnam in Connecticut” like we remember “Valley Forge”? Maybe it’s because Washington wasn’t in Connecticut, and we only remember our biggest heroes. But the next time you’re near Danbury, Connecticut, pay a visit to Putnam State Park and remember all the heroes of our war for independence.

Aula de 02-10-2009

WM E MC

Disposições comportamentais

Choro, riso etc.

Compara três pontos de vista sobre os estado mentais.

Putnam (e também Davidson) rejeita identidade de tipos físicos e tipos mentais.

Considera três tipos de teorias.

Comparação dos tipos tomando como base a dor:

A dor é um estado cerebral (físico)

A dor é um estado funcional

A dor é uma disposição comportamental

Não é fazer menção a um ev4ento que se encontra internamente, é dizer que realiza uma disposição para agir numa determinada maneira.

Tomando o açúcar como exemplo: isto é solúvel. O que estou dizendo é que isso ao ser misturado à uma quantidade suficiente de água ele desapareceria e não algo que ocorre internamente ao açúcar. Estou me referindo a como se comportaria dentro de certas circunstâncias (no caso da dor, por exemplo).

A tese do disposicionalismo é que poderia descrever a dor de acordo com os aspectos comportamentais. (Isso é o que se chama de behaviorismo lógico).

NOTA: ao fazer breve pesquisa sobre behaviorismo lógico encontrei entrada na Wikipedia (http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorismo).

Mais considerada no mundo acadêmico certamente é a entrada no Plato de Stanford (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/behaviorism/) de onde retiro o seguinte trecho:

“Behaviorism, the doctrine, is committed in its fullest and most complete sense to the truth of the following three sets of claims.

1. Psychology is the science of behavior. Psychology is not the science of mind.
2. Behavior can be described and explained without making reference to mental events or to internal psychological processes. The sources of behavior are external (in the environment), not internal (in the mind).
3. In the course of theory development in psychology, if, somehow, mental terms or concepts are deployed in describing or explaining behavior, then either (a) these terms or concepts should be eliminated and replaced by behavioral terms or (b) they can and should be translated or paraphrased into behavioral concepts.

The three sets of claims are logically distinct. Moreover, taken independently, each helps to form a type of behaviorism. “Methodological” behaviorism is committed to the truth of (1). “Psychological” behaviorism is committed to the truth of (2). “Analytical” behaviorism (also known as “philosophical” or “logical” behaviorism) is committed to the truth of the sub-statement in (3) that mental terms or concepts can and should be translated into behavioral concepts.”

Este texto de Putnam (será que WM disse isso? originalmente anotei Davidson) é um dos clássicos da filosofia da mente, e contribui para o avanço da filosofia como poucos.

Fodor surge no cenário filosófico como o grande crítico do disposicionalismo de Ryle.

A primeira parte do texto defende a integridade da identificação de estados mentais com os estudos físicos (integridade filosófica digamos assim.)

O argumento de muitos filósofos quanto à identificação de estados mentais com estados cerebrais é que as regras do programa da filosofia analítica impediam, ou seja, a tese violaria a regra. Putnam é contrário a essa visão. E vai defender a sua integridade antes de abandonar a tese.

O disposicionalismo foi desenvolvido a partir da análise filosófica da linguagem mentalista (psicológica).

Uma pergunta metafísica é sobre a natureza das coisas. Suas relações.

WM comentou sobre o que se transformou no que seria o papel do filósofo – elucidar conceitos.

Putnam só vai abordar conceitos no trabalho para apontar erros na prática da filosofia analítica (será que foi isso que ele disse?)

A dor só será idêntica ao estado cerebral se o significado da dor é o mesmo significado do estado cerebral. Os críticos argumentavam contrariamente porque o que quero dizer quando falo um é diferente do que quero dizer quando profiro outro.

NOTA: penso que o significado é que capturava a identidade.

Outra forma é dizer que o conceito = significado.

“Se de alguma maneira redutiva”. Por exemplo, “A dor nada mais é além de excitação das fibras C.”

PROPRIEDADE: Putnam usa independente da representação na linguagem

Exemplo: [A mesa] [é marrom.]

[A mesa] designa o objeto (corresponde ao objeto mesmo)

[é marrom] designa uma propriedade (designa um predicado)

Frege nos ensinou a fazer essa análise como uma função: x é marom.

Diz-se que uma função é uma maquina onde se entra com algo e ela gera alguma coisa como saída.

O que é representado linguisticamente é o OBJETO e o PREDICADO.

x é marrom (monádica) – tem um argumento

x > y (políádica) – dois ou mais argumentos

Putnam vai usar x é marrom onde [é marrom] é uma propriedade

Relação é um caso particular de propriedade.

O conceito é a classe da sinonímia.

Exemplo: “solteiro” é sinônimo de “não casado”.

A identificação de água = H₂O não pode ser obtida pela identidade dos conceitos de água e de H₂O.

A filosofia abandona as regras colocadas por Putnam. [NOTA: ver o que foi colocado no lugar].

Em inglês posso transformar qualquer adjetivo em substantivo adicionando o sufixo NESS.

Assim, propriedade à adjetivo + NESS

Se posso perguntar se algo que tem utilidade tem bondade, os conceitos são idênticos. Caso contrário os conceitos não são idênticos.

Isso tudo para mostrar o peso que a regra tinha na filosofia e que Putnam propõe abandonar sob pena de incorrer em erros.

O conhecimento teórico dos fenômenos não é importante para usar as palavras para falar sobre tais fenômenos.

NOTA: AUTO-SUGESTÃO DE ESTUDO E PESQUISA “ERRO CATEGORIAL”.

Máquina de Turing tem estado discretos [digital]. Que é diferente do analógico. Estados não contínuos.

Máquina de Turing

• Fita segmentada
• Pode ler o que está no segmento
• Pode gravar no segmento
• Pode apagar o que está no segmento

Os símbolos gravados ou lidos são o alfabeto.

A máquina de Turing se especifica com uma tabela

Tomemos uma máquina de Turing com três estados e três caracteres (A, B e 0). Dependendo do caráter lido, a máquina grava o próximo caráter,e o estado total da máquina se modifica. Para cada estado a máquina diz para que estado vai e escreve um novo caráter, e assim por diante.

Putnam diz que a dor é um estado funcional e comporta-se como um estado total de uma máquina de Turing.

Em lugar de determinar para que estado ir, pode-se colocar a probabilidade de se ir para cada um dos estados. Nesse caso Putnam chama de um autômato probabilístico.

Putnam dessa forma (máquina de Turing, autômato probabilístico) define a sua proposição de estado funcional.

NOTA: Creio que Piaget abordou algo semelhante. Verificar depois.

Descrição funcional é a relação entre as entradas, as relações dos estados e as saídas [ver máquina de Turing e autômato probabilístico].

A UFRJ é um conjunto de relações pré-estabelecidas.

UFRJ não está no Fundão, não está no Largo de São Francisco.

Funciona em ambos locais.

MC dá o exemplo do saca-rolha, que tem uma função que pode ser implementada de diversas diferentes maneiras.

OBSERVAÇÃO: é o que chamo de distinção entre projeto lógico e implementação física.

Pág. 6 (a)

O 3) é incluído para garantir a integração da totalidade do SISTEMA.

Descrição funcional define a arquitetura do sistema e independe da implementação física.

NOTA: o que penso é que usamos o físico para fazer a engenharia reversa e tentar compreender como é feita a implementação física. Posso aprofundar demonstrando o porque da necessidade de entender como se dá a implementação física.

Funcionalismo de Turing à como foi denominada essa abordagem.

Aula de 16-10-2009 – Graduação

A Natureza dos estados mentais – Putnam

A posição que Putnam vai defender é materialismo. Irá defender a tese de que os estados mentais são estados funcionais, e não estados cerebrais ou disposições comportamentais (behaviorismo lógico).

Funcional: descrição de um sistema de identificar estados internos de um sistema pelas relações que estes estados internos mantêm com outros estados internos mais os inputs e outputs.

Descrição funcional é um tipo de holismo no sentido que não permite a descrição de um estado mental de modo atomista.

Na definição do estado funcional são incluídos os demais estados funcionais com o qual aquele estado funcional se relaciona, e também os inputs e outputs.

Wilson colocou como um tanto vaga a definição de input e output, informando que se discute isso na filosofia, considerando se input e output são proximais ou distais.

