What happens when the velum is raised?

The vocal tract ___________________________.

The following are extrinsic muscles of the tongue (Select all that apply):

Why did Zeno believe that the idea of motion was absurd? Do you agree with him or not? Why do you believe as you do?

The term “logos” is associated with all the following ideas EXCEPT:

Describe the Presocratic philosophers’ view of wisdom and knowledge. From this point of view, why might we say the sophos is always a “stranger to the world”? How does their understanding of wisdom and knowledge compare to your own view?

​Who said you cannot step twice into the same river?

Midterm Exam — Science Fiction & EthicsFormat: This is a multi-day in-class writing assignment. You will write your essay across two class sessions (Monday and Wednesday, 85 minutes each). This exam is administered through Blackboard using Honorlock screen recording and Browser Guard. You may not access any outside materials, devices, or applications during the exam.Between Sessions: After Day 1, you will be able to view your Day 1 writing, but you will not be able to edit it. Use the time between sessions to think about your argument, consider what you want to revise or expand, and plan how to use your Day 2 session. You will not be able to bring notes with you to Day 2.Day 2: You will receive the full text of your Day 1 writing along with a fresh essay box. You may copy and paste from your Day 1 text to restructure, revise, and continue your work. Your Day 2 submission is what will be graded.Quotation Bank: You have access to the quotation bank you prepared and uploaded in advance if you did so.Target Length: 800–1,500 words (but there is no real maximum/minimum word count). Quality matters more than quantity.Requirements:Present a clear thesis and argue for it.Engage substantively with at least two of our primary sources (Parfit, Siderits, Huemer).Consider at least one serious objection to your position and respond to it.Observe the Forbidden Case Constraint (explained below).The Forbidden Case Constraint:For the purposes of this exam, the judiciary has been thoroughly convinced of both Parfitian Reductionism and the Buddhist Doctrine of No-Self. You may not argue that the clones are straightforwardly different persons from Sam Bell whose independent consent is required. The most obvious objection: that the clones are separate people and this is simply slavery,  is not available to you. You must work within the reductionist framework to make your case.Stipulated Facts (unless your scenario modifies them):Sam Bell Prime was aware of the cloning arrangement and consented to it.Sam Bell Prime completed the first authentic three-year contract under the same isolated conditions as the clones.Sam Bell Prime is being compensated for all labor performed by the clones.The clones are designed with a biologically limited lifespan of approximately three years.Each clone experiences only its own three-year stint with no cumulative effects from prior cycles.The clones were never intended to discover the truth. The events of the film represent a malfunction.Robotic or AI-based solutions are not viable alternatives for this operation.The Corporation’s Concession: The corporation concedes that the specific events of the film, where two clones discover the truth, represent a failure and a breach of its duty. It owes Sam Bell compensation for this negligence. However, it maintains that the underlying arrangement, when operating as designed, is morally permissible.The Shortened ContractScenario Modification:Suppose that Lunar Industries, responding to ethical review, shortens the clone contract from three years to two years. Each clone is activated, performs two years of mining work, and is then painlessly euthanized while believing it is returning to Earth. The clones still have a biologically limited lifespan (approximately three years), but they serve only two-thirds of it. The remainder — one year of decline and worsening feelings of isolation — is avoided through the early termination. The clones’ psychological experience during their two years is substantively similar to the original three-year arrangement, just compressed: they still believe they are the original Sam Bell, they still receive the simulated video messages from Tess, and they still look forward to going home. Sam Bell Prime has consented to this arrangement.Your Task:Does shortening the contract to two years change the moral status of the arrangement? Write an essay in which you argue either that the reduced duration meaningfully mitigates the moral concerns, or that the core moral problems persist regardless of the contract’s length. Your argument must operate within the reductionist framework (observe the Forbidden Case Constraint) and engage substantively with at least two of our primary sources.

