• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Hiddleston’s Causal Modeling Semantics and the Distinction between Forward-Tracking and Backtracking Counterfactuals*

    2017-06-05 14:59:58KokYongLee
    邏輯學(xué)研究 2017年1期
    關(guān)鍵詞:哲學(xué)系條件句語(yǔ)義學(xué)

    Kok Yong Lee

    Department of Philosophy,National Chung Cheng University

    kokyonglee.mu@gmail.com

    Hiddleston’s Causal Modeling Semantics and the Distinction between Forward-Tracking and Backtracking Counterfactuals*

    Kok Yong Lee

    Department of Philosophy,National Chung Cheng University

    kokyonglee.mu@gmail.com

    .Some cases show that counterfactual conditionals(‘counterfactuals’for short)are inherently ambiguous,equivocating between forward-tracking and backtracking counterfactuals.Elsewhere,I have proposed a causal modeling semantics,which takes this phenomenon to be generated by two kinds of causal manipulations.(Lee 2015;Lee 2016)In an important paper(Hiddleston 2005),Eric Hiddleston offers a different causal modeling semantics,which he claims to be able to explain away the inherent ambiguity of counterfactuals.In this paper,I discuss these two semantic treatments and argue that my(bifurcated)semantics is theoretically more promising than Hiddleston’s(unified)semantics.

    1 Introduction

    Jim is standing at a high cliff.What would have happened if Jim were to jump off the cliff?Naturally,there are two ways to counterfactualize the situation,and they give rise to two individually intuitive yet jointly incompatible verdicts.On the one hand,we may reason that Jim would have gotten killed by jumping off the cliff, since he would not be able to survive crashing on the ground after falling from such a high cliff.On the other hand,we may reason that Jim would not have gotten killed by jumping off the cliff,since Jim is a rational person,who will not jump off a high cliff unless there is,say,a safety net installed at the bottom.But if a safety net were installed at the bottom,Jim certainly would not have gotten killed by jumping off the cliff(he might even come out unhurt!).This shows that a counterfactual conditional(or‘counterfactual’forshort)isinherentlyambiguousinthesensethatthesame counterfactual,say,“If Jim were to jump off the cliff,he would have gotten killed”is true under one mode of counterfactualization but false under the other(also see[4]). Traditionally,these two modes of counterfactualization are regarded as resulting intwo kinds of counterfactuals,namely,forward-tracking and backtracking counterfactuals respectively.More precisely,the counterfactual“If Jim were to jump off the cliff,he would have gotten killed”is said to be true interpreted as a forward-tracking counterfactual,while false interpreted as a backtracking counterfactual.

    The inherent ambiguity of counterfactuals,I have argued,is rooted in two distinct kinds of causal manipulation,which are responsible for the different ways of counterfactualizing exhibited in the example above.([5])It is for this reason that I have also suggested that the distinction between forward-tracking and backtracking counterfactuals is better characterized by the causal modeling semantics of counterfactuals.

    In an important paper,Erick Hiddleston([3])has proposed a different causal modeling semantics of counterfactuals,which is claimed to be able to account for the inherent ambiguity of counterfactuals.Hiddleston’s semantics is starkly different from the one I proposed before in that while my semantics appeals to distinct treatments of two types of counterfactuals,Hiddleston’s semantics offers a unified treatment.In this paper,I want to compare and contrast these two semantic treatments.I argue that Hiddleston’s unified treatment,unlike my bifurcated treatment, fails to capture the inherent ambiguity of counterfactuals.

    In what follows,I will first introduce the causal modeling semantics I propose in earlier papers.I will then examine Hiddleston’s semantics,and comparing his semanticswithmine.IthenpointoutthedifficultiesfacedbyHiddleston’ssemantics.

    2 Causal Modeling Semantics

    Perhaps the best way to introduce the causal modeling semantics of counterfactuals is to look at a concrete example.Let us then construct a causal model J for the case mentioned at the beginning(I will call this case‘Jump’).

    A causal model is a mathematical entity aiming at representing the causal relations of the events in a scenario.More formally,a causal model M is a quadruple〈U,V,S,A〉.The first two elements,U and V,are sets of variables that are variables for events constituting the scenario that the causal model is supposed to represent. U is a finite set of variables{U1,...,Un}called the exogenous variables,which are supposed to be causally independent of all other factors in the model.V is a finite set of variables{V1,...,Vm}called the endogenous variables,which are supposed to be causally dependent upon other factors in the model.The causal model J of Jump naturally contains the following endogenous variables:

    JUMP represents whether or not Jim jumps off the cliff.

    KILL represents whether or not Jim gets killed.

    J also naturally contains the following exogenous variables:

    RATIONAL represents whether or not Jim is a rational person.

    NET represents whether or not a safety net is installed at the bottom of the cliff. In general,each Vi∈V and Ui∈U admit a range of values,but it should be obvious that J only contains binary variables that take on two possible values,i.e.,“Yes”or“No”.

    It is customary to use‘Vi=vi’to stand for the proposition The variable Vitakes on the value of vi.For binary variables such as JUMP,KILL,RATIONAL,NET,we may use‘1’and‘0’to stand for Yes and No respectively(for simplicity’s sake,this paper will only deal with binary variables).For instance,“JUMP=1”means that Jim jumps off the cliff,while“NET=0”means that no safety net is installed at the bottom of the cliff.

    The third element of a causal model,S,is a set of structural equations that specify the causal-dependence relationships among variables.The causal dependence in play may be deterministic and indeterministic,although I will focus solely on deterministic causal relations here.For each Vi∈V,S contains exactly one structural equation of the following form:

    Themeaningof‘?’istwofold.Ontheonehand,“X?Y”meansthatX iscausally dependent on Y,i.e.,whether X obtains or not is causally dependent on whether Y obtainsornot.Ontheotherhand,“X?Y”indicatesthatX willtakeonthevalueof Y.Let‘PAi’stand for a subset of U∪V which is the set of Vi’s parents.Parenthood is essentially a causal relation:the parents of an event are its direct causes,and its children are its direct effects.The parents of a variable occur in the right-hand side of its structural equation.For simplicity’s sake,we will also treat variables on the righthand side of the equation as propositions such that“Y”means Y=1,and“~Y”means Y=0.

