Motivation without Evaluation? Unintelligible Ends, Animal Behavior, and Diabolical Wills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We can think of an apparent continuum of behavior and actions that starts from the most fully deliberated actions of human beings in one extreme and ends at the other extreme at the movement of the “dumb” animals. The scholastic view seems to be at its best in dealing with one end of the spectrum: fully deliberated actions performed by reasonable agents at their most reflective moments. I hope to show, however, that it can also account for a wide range of human behavior that includes merely intentional and merely voluntary actions. However, as we approach the other end of the spectrum, the scholastic view might seem to be in a poor position; in fact, it may seem that it is completely inadequate to explain the actions of the perverse, the odd or mentally ill, children, and other mammals. And one could argue that a view that tries to understand human action in a way that cannot accommodate these instances of human and nonhuman action cannot claim success. After all, the fact that there is such a continuum seems to speak in favor of a unified explanation for the whole spectrum of animal behavior.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".