Konstruktiivisen linjakkuuden perusteita etsimässä : Systemaattinen analyysi John Biggsin esittämistä yliopisto-opetuksen lähtökohdista

The aim of this study is to explore by systematic textual analysis the crucial conceptions of constructive alignment and to reconstruct the concept of constructive alignment and examine the relation between conceptual relationships in John Biggs’s texts. In this study, I have also analyzed the presuppositions of the concept of constructive alignment and its possible implications. The research material includes Biggs’s (1996b; 2003) article entitled Enhancing Teaching through Constructive Alignment and book entitled Teaching for Quality Learning at University. The primary purpose of the systematic textual analysis is to reconstruct concepts and gain access to a new or more profound understanding of the concepts. The main purpose of the constructive alignment is to design a teaching system that supports and encourages students to adopt a deep approach learning. At the center of the constructive alignment are two concepts: constructivism in learning and alignment in teaching. A tension was detected between these concepts. Biggs assumes that students’ learning activities are primed by the teaching. Because of this it is not important what the teacher does. At the same time he emphasizes that teaching interacts with learning. The teacher’s task is to support student’s appropriate learning activities. On the basis of the analysis, I conclude these conceptions are not mutually exclusive. Interaction between teaching and learning has an effect on student’s learning activities. The most essential benefit of the model of constructive alignment is that Biggs brings together and considers teaching at the same level with learning. A weakness of Biggs’s model relates to the theoretical basis and positions of the concept of constructive alignment. There are some conflicts between conceptions of epistemology in Biggs’s texts. In addition, Biggs writes about constructivism also as conceptions of epistemology, but doesn’t consider implications of that position or what follows or doesn’t follow from that commitment. On the basis of the analysis, I suggest that constructivism refers in Biggs’s texts rather to constructivism in learning than philosophical constructivism. In light of this study, constructive alignment doesn´t lead to philosophical constructivism. That’s why constructive alignment stays out of idealism. Biggs’s way of thinking about teachers possibility to confronting students’ misconceptions and evaluate and assess students’ constructions support a realist purpose in terms of philosophical stance. Realism does not drift toward general problems of relativism, like lack of criteria for assessing or evaluate these constructions.