    J’s S naturally contains the following structural equations:

    In words,“JUMP?(~RATIONAL∨NET)”means that whether or not Jim jumps off the cliff depends causally on both whether or not Jim is a rational person and whether or not a safety net is installed at the bottom such that Jim will jump off the cliff if and only if either he is irrational or a safety net is installed at the bottom.“KILL?(JUMP∧~NET)”means that whether or not Jim gets killed is causally dependent on both whether or not Jim jumps off the cliff and whether or not a safety net is installed such that Jim will get killed if and only if he jumps off the cliff and there is no safety net installed at the bottom.

    There is no structural equation for exogenous variables such as RATIONAL and NET.For exogenous variables are assumed to be causally independent of all otherfactors in the model.Their values are“given”in the model rather than determined by the structural equations.

    The fourth element of a causal model,A,is a function that assigns values to all variables in the model.J’s A,arguably,is as follows:

    In words,in Jump,Jim is a rational person,there is no safety net installed down the cliff,Jim does not jump off the cliff,and he does not get killed.

    With the notion of causal model at hand,we are in a position to introduce the causal modeling semantics.At its core,the semantics takes the truth condition of counterfactuals as:

    (CM)“A>C”is true in a causal model M iff“C”is true in certain submodels M′.‘>’stands for the counterfactual-conditional connective.Informally,a submodel M′isacausalmodelgeneratedbycausallymanipulatingM inacertainway.Thegeneral idea behind CM is this.Since a causal model M represents a scenario s,a counterfactual scenario s′,generated by causally manipulating the scenario s,is represented by a submodel M′of M,which is generated in turn by causally manipulating M in a parallel way.

    I have argued,in previous works,that there are two types of submodels,which give rise to the distinction between forward-tracking and backtracking counterfactuals.([4,5])The idea is that there are two distinct kinds of causal manipulation. Roughly,one may manipulate a causal model either by changing the value of a variablethroughbreakingsomestructuralequationsorbychangingthevalueofavariable through tracing the required modifications back to some exogenous variables.Let us call them intervention and extrapolation respectively.

    Intervention has been featured in all prominent causal modeling semantics of counterfactuals([2,6,1]).Let M=〈U,V,S,A〉be a causal model,B be a sentence oftheform‘C1=c1∧...∧Cn=cn’,VBbethesetofvariablesthatareinB.AninterventioninM withrespecttoB generatesasubmodelM(B)=〈U(B),V(B),S(B),A(B)〉of M such that:

    TointerveneinacausalmodelM withrespecttoB istoremovetheoriginalstructural equations(if any)for Ci∈VB and directly set the value to be ci.If Ciis exogenous, interventionsimplysetsthevalueofCitobeci.Thevaluesoftherestofthevariables are calculated based on the value of Ciand S(B).

    Now,let M=〈U,V,S,A〉be a causal model and M?a submodel of M generated by extrapolating M with respect to B,if M?satisfies the following conditions:

    Like intervention,to extrapolate a causal model M with respect to B also sets each Ciin VB to take on the value ci.But unlike intervention,extrapolation preserves the structural equations of the original model.More importantly,while intervention always gives us a unique submodel,extrapolation may generate multiple submodels. When more than one submodel is generated,the context will determine which submodel or submodels are relevant in determining the truth values of counterfactuals. Let us use M(B)to denote the contextually determined submodel or submodels M?, which are generated by extrapolating M with respect to B,and which play a crucial role determines the truth value of the counterfactuals in play.

    With intervention and extrapolation in hand,we may disambiguate CM into:

    CMINandCMEXgivethecorrectverdictswithrespecttoJump.InterveninginJ with respect to(JUMP=1)gives rise to the submodel J(JUMP=1)such that J(JUMP=1)’s U(JUMP=1)and V(JUMP=1)are identical to J’s.J(JUMP=1)’s S(JUMP=1),by contrast, consists of the following:

    As a result,J(JUMP=1)’s A(JUMP=1)is that:

    On CMIN,since“KILL=1”is true in J(JUMP=1),“JUMP=1>KILL=1”is trueINin J,as desired.

    By contrast,suppose that we extrapolate J with respect to(JUMP=1).In the present context,extrapolation arguably generates a unique submodel J(JUMP=1)∈J(JUMP=1),whose value assignment A(JUMP=1)is as follows:

    On CMEX,since“KILL=1”is false in J(JUMP=1),“JUMP=1>KILL=1”is falseEXin J,as desired.

    Not only does the distinction between intervention and extrapolation give the correct verdicts,it also sheds an important light on the two modes of counterfactualization that give rise to forward-tracking and backtracking counterfactuals.Let‘Jump’and‘Kill’stand for the propositions Jim jumps off the cliff and Jim has gotten killed respectively.When counterfactualizing that“Jump>Kill”is true in Jump,we focus solely on the causal effect of the event of Jim jumping off the cliff(i.e.,Jump) itself.The causal relations between Jump and its causes are ignored.In particular, we make no attempt to actualize or rationalize how Jump could have happened in Jump in the first place.For instance,we ignore the facts that Jim is a rational person and that no safety net is installed,which in the actual situation have prevented Jim from jumping off the cliff.In a sense,we simply stipulate that Jim jumps off the cliff without having in our mind a specific story as to how Jump could have happened in the first place.This mode of counterfactualization is nicely captured by intervention, for intervening in a causal model M with respect to(Ci=ci)generates a submodel M(Ci=ci)that contains information necessary for understanding the causal effect of (Ci=ci).([2])M(Ci=ci)surgically removes the causal influence Ci’s parents have on Ci,while stipulating Cito take on the value ci.This allows us to see clearly the causal effect that(Ci=ci)has on Ci’s children.

