Reply to Nathan: How to reconstruct the causal argument

Nicholas Nathan tries to resist the current version of the causal argument for sense-data in two ways. First he suggests that, on what he considers to be the correct re-construction of the argument, it equivocates on the sense of proximate cause. Second he defends a form of disjunctivism, by claiming that there might be an extra mechanism involved in producing veridical hallucination, that is not present in perception. I argue that Nathan’s reconstruction of the argument is not the appropriate one, and that, properly interpreted, the argument does not equivocate on proximate cause. Furthermore, I claim that his postulation of a modified mechanism for hallucinations is implausibly ad hoc.     

Pit your wits against young minds!

This column is a place for those bits of contagious mathematics that travel from person to person in the community, because they are so elegant, suprising, or appealing that one has an urge to pass them on. Contributions are most welcome.     

Template synthesis in the nickel(II)–thiocarbohydrazide–propanone triple system

The complexing process proceeding in the Ni^II–thiocarbohydrazide (H₂N–H–NC(=S)–NH–NH₂)–propanone triple system in EtOH solution and nickel(II)hexacyanoferrate(II) gelatin-immobilized matrix has been studied. It has been found that in the first case, template synthesis leading, as a minimum, to formation of three coordination compounds of Ni^II with (N,N,S,S)-donor tetradentate ligands having NiL¹, NiL² and NiL³compositions where L¹ is 4,6,6-trimethyl-2,3,7,8-tetraazanonen-3-di(thiohydrazide)-1,9, L² is 4,6,6,12-tetrametyl-1,9-dithio-2,3,7,8,10,11-hexaazatridekadien-3,11-hydrazide-1 and L³ is 2,8,10,10,16-pentamethyl-5,13-dithio-3,4,6,7,11,12,14,15-octaazaheptadekatrien-2,7,15 is observed, whereas in the gelatin-immobilized matrix, a complexing process in the system considered does not occur.