<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">The development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) is and will profoundly reshape human society, the culture and the composition of civilisations which make up human kind. All technological triggers tend to drive a hype curve which over time is realised by an output which is often unexpected, taking both pessimistic and optimistic perspectives and actions of drivers, contributors and enablers on a journey where the ultimate destination may be unclear. In this paper we hypothesise that this journey is not dissimilar to the personal journey described by the Kubler-Ross change curve and illustrate this by commentary on the potential of AI for drug discovery, development and healthcare and as an enabler for deep space exploration and colonisation. Recent advances in the call for regulation to ensure development of safety measures associated with machine-based learning are presented which, together with regulation of the rapidly emerging digital after-life industry, should provide a platform for realising the full potential benefit of AI for the human species.</abstract>

AI Case Studies: Potential for Human Health, Space Exploration and Colonisation and a Proposed Superimposition of the Kubler-Ross Change Curve on the Hype Cycle

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">This article provides a detailed description of robotic weapons and unmanned systems currently used by the U.S. Military and its allies, and an ethical assessment of their actual or potential use on the battlefield. Firstly, trough a review of scientific literature, reports, and newspaper articles, a catalogue of ethical problems related to military robotics is compiled. Secondly, possible solutions for these problems are offered, by relying also on analytic tools provided by the new field of roboethics. Finally, the article explores possible future developments of military robotics and present six reasons why a war between humans and automata is unlikely to happen in the 21st century.</abstract>

De Bello Robotico. An Ethical Assessment of Military Robotics

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">The authors present an evolutionary model for the biological emergence of religious capacity as an advanced neurocognitive trait. Using their model for the stages leading to the evolutionary emergence of religious capacity in <italic>Homo sapiens</italic>, they analyze the mechanisms that can fail, leading to unbelief (atheism or agnosticism). The analysis identifies some, but not all types of atheists and agnostics, so they turn their question around and, using the same evolutionary model, ask what keeps religion going. Why does its development <italic>not</italic> fail in one social group after another, worldwide? Their final analysis searches for reasons in important evolutionary changes in the senses of hearing, vision, and general sensitivity on the hominin line, which together interact with both intellectual and emotional brain networks to achieve, often in human groups, variously altered states of consciousness, especially a numinous state enabled in part by a brain organ, the precuneus. An inability to experience the numinous, consider it important, or believe in its supernatural nature, may cleave the human population into those with belief and those with unbelief.</abstract>

Vatican Observatory and University of Arizona

How an Advanced Neurocognitive Human Trait for Religious Capacity Fails to Form

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Free will is a very hot issue in several theoretical settings, but less in theology, or at least not as much as use to be in former times, when the discussions on sinfulness, grace and freedom were igniting a long season of controversies, especially in the Reformation time. Even in ecumenical dialogue apparently free will does not play a great role, since the reached consensus seems quite peaceful and agreement dominates over discussion. However, some theological insights, especially Karl Rahner reflections, are still worthy to consider and possibly theological anthropology should pay more attention to the current debate and its consequences for the way we understand human nature and its relationship with God.</abstract>

Dealing with Free Will in Contemporary Theology: is It Still a Question?

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Recently, Del Ratzsch proposed a new version of the design argument. He argues that belief in a designer is often formed non-inferentially, much like perceptual beliefs, rather than formed by explicit reasoning. Ratzsch traces his argument back to Thomas Reid (1710-1796) who argues that beliefs formed in this way are also justified. In this paper, I investigate whether design beliefs that are formed in this way can be regarded as knowledge. For this purpose, I look closer to recent scientific study of how design beliefs are formed. I argue that the science strongly suggest that people easily form false beliefs. As a result, design beliefs can only constitute knowledge if subjects have additional reasons or evidence for design.</abstract>

Are Design Beliefs Safe?

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Novels and thought experiments can be pathways to different kinds of knowledge. We may, however, be hard pressed to say exactly what can be learned from novels but not from thought experiments. Headway on this matter can be made by spelling out their respective conditions for epistemic failure. Thought experiments fail in their epistemic role when they neither yield propositional knowledge nor contribute to an argument. They are largely in the business of ‘knowing that’. Novels, on the other hand can be an epistemic success by yielding ‘knowledge how’. They can help us to improve our competences.</abstract>

Thought Experiments and Novels

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Gettier’s Paradox is considered a most critical problem for the presumably obvious philosophical view that knowledge is justified true belief. Such a view of knowledge, however, exposes the poverty of analytic philosophy. It wrongly assumes, for example, that knowledge must be conscious and explicit, and, to make matters worse, linguistic, as illustrated in Donald Davidson’s writings. To show why this philosophical view is wrong I will point to arguments by Ruth Barcan Marcus and, principally, Paul Churchland, as well as to work by the neuroscientist Paul Reber on intuitive knowledge. We will see, then, that much of our knowledge is neither explicit nor conscious, let alone linguistic. I will suggest that an approach that pays attention to biology is more likely to succeed in developing a proper account of our cognitive abilities. Thus, Gettier’s paradox becomes a mere curiosity.</abstract>