    On the other hand,when counterfactualizing that“Jump>Kill”is false in Jump, our focus is on the causal relations among Jump and its causes in order to determineunder what condition Jump could have actually happened.For instance,we reason that Jim would not get killed if he was to jump off the cliff,since Jim was a rational person,and a rational person would not jump off the cliff without the installation of a safety net at the bottom,but if a safety net was installed,jumping off the cliff would then not get him killed.This mode of counterfactualization is captured nicely by extrapolation,as extrapolating a causal model M with respect to(Ci=ci)generates a set of submodels M?that contains all information necessary for knowing under what condition(Ci=ci)could have actually happened in M.M?assigns the values of its variables in a way that preserves all the causal relations among its variables in M,which gives us a story of what else needs to change in order for Cito take on the value ciin M.

    3 Hiddleston’s Causal Modeling Semantics

    In[3],Eric Hiddleston proposes a different causal modeling semantics of counterfactuals which is in stark contrast to the one introduced above.Specifically,Hiddleston’s semantics offers a unified account of forward-tracking and backtracking counterfactuals.In what follows,I first will introduce Hiddleston’s semantics,pointing out the similarities and differences between Hiddleston’s semantics and the one mentioned above(or the orthodox causal modeling semantics in general).I then argue that Hiddleston’s semantics fails to account for the distinction between forwardtracking and backtracking semantics.Rather,closely examining what goes wrong in Hiddleston’s semantics further vindicates the assumption that forward-tracking counterfactuals and backtracking counterfactuals are of two different kinds.

    A distinctive feature of Hiddleston’s semantics is that it allows indeterministic laws.Moreprecisely,Hiddlestontakesstructuralequationstobespecifiedasfollows:

    ‘?’and‘Pr’stand for material implication and the probability function respectively. Hiddleston restricts Aito what he calls the positive parents of C in M.Positive parenthood characterizes the variables which have a direct positive influence on C= c.The latter is defined as follows:

    For each Ai,Aihas a direct positive influence on C=c iff Pr(C=c|Ai= ai∧Zi=zi)> Pr(C=c|Ai≠ai∧Zi=zi)(where Zistands for C’s other parents).

    WenowdefineakindofsubmodelM′ofM whichHiddlestoncalls“Φ-minimal model’.To get to it,we need to introduce some terminologies.

    As noted,a submodel M′of M is a causal model resulted from causally manipulating M in some specific manners(M′and M would thus have the same set of variables V and U).A Φ-model is a causal model in which“Φ”is true.

    Let‘PPAC,M’stand for the set of C’s positive parents in M such that PPAC,M={Ai:Ai=aihas a direct positive influence on C=c in M}.When no confusion arises,we may drop the subscript of M.

    A causal break is a variable,whose value in a submodel M′is different from its value in M while all its positive parents have the same values in M′as in M.More precisely,a causal break in a submodel M′relative to M is a variable A such that the value of A in M′is different from the value of A in M,and for each Xi∈PPAA,the value of Xiremains constant across M′and M.Let‘Break(M′,M)’be the set of variables Aisuch that Aiis a causal break in M′relative to M.When no confusion arises,we may simply write‘Break’.

    A causal intact is a variable,whose value in a submodel M′is the same as the one in M and all its positive parents have the same values in M′as in M.More precisely,a causal intact in a submodel M′relative to M is a variable A such that the value of As remains constant across M′and M,and for each Xi∈PAAA,the value of Xiremains constant across M′and M.Let‘Intact(M′,M)’be the set of variables Aisuch that Aiis a causal intact in M′relative to M.When no confusion arises,we may simply write‘Intact’.

    Now,we are in a position to define a Φ-minimal model M′which is crucial to Hiddleston’s account.Let M=〈V,U,S,A〉be a causal model,A submodel M′of M and Break(M′,M)are Φ-minimal relative to M iff

    Hiddleston’s causal modeling characterization of the truth condition of counterfactuals is as follows:

    (CMH)“A > C”is true in a model M and a context C iff“C”is true in every A-minimal model M′for which Break(M′,M)is relevant in C.

    Notice that CMHrelates the truth-values of counterfactuals to contexts.The reason is that there may be multiple(yet incompatible)A-minimal models M′,and only the relevant A-minimal model is pertaining to the characterization of the truth condition of“A>C”,while whether a A-minimal model is relevant is determined by context. When no confusion arises,we will drop the specification of the context.

    BeforewegoontodiscussHiddleston’streatmentofforward-trackingandbacktracking counterfactuals,let us pause and make some comments.First,a distinctive feature of Hiddleston’s semantics is that it allows structural equations to be specified by a probabilistic function,i.e.,(H).Hiddleston’s idea is that(H)embodies a quasi-deterministic view on causal dependence:an event A is causally dependent on an event B even if B only renders A more probable rather than certain.Hiddleston justifies(H)by pointing out that“many processes such as coin flips and dierolls behave as if they were indeterministic,and so we treat them as such”.“This quasi-determinism,”Hiddleston contends,“may be due to either determinism or indeterminism at the fundamental level,and commonsense is not committed to either way”.([3],p.639)

    Nevertheless,Hiddleston’s quasi-deterministic structural equations can account for the orthodox deterministic structural equations that take the form Vi?fi(PAi). For notice that the following is a special case of(H):

    Fiis a certain(causal)function that maps(A1=a1∧...∧An=an)to c.That(HD) and(HD)′are basically the same is warranted by strict implication.

    It is an interesting question whether we should adopt quasi-deterministic structural equations as Hiddleston does or deterministic structural equations as the orthodox causal modeling semanticists do.While I agree with Hiddleston that commonsense is not committed to either determinism or indeterminism,it is not obvious to me that quasi-deterministic causal dependence is ubiquitous in our understanding of daily situations.The reason is that our understanding of a situation often consists in grasping the circumstantial necessity,i.e.,what is inevitable in the circumstance, among events.For instance,in Jump,it is true that,strictly,Jim may not even get hurt jumping off a high cliff.So Jim getting killed is only quasi-deterministically depends onJimjumpingoffthecliff.YetitiscommonthatweidealizethesituationsothatJim getting killed is circumstantially inevitable given that he jumps off the cliff.Such idealization is understandable and even mandatory,for otherwise many situations would not be graspable.Hiddleston is surely right that processes such as coin flips and die rollsarecharacteristicallyquasi-deterministic.Theorthodoxcausalmodelingsemanticists,however,can always handle such processes by regarding them as exogenous variables.