John Searlen teoria tietoisuudesta

Tutkielmassa esitellään ja arvioidaan John Searlen teoriaa tietoisuudesta. Tietoisuus (consciousness) on Searlen mukaan tärkein mielenfilosofinen käsite. Searle ei määrittele käsitettä tarkasti, vaan tyytyy esittämään sitä kuvaavia esimerkkejä ja analogioita. Tietoisuuden keskeisimmiksi ominaisuuksiksi Searlen teoriassa näyttävät muodostuvan intentionaalisuus (intentionality), subjektiivisuus (subjectivity) ja kausaalinen vaikutus käyttäytymiseen (mental causation). Näihin ominaisuuksiin liittyvät myös Searlen painavimmat tietoisuudesta esittämät argumentit. Argumenttien analysointi on tutkielman tärkein tavoite. Searlen yhteysperiaatteen (Connection Principle) mukaan intentionaalisia tiloja voi olla vain olennolla, jolla voi olla tietoisia intentionaalisia tiloja, ja jokainen alitajuinen intentionaalinen tila on ainakin potentiaalisesti tietoinen. Toisin sanoen intentionaalisuuden ja tietoisuuden välillä vallitsee välttämätön yhteys seuraavasti: on loogisesti välttämätöntä, että jokainen intentionaalinen tila voi ainakin periaattessa päästä tietoisuuteen.Tutkielmassa kuitenkin osoitetaan, että yhteysperiaateeseen on syytä suhtautua epäillen. Searlen yhteysperiaatteen puolesta esittämä argumentti näyttää nimittäin sisältävän dilemman. Jos erottelu intrinsiseen ja näennäiseen intentionaalisuuteen tulkitaan Searlen tavoin, syyllistytään sen olettamiseen, mikä pitäisi todistaa; jos taas erottelu tulkitaan toisin kuin Searle, argumentti ei tue yhteysperiaatetta. Searlen mukaan mentaaliset tilat ovat aina jonkun mentaalisia tiloja. Tästä väitteestä Searle pyrkii johtamaan toisen, paljon radikaalimman väitteen: mielen ilmiöt kuuluvat omaan ontologiseen kategoriaansa, subjektiivisten mentaalisten tilojen kategoriaan. Searlen käsitystä tukee Thomas Nagelin esittämä, hyvin samansisältöinen argumentti. Yksimielisyys ei kuitenkaan ole erehtymättömyyden tae, sillä Paul Churchlandin kritiikki näyttää pahasti horjuttavan Searlen subjektiivisuusargumentin uskottavuutta. Churchland väittää Searlen syyllistyvän intensionaaliseen virhepäätelmään. Yksittäisen henkilön episteemisen pääsyn rajoittuneisuudesta ei Churchlandin mukaan voida tehdä mitään ontologisia johtopäätöksiä, koska tiedetyksi tuleminen ei ole objektin aito ominaisuus. Vastaväite näyttää olevan kohtalokas Searlen subjektiivisuusargumentille. Subjektiivisuuden ongelma näyttää olevan perustava metafyysinen vedenjakaja, joka jakaa mielenfilosofiset teoriat toisaalta materialistisiin, toisaalta dualistisiin. Searle uskoo, että mieli-ruumis -ongelma (mind-body problem) on ratkaistavissa ilman, että tarvitsee valita kumpaakaan. Ratkaisu sisältyy kahteen Searlen näennäisesti yhteensopimattomaan teesiin. Ensimmäisen teesin mukaan mentaaliset tilat ovat todellisia ilmiöitä, eikä niitä voida redusoida mihinkään muuhun tai eliminoida määrittelemällä ne uudestaan. Toisen teesin mukaan aivojen operaatiot aiheuttavat mentaaliset tilat ja mentaaliset tilat ovat aivojen piirteitä. Teeseistä jälkimmäinen osoittautuu ongelmalliseksi syistä, jotka Jaegwon Kim on esittänyt. Jos mentaaliset tilat olisivat aivojen ominaisuuksia, ei mielen ja aivojen välinen suhde voisi olla kausaalinen, koska kausaatiossa (causation) on aina kyse kahden erillisen entiteetin tai tapahtuman välisestä relaatiosta, jossa suhteen osapuolien välillä on oltava ajallista etäisyyttä. Toiseksi Searlen vertaus tietoisuuden ja aivojen suhteesta kappaleen kiinteyden ja sen mikrorakenteen suhteeseen epäonnistuu, koska tietoisuus ja kiinteys kuuluvat Searlen teoriassa eri ontologisiin kategorioihin, eikä niitä siten voi ongelmattomasti rinnastaa. Searlen analogia kiinteyteen murtuu myös siksi, että kappaleen mikrorakenne ei yksinkertaisesti aiheuta sen kiinteyttä. Tietoisuus ei siis voi olla samanaikaisesti aivojen ominaisuus ja aivojen kausaalisen toiminnan seuraus. Tutkielmassa päädytään puolustamaan kantaa, että Searlen argumentit eivät ole vakuuttavia ja että Searle ei ole onnistunut eksplikoimaan teoriaa, joka välttäisi dualismiin ja materialismiin liittyvät tunnetut ongelmat. Kysymys mikä on mielen suhde ruumiiseen, jää siten avoimeksi. Avainsanat: intentionaalisuus, mentaalinen, mieli-ruumis -ongelma, Searle, subjektiivisuus, tietoisuus

Socialist Realism instead of Formalism : the Formation and Development of the Soviet Music Control System 1932-1950

Whereas it has been widely assumed in the public that the Soviet music policy system had a “top-down” structure of control and command that directly affected musical creativity, in fact my research shows that the relations between the different levels of the music policy system were vague, and the viewpoints of its representatives differed from each other. Because the representatives of the party and government organs controlling operas could not define which kind of music represented Socialist Realism, the system as it developed during the 1930s and 1940s did not function effectively enough in order to create such a centralised control of Soviet music, still less could Soviet operas fulfil the highly ambiguous aesthetics of Socialist Realism. I show that musical discussions developed as bureaucratic ritualistic arenas, where it became more important to reveal the heretical composers, making scapegoats of them, and requiring them to perform self-criticism, than to give directions on how to reach the artistic goals of Socialist Realism. When one opera was found to be unacceptable, this lead to a strengthening of control by the party leadership, which lead to more operas, one after the other, to be revealed as failures. I have studied the control of the composition, staging and reception of the opera case-studies, which remain obscure in the West despite a growing scholarly interest in them, and have created a detailed picture of the foundation and development of the Soviet music control system in 1932-1950. My detailed discussion of such case-studies as Ivan Dzerzhinskii’s The Quiet Don, Dmitrii Shostakovich’s Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk District, Vano Muradeli’s The Great Friendship, Sergei Prokofiev’s Story of a Real Man, Tikhon Khrennikov’s Frol Skobeev and Evgenii Zhukovskii’s From All One’s Heart backs with documentary precision the historically revisionist model of the development of Soviet music. In February 1948, composers belonging to the elite of the Union of Soviet Composers, e.g. Dmitri Shostakovich and Sergei Prokofiev, were accused in a Central Committee Resolution of formalism, as been under the influence of western modernism. Accusations of formalism were connected to the criticism of the conciderable financial, material and social privileges these composers enjoyed in the leadership of the Union. With my new archival findings I give a more detailed picture of the financial background for the 1948 campaign. The independent position of the music funding organization of the Union of Soviet Composers (Muzfond) to decide on its finances was an exceptional phenomenon in the Soviet Union and contradicted the strivings to strengthen the control of Soviet music. The financial audits of the Union of Soviet Composers did not, however, change the elite status of some of its composers, except for maybe a short duration in some cases. At the same time the independence of the significal financial authorities of Soviet theatres was restricted. The cuts in the governmental funding allocated to Soviet theatres contradicted the intensified ideological demands for Soviet operas.