Observação da MC: Funcionalismo oferece uma explicação mais macro sobre os estados psicológicos (é um dos aspectos interessantes de funcionalismo).

MC: a questão do holismo abrange na definição de um estado, os demais porque a interação entre eles, sendo que inputs são alimentados em [atividades] que gerarão outputs que poderão também ser usados como input seguindo assim em uma cadeia.

A idéia é que o estado psicológico é um estado funcional.

Na descrição de Putnam ele inclui a probabilidade dos estados ocorrerem ou não. Esse sistema é chamado por Putnam de autônomo probabilístico. Não determinista. Vai definir a probabilidade de determinado output ocorrer.

A dor é um estado mental que é tipicamente causado por danos no organismo que leva por sua vez outros estados mentais e que tipicamente leva ao comportamento de dor.

O tipicamente introduz a questão probabilística.

Para caracterizar funcionalmente os estado, os inputs e os outputs devem ser incluídos na descrição. Tem-se aí o autômato probabilístico.

Pag. 6 (a)

Esta cláusula serve para bloquear a inclusão de organismos compostos por organismos outros organismos. [Creio que aqui Putnam quer excluir a possibilidade de compostos com organismos autônomos.]

Só tem o mesmo estado mental igual ao meu quem tem uma constituição isomorfa à minha.

Saber se duas pessoas tem o mesmo estado mental é comparar a totalidade dos estados mentais de ambos.

PERCEBO que a discussão aqui é entre caracterizar a dor como um dos componentes do sistema (uma visão atomista) ou com o sistema como um todo (uma visão holista).

Estamos utilizando os conhecimentos já possuídos por nós, pois já possuímos um grande conhecimento sobre a psicologia, e chamamos essa abordagem de filosofia a priori, porque não iremos recorrer à experiência. [dores, crenças, desejos, folk psychology, psicologia popular].

Psicologia funcionalista filosófica.

SENCIENTES: que percebem pelos sentidos (Houaiss)

PLATITUDE: [HOUAISS]

1       qualidade do que é uniforme, regular, monótono

2       qualidade do que é banal, trivial

3       caráter do que possui qualidade medíocre, sem expressão

“Pain is bad” à é uma platitude, é uma trivialidade

Normalmente é assim (a dor é algo ruim)

A articulação dessa psicologia popular à platitudes, trivialidades (por exemplo a dor é ruim)

Esse empreendimento ganha o nome de FUNCIONALISMO ANALÍTICO em contraposição com o FUNCIONALISMO SINTÉTICO.

Tentativa de preservar o máximo da Psicologia Popular em uma forma descritiva.

Eliminativismo é a proposta de eliminar certas coisas.

Por exemplo: eliminamos de nossa ontologia a existência das bruxas.

O funcionalismo quer eliminar a dor, etc. e passar a chamar de Q1, Q2,…[ver Kim, 1996, p.117]

Outro aspecto (ver pasta Filosofia da Mente – artigo de Stanford)

• Role funcionalism (papel que os estado exercem)
• Filler funcionalism (o que preenche o papel)

Duas possibilidades

ROLE: identificar o estado mental com as relações com o estado funcional.

FILLER: identificar o estado com a entidade que executa o papel (com o estado físico, com o estado cerebral)

O caso de Putnam é “role funcionalism”

Realizibilidade múltipla: o mesmo estado mental pode ser implementado em bases físicas diferentes.

Disposição comportamental: quando falamos dos estados mentais estamos falando de coisas que ocorrem por trás do pano, RYLE  diz que é uma forma errada de usar o vocabulário. Dizer que ele está sentindo dor é dizer que está num estado de dor é estar um estado disposicional. Ou seja se sente algo está disposto a fazer algo. Quando falamos da dor falamos do que a pessoa faria em determinadas circunstâncias.

Poderíamos substituir as palavras psicológicas (por exemplo dor) substituindo o vocabulário psicológico por outro ligado a comportamento e …

Mas Putnam e outros duvidam disso porque é incrível que se possa reduzir todos os elementos à disposições comportamentais. Exemplo da ópera: alguém não grita de dor prque acredita que pode incomodar outros… Ao incluir CRENÇA já temos a negação da tese de RYLE. Acreditar que é um ópera e DESEJAR não incomodar o outro já indica o uso de vocabulário psicológico.

O vocabulário psicológico não se deixa traduzir por outro vocabulário.

TENHO DÚVIDA SE É UMA BOA DEFESA USAR A LINGUAGEM COMO FORMA DE CONTRA ARGUMENTAÇÃO.

DENNETT à TIPOS DE MENTE / GRADAÇÃO [TALVEZ SEJA BOM PESQUISAR] PROJEÇÕES QUE A MENTE É CAPAZ DE FAZER

A abordagem funcional dos estados mentais garante uma liberdade mais ampla que as duas outras perspectivas.

Garante um fisicalismo não reducionista. Também não vicia nossa descrição.

Os estado mentais mais relevantes são as crenças e os desejos.

MC: seria um grande marco. Conseguir descrever funcionalmente esses dois estados (crença e desejo) e conseguir implementá-los em outras instâncias, em outras entidades, realmente seria um grande marco.

NA PRÓXIMA AULA SERÁ DISCUTIDO UM ENSAIO DE SEARLE: “MENTES, CÉREBROS E PROGRAMAS”

http://josephsreviews.wordpress.com/2009/10/04/playing-hardball-with-detective-warshawski/

This weekend caused me to reflect on life for various reasons. I should clarify-more than usual that is.  I went hiking, I went biking, I took a walk and I slept a lot.  I also managed to fit my papered ice cream cone into my daily diet.  I watched a lot of television online (yes, I am feeling okay!), too.  Oh, and if you’re wondering, it was banana-flavored ice cream.

While I have a lot more to comment on school/Korea-wise from the past week, my latest focus is on the passing of my grandfather.   At 92 years old he was pretty unstoppable – mentally and physically; and his humor deserves a category all for itself.  As a lot of recent news surrounds awards and the Nobel Peace Prize, I can’t help but wish nominations were being accepted for Gentleman of the Year.   I respect science, economics and those who’ve toiled in laboratories for research and rallied to the government for greater equality, however there are some things in life that a textbook cannot teach through equations or novellas, and that which I believe my grandfather could have.  His honesty, humbleness, devotion and patience would’ve been syllabus content for the fall semester course – Life 101.

My weekend activities had a lot to do with my grandfather’s hospitalization.  I spent a lot of time thinking.  With not living in Rochester for quite some time, I tried to imagine how our conversations might’ve commenced during one of my last visits.  “Susan, what are you doing now?”, “How is New York City?”, “Are you enjoying work?”…you get the idea.  He was constantly curious and always hopeful for positive, happy responses.   He, as well as my grandmother, were prime listeners, too.  Their ears were always open as were their hearts, like door frames without a door.  Their home welcomed us day and night.

From bowling to golfing, dancing weekly, Sunday drives, shopping and meeting friends to play cards, my grandparent’s calendar looked like an appointment book at the dentist’s office.  It was always full.  Still, they were always aware of what their grandchildren were doing.  It’s kind of like the post office employee who knows all the news of the town.  The difference here being my grandparents didn’t rely on “she said, he said” – they just knew.  They were that good.

My grandmother passed away just over a year ago and since then, my grandfather’s lived on his own.  Yes, we were quite worried about him after her death.  Salt and pepper, apple pie a la mode, the 4th of July and fireworks, without one element the other seems incomplete.  This is the sort of relationship my grandparents had-they were inseparable and complimented each other like the icing on a cake.   He opened doors for my grandmother, kept opinions to himself should he not agree, was her shoulder when my mother/their daughter passed, voiced concerns and displayed unfailing patience and hope in his wife’s ailing health, and together they held hands walking down the street.   Some say chivalry is a dying breed and opinions should be spoken – however there’s a time and place for everything and I believe that my grandfather had that knowledge.  As his granddaughter, he seemed to do everything right.  He was humble in showing and with his knowledge.  Life is not an open book exam and Physics 101 doesn’t teach the how to’s.   Sure there were a fair share of challenges, but somehow my grandfather, Mr. Putnam, knew how.

So over the weekend, on my hike, as I cycled, even as I ate my banana-flavored ice cream I pondered my very actions.   Where will I go?  What direction will I take?  I walked the trails, rode along the river and enjoyed my dessert like they were first time experiences.  I tried to engage in all these activities with my grandfather in mind as I reflected upon the life he had lived.   It was full.  Full of work, full of play and full of love.   In my eyes, he had a love for life with a moment never wasted.    That was the path he took.