    Undoubtedly,a lot more can and should be said regarding this issue.Pursuing the issue any further,however,is beyond the scope of this paper.Fortunately,the point I want to make will not be affected by our choice of the general form of structural equations.For a deterministic structural equation can be regarded as a special case of the quasi-deterministic form of structural equations,and my argument can be manifested by using only the deterministic structural equations.

    Second,suppose that a causal model M contains only structural equations of the form(HD)′.It follows that a Break related to M can only be an exogenous variable. For it is impossible for an endogenous variable to take a different value while its parent’s value remains intact,given that the structural equation in play is of determinism. Moreover,with respect to such a model,a set of A-minimal models is identical to acertain set of submodels M(A).For it seems obvious that an appropriate specification will allow an extrapolation of M with respect to A to satisfy the three conditions of A-minimal model mentioned above.In other words,CMHcan be characterized by CMEX,when only deterministic structural equations(i.e.,(HD)′)are involved.

    4 Hiddleston on Forward-Tracking and Backtracking Counterfactuals

    Hiddlestondoesnottakecounterfactualstobeinherentlyambiguousinthesense defined above.Rather he takes the distinction between forward-tracking and backtracking counterfactuals to be manifested by a certain context-dependent feature of counterfactuals.As noted,CMHtakes the truth condition of“A>C”to be relative to a certain Break determined by a certain context.Such a context-dependence of the truth condition of counterfactuals,on Hiddleston’s view,results in the distinction between forward-tracking and backtracking counterfactuals.Let me elaborate.

    Arguably,Hiddleston will accept J as“a natural model”for Jump.([3],p.645) Firstly,that J contains RATIONAL,NET,JUMP,KILL seems both natural and intuitive.Secondly,it should be uncontroversial that J’s S consist of:

    For one thing,we have seen that(H)can be construed as(HD)′,when only deterministic structural equations are involved.For another,Hiddleston also notes that in such a case,“Jim jumps only if either NET=1 or RATIONAL=0”([3],p.645;I have modified Hiddleston’s remarks to be in line with the present terminology).Thirdly, J’s value assignment A is also as innocuous as it can be,reflecting the fact that Jim is a rational person,who does not jump off a high cliff without a safety net installed at the bottom.Hiddleston has accepted A.([3],p.645)

    I have claimed that“If Jim were to jump off the cliff,he would have gotten killed”(or“JUMP=1>KILL=1”)is true when construed as a forward-tracking counterfactual but false when construed as a backtracking counterfactual.As I see it, Hiddleston also agrees with this claim.However,Hiddleston does not think that the difference between these two kinds of counterfactuals consists in two different kinds of causal manipulations.The difference,rather,is considered as the product of the context-sensitivity of the relevant Break.([3],pp.645–646)On Hiddleston’s view,“JUMP=1>KILL=1”istruewhen{RATIONAL}istakenastherelevantBreak, whereasitwillbecomefalsewhen{NET}istakenastherelevantBreakinstead.More precisely,when{RATIONAL}is taken to be the relevant Break,the only JUMP=1-minimal model J’is such that J′’s A’is as follows:

    By contrast,when{NET}is regarded as the relevant Break,the only JUMP=1-minimal model J′′’s A′′is as follows:

    CMHgives verdicts that are in accordance with our initial intuitions.On the one hand,since“KILL=1”is true in J′which is the only JUMP=1-minimal model for which Break(J,J′)(i.e.,{RATIONAL})is relevant,“JUMP=1>KILL=1”is true in J,as desired.On the other hand,since“KILL=1”is false in J′′,which is the only JUMP=1-minimal model for which Break(J,J′′)(i.e.,{NET})is relevant,“JUMP=1>KILL=1”is false in J,as desired.The variation of the truth-value of“JUMP=1>KILL=1”is regarded as the product of the context-sensitivity of Break.

    Which one should we choose,a unified treatment such as CMH,or a bifurcated one such as CMINand CMEX?The key to this question is intervention.It is not hard to recognize that Hiddleston’s semantics in general leaves no room for intervention. For all A-minimal models M′of M preserve the set of structural equations of M,and without the violation of certain structural equations,intervention is impossible.This suggests a natural way to test Hiddleston’s treatment of the ambiguity of counterfactuals.That is,in order for CMHto hold,or at least be theoretically no less promising than CMINand CMEX,it must be that the distinction between forward-tracking and backtracking counterfactuals can always be explained or predicted by the contextsensitivity of Break.But this last point is problematic.One way to see this is to note that,related to causal models containing only structural equations of the form(HD)′andbinaryvariables,thecontext-sensitivity-of-Breakmaneuverisfeasibleonlywhen there are more than one exogenous variables,otherwise there will only be at most one A-minimal model M′of M.In other words,such a causal model will only have exactly one Break,i.e.,the only exogenous variable,and,as a result,the truth-values of counterfactualswithrespecttosuchamodelcouldnotbecontext-sensitive.Theproblem is that the distinction between forward-tracking and backtracking counterfactualspersistsevenincausalmodelswithexactlyoneexogenousvariable.Forinstance,suppose that we modified Jump such that either a powerful demon will install a safety net at the bottom or she will cause Jim to become a rational person(call this case‘Jump?’).Naturally,a causal model J?for Jump?contains exactly one exogenous variable:

    DEMON represents whether the demon installs a safety net at the bottom of the cliff or she causes Jim to become a rational person.

    Bycontrast,J?’sendogenousvariablesincludeNET,RATIONAL,JUMP,KILL.The detail of J?needs not bother us here.What is important is while J?does not allow for more than one JUMP=1-minimal model.But it seems that the distinction between construing“JUMP=1>KILL=1”as a forward-tracking counterfactual and construing it as a backtracking counterfactual is still perfectly sensible in Jump?. Specifically,it seems that“JUMP=1>KILL=1”still appears to be true(false) when construed as a forward-tracking(backtracking)counterfactual in Jump?.

