Yeah, I have mentioned the Eagleman study you're referring to previously. I think they failed to find significance in that study but the sheer fact that they were able to measure a slowing down of the clock in some of the cases is fascinating. What they did in that study was to have some numbers run so fast on a wrist band that people couldn't read them when on the ground. Then when exposed to extreme stress in a free fall some of the participants could read the numbers they couldn't read on the ground.

I am sympathetic to these thoughts. Of course, we still need to make a living, so we do depend on institutions to some extent. And you do eventually become "freer" as an academic. I love the new freedom that comes with being a full professor. I can finally publish what I want, even my most "irregular" material that was previously considered too "off the beaten path" to get published. If people don't want what I want to give them, I just don't publish with them.

Thanks to Eric, Dan and others for the comments, which I agree with. I wanted to add here what I just said in reply to Eric Schliesser on FB: Over at Leiter Reports David Chalmers wrote "...more high-quality highly competent work within paradigms, less groundbreakingly original work in new paradigms. Raising the mean, lowering the variance. I take it that it's not implausible that in the last thirty-odd years of philosophy there has been more good work and less great work than in the thirty-odd years before that, and I don't think this is unconnected to the rise of professionalization. I stress that the "more good work" part is a good thing...." I agree with the first part of this statement, but is it really connected to the rise of professionalization? Well, that depends on what you mean by "professionalization." I don't think it's connected to the increase in the popularity of terminal MA programs. I think people's beliefs about what makes for "good" (hence publishable) philosophy play a far greater role. If you are junior and want to get published in a top-ranked journal, you will normally need to work within paradigms, perhaps even if you are senior. Russell's "On Denoting" probably wouldn't have made it passed the referees today. Obviously! The GEA, though incredibly important, would have been declared unpublishable by today's standards.

I appreciate all of the clarification. I was left to think that David (among others) was talking about terminal MA programs, as a lot of the discussion was about whether pursuing an MA in philosophy prior to entering a PhD program would make for better or worse philosophy (per question 1). I am happy to hear that this is not what the conversation is really about. I am still not sure what it is really about. I understand the general idea of professionalization. But I am missing the link between professionalization and good (as opposed to great) philosophy (Yes, I grant that history seems to show a certain pattern, but is professionalization really the cause of this?)

A further problem with this whole line of argument is that it seems to apply equally to people who must take a one-year position or post doc before they find a TT job. If the commentators are right, then people who don't get a TT job right out of grad school probably won't become great philosophers!

I am a bit late to this conversation. But I wanted to say two things: First, I have no idea why people leave one-sentence comments that need interpretation by fellow philosophers. That's really not helpful. Second, there has been little focus in this debate on the need for MA programs to accommodate really smart undergrads who got into the "wrong field." The person I have in mind is someone who studies pre-med, pre-law, engineering, astrophysics, or the like, during their undergraduate degree at a top-ranked school. During their undergraduate career they become interested in philosophy. But they are not truly competitive (despite awards, honors and a 4.00 GPA) because they haven't taken any philosophy courses. Should we conclude that if these guys pursue an MA and subsequently get into a PhD program and then get a job, they will wind up as good but not great philosophers? I don't think so. A lot of the students who come to our program fall into this category. Though they were competitive and could have gotten into some PhD program or other, they couldn't have gotten into Rutgers, CUNY, Columbia, or what have you. Fact: After getting their MA in our program, they did get into these top-ranked programs. And it looks like they are going to be great (not just good) philosophers.

If we can't settle what 'memory' means by definition, how do we settle it? Let's suppose, though, that you are right about that. Then I don't see any essential connection between learning and memory. Declarative memory is long-term potentiation. Why think the proteins can be deposited along the neurons' synapses only via learning?

Thanks for these comments! They are great!

I think I am in broad agreement with you. 'Procedural memory', however, is a term of art. Declarative memory (semantic and episodic memory) is more interesting psychologically and philosophically. I think it's plausible that semantic memory is, at least, partially inherited. But if this is so, then we have to think differently about what it means for a process to encode a memory.

Right! And good point! I agree with you. However, this is now the term 'procedural memory' is defined, or characterized, in psychology. We use related phrases in trade literature, for example, we talk about 'muscle memory' and 'immune system memory' etc.

Excellent point. Thank you. We will think about this one as well.

Hi Sylvia, Let me look into this. Thanks for pointing it out!

Thanks!!! Those are really good points.

Excellent point! These are pilot data. So, this is very helpful.

Hi Alan, This is a terribly slow reply, owing to an usually high volume of emails and the holidays. Thanks for your insightful comments, and so sorry to hear about your friends.

Anon Job Seeker (# 17): In my experience, working a few years in a full-time NTT position makes you look better than you would if you had moved from job to job or had only taught as an adjunct. Employing a person in a continuing NTT position still requires a commitment (and a risk) on the part of the hiring department. Of course, publications and "fresh" letters of recommendation are still key to employment in a TT position.