While I am at a distance from family longing to be home, I hope my grandfather will be at peace knowing that although I am not there physically, my heart is.   And so long as I go into my days with a full heart for life, my tomorrows will give me a life fully lived.   They seemed to for him and why would I question my grandfather?  Thank you, grandpa, for giving me and the world all you had.  You will be missed.

            Documentarian Michael Moore’s latest project, Capitalism: A Love Story aimed at highlighting a number of flaws concerning the economic system upon which our country is built. In his film, Moore infiltrates Wall Street and Washington D.C. to “explore the root causes of the global economic meltdown.” In one scene, he attempts to make a citizens arrest of the AIG board of directors. In another, he drives an armored car to Merrill Lynch and attempts, kind of, to collect $10 billion on behalf of the American people. While searching for answers in high-profile places, Moore asks financial professionals to explain complex terms, such as derivatives. In an attempt to provide this answer for Mr. Moore, I thought I would revisit a scenario I created last year. The following is a fictional example. It never happened, except for in my head.

            There is and always has been stiff competition between Las Vegas casinos. Located miles from the strip, Sin and Tonic Casino relies on clever ideas from their owner, Dale, to increase profits. In the summer of 2005, Dale decided to unveil a ‘Play Now, Pay Later’ program to his loyal customers. Dale’s customers, most of whom rarely left the casino because they had no home or job to maintain, were allowed to gamble and drink while management kept tabs on how much money they were each blowing through.

            The customers told all of their friends down by the river about Sin and Tonic’s new program and soon the casino was always filled to record numbers for the property.

            Dale decided to lower the payouts on all of his table games and slot machines and also increase the price of alcoholic beverages. But, because his customers were not required to pay right away, no one seemed to complain. Dale’s sales blew through the roof and caught the attention of local banks. One bank referred to Dale’s customers’ debts as “valuable” and offered to increase Dale’s borrowing limit.

            With Dale’s customers’ debts as collateral, the bank turned the debts into securities known as Sin-a-Bonds. Soon, the Sin-a-Bonds were being traded on security markets nationwide. Investors across the country, and soon across the entire world, never knew the AAA-rated Sin-a-Bonds were, in reality, the debts of homeless gambling addicts.

            Leading brokerage firms were selling loads of Sin-a-Bonds and their prices continued to escalate at a surprising rate. Everything was fine until pesky risk managers started poking around and demanding the gamblers to start making payments on their debts. On a busy Saturday night at Sin and Tonic, Dale informed his customers that payments needed to start being made that Monday. The remainder of Saturday night and all day Sunday, Sin and Tonic was filled to capacity.
            On Monday morning Dale and his employees were witness to the first day without customers in the casino’s history. Not one of the customers came in to make payments on their debts and the ones that stumbled around drunk in the parking lot claimed they “hadn’t got no money.” Dale told the bank he could not pay back any of the money they lent him and he quickly decided to claim bankruptcy.

            Sin-a-bonds dropped to near-worthless levels and investors lost their money. Plus, the bank that issued the Sin-a-Bonds saw its capital depleted and they were consequently unable to offer any more loans. The bank laid off all of its employees and closed.

            Dale was unable to pay any of his bills and all the companies that granted him payment extensions had to take massive losses, as Dale was their largest customer. The carpet cleaning service was forced to downsize, the vending companies were left with handfuls of damaged machines that no one else was interested in and alcohol suppliers were left with large inventories that could not possibly be consumed without Dale’s heavy-drinking clientele.

            The brokerage firms that sold the Sin-a-Bonds were in heavy distress. Eventually, the government stepped in to save them by creating a bailout package that was funded by taxpayers from states where gambling is prohibited.

            Dale retired from the casino business and is now rumored to be heavily involved in politics.

Absolute Returns Absolutely

            An increasing number of investment firms looking to capitalize on the fears of their investors have started offering “absolute return” funds that boast the ability to always produce returns. Investment advisors are pushing mutual funds that are designed to produce positive returns no matter how badly the stock market is performing. The idea has been around for decades, but now major financial companies such as Goldman Sachs, Dreyfus and Putnam have all launched similar absolute-return funds.  In response to the growing group of clients who want to be able to rely on their portfolio’s positive performance, investment firms have started heavily marketing absolute-return funds. But, are these funds worth all the hype?

            Similar to hedge funds, absolute-return funds focus on making money in all market conditions. By taking long positions in stocks and balancing them with short positions of similar value and in similar assets, absolute-return funds aim to produce returns slightly higher than Treasury bills.  In a dropping market, gains on the short positions are meant to offset losses on the long positions. In a rising market, the long positions are supposed to outperform the shorts; therefore producing modest returns for passive investors. If the sheer makeup of an absolute-return fund is not producing, fund managers also attempt to achieve their target by employing a number of different strategies. For instance, short-selling can help offset market falls and derivatives can shield from undesired volatility.  

            Generally, the techniques used by absolute-return fund managers to stabilize your portfolio’s ride are the sort of diversification practices you can do yourself, without having to pay hefty annual fees. In a recent Reno Gazette Journal article, Registered Investment Adviser Robert Barone recommended the following three steps in order to achieve consistent positive returns:

            First, reduce the allocation to equities in your portfolio to the 30-to-40 percent range. Remember to hold equity positions in companies with sound business practices and low levels of debt.

            Second, increase the allocation to fixed income to the 40-to-50 percent range, but keep the maturities relatively short (no more than three or four years to maturity).

            Third, because of weak dollar policies, increase the normal allocation to commodities to the 10-to-20 percent range.

            The discussion of investment strategies in this article should not be considered an offer to buy or sell any investment. As always, consult an investment professional to assist you in meeting your investment goals.

A Broken CIT Will Trip up Small Businesses

            On October 1^st CIT announced the launch of a plan which will aim to enhance its capital and improve its liquidity. According to the official press release, the restructuring plan is designed to “ensure continued financing support for small business and middle market clients.” After being denied financial support from the Treasury in July, CIT was forced to create a restructuring plan in order to attempt to sidestep bankruptcy court. But, because of concerns with CIT’s financial stability, the FDIC has forbidden the company from increasing its deposits, which severely limits the restructuring tools in its belt.

            The target of the restructuring plan is to slice CIT’s $31 billion dollar debt load down to about $25 billion. But, some experts have argued that the amount is not nearly enough to persuade the FDIC to again allow CIT to accept deposits. CIT is offering voluntary exchange offers for certain unsecured notes. Current holders of an “existing debt security would receive a pro rata portion of each of five series of newly issued secured notes, with maturities ranging from four to eight years, and/or shares of newly issued voting preferred stock.”

            The future success of CIT relies on a significant increase in capital. The restrictions imposed by regulators and the troubling credit freeze have created enormous obstacles for CIT. Financial companies, like CIT, without direct access to Federal Reserve emergency loans rely on funding from short-term debt markets. But, with these markets already shriveled, the possibility of finding new debt buyers has all but disappeared.

            With CIT operating in more than 50 countries, it is peculiar that the government did not deem CIT “too big too fail,” as it has a number of other institutions. The last company of this size that was denied a bailout was Lehman Brothers and its resulting bankruptcy filing tore the financial market to ribbons.

            For over a century CIT has been a huge player in providing loans to small and medium-sized businesses. The company has more than one million corporate borrowers; including popular businesses such as Dunkin’ Donuts and Dillards. If (or when) CIT collapses, the biggest problem will be the scores of small businesses that will find it even more difficult to find capital to fuel their ventures. As constantly noted, small businesses are crucial to our recovery. The credit freeze has already built a wall between businesses and available capital. The crumbling of CIT will only exacerbate the problem and highlight the importance of private capital in the marketplace. Without capital, our financial system cannot begin to encourage economic growth, and without growth a recovery is out of reach.

All My Best,

Thomas J. Powell

Author Sarah Paretsky has set her latest V.I. Warshawski mystery in familiar territory, Chicago.   It’s easy to feel the atmosphere of the gritty windy city, both present and past (circa 1967) as the characters move about and around in a complicated story.   This book carries the theme of family, warts and all, amid a class war, politics Chicago hardball style, and V.I.’s memories of her father who was a policeman.