    While it is not hard to see that CMINand CMEXcan give the desired verdicts for the truth-values of“JUMP=1>KILL=1”in Jump?,the same cannot be said of CMH.For models that contain exactly one exogenous variable like J?,CMHwill unduly predict either that the distinction between forward-tracking and backtracking counterfactuals does not arise,or that these two kinds of counterfactuals collapse. Neither option seems plausible.This shows not only that CMHis not in a position to account for the inherent ambiguity of counterfactuals,but also that a bifurcated treatment along the line of CMINand CMEXis on the right track.

    The problem is further manifested by cases where intervention and extrapolation come apart.In the extreme cases,there can be intervention even if no extrapolation is possible.To illustrate,consider the following case:

    Nuclear.Anuclearmissilewillbelaunchediftwoseparatepasscodesare keyed into the launching machine.If the missile launches,a major city will be destroyed.The captain is the only person who knows both passcodes.If he decides to launch the missile,then he will have to give each of his two assistants,John and Jason,a separate passcode,and they will then key it into the launching machine.The captain has no intention to destroy any city.To make sure that the missile will not be launched,the captain hypnotizes himself such that he will be psychologically impossible to give both John and Jason a passcode.However,the laws require that the captain have to tell at least one of his assistants one of the two passcodes.The captain tells John the passcode.

    Let us construct a causal model N for Nuclear.N’s U naturally contains one exogenous variable:

    CAPTAIN represents whether the captain gives a passcode to John or to Jason.Also,we stipulate that CAPTAIN takes on the value 1 when the captain decides to give a passcode to John,otherwise the value 0.

    N’s V,by contrast,consists of four endogenous variables:

    JOHN represents whether or not John keys a passcode into the launching machine.

    JASON represents whether or not Jason keys a passcode into the launching machine.

    LAUNCH represents whether or not the nuclear missile is launched.

    DESTROY represents whether or not a major city is destroyed.

    The following are the structural equations in N’s S:

    In words,whether John(Jason)keys in the passcode depends causally on whether or not the captain tells him the passcode such that John(Jason)will key in the passcode if and only if the captain tells him the passcode.Moreover,whether or not the nuclear missile will launch depends causally on whether or not John and Jason key in the passcode such that the missile will launch if and only if both John and Jason key in the passcode.Finally,whether or not a major city will be destroyed depends causally on whether or not the nuclear missile launches such that the city will be destroyed if and only if the missile launches.

    Naturally,N’s A is as follows:

    In words,the captain tells John the passcode,John keys in the passcode,Jason does not key in the passcode,the nuclear missile does not launch,and a major city is not destroyed.

    N showsthatinterventionandextrapolationcannotbethesame.Moreprecisely, while there is a solution when intervening in N with respect to(LAUNCH=1), there is no solution when extrapolating N with respect to(LAUNCH=1).That is, interveninginN withrespectto(LAUNCH=1)generatesasubmodelN(LAUNCH=1)whose set of structural equations S(LAUNCH=1)consists of:

    Moreover,A(LAUNCH=1)is as follows:

    By contrast,extrapolating H with respect to(LAUNCH=1)generates no consistent submodel N?at all.Suppose that we extrapolate N with respect to(LAUNCH=1). By LAUNCH?(JOHN∧JASON),it follows that JASON should take on the value 1.But then CAPTAIN will have to take on the value 0(by JASON?~CAPTAIN). But if CAPTAIN is to take on the value 0,JOHN also will take on the value 0(by JOHN?CAPTAIN).But if JOHN is to take on the value 0,LAUNCH will have to take on the value 0,too(by LAUNCH?(JOHN∧JASON)).Contradiction.In other words,extrapolation N with respect to(LAUNCH=1)will have no solution.

    Since CMHcan be characterized by CMEXrelated to causal models like N,it is not surprising that the former,too,is not able to handle the same problem.Notice that in N,the only relevant break is{CAPTAIN}.But if so,then there exists no LAUNCH=1-minimal model N′for which{CAPTAIN}is relevant.LAUNCH to take on the value 1 is impossible in the sense that it requires breaking structural equations.This indicates the root of this problem:since both CMHand CMEXdo not allow violations of structural equations,some value assignments may thus turn out impossible.

    This is problematic if CMHis supposed to account for forward-tracking counterfactuals.In particular,the following(forward-tracking counterfactual)seems intuitively true in Nuclear:

    (1)If the nuclear missile had been launched,a major city would have been destroyed.

    (1)causesnoproblemformysemantics,for“DESTROY=1”istrueINinN(LAUNCH=1)as desired.But the same could not be said of CMH,as we can see that it is impossible for LAUNCH to take on value 1 for doing so requires violations of structural equations.Hiddleston,in a footnote,suggests taking such counterfactuals to be vacuously true.([3],p.655,footnote 7)So perhaps we can regard(1)as vacuously true.But thismove is implausible,for the following(forward-tracking counterfactual)would also be counted as vacuously true:

    (2)If the nuclear missile had been launched,a major city would still not have been destroyed.

    Since(2)is intuitively false,Hiddleston’s suggestion is implausible.

    5 Conclusion

    Ifwhathavebeensaidiscorrect,Hiddleston’scausalmodelingsemanticscannot cope with the inherent ambiguity of counterfactuals.While such ambiguity might sometimes be predicted by the context-sensitivity of the relevant Breaks in CMH,it is mistaken to diagnose the root of this phenomenon as consisting in such contextsensitivity.Elaborating the failure of CMHin fact shows clearly that a bifurcated semantics such as CMINand CMEXis required in order to account for explaining the inherent ambiguity of counterfactuals.Hence,contra Hiddleston,intervention and extrapolationarethekeytothedistinctionbetweenforward-trackingandbacktracking counterfactuals.

    [1] R.Briggs,2012,“Interventionist counterfactuals”,Philosophical Studies,160(1):139–166.

    [2] D.Galles and J.Pearl,1998,“An axiomatic characterization of causal counterfactuals”, Foundations of Science,3(1):151–182.

    [3] E.Hiddleston,2005,“A causal theory of counterfactuals”,No?s,39(4):632–657.