Biology and Gettier’s Paradox

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Theodore the Studite resolved the logical problem posed by the second Iconoclasm in an explicitly paraconsistent way, when he applied to Jesus the definition of the human hypostasis while stating that there is no human hypostasis in Jesus. Methodologically he was following, albeit without knowing, Eulogius of Alexandria. He, in turn, was apparently followed by Photius, but in a confused manner.</abstract>

Theodore the Studite’s Christology Against Its Logical Background

Reflections on the Inaugural Conference of the International Orthodox Theological Association (IOTA)

AHEAD OF PRINT

Volume 13 (2024): Issue 3 (May 2024) Special issue title: Logic and Law

Volume 13 (2024): Issue 2 (April 2024) Special issue title: Logic in Poland in the 20th Century

Volume 13 (2024): Issue 1 (April 2024) Special issue title: Logic in Poland in the 20th Century

Volume 12 (2023): Issue 4 (December 2023)

Volume 12 (2023): Issue 3 (April 2023) Indian Philosophy

Volume 12 (2023): Issue 1-2 (March 2023) Indian Logic

Volume 11 (2022): Issue 3-4 (December 2022)

Volume 11 (2022): Issue 2 (June 2022)

Volume 11 (2022): Issue 1 (March 2022)

Volume 10 (2021): Issue 4 (December 2021)

Volume 10 (2021): Issue 3 (June 2021) Humanistic Economy

Volume 10 (2021): Issue 2 (May 2021) Humanistic Economy

Volume 10 (2021): Issue 1 (February 2021)

Volume 9 (2020): Issue 3-4 (October 2020)

Volume 9 (2020): Issue 2 (July 2020) Libertarianism from the Philosophical Perspective

Volume 9 (2020): Issue 1 (March 2020)

Volume 8 (2019): Issue 4 (December 2019)

Volume 8 (2019): Issue 3 (October 2019)

Volume 8 (2019): Issue 2 (June 2019)

Volume 8 (2019): Issue 1 (February 2019)

Volume 7 (2018): Issue 4 (December 2018)

Volume 7 (2018): Issue 3 (September 2018)

Volume 7 (2018): Issue 2 (June 2018)

Volume 7 (2018): Issue 1 (March 2018)

Volume 6 (2017): Issue 4 (October 2017)

Volume 6 (2017): Issue 3 (July 2017)

Volume 6 (2017): Issue 2 (June 2017)

Volume 6 (2017): Issue 1 (March 2017)

Volume 5 (2016): Issue 4 (December 2016)

Volume 5 (2016): Issue 3 (September 2016)

Volume 5 (2016): Issue 2 (June 2016)

Volume 5 (2016): Issue 1 (March 2016)

Volume 4 (2015): Issue 4 (December 2015)

Volume 4 (2015): Issue 3 (July 2015)

Volume 4 (2015): Issue 2 (June 2015)

Volume 4 (2015): Issue 1 (February 2015)

Volume 3 (2014): Issue 4 (December 2014)

Volume 3 (2014): Issue 3 (September 2014)

Volume 3 (2014): Issue 2 (June 2014)

Volume 3 (2014): Issue 1 (February 2014)

Studia Humana

Studia Humana (SH) is a multi-disciplinary double blind peer reviewed journal publishing valuable contributions on methodological aspects of human and social sciences such as (1) analytic philosophy and philosophical logic related to universal features of epistemology, philosophy of science, philosophy of religion, philosophy of mind, praxeology, non-classical logics and their applications to methodology of science, linguistics or theology, etc. as well as (2) communication and political economy to provide a forum for the academic discussion of original ideas which explore new approaches and methodologies in communication with emphasis on social economics and transitive processes, methodology of Austrian school of economics, economy and policy in conjunction with issues of culture, identity, gender, and ecology, etc., but predominantly with a comparative perspective for approaches and methodologies that are not in mainstream to promote dialogue and exchange in looking for new theoretical means of conceiving the life-world.  The editors invite the submission of articles, book reviews, and responses from professional scientists. It is particularly interested in publishing contributions by new authors who pursue their academic development. One of the objectives of SH is the provision of a suitable platform for the discussion in all areas of human sciences beyond the limits of Western-centrism, with emphasis on problems of post-Socialist European states and ideas marginal to mainstream. Currently, SH has four electronic issues per year. SH aspires to become a venue to connect human sciences to the world and thus the editors strongly encourage submissions in English language. The journal also aims to contribute to the understanding of society and state through the study of relevant institutions, using concepts belonging to the disciplines of philosophy and economics. The crossing of different disciplinary points of view will enable us to gain a deeper insight into the various aspects of the observed phenomena. Our main objective is to study changes and their underlying mechanisms in modern societies (e.g., in post-Socialist countries), through the analysis of the institutions that remain most hidden from the public eye. Calls for contributions will be also published on the journals website and in newsletters sent through internet.  The publication policy of Studia Humana follows strictly the ethical rules recommended by COPE – Committee on Publication Ethics. https://publicationethics.org/     Archiving  Sciendo archives the contents of this journal in Portico - digital long-term preservation service of scholarly books, journals and collections.  Plagiarism Policy  The editorial board is participating in a growing community of Similarity Check System's users in order to ensure that the content published is original and trustworthy. Similarity Check is a medium that allows for comprehensive manuscripts screening, aimed to eliminate plagiarism and provide a high standard and quality peer-review process. 