The task at hand is finding a long lost son and nephew for two elderly African American ladies, one of whom is on the verge of passing on.   To complicate matters, Lamont Gadsen has been missing for forty years in a plot angle that calls to mind the TV show Cold Case.   He was known to be present during a 1967 Martin Luther King, Jr. rally in Chicago at which a young woman was killed.   To aid V.I. in her hunt for the missing man, Paretsky introduces a much younger cousin, Petra, who happens to be in Chicago working on a political campaign.

Cousin Petra gets in way over her head when she attempts to be a junior detective.   V.I. does not play favorites when she’s on a case as evidenced by her curt comments to Petra:   “You’re not a very convincing liar, Petra.   You don’t have the guts to come into a burned-out building on your own.   Who was with you?”  

Reading this book – the 13th in the Detective Warshawski series – is like catching up with a long-time acquaintance.   Not a friend mind you, an acquaintance.   V.I. as she prefers - not Vicki or Victoria and only occasionally Vic - is portrayed once again as a brusque, nearly unisex character with conflicted identity issues.   Even at the age of 50, she’s far too tough on herself.   V.I. does some considerable soul searching while assuming the persona of a champion whose mission it is to right injustice.

The tale gets bogged down a bit with the intricacies of the multiple plot lines.   The reader may become a bit confused with the large cast of characters.   Yet halfway through the book Paretsky settles into her familiar and enjoyable rhythmic pace permitting V.I. to do what it is she does best - solve the mystery.

Review by Ruta Arellano

I have three kids, twins who are boy and girl 13 year olds, and a 4 year old. As soon as I had my kids there was apparently a big neon sign stamped on my head that says it’s ok to ask me personal/stupid/annoying questions and give me completely unsolicited advice on everything my kids do.

For example, when I say that I have twins the first question out of most people’s mouths is did you have them naturally or by C-section? The answer is yes, they came out of my vagina. And thank you for concerning yourself with my holiest of holy you person whom I’ve just met. My vag also thanks you for the unwanted attention and sympathy. That question is always second only to “how did/how long did you breast feed?” Wonderful you’ve asked me about my most private areas and I don’t even know your name.

When I was pregnant with my youngest people asked me what we planned to name her. Then they would tell me exactly why that was a horrible name. One fat old trailer dweller told me that I shouldn’t give her that name because it’s too long. What? Just because you named your son Tom because it’s the only one you could spell doesn’t mean that I have to shorten my kids name so that your head won’t explode when you think of it.

So I have both teens and toddler, the most advice riddled ages there are. I get advice everywhere I go. Especially the grocery store. You shouldn’t let your child eat that. You shouldn’t let her stand in the cart. You let your daughter dress like that? You let your kids say that?

First off, it’s fruit, ok. Fruit! And yes my kids eat a lot of it. And yes, sometimes I buy it in those little containers with the high fructose corn syrup in them. When your giant sloth sheds about half a person because you’re letting them gorge on a huge bag of fat free chips in one sitting then you can talk to me about my kids’ diet. Until then you may want to tell junior to take the wrapper off before he starts shoveling in the fat free ho-ho’s. I would really like to know why someone taking up more than half the snack food isle feels the need to tell me and my no-so-big kids how to eat.

Stand in the cart? Lady maybe you didn’t notice but she has her arms around my neck because I’m taking her out/putting her in the cart. As for her standing in the cart in the cereal isle, notice that I’m also holding said cart and that she has two teen spotters on each side of her while she politely picks out her own cereal box. Notice also that she’s not raking the boxes off the shelves like your little monster is doing, nor is she throwing a tantrum because I won’t let her have a super-size box of chocolate coated sugar.

And yes, I not only allow but I personally buy every pair of neon green and orange argyle knee socks in my daughter’s wardrobe. Notice how she’s chosen to pair them with the knee length denim shorts and basic tee-shirt that says “sanity is over-rated”. Not only did I let her marker her white tennis shoes in varying colors, but I helped her chose the pattern.

Oh, and when you say this to me and she replies “At least I don’t look like your little skank.” as she points to your teen who’s wearing the latest in Paris Hilton tramp wear, you know: heels, tiny shorts, push-up bra and and low cut tank top. Or better, the little cotton ass showing shorts that say something classy like “jail-bait” on the back. Yes, yes I do let her say things like that, because when she says it it’s not illegal.

And people wonder why most of my tee-shirts say mean things on them.

In my previous post I mentioned my guilty pleasure…and if you look closely you’ll see more than one in that post. I did not, however, mention the more common following:

Chocolate

Red Wine

Cheesecake

Chocolate

Tequila

Guinness

Hot Wings

Chocolate

Cheesecake

Chocolate Cheesecake

Why did I not mention those things? Because I am not the least bit guilty about these things.

Before I lose probably the only reader I have so far I want to admit to a guilty pleasure that not really very pleasurable. It’s a website on my blogroll called The Dreamin Demon.

Let me tell you, as if you’re not already paranoid enough about horrible things happening to your kids the true crime articles on this site will have you helicopter parenting before you get done reading one post.

I found the site by complete accident while looking for an update on a crime in my area. Within two mouse clicks I wanted to wrap my kids up and move to the Yukon or Siberia, or some other place that’s just as unpopulated, arm myself with some anti-tank missiles, and take some high ground so that I can see the crazies coming.

So why do I keep going back? Because I study crime and for fun for one. And two because by reading the posts I’ve been able to track a major swing in public opinion concerning crimes against children.

I’m in my early thirties. I remember when “Stranger Danger” was introduced into schools, as well as the D.A.R.E program’s first year. I also remember the whole “Good Touch-Bad Touch” thing and about a thousand utterly depressing after-school specials that I was free to watch because I was staying home with my two younger siblings at the ripe old age of 9. But within all of this information there was still a problem.

Somehow, as a society, we decided the following:

Older male + younger female = rape, molestation, BAD

Older male + younger male = rape, molestation, BAD

Older female + younger female = rape, molestation, BAD (Sometimes)

Ugly older female + young male = Rape, molestation, BAD (and never talked about)

Older attractive female + younger male = coming of age, pleasurable first time, GOOD!! (To the point of almost no jail time for these offenders and bragging rights for the abused kid)

South Park did a parody on this a couple of years ago that hit the nail on the head. Episode 1010 “Niiicce” was the catch phrase that episode, which was also everyone in town’s response when it was reported that a kindergartner was having sex with the attractive new teacher.

Believe it or not, I watch South Park. However, I really only watch the episodes with underlying social and political commentary. OK, so the delivery is off, and it’s usually surrounded by disgusting toilet humor and some really inappropriate scenes that make me turn away, but that’s actually what makes it more interesting to watch in my opinion. And really, pay attention to air dates of South Park episodes and changes in the social climate and you’ll see a startling pattern.

For example, the above mentioned episode is based on the case of Debra Lafave who had a sexual relationship with a 14 year old boy. This was the 23 year old blond in Florida. In April that same year Lafave avoided jail time (Twice! Two counties, two separate trials) through a plea bargain. Her attorney offered the defense that because she was young and attractive she shouldn’t be sent to jail because it would damage her (WTF!!!!) The South Park episode aired on Oct. 18, 2006.

During the episode Kyle, older brother of the kindergartner Ike who is being molested, is repeatedly met with problems reporting the incident and having it taken seriously. Much the same as the above mentioned case. Socially, it was considered acceptable (and even applaudable) for the 23 year old woman to repeatedly abuse a 14 year old boy who had an idea, but no real understanding, of what was happening to him. You have no idea how many times I read “What’s the big deal, she’s HAWT!!” comments on the news articles about this case. This was one of those cases that made me physically ill to follow.

Most of society saw the relationship between the 23 year old educator and the 14 year old CHILD as a good thing. However, my husband and I saw it for what it was… statutory rape of a minor child by an authority figure. Husband frequents a guitar related message board and more than once laid into someone who made a “she’s hawt!” comment about the case. Often pointing out in no uncertain terms that this was a CHILD and that no one would be thinking it was awesome if it was an adult male of the same age and an underage female no matter how “hawt” the offender was. But when the South Park episode aired everything on that message board suddenly swung the other way. The few people who were still trying to say it was OK because she was hot were immediately met with a barrage of insults and labeled things like pedophile from their first post.