Day 2 InstructionsWelcome to Day 2 of the Midterm Exam. Below you will find the full text of what you wrote on Day 1. You may copy and paste from it freely as you continue working.Your Day 2 submission is what will be graded. Use this session to:Continue writing where you left off.Revise, restructure, or strengthen your argument.Add engagement with sources you did not address on Day 1.Develop your response to objections more fully.Reminder: Your essay should be 800–1,500 words. All original exam instructions and constraints still apply.A note on your Day 1 Essay: You raise the one-to-one relation issue through Huemer, and that’s a genuinely important observation, but you move past it too quickly. Consider whether the overlapping clones scenario connects to Parfit’s own discussion of branching cases and what happens to identity when Relation R holds between one person and multiple continuers. This is not the same as arguing the clones are “straightforwardly different persons” (which the Forbidden Case Constraint prohibits). It is an argument from within the reductionist framework about what happens to the corporation’s analogy when the one-to-many structure is made explicit. Also, make sure your engagement with Siderits goes beyond quoting, explain how the passage you cite connects to the specific claim you’re making.Day 2 Wrinkle: As you continue your essay, consider the following claim from Parfit: the reductionist view does not entail that we should be less concerned about our future welfare rather it entails that we should be more concerned about the welfare of others. How does this claim bear on the argument you are making?Your Day 1 Writing:     My first thought when seeing this modification to the scenario is that it make little to no difference to the moral status of the arrangement when looking through the eyes of the corporation. In this modification both clones are still operating the same way and under the same deception. Therefore when it comes to the moral status nothing has really changed other than the fact that there is one more lie added on top but that doesn’t necessarily mean anything  to the corporation when you think of all the morally unjust things already happening within the arrangement. They could also make the argument that the second clone would have been woken up at the end of the current clones time anyways so it doesn’t make a difference. Huemer would argue that this is because the “one-to-one relation” has been broken therefore Sam Bells identity cannot be with two different people experiencing two different lives. Furthermore, becoming different people based on those separate experiences.  This could be argued with every clone used in the operation whether two used at once or not. This is because each Sam Bell experience is slightly different even if not in big ways they experience different thoughts, dreams, and issues. As we know these things though seemingly very small make an impact on who we are and how we change further separating the clones from each other and from the original Sam Bell. Since, we are not arguing against the corporation as a whole and the judiciary has been convinced that the clones are in fact not different people and are convinced of the Buddhist Doctrine of No-Self we are unable to stand on this argument. Siderits gives the example “Uddyotakara next considers a new Buddhist strategy: when we say the self does not exist, by “self” we only mean something you imagine to exist.” to further explain the Doctrine of No-Self. When using this argument with the given situation you could argue that we project Sam Bell onto the clones. Therefore this is nothing wrong with the arrangement using two clones at once and that is a given right to them by the original Sam Bell. Making it so as long as the operation functions the same way for both as it always planned to there is no further moral issue with them using two clones simultaneously to further progress the work.

Your Quotation Bank:“Our identity over time just involves (a) Relation R – Psychological connectedness and/or psychological continuity – with the right kind of cause, provided (b) that this relation does not take a ‘branching’ form, holding between one person and two different future people.”Parfit, Reasons and Persons, p.216Parfit is arguing in the branch line case that personal identity is not physical.“A Reductionist can admit that, in this sense, a person is what has these experiences, or the subject of experiences.”Parfit, Reasons and Persons, p.223Parfit explains that Reductionists do not think that the person experiencing something is a separate being from mind and body.”A person is an entity that has a brain and body, and has particular thoughts, desires and so on.”Parfit, Reasons and Persons, p.211This is the Reductionist view on a person as a distinct entity.“If personal identity is what matters, I should regard my prospect here as being nearly as bad as ordinary death. But if what matters is Relation R, with any cause, I should regard this way of dying as being about as good as ordinary survival.”Parfit, Reasons and Persons, p.215Parfit is explaining the two different views on the branch-line case.“The Soul is also said to be the subject of mental states (it is your soul, rather than your body, that experiences thoughts, feelings, and so on.)”Huemer, Knowledge, Reality, and Value, p.205Huemer is explaining people’s general idea of what the Soul is.“Identity is a one-to-one relation: Every being is identical with exactly one being; no one is ever identical with two beings.”Huemer, Knowledge, Reality, and Value, p.207This is the first of Humer’s four principles about identity.“Both copies satisfy the criterion for being you, so they are both you. But this cannot be: it violates the basic definition for numerical identity (which, again, is the what we are interested in.)”Huemer, Knowledge, Reality, and Value, p.202Huemer is explaining the issue with the “perfect clone” problem.“Uddyotakara next considers a new Buddhist strategy: when we say the self does not exist, by “self” we only mean something you imagine to exist.”Siderits, Buddhism as Philosophy, p.142The Buddhist explanation to the doctrine of no self.“If it were said that the self is imaginatively projected onto the body, as Santa Claus is projected onto the person who puts the presents under the tree, then there would have to be a self to be projected into the body.”Siderits, Buddhism as Philosophy, p.143-144Siderits further explains that it’s believed that self is just a thing imagined and put onto a body.