    [4] K.Y.Lee,2015,“Causal models and the ambiguity of counterfactuals”,in W.van der Hoek,W.H.Holliday and W.-F.Wang(eds.),Logic,Rationality,and Interaction:5th International Workshop,LORI 2015,pp.220–229,New York:Springer.

    [5] K.Y.Lee,2016,“Motivating the causal modeling semantics of counterfactuals,or,why we should favor the causal modeling semantics over the possible-worlds semantics”,in S.C.-M.Yang,D.-M.DengandH.Lin(eds.),StructuralAnalysisofNon-ClassicalLogics:The Proceeedings of the Second Taiwan Philosophical Logic Colloquium,pp.83–110,New York:Springer.

    [6] J.Pearl,2000,Causality:Models,Reasoning,and Inference,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

    某些案例顯示反事實(shí)條件句(counterfactual conditionals)是有“內(nèi)在歧義的”(inherently ambiguous),即同一句反事實(shí)條件句既可以表達(dá)“前進(jìn)式反事實(shí)條件句”(forward-trackingcounterfactuals)也可以表達(dá)“回溯式反事實(shí)條件句”(backtracking counterfactuals)。在之前的文章中(Lee 2015,Lee 2016),我提出一個(gè)因果模型反事實(shí)條件句語(yǔ)義學(xué)(causal modeling semantics of counterfactuals),主張反事實(shí)條件句的內(nèi)在歧義性是由不同的因果操弄(causal manipulation)所產(chǎn)生的。在一篇很重要的論文中(Hiddleston 2005),Eric Hiddleston提出一個(gè)截然不同的因果模型反事實(shí)條件句語(yǔ)義學(xué),并宣稱這個(gè)語(yǔ)義學(xué)可以解釋反事實(shí)條件句的內(nèi)在歧義性。本文將介紹上述兩個(gè)因果模型反事實(shí)條件句語(yǔ)義學(xué),并試圖論證本人的語(yǔ)義學(xué)比Hiddleston的語(yǔ)義學(xué)能夠更好地處理反事實(shí)條件句的內(nèi)在歧義性。

    Hiddleston因果模型語(yǔ)義學(xué)以及前進(jìn)式與回溯式反事實(shí)條件句的區(qū)別
    李國(guó)揚(yáng)

    國(guó)立中正大學(xué)哲學(xué)系

    kokyonglee.mu@gmail.com

    tion,by contrast,has

    little attention from philosophers.Suppose M=〈U,V,S,A〉is a causal model,B a sentence of the form‘C1=c1∧...∧Cm=cm’,and VB the set of variables that are in B.Define VBcto be the closure of the parents of the variables in VB,i.e.,the set of the‘a(chǎn)ncestors’of VB.That is to say, define VBcto be the smallest set that satisfies the following conditions:

    Received 2016-12-20

    *A previous version of this paper had been presented in Workshop on Philosophical Logic:Conditionals and Related Questions at National Taiwan University.I want to thank all participants for their comments.I also want to thank Duen-Min Deng for helping me to improve the formulation of the causal modeling semantics presented here.