I like The Dreamin Demon because they make no bones about the fact that diddling a kid, no matter age, sex, religion or hotness, is a CRIME!!! It doesn’t matter to the blog writers how hot or not the offender is, only that they are an adult and this is a child. They also hold oblivious parents responsible for their inactions. They do not hide their contempt for parents who rate “their latest swinging ___” higher than their own children. Though they do sympathize in cases where it takes a woman a day to get away from someone because they’ve been trapped by that person. And in cases where a single parent is struggling to work to support her children without a stable support system. But everything else is fair game.

They are by no means nice over there, but they are truthful. They report on the most depraved and disgusting crimes in the news and are not PC about it. basically, they’re saying what we’re all already thinking and I give them a hearty cheer for that.

However, none of this changes the fact that I have to limit myself to reading one post per day so that I don’t do that whole militant move to Siberia thing I mentioned to begin with.

Things that are acceptable for a middle school open house here in the redneck riviera:

Cans of beer covered in brown paper bags (like it’s actually fooling anyone)

Squeezing a metric ton of flesh into your daughter’s jeans and thinking it makes you look great

Making sure your hair is the perfect sexy-messy style for a truck load of 13 year olds and a bunch of single moms

Not brushing your hair at all

Openly flirting with someone else’s husband

Openly flirting with someone’s 14 year old son (when you’re someone else’s mom)

Bringing your six month old baby to meet your teachers

Telling your kid’s science teacher that you: “Don’t want none of that evo-lutin trash taught to them”

Yelling at said teacher even after they just smile, sigh, and nod in response

Encouraging your child to remember to beat up the kid who helped the teacher set up her classroom computers because he’s: “nuthin but a little kiss-ass.”

Tell the principal that you don’t need no n___r woman teachin your kid (Especially when the principal is a black woman)

Ask the resource officer if they remember you from that meth bust last week

Sharing a joint with your kid in the parking lot

And yes, these are all things that I witnessed during open house last night. And people wonder why I don’t get involved with my kids’ school.

Redding’s Early Militias

As early as 1739, a company or “train band” of sixty-four soldiers and three officers existed in Redding. “Train bands” were common in colonial times, they were local militias formed for the protection of town residents, generally they served as a defense from Indian attacks. These local train bands were formally organized into regiments via an October, 1739 Act that stated:

“…for the better regulating the Militia of this Colony, and putting it in a more ready posture for the Defense of the Same…all military companies in this Colony shall be formed into regiments…”

Redding being a part of Fairfield belonged to the “Fourth Regiment Connecticut Militia”.

By May, 1754, there were two separate companies of militia in Redding – One (West militia) commanded by members of the Congregational society at Redding Center, the other (East militia) commanded by members of the Anglican society at Redding Ridge.

West Militia Officers, 1754:
Samuel Sanford, Captain; Daniel Hull, Lieutenant; John Read, Ensign.

East Militia Officers, 1754:
Joshua Hall, Captain; James Morgan, Lieutenant; Daniel Lyon, Ensign.

Members of both companies served with British troops in the French and Indian War (Seven Year War).

Redding CT and the Revolutionary War, 1775-1777

After the battles in Lexington and Concord, members of both militia’s (East & West) again served together with The 10th Company, 5th Connecticut Regiment which joined other colonial militias for the Invasion of Canada in June/July 1775. Zalmon Read, Ezekiel Sanford, David Peet and Benjamin Nichols appear as officers in William E. Grumman’s history, titled Revolutionary Soldiers of Redding, Connecticut. Most of Redding soldiers returned in November of that same year, though some did remain during the siege of Montreal that winter.

The Redding Militia’s were again called to duty in March of 1776. Orders to assemble and march to New York City were issued for the Battle of Long Island, but this time, the Anglican East Company militia, mutinied and refused to assemble. In response, the Connecticut General Assembly issued arrest warrants for the militia’s officers (Daniel Hill, Peter Lyon, Samuel Hawley) causing some East Company members to flee to the enemy for refuge.

Redding’s West Company militia did assemble, march and fight in the Battle of Long Island, the Battle of Fort Washington and the Battle of White Plains in 1776.

The first action of the town in regard to the war is found in the records of a town meeting held on April 2, 1777, when a committee was appointed “to hire a number of soldiers to serve in the Continental Army.” It was also voted that the “sum or sums said committee promise to or do pay to those soldiers…be paid by town rates, and the Selectmen are ordered to and desired to make a rate to collect the money.” In the same meeting a committee was also appointed “to take care of the families of those soldiers that are in service of their country.”

A month later evidence of the war’s affect on town officials was recorded in a May 5, 1777 meeting appointing “David Jackson, Seth Sanford, Thaddeus Benedict, and John Gray as selectmen” to take the place of Stephen Betts and James Rogers who had been taken prisoner by the British during their march through Redding en route to Danbury. Betts and Rogers were later released in September of 1777.

British Raid of Danbury, 1777

The British Army’s march through Redding Ridge is the only direct contact Redding residents had with British troops in the Revolution. It created much excitement and afforded the Collier’s an opportunity to bring that excitement to life in my brother Sam is dead. Twenty-four vessels carrying around 1,550 regular British troops and some 300 Loyalist militiamen from “Browne’s Provincial Corps”, many of whom were originally from Connecticut, arrived on the shores of Compo Beach in Westport, Connecticut on April 25, 1777. Their mission?: destroy the rebel military supply depot at Danbury, Connecticut. Lord Howe, the commander of the British troops, stationed at New York City, had long meditated an attack on Connecticut and news of provisions being stored at Danbury provided the incentive he desired.

Howe chose William Tryon, the deposed British governor of New York, as Commander and two military men: Brigadier General James Agnew, second in command and Brigadier General Sir William Erskine as third in command for the expedition.

Tryon had been Governor of New York up until the Revolution and was said to have been consumed with “an inveterate hatred and thirst for revenge” on the rebel Yankees. He had a special grudge against Connecticut, the sturdy little colony that had thwarted him in a variety of ways:

“Her horseman had scattered organs of revolutionary propaganda through the streets of New York; her “Sons of Liberty” had plotted against him even in his own city; treated with contempt his proclamations, using them as specimens of the governor’s pleasant humor.”

He had the further merit of being intimately acquainted with the towns and landscape of Connecticut. He had been as far inland as Litchfield, had probably visited Danbury, and had been dined and feted at Norwalk, Fairfield, and New Haven. He seems to have acted as a *guide to the expedition while giving **Agnew and Erskine the responsibility of tactical operations.

*Tryon was aided by local Tories who had fled from the area and joined the British army. The locals intimate knowledge of the roadways and landscape in and around Southwestern Connecticut was a vital asset to the British troops.

**Agnew was injured at some point during the weekend and Erskine took over as second in command.; He was very capable in that role. Earlier that winter, Erskine had led a foraging expedition to New Jersey in which “he routed the rebels with great slaughter; he took no prisoners.”

Via 40 or 50 flatboats the troops disembarked at Compo between five and six in the afternoon, and that same evening marched to Fairfield, about seven miles distant, where they encamped for the night. News that the British had landed at Compo, encamped at Fairfield, and would march through Redding the next day, was conveyed to the residents at an early hour, and occasioned the greatest consternation and excitement.

Money and valuables were hastily secreted in wells and other places of concealment; horses and cattle were driven into the forests, and the inhabitants along the enemy’s probable route held themselves in readiness for instant flight. Knowing of Tryon’s ill-natured propensity for women and boys: the latter especially he made prisoners of, carrying them off to the horrible prison ships and sugar houses of New York, holding them as hostages on the justification that they “would very soon grow into rebels.” The women of Redding gathered all boys under the age of thirteen and transferred them to secluded places, where they remained until Tryon was gone.

On receiving intelligence of the landing at Compo, Captain Zalmon Read mustered his company of militia, and forthwith marched to intercept the invaders. At a place called Couch’s Rock, in Weston, Connecticut, they came suddenly upon a British flanking company and were taken as prisoners. Town selectman, James Rogers, Timothy Parsons, Russell Bartlett and 13 year old, Jacob Patchen were among the prisoners. In Charles Burr Todd’s History of Redding, Todd relates that:

“Timothy Parsons, had a fine musket which he particularly valued; this a British soldier took, and dashed to pieces on the stones, saying it should waste no more rebel bullets.”

