Přejít k obsahu

Doktorský seminář


Nancy Abigail Nuñez Hernández, Ph.D. (FEC a FLÚ AV ČR)

Justification logic and the epistemic contribution of deduction

Accounting for the epistemic contribution of deduction has been a pervasive problem for logicians interested in deduction, such as, among others, Jakko Hintikka and Johan van Benthem. The problem arises because the conclusion validly deduced from a set of premises is contained in that set; because of this containment relation, the conclusion is known from the moment the premises are known. Under this assumption, explaining how we can gain knowledge by deducing a logical consequence implied in a set of known premises is problematic. To address this problem, I propose an alternative account of the epistemic contribution of deduction in terms of the work required to deduce a conclusion or a theorem, understanding such work in terms of the number of steps in the derivation and the reason for or justification for every step. To this end, I developed a justification logic system that exhibits the epistemic contribution of a deductive derivation as the resulting justified formula.


Mgr. Bc. Juraj Jonáš (NUDZ)

Culture and language – how they affect the way we perceive the world

The goal of this lecture is to introduce basic theoretical and empirical concepts of how culture and language affect the way people see the world. These concepts are based mainly on research in the fields of psychology and cultural anthropology. Basic evolutionary processes for the development of culture and its main features will be introduced. Then language as a main characteristic of culture will be introduced with focus on concepts of language relativity and universal grammar. Special attention will be given on cognitive constraints and effects of both, culture and language as factors influencing our thinking.

04.11.2022 11:00

Mgr. Veronika Langová (NUDZ)

Animal models of psychiatric disorders

The lecture introduces current approaches in modelling psychiatric disorders. The first part of the lecture briefly summarizes phylogenesis of consciousness (based on Feinberg & Mallat, 2016) and its impact on modelling psychiatric disorders in animals. The following part of the lecture presents model organisms currently in use, their advantages, and disadvantages. The last part of the lecture is a discussion of possibilities to solve disadvantages of current models and is focused on a new candidate model organism, a species of weakly electric fish, Gnathonemus petersii.


Laurie Letertre, Ph.D. et Ph.D. (FEC a FLÚ AV ČR)


A short introduction to the philosophy of quantum mechanics

Quantum mechanics is a central theory in modern physics, with a very good predictive power that allows a multitude of technological advances. Yet, this theory is conceptually debated, and poses a multitude of puzzles about its deep meaning and implications for the nature of our reality. This lecture will have two parts. First, it will explore what are the philosophical questions it raises, and, what proposals have been developed to date to answer them. In the second part, we will see a contemporary piece of work which connects philosophy of quantum mechanics with that of spacetime. The objective is to provide an overview of the existing problems and debates, in a way that is adapted to an audience with no previous knowledge of (quantum) physics.


Mgr. Zuzana Rybaříková, Ph.D. (OU)

Łukasiewicz and Quine on Empirical and A Priori Sciences

Although Łukasiewicz and Quine do not share many common views, they agreed on one important point in the 1950s: they both denied the distinction between empirical and a priori sciences. This agreement might be surprising as this denial was rather controversial at that time. This paper focuses on Quine’s and Łukasiewicz’s denials of the distinction between empirical and a priori sciences, and proposes three possible answers to the question of why both formulated the same conclusion at a similar time. Firstly, it discusses Quine’s possible influence on Łukasiewicz as Łukasiewicz agreed with Quine’s criticism of modality at that time. Secondly, it considers the possibility that Quine was affected by Łukasiewicz via his debates with Łukasiewicz’s student, Tarski. Lastly, it takes into account the possibility that both philosophers were inspired by an external source, namely the rise of quantum mechanics.


!!! SP319


Hamid R. Ekbia
Professor of Informatics, Cognitive Science, and International Studies

AI Summers and Human Winters: Whence the Crisis of Modernity?

Public lecture:


The recent rise of AI seems to defy an old pattern commonly known as “AI winters,” where cycles of hyped‐up boom were followed by periods of decline and disappointment. This time, it seems, AI is here to stay, drawing attention and investment from a whole gamut of contemporary institutions (academia, corporations, governments, international bodies, etc.). How can we explain this
state of affairs? I propose to approach this question from the perspective of longue durée, thinking of AI as a project that expresses the underlying predicaments of modernity. I would like to show that AI itself is the culmination of four modernist projects, each with its own underlying logic: (i) the calculative logic of rationalism; (ii) the accumulative logic of capitalism; (iii) the dominative
logic of colonialism; and (iv) the delegative logic of postmodernism.The convergence of these projects in our times has brought about a global crisis of historical scale, of which AI is a vivid expression. In this light, what seems to be a hot summer for AI might, in fact, promise a long winter for the global humanity. Refusing to take this as an indispensable destiny, I explore alternatives, inviting collective action to avoid it.


Hamid R. Ekbia
Professor of Informatics, Cognitive Science, and International Studies

AI and Future of Work: Economic Crisis and Technological Mediations
Public lecture:


The adoption of AI techniques and technologies in various domains of work has raised questions and concerns about the changing character of jobs, skills, and careers. Many such concerns are driven by particular assumptions about technology as the driver of social change, about automation as the determinant of the job market, and about growth and productivity as the ultimate goals of economic activity. The disruptions of Covid‐19 unsettled many of these assumptions. In particular, standard notions of work are questioned by millions of people who are driven to the edge, facing dilemmas between job and safety, income and security, and wellbeing and mortality.

The dilemmas are pushed to the sidelines by dominant players who see the disruptions as an opportunity for intensified exploitation, appropriation, and wealth accumulation. In between, we have a group of hot‐skilled individuals who find partial comfort in having the option of teleworking, while adjusting their family and social life.These disruptions have reconfigured modern societies, dividing them into social worlds that are driven further apart through technological mediations. Such mediations have deep roots in the capitalist modernity, which has persistently shuffled social relationships based on social, economic, and spatiotemporal differences among communities. In this talk, I will examine these
mediations, exploring other alternative futures.


!!! SVK PK

Hamid R. Ekbia
Professor of Informatics, Cognitive Science, and International Studies

Artificial Intelligence: The Possible, the Impossible, and the Real

Keynote at the PFAI2022 International Workshop: 

AI, for most of its history, has been dominated by a paradigm driven by the question of what computers are capable of doing or not doing, of what is possible and what is impossible. This paradigm has given rise to two very distinct discursive, social, and cultural universes: one where the sky is the limit to AI magic, where all the predicaments of humanity can be resolved by the invisible hand of AI, offering us full lives of leisure and creativity; the other a world where AI is nothing but snake‐oil alchemy, where our problems will be exacerbated by techno‐scientific hubris, leaving us at the mercy of bots, deep fakes, and other unseemly creations. The borderline between these two worlds is moving, murky, and mysterious, giving rise to confusion and uncertainty about our future horizon. In this talk, I explore a different paradigm, seeking practical ways to distinguish between the possible and the impossible in pursuit of the real in science, technology, and policy.


Doktorandi 1 a 2. ročníku FDVT