    猜你喜歡
    哲學(xué)系條件句語(yǔ)義學(xué)
    條約演化解釋:合法性、語(yǔ)義學(xué)分析及近似概念
    法律方法(2021年3期)2021-03-16 05:57:16
    四部電影版《小婦人》
    丸子的朋友圈
    聚焦虛擬條件句的變式
    哈特的語(yǔ)義學(xué)
    彰顯中國(guó)化馬克思主義的魅力
    ——記華中科技大學(xué)哲學(xué)系教授歐陽(yáng)康
    If條件句結(jié)構(gòu)的范疇認(rèn)知視角及翻譯策略
    文教資料(2016年3期)2016-03-16 20:12:26
    哲學(xué)系要辦得越來(lái)越像哲學(xué)系
    迎新年
    看天下(2014年1期)2014-04-08 23:02:10
    財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)概念的語(yǔ)義學(xué)考察
    日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| 欧美日韩精品网址| 天天躁日日躁夜夜躁夜夜| 妹子高潮喷水视频| 丁香六月天网| 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| 如日韩欧美国产精品一区二区三区| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 久9热在线精品视频| 最新在线观看一区二区三区| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 97在线人人人人妻| 午夜福利,免费看| 1024视频免费在线观看| 欧美国产精品一级二级三级| 在线 av 中文字幕| 欧美在线黄色| 欧美精品一区二区大全| 18禁黄网站禁片午夜丰满| 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| 午夜福利视频精品| 超碰成人久久| 男女无遮挡免费网站观看| 香蕉丝袜av| 日韩制服骚丝袜av| 咕卡用的链子| 自线自在国产av| 亚洲国产日韩一区二区| 国产国语露脸激情在线看| xxxhd国产人妻xxx| 在线亚洲精品国产二区图片欧美| 欧美日本中文国产一区发布| 人人妻人人澡人人看| 高潮久久久久久久久久久不卡| 国产日韩欧美视频二区| 国产不卡av网站在线观看| 亚洲国产欧美一区二区综合| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影 | 老熟女久久久| 国产精品av久久久久免费| 久久久精品国产亚洲av高清涩受| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| www.自偷自拍.com| 国产欧美亚洲国产| 日韩一卡2卡3卡4卡2021年| 亚洲成人手机| 日本猛色少妇xxxxx猛交久久| 人妻人人澡人人爽人人| 国产xxxxx性猛交| 狠狠婷婷综合久久久久久88av| 色婷婷av一区二区三区视频| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区 | 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 成人18禁高潮啪啪吃奶动态图| 在线观看舔阴道视频| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影 | 久久精品人人爽人人爽视色| 在线观看免费午夜福利视频| 国产成人精品久久二区二区免费| 天天躁狠狠躁夜夜躁狠狠躁| 国产免费福利视频在线观看| av一本久久久久| 少妇 在线观看| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 人成视频在线观看免费观看| 中国国产av一级| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 欧美老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 最黄视频免费看| 欧美久久黑人一区二区| 亚洲 国产 在线| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 亚洲国产av影院在线观看| 日日爽夜夜爽网站| 亚洲伊人色综图| 国产精品.久久久| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线| 一区二区三区乱码不卡18| 精品亚洲成a人片在线观看| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 亚洲国产av新网站| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 亚洲成人免费av在线播放| 免费观看av网站的网址| 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| 国产精品一二三区在线看| 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频| 国产一区二区三区av在线| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 婷婷成人精品国产| 叶爱在线成人免费视频播放| www.熟女人妻精品国产| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 精品久久久久久久毛片微露脸 | 超碰97精品在线观看| 高清视频免费观看一区二区| 日韩制服骚丝袜av| 不卡av一区二区三区| 巨乳人妻的诱惑在线观看| 高清黄色对白视频在线免费看| 2018国产大陆天天弄谢| 久久人人爽人人片av| 考比视频在线观看| 午夜老司机福利片| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区久久| 丁香六月天网| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美 | 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| 亚洲精品成人av观看孕妇| 欧美老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 亚洲av男天堂| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区mp4| 宅男免费午夜| 午夜老司机福利片| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡| 国产精品国产av在线观看| 久久性视频一级片| 在线观看舔阴道视频| 在线观看一区二区三区激情| 丝袜人妻中文字幕| 一级毛片女人18水好多| 午夜福利视频在线观看免费| 交换朋友夫妻互换小说| av国产精品久久久久影院| 亚洲伊人色综图| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| 国产精品一二三区在线看| 美女高潮到喷水免费观看| 少妇人妻久久综合中文| 成年人午夜在线观看视频| 热99久久久久精品小说推荐| 老司机午夜十八禁免费视频| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看 | 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 女人精品久久久久毛片| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 首页视频小说图片口味搜索| 久久久久国产精品人妻一区二区| 国产欧美日韩精品亚洲av| 一区二区av电影网| 一级黄色大片毛片| 国产精品av久久久久免费| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看 | 高清欧美精品videossex| 精品亚洲成国产av| 超色免费av| 国产1区2区3区精品| 国产精品麻豆人妻色哟哟久久| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 91精品伊人久久大香线蕉| tube8黄色片| 亚洲精品日韩在线中文字幕| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人 | 无限看片的www在线观看| 在线观看免费视频网站a站| 亚洲人成电影观看| 亚洲专区字幕在线| 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频| 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| 激情视频va一区二区三区| 亚洲av日韩精品久久久久久密| 国产精品亚洲av一区麻豆| 老熟妇乱子伦视频在线观看 | 一级片'在线观看视频| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 性高湖久久久久久久久免费观看| 久久久精品94久久精品| 十八禁高潮呻吟视频| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 50天的宝宝边吃奶边哭怎么回事| 99国产极品粉嫩在线观看| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 中国国产av一级| 久久中文看片网| 精品免费久久久久久久清纯 | 亚洲国产精品999| 欧美精品一区二区免费开放| 久久精品亚洲熟妇少妇任你| 十八禁网站网址无遮挡| 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看| 满18在线观看网站| 中文字幕av电影在线播放| 欧美av亚洲av综合av国产av| 久久九九热精品免费| 人妻人人澡人人爽人人| 99国产精品免费福利视频| 两人在一起打扑克的视频| 手机成人av网站| 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频| 中文精品一卡2卡3卡4更新| 久久久久久免费高清国产稀缺| 俄罗斯特黄特色一大片| 成人18禁高潮啪啪吃奶动态图| 精品亚洲乱码少妇综合久久| 久久九九热精品免费| 国产在视频线精品| 亚洲中文av在线| 久久久国产一区二区| 久久久久久免费高清国产稀缺| 欧美日韩亚洲综合一区二区三区_| 正在播放国产对白刺激| 天天躁狠狠躁夜夜躁狠狠躁| 99香蕉大伊视频| 精品高清国产在线一区| 日本91视频免费播放| 成人亚洲精品一区在线观看| 丝袜美足系列| 悠悠久久av| 老熟女久久久| 国产免费现黄频在线看| 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 精品卡一卡二卡四卡免费| 精品亚洲成a人片在线观看| 免费观看人在逋| 一进一出抽搐动态| 国产高清videossex| 亚洲五月色婷婷综合| 精品人妻熟女毛片av久久网站| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 日本91视频免费播放| 纵有疾风起免费观看全集完整版| 制服诱惑二区| 色视频在线一区二区三区| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区| 丝袜美腿诱惑在线| 午夜老司机福利片| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添小说| 国产一级毛片在线| 亚洲精品一二三| 