Meanwhile, Colonel Joseph Platt Cooke, commander of the 16th militia regiment in Danbury, had followed General Gold S. Silliman’s instructions and sent all available men from Danbury to Fairfield. Silliman mistakenly assumed that the British intended to attack Fairfield. Other troops were sent toward the Hudson River, in response to a number of ships the British had strategically positioned there to confuse the American generals. This left the Military Depot at Danbury in a vulnerable state.

On the morning of the 26th, at a very seasonable hour (11am-12 noon), the British troops arrived and halted at Redding Ridge. During the halt the main body of the troops remained under arms on the green in front of the Anglican church. Tryon, Agnew, and Erskine were invited into Esquire William Heron’s home (the first house south of the Christ Church Episcopal, no longer in existence). Here they were reported to have been “hospitably entertained with cake, wine, and it is presumed, many hopeful prognostications of the speedy collapse of the rebellion.” Shortly after their meeting, a file of soldiers entered the house of Lieutenant Stephen Betts, a prominent patriot who lived across the street from the church and seized him. Daniel Sanford, his son, Jeremiah Sanford (19 years old), and 16 year old, Benjamin Lines, met a like fate. Three of Redding’s loyalists joined British Troops on this day: Samuel Hawley, James Gray, and Joseph Lyon. Lyon had been in hiding for 33 days.

As the army prepared to resume its march north, a horseman was observed spurring rapidly down *Couch Hill Road (present day- Sunset Hill Road) toward them. He was within musket shot before discovering their presence and though he turned to fly when he saw their red coats, he was shot, and severely wounded in the attempt. He proved to be a messenger from Colonel Cooke in Danbury, bearing dispatches to General Silliman. His name was Lambert Lockwood. Tryon had formerly known him in Norwalk, where Lockwood had rendered him a service, and Tryon seems to have acted on this occasion with some kindness, as he released him on parole, and allowed him to be taken into a house so his wounds could be dressed.

*Bethel, CT historians have the same narrative occurring on Hoyt’s Hill in Bethel. Luther Holcomb is the unfortunate horseman in that version of the story. Whomever the horseman was he was likely carrying an S.O.S. from Cooke; Danbury was in grave danger.

All in all, the British troops spent one to two hours on Redding Ridge before resuming their march to Danbury with the **Redding militiamen captured in Weston, Patriots Stephen Betts, Daniel Sanford, Jeremiah Sanford and a non-combatant (B. Lines) captured in Redding. One British soldier, Bernard Keeler, deserted at Redding Ridge and lived in town until his death in 1827.

**Betts, Bartlett, Lines, Patchen, and most of the Redding militiamen would all eventually return to Redding. Daniel Sanford, Jeremiah Sanford, Daniel Chapman, and David Fairchild died in captivity while being held in the “sugar houses” of New York, where sanitation was deplorable and disease was rampant.

As the British marched toward Danbury, the remaining patriots of Redding anxiously awaited the approach of the Patriot troops in pursuit. At length they came in view, marching wearily, in sodden, disordered ranks, a small army of five hundred men and boys, led by Brigadier General Silliman. They were comprised of soldiers from the companies of Colonel Lamb’s battalion of artillery, with three rusty cannon, a field-piece, part of the artillery company of Fairfield, and sixty Continentals; the rest were an untrained assemblage, chiefly old men and boys. It was eight o’clock in the evening when the troops arrived at Redding Ridge-an evening as disagreeable as a northeast rainstorm with its attendant darkness could make it. Here the troops halted an hour for rest and refreshment. At the expiration of that time a bugle was heard from far down the turnpike; then the tramp of horsemen was heard, and presently Major General Wooster and Brigadier General Arnold, dashed into the village of Redding Ridge.

On hearing that the British were so far ahead, it is said that Arnold became so enraged that he could scarcely keep his seat, and his terrible oaths fell on his auditor’s ears like thunder claps. Wooster at once assumed command, and the column moved forward through the muddy and heavily rutted roadway as far as Bethel, where it halted for the night. At Danbury, but three miles distant, Tryon’s force was at rest, and might have been annihilated by a determined effort, but the Continental command was hampered by the weather conditions, heavily rutted roadways and fatigue.

Benedict Arnold to McDougall, West Redding, April 27th, 1777, 10am:

“Last night at half past eleven, General Wooster, General Silliman and myself with six hundred militia arrived at Bethel, *eight miles from Danbury. The excessive heavy rains rendered their arms useless, and many of the troops were much fatigued having marched thirty miles in the course of the day without refreshment.”

*distances from Danbury vary from 2.5 miles to 8 miles, depending on who is reporting back to their superiors. In this case Arnold incorrectly states they were 8 miles from Danbury; They were within 3 miles of Danbury, at the intersection of Elizabeth Street and Blackman Avenue.

The British had reached Danbury at approximately 5:00 pm and driven off the Patriots who had been attempting to remove supplies. Later that evening, four patriot defenders who had stayed behind opened fire on British troops from a house in town owned by Major Daniel Starr, among the patriots was “Ned”, a slave of Redding’s Samuel Smith. Two companies of British regulars charged and put the dwelling to the torch killing all the men inside. Before their departure early the next morning, the British had destroyed much of the Rebel’s depot: barrels of pork and beef, barrels of flour, bushels of grain, hogsheads of rum and wine, thousands of shoes, stockings and tents among other supplies. Provisions the Continental troops would long for come the winter of 1778-79.

Following the events of April 26th and 27th, Redding played a supporting role to the Continental army’s efforts in the War of Independence. May 8, 1778, Captain Zalmon Read and Asahel Fitch were appointed to provide “shirts, shoes, stockings and other articles of clothing for the Continental soldiers.” December 17, 1778, another committee was appointed to care for the families of the following soldiers from Redding: Nathan Coley, Stephen Meeker, Elias Bixby, Jeremiah Sherwood, Samuel Remong. These soldiers were among General Israel Putnam’s encampment in Redding.

Putnam’s Winter Encampment at Redding

General Israel Putnam’s division of the Continental Army encamped in Redding in the winter of 1778-1779. This division was comprised of General Poor’s brigade of New Hampshire troops under Brig. General Enoch Poor, a Canadian Regiment led by Col. Moses Hazen, and two brigades of Connecticut troops: 2nd Brigade Connecticut Line regiments commanded by Brig. General Jedediah Huntington, and the 1st Brigade Connecticut Line regiments commanded by Brig. General Samuel H. Parsons. This division had been operating along the Hudson (Eastern New York) during the fall, and as winter approached it was decided that it should go into winter quarters at Redding, as from this position it could support the important fortress of West Point in case of attack, intimidate the Cowboys and Skinners of Westchester County, and cover lands adjacent to Long Island Sound. Another major reason was to protect the Danbury supply depot, which had been burned by the British the year before but resurrected to keep supplies going to Washington’s army.

Colonel Aaron Burr, one of General Putnam’s aides and a frequent visitor to Redding, had suggested that Putnam look over the area for a future winter encampment during a summer visit to General Heath’s Brigade in Danbury. Putnam found the topography and location ideal. Three camp locations were marked and later prepped by artificers and surveyors under the direction of the Quartermaster staff: the first in the northeast part of Lonetown, near the Bethel line, on land owned by John Read, 2nd (now Putnam Park). The second was about a mile and a half west of the first camp, between Limekiln Rd. and Gallows Hill in the vicinity of present day Whortleberry Rd. & Costa Lane. The third camp was in West Redding, on a ridge about a quarter of a mile north of West Redding Station (vicinity of present day Deer Spring Drive & Old Lantern Road).

The main camp, which is now known as Putnam Memorial State Park, was laid out with admirable judgement, at the foot of rocky bluffs which fenced in the western valley of the Little River. 116 huts were erected to form an avenue nearly a quarter mile in length, and several yards in width. At the west end of the camp was a mountain brook, which furnished a plentiful supply of water; near the brook a forge was said to have been erected. The second and third camps, were both laid out on the southerly slopes of hills with streams of running water at their base.

Each of the camps were strategically positioned to defend main highways in and out of town: Danbury to Fairfield; Danbury to Norwalk; Redding to Danbury and points north (stage coach route).

As to the exact location of Putnam’s headquarters, authorities differ, but all agree in placing it on Umpawaug Hill. Some of Putnam’s officers were quartered in a house later owned by *Samuel Gold (Limekiln Rd.); others in a house later occupied by *Sherlock Todd (also on Limekiln Rd). General Parsons’ headquarters were at Stephen Betts Tavern on Redding Ridge.