The Problem of Implementation and its Relation to the Philosophy of Cognitive Science

According to certain arguments, computation is observer-relative either in the sense that many physical systems implement many computations (Hilary Putnam), or in the sense that almost all physical systems implement all computations (John Searle). If sound, these arguments have a potentially devastating consequence for the computational theory of mind: if arbitrary physical systems can be seen to implement arbitrary computations, the notion of computation seems to lose all explanatory power as far as brains and minds are concerned. David Chalmers and B. Jack Copeland have attempted to counter these relativist arguments by placing certain constraints on the definition of implementation. In this thesis, I examine their proposals and find both wanting in some respects. During the course of this examination, I give a formal definition of the class of combinatorial-state automata , upon which Chalmers s account of implementation is based. I show that this definition implies two theorems (one an observation due to Curtis Brown) concerning the computational power of combinatorial-state automata, theorems which speak against founding the theory of implementation upon this formalism. Toward the end of the thesis, I sketch a definition of the implementation of Turing machines in dynamical systems, and offer this as an alternative to Chalmers s and Copeland s accounts of implementation. I demonstrate that the definition does not imply Searle s claim for the universal implementation of computations. However, the definition may support claims that are weaker than Searle s, yet still troubling to the computationalist. There remains a kernel of relativity in implementation at any rate, since the interpretation of physical systems seems itself to be an observer-relative matter, to some degree at least. This observation helps clarify the role the notion of computation can play in cognitive science. Specifically, I will argue that the notion should be conceived as an instrumental rather than as a fundamental or foundational one.

Kansan raittiudeksi ja kotien onneksi : Naisten kieltolakimielipiteet ja toiminta kieltolain puolesta ja sitä vastaan 1919 - 1932

It is often maintained that the Prohibition Act (in force from 1 June 1919 to 5 April 1932) still influences both the Finnish alcohol policy and notions about alcohol. This study focuses on the development of women s opinions concerning Prohibition in Finland. What role did the formulation and expression of women s opinions and women's actions play in the final outcome of the Prohibition Act? What do the debate on Prohibition and women s activities for and against the legislation tell us about the status and possibilities of women to exert influence in the Finnish society of the Prohibition era? Women s opinions are particularly interesting since they deviated radically from what has generally been assumed. It was expected that the referendum of 1931 would result in a resounding vote of 100% in favour of Prohibition, but the outcome was a majority vote against it. Over 65% of the women who cast their vote in the referendum wanted a full repeal of Prohibition. The study approaches the history of Prohibition by combining methods and theories of the history of mentalities and social history with gender history. Women are examined as a heterogeneous group with dissimilar objectives and differing ways of acting and thinking. The research material consists of press materials, archival materials from organisations, personal materials and statistics from the Prohibition period. Both discourses and practices are examined; the object of the research is best described by Michel Foucault's concept of dispositif. When participating in the public debate on Prohibition, women based their right to express their opinions and take part in action on an ideological continuum spanning a hundred years, according to which home and family were central areas of women s interest. This idea was linked to questions of morality and social policy. On the other hand, women presented themselves as working taxpayers, voters and equal citizens. The most crucial issue in women's discussions was whether Prohibition improved or worsened the temperance of fathers, husbands and sons. The dichotomies town dweller - countryside dweller, Swedish-speaking Finnish-speaking, and middle class - working class were highly significant backgrounds both as factors dividing women and in public discussions regarding Prohibition. The 1931 referendum showed that the lines of demarcation drawn during the preceding debate did not materialise in political action in line with these dichotomies: the dispositif did not correspond to the discourse. Contrary to what was expressed in public, a great number of women among the labour and rural classes, among inland inhabitants and among Finnish-speakers were also against Prohibition. The media and organisations defended temperance and Prohibition almost until the end of the Prohibition era. This discourse was in conflict with the discourse of everyday conversations and practices in which alcohol was present.