*Samuel Gold’s and Sherlock Todd’s house locations can be found on Beers 1867 map of Redding. They were not the owners during the winter of 1778-79. I use their names because it gives readers an opportunity to view the locations on a published map.

The troops went into winter quarters at Redding in no pleasant humor, and almost in the spirit of insubordination. This was particularly the case with the **Connecticut troops. They had endured privations that many men would have sunk under: the horrors of battle, the weariness of the march, cold, hunger, and nakedness. What was worse, they had been paid in the depreciated currency of the times, which had scarcely any purchasing power, and their families at home were reduced to the lowest extremity of want and wretchedness.

Petition of the Connecticut Soldiers in the Revolutionary Army, to His Excellency, Jonathan Trumbull, Governor of Connecticut. Communicated by Mr. L.B., of New York. The following document is from Captain Nathaniel Webb’s Orderly Book.

Camp Reading, December 27th, 1778

Petition to his Excellency Gov. Trumbull. May it please your Excellency. The Sense of Importance of opposing with Force, ye attempts of Great Britain to enslave our Country, induces us to lay before your Excellency the Condition of that Part of ye Army raised from the State of Connecticut & ye great Danger of their disbanding & returning to their several Homes.

They have may it please your Excellency been promised a Blanket, & other Clothing annually from ye Continent & a Blanket from ye State every year, for each non-commissioned Officer & Soldier, those Promises have not been complied with, so far from it, that although we have not, one half ye Quota of Men this State was to raise, we assure you not less than four hundred are to this Day totally destitute, & no one has received two Blankets according to Contract, nor has more than one half of the Clothing promises ever been received or any compensation made for ye deficiency, that when they have Coats they are without Breeches, & when they are supplied with Shoes, they have neither Stockings nor Shirts, & at this Inclement Season many of our Men are suffering for want of Blankets, Shirts, Breeches, Shoes & Stockings, & some are destitute of Coats & Waistcoats.

The increasing Price of every necessary [necessity] and Convenience of Life, is another Grievance most [unreadable] experienced by ye Soldiery in their Marches, & in other Situations, they are necessitated to purchase Provisions and Vegetables when in Camp. The Prices now asked for one Meal is from three to eight Shillings. Turnips from two to three Dollars per Bushel & other Vegetables in proportion, that a Soldiers month Pay is consumed in about three days in furnishing himself with necessaries not supplied by the Public. – These are Grievances very greatly and Justly complained of by your Soldiers, & Officers of every Rank are Sharers in the Consequences of these Evils.

An expectation of Redress has retained ye Soldiery hitherto, but Desertions Daily increase & unless that Justice which is their due is done, We assure your Excellency we fear it will not be in our Power to retain them. We have ye greatest Reason to believe they will wait ye Event only of their Petition at ye Adj. Assembly, & should that Assembly arise without doing them Justice in ye past depredation of ye Currency, we are convinced ye greater part of ye Soldiery will desert.

We assure your Excellency we have & shall continue to appease every discontent which has ye remotest Tendency to produce Mutiny & Desertion or any other Act prejudicial to ye Service & we have ye Satisfaction to believe we posses ye Love & Affection of ye Soldiery & that they are not desirous to forsake us or ye Cause of their Country.

But it may please your Excellency they are naked in severe Winter, they are hungry & have no Money…[it goes on and on repeating the same theme for three more paragraphs]

We have furnished our Agent with a Calculation, founded on ye best Evidence in our power, that being adopted by our Assembly will in our Opinion quiet our Troops & that nothing short will give them Satisfaction. We have the Honor to be with ye Greatest Esteem Your Excellencies.
Ob’t Servants

George Washington to Deputy Clothier Gen. George Measam, Jan. 8, 1779

“It has been represented to me that the troops of Connecticut are in great want of Shirts, Stockings and Shoes. This leads me to inquire of you whether they have not received their proportion of these Articles in common with the rest of the Army. The troops in general have obtained orders for a Shirt and pair of Stockings per man and a pair of Shoes to each that wanted. If the Connecticut Troops have not been furnished … you will on receiving proper Returns for that purpose supply them in conformity to this Rule.”

The frustrations caused by the deprivations brought to a head the attempted mutiny on the morning of December 30th at Huntington’s camp. The troops had decided on the bold resolve of marching to Hartford, and airing their grievances in person to the Legislature then sitting. The two brigades were plotting their escape when the threat of troop desertion was brought to Putnam’s attention. He, with his usual intrepidity and decision of character, threw himself upon his horse and dashed down the road leading to his camps, never slacking rein until he drew up in the presence of the disaffected troops.

“My brave lads,” he cried, “whither are you going? Do you intend to desert your officers, and invite the enemy to follow you into the country? Whose cause have you been fighting and suffering so long in-is it not your own? Have you no property, no parents, wives, children? You have behaved like men so far-all the world is full of your praises, and posterity will stand astonished at your deeds; but not if you spoil it all at last.

Don’t you consider how much the country is distressed by the war, and that your officers have not been any better paid than yourselves? But we all expect better times, and that the country will do us ample justice. Let us all stand by one another then, and fight it out like brave soldiers. Think what a shame it would be for Connecticut men to run away from their officers.”

When he had finished this stirring speech, he directed the acting Major of Brigades to give the word for them to march to their regimental parades, and lodge arms, which was done; one soldier only, a ringleader in the affair, was confined to the guard house, from which he attempted to escape, but was shot dead by the sentinel on duty- himself one of the mutineers. Thus ended the affair.

In January, Private Joseph P. Martin related two more uprisings in his camp journal, both were thwarted by regimental officers, but indicate some discontent among the troops still lingered. After that many of the Connecticut troops were placed on patrols at Horseneck, Stamford and Norwalk. Some were sent over to “no-man’s land” in Westchester County and several hundred troops were sent to New London for guard duty and the construction of Fort Griswold.

Executions at Gallows Hill

Putnam was no stranger to deserters and spies. Nothing had so much annoyed Putnam and his officers during the campaigns of the preceding summer on the Hudson than the desertions which had thinned his ranks, and the Tory spies, who frequented his camps, under every variety of pretext, and forthwith conveyed the information thus gathered on the enemy.

To put a stop to this it had been determined that the next offender of either sort (deserter or spy) captured should suffer death as an example. The opportunity to implement this determination soon arrived. Scouts from Putnam’s outposts in Westchester County captured a man lurking within their lines, and as he could give no satisfactory account of himself, he was at once hauled over the borders and into the presence of the Commander-in-Chief. In answer to the commanders queries, the prisoner said that his name was Jones, that he was a Welshman by birth, and had settled in Ridgefield a few years before the war commenced; that he had never faltered in his allegiance to the King, and that at the outbreak of the hostilities he had fled to the British army, and had been made a butcher in the camp; a few weeks before, he had been sent into Westchester County to buy beef for the army, and was in the process of carrying out those orders at the present. He was remanded to the guard house, court-martialed and at once ordered for trial. Putnam had his first example.

On Feb. 4, 1779, Edward Jones was tried at a General Court Martial for going to and serving the enemy, and coming out as a spy. He was found guilty of each and every charge exhibited against him, and according to Law and the Usage’s of Nations was sentenced to suffer Death:

“The General approves the sentence and orders it to be put in execution between the hours of ten and eleven A.M. by hanging him by the neck till he be dead.”

Two days after another General Court Martial was held for a similar offence: on Feb. 6, 1779, John Smith of the 1st Connecticut Regiment, was tried at a General Court Martial for desertion and attempting to go to the enemy, found guilty, and further persisting in saying that he will go to the enemy if ever he has an opportunity.

“The General approves the sentence and orders that it be put in execution between the hours of ten and twelve A.M. for him to be shot to death”

General Putnam having two prisoners under the sentence of death determined to execute them both at once, or as he expressed it, “to make a double job of it,” and at the same time make the spectacle as terrible and impressive as the circumstances demanded.

The scene which took place at the execution of these men on February 16 was described as shocking and bloody, it occurred on a lofty hill (known to this day as Gallows Hill) dominating the valley between the three camps. The instrument of Edward Jones’ death was erected approximately twenty feet from the ground atop the hill’s highest pinnacle. Jones was ordered to ascend the ladder, with the rope around his neck and attached to the cross beam of the gallows. When he had reached the top rung General Putnam ordered him to jump from the ladder.

‘No General Putnam,’ said Jones, ‘I am innocent of the crime laid to my charge; I shall not do it.’

Putnam drawing his sword, compelled the hangmen at sword’s point, that his orders be obeyed and if Jones would not jump, that the ladder be over-turned to complete the act. It was and he perished.

The soldier that was to be shot for desertion was but a youth of sixteen or seventeen years of age. The Rev. Nathaniel Bartlett, who was pastor of the Congregational Church in Redding for a period of fifty years, officiated as chaplain to the encampment during that winter, and was present at the execution. He interceded with General Putnam to defer the execution of Smith until Washington could be consulted- for reason the offender was a youth; but the commander assured him that a reprieve could not be granted.

John Smith was described as “extremely weak and fainting” as he was led by Poor’s Brigade Chaplain, the Rev. Dr. Evans, approximately 200 yards from the gallows to the place he was to be shot.

Putnam gave the order and three balls were shot through his breast: he fell on his face, but immediately turned over on his back; a soldier then advanced, and putting the muzzle of his gun near the convulsive body of the youth, discharged its contents into his forehead. The body was then placed in a coffin; the final discharge had been fired so near to the body that it had set the boy’s clothing on fire, and continued burning while each and every soldier present was ordered to march past the coffin and observe Smith’s mangled remains; an officer with a drawn sword stood by to ensure they complied.

It was indeed a grisly scene, and many have questioned the accuracy of the accounts published about it because it seems almost too ghastly. But it should be said that: boldness, firmness, promptness, decisiveness- were the chief elements of General Israel Putnam’s character, and at this particular crisis all were needed. There was disaffection and insubordination in the army, as has been noted. Desertions were frequent, and spying by the Tories was almost openly practiced. To put a stop to these practices it was vitally necessary to the safety of the army, to see that these sentences were carried into effect. If the executions were bungling done, the fault was with the executioners, and not with the General.

Theft of Cattle & Livestock

The journals of private Joseph Plumb Martin (stationed with the 8th Connecticut in Parsons’ middle camp) shows the desperate lack of food and poor weather conditions endured by the troops throughout January:

“We settled in our winter quarters at the commencement of the new year and went on in our old Continental Line of starving and freezing. We now and then got a little bad bread and salt beef (I believe chiefly horse-beef for it was generally thought to be such at the time). The month of January was very stormy, a good deal of snow fell, and in such weather it was mere chance if we got anything at all to eat.”

Given the conditions, it is difficult to blame the soldiers that took matters into their own hands and ventured out of camp in search of provisions. The citizens of Redding, did not see things this way, those who initially felt quite honored by the selection of their town for the army’s winter quarters, soon grew tired of soldiers looting their livestock. The soldiers position was that they were the one’s fighting the country’s battles and plundering the neighboring farms was within their rights as men of war. To them a well-stocked poultry yard, a pen of fat porkers or field of healthy heifers offered irresistible cuisine when compared to the horse-beef they were being offered back at camp. After a time, however, the wary farmers foiled the looters by storing their livestock over night in the cellars of their houses and in other secure places.

[This was an issue throughout the war and the letter below shows that George Washington was aware of it. It also highlights why looting was difficult to stop, as looters could claim they confiscated the provisions because they were intended to be sold to the British.

To Major General Israel Putnam, From George Washington, Philadelphia, December 26, 1778.

"I have not a Copy of your instructions with me, but if my memory serves me, I was as full in my directions respecting the conduct of Officers who shall be sent upon the lines as I possibly can be. The Officer must determine from all circumstances, whether Cattle or any species of provision found near the lines are in danger of falling into the hands of the Enemy, or are carried there with an intent to supply them. If it is thought necessary to bring them off, they must be reported and disposed of as directed by your instructions.

I was very particular upon that Head, because I know that great Acts of Injustice have been committed by Officers, under pretence that provision and other kinds of property were intended for the Use of the Enemy. I would recommend the bringing off as much Forage as possible but I would not advise the destruction of what we cannot remove. I think your plan of sending out a large party under the command of a Field Officer and making detachments from thence, a good one; and if you and General McDougall can agree upon a cooperation of your parties I think many advantages will result from the measure. You may agree upon the mode of effecting this, between yourselves." ]

Farmer’s livestock was not the only object of the soldier’s desires, below are some entries in the parish records that prove that “amid the horrors of war sly cupid found a chance to inflict his wounds”. They are given as entered by the Rev. Nathaniel Bartlett:

Feb. 7, 1779. I joined together in marriage James Gibbons, a soldier in the army, and Ann Sullivan.
March 18, 1779. I joined together in marriage John Lines, a soldier in the army, and Mary Hendrick.
March 30, 1779. I joined together in marriage Daniel Evarts, a soldier in the army, and Mary Rowland.
April 15, 1779. I joined together in marriage Isaac Olmsted, a soldier in the army, and Mary Parsons.
April 28, 1779. I joined together in marriage Jesse Belknap, an artificer in the army, and Eunice Hall.
May 4, 1779. I joined together in marriage William Little, steward to Gen. Parsons, and Phebe Merchant.
May 23, 1779. I joined together in marriage Giles Gilbert, an artificer in the army, and Deborah Hall.
March 9, 1780. I joined together in marriage William Darrow, a soldier in the army, and Ruth Bartram.

Troops Leave Redding

The troops left Putnam’s encampment in stages, Colonel Hazen’s Canadian regiment were detached from the New Hampshire brigade and ordered to Springfield, MA; they left on March 27th. The New Hampshire regiments also left on March 27th for their new assignments in the Hudson Highlands. Huntington’s 2nd Connecticut Brigade left for Peekskill right after May 1st , and Parsons’ 1st Connecticut Brigade was the last to depart on or about May 27th … also bound for duty at the Highlands.

Further information is available at: The History of Revolutionary and Civil Wars in Redding, CT

Historical Fiction readers will enjoy the My Brother Sam is Dead Resources at the History of Redding site.

I have to expose a frequently postulated difference between the US and Austria as false, namely that Austria is socialist and the US is not.  This is a big claim, but the following observations support it:

First, although everything here (in the US) costs more money than it does in socialist countries (like Austria), there is also more free stuff than anywhere else I have ever been.  Non-alcoholic beverages, for example, cost a lot here, but they typically come with endless refills. University tuition fees are astronomical, too. But in one week of being here, my university has already provided me with 8 full buffets/meals and more beer than I could ever stomach. I have also received more freebies in this last week than in the past 2 years in my socialist homeland. I was handed aluminium thermobottles, hard-plastic nonthermo bottles, bottle-holder keychains, backscratchers, t-shirts, pens, books, notebooks, a backpack, and so forth.

Second,  Americans frantically try to uphold the socialism/non-socialism distinction by refusing to include tax in any display of prices. But the tax is still there. This is not necessarily a socialist thing, but it certainly does not support a socialist/nonsocialist distinction of the kind frequently endorsed by Americans or Europeans.

Third, bumper stickers. Americans communicate everything on their bumper stickers: what university they went to, which fraternity they belong to, who they voted last time and who they will vote this time, why we should buy american beef, why we should not buy american beef, that god is great, where the best apple pie in the world is made. I take this urge to communicate on the rear ends of their cars as a proto-socialist disposition of the american people. The stickers express a sense of community, of belonging to the same group of people; that whose members communicate with bumper stickers. If that isn’t socialist, then what. Austrians, in any case, would never put anything on their bumpers, because it would reduce the resale value of our cars.

Fourth, unlike Putnam’s classic lament that Americans are increasingly Bowling Alone, I observe that Americans are extremely prone to involvement in group activities. They walk their dogs together, jog together, play frisbee together, protest against healthcare together. So, the below is but a horror scenario:

In fact, the “the great american community” seems intact and with it clandestine american socialism. And there goes the socialism/nonsocialism distinction (which I will nevertheless retain as the cover image of this blog).

In fact, Washington Post columnist EJ Dionne mentioned in a lecture at Georgetown University yesterday that other political affiliations are far more stigmatised in the US than socialism. One of Dionne’s friends was once asked by a Republican which political group he belonged to. The friend responded “I’m a socialist.” “Good,” replied the Republican, “as long as your not one of those goddam liberals.”

On a more positive note, a real difference seems to be the american obsession with running. Everyone here is running, jogging, walking. Old women, young girls. Men topless on the National Mall, in Georgetown, in the supermarket, everywhere. Austrians simply would not.