久久免费观看电影| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 91成人精品电影| 亚洲九九香蕉| 成人国产av品久久久| 一级毛片电影观看| tube8黄色片| av福利片在线| 一区二区三区激情视频| 国产亚洲精品久久久久5区| 久久久久久久精品精品| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三 | 老司机靠b影院| 大型av网站在线播放| 中文字幕av电影在线播放| 午夜福利一区二区在线看| 国产一区二区在线观看av| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 中文字幕另类日韩欧美亚洲嫩草| 50天的宝宝边吃奶边哭怎么回事| 亚洲精品一二三| 日韩中文字幕视频在线看片| 成年av动漫网址| 欧美亚洲 丝袜 人妻 在线| 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频| 女人久久www免费人成看片| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久 | 成人黄色视频免费在线看| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影小说| 亚洲精品国产精品久久久不卡| 久久久精品94久久精品| 新久久久久国产一级毛片| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 亚洲一码二码三码区别大吗| 最近中文字幕2019免费版| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看 | 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 一区二区三区四区激情视频| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡 | 国产无遮挡羞羞视频在线观看| 午夜福利一区二区在线看| 在线观看免费日韩欧美大片| 高潮久久久久久久久久久不卡| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 大陆偷拍与自拍| 亚洲伊人久久精品综合| 国产免费一区二区三区四区乱码| 精品亚洲乱码少妇综合久久| 美女脱内裤让男人舔精品视频| 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| 美女国产高潮福利片在线看| 一本一本久久a久久精品综合妖精| 亚洲一卡2卡3卡4卡5卡精品中文| 亚洲av成人一区二区三| 国产精品麻豆人妻色哟哟久久| 纵有疾风起免费观看全集完整版| 多毛熟女@视频| 黄网站色视频无遮挡免费观看| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 三级毛片av免费| 男人爽女人下面视频在线观看| 啦啦啦免费观看视频1| 老汉色∧v一级毛片| 波多野结衣av一区二区av| 国产精品 国内视频| 精品卡一卡二卡四卡免费| 欧美av亚洲av综合av国产av| 欧美日韩视频精品一区| av电影中文网址| a级片在线免费高清观看视频| av天堂久久9| 丰满饥渴人妻一区二区三| 久久中文字幕一级| √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 丰满饥渴人妻一区二区三| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 日韩中文字幕视频在线看片| 老司机亚洲免费影院| 少妇被粗大的猛进出69影院| 中文欧美无线码| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频| 免费黄频网站在线观看国产| 狠狠婷婷综合久久久久久88av| 自拍欧美九色日韩亚洲蝌蚪91| 一级黄色大片毛片| 午夜福利一区二区在线看| 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 欧美午夜高清在线| 99香蕉大伊视频| 老司机影院成人| 黄片小视频在线播放| 亚洲国产av新网站| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡 | 十八禁人妻一区二区| av国产精品久久久久影院| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 亚洲欧洲日产国产| 在线永久观看黄色视频| 中国国产av一级| 国产精品国产av在线观看| 午夜成年电影在线免费观看| 午夜免费观看性视频| 国产一区二区在线观看av| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 欧美日韩一级在线毛片| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线| 人人妻人人澡人人看| 久久久久久久国产电影| 日本wwww免费看| 亚洲全国av大片| 麻豆国产av国片精品| 久久久精品区二区三区| 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕| 在线观看www视频免费| 久久久久国内视频| 国产日韩欧美视频二区| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 亚洲五月色婷婷综合| 视频在线观看一区二区三区| 国产亚洲av高清不卡| 久久免费观看电影| 亚洲三区欧美一区| 香蕉国产在线看| 亚洲三区欧美一区| 国产欧美日韩一区二区精品| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 老司机午夜十八禁免费视频| 一个人免费看片子| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看 | 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码| 日韩欧美国产一区二区入口| 国产97色在线日韩免费| 亚洲欧美色中文字幕在线| 日韩中文字幕视频在线看片| 一区福利在线观看| 久久久精品94久久精品| 亚洲男人天堂网一区| 91老司机精品| www.999成人在线观看| 午夜免费鲁丝| 成人免费观看视频高清| 精品国产国语对白av| 国产av精品麻豆| 9191精品国产免费久久| 狠狠婷婷综合久久久久久88av| 99国产精品一区二区三区| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一出视频| 最近最新中文字幕大全免费视频| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡 | 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 中亚洲国语对白在线视频| 侵犯人妻中文字幕一二三四区| 视频在线观看一区二区三区| 超碰97精品在线观看| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 飞空精品影院首页| 久久久精品国产亚洲av高清涩受| tube8黄色片| 一级片'在线观看视频| 男人添女人高潮全过程视频| 精品久久蜜臀av无| 午夜免费观看性视频| 国产高清videossex| 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| 日日爽夜夜爽网站| 丝袜美腿诱惑在线| 黄色视频在线播放观看不卡| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 国产亚洲av高清不卡| 中文欧美无线码| 午夜两性在线视频| 电影成人av| 黄色a级毛片大全视频| 日本猛色少妇xxxxx猛交久久| 狠狠精品人妻久久久久久综合| 交换朋友夫妻互换小说| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频| 黄片小视频在线播放| 亚洲免费av在线视频| 一边摸一边做爽爽视频免费| 日韩熟女老妇一区二区性免费视频| 亚洲国产中文字幕在线视频| 午夜免费成人在线视频| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 曰老女人黄片| 欧美激情高清一区二区三区| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三 | 国产片内射在线| 日韩视频在线欧美| 99热网站在线观看| 美女中出高潮动态图| 国产精品 欧美亚洲| 蜜桃在线观看..| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 视频区欧美日本亚洲| 国产免费一区二区三区四区乱码| 大型av网站在线播放| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 国产欧美日韩一区二区精品| 精品亚洲成a人片在线观看| 亚洲综合色网址| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三 | 国产精品久久久人人做人人爽| 人人澡人人妻人| 国产三级黄色录像| 不卡av一区二区三区| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 久久久久久久大尺度免费视频| 精品久久久久久电影网| 精品国产一区二区三区四区第35| 久久热在线av| 天天添夜夜摸| 九色亚洲精品在线播放| 欧美日韩视频精品一区| videos熟女内射| 国产激情久久老熟女| 欧美老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 国产成人精品久久二区二区免费| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av | 黑人操中国人逼视频| 亚洲精品国产精品久久久不卡| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 亚洲av电影在线观看一区二区三区| 久久狼人影院| 久久久久久亚洲精品国产蜜桃av| 亚洲 国产 在线| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 午夜两性在线视频| 久久精品成人免费网站| 热99国产精品久久久久久7| 女性生殖器流出的白浆| 色视频在线一区二区三区| kizo精华| 国产精品欧美亚洲77777| 亚洲国产看品久久| 久久女婷五月综合色啪小说| 高潮久久久久久久久久久不卡| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| av网站在线播放免费| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在| 美女中出高潮动态图| 中文字幕色久视频| 无遮挡黄片免费观看| 国产区一区二久久| 97在线人人人人妻| 99久久国产精品久久久| 免费在线观看影片大全网站| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 美女大奶头黄色视频| 五月天丁香电影| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清 | 亚洲国产欧美一区二区综合| 欧美日韩av久久| 欧美精品一区二区大全| 免费在线观看视频国产中文字幕亚洲 | 国产成人精品无人区| 99国产精品一区二区三区| 男女免费视频国产| 岛国在线观看网站| 亚洲精品中文字幕一二三四区 | 精品福利观看| av网站免费在线观看视频| 亚洲精品国产av成人精品| 中文字幕人妻丝袜制服| 欧美乱码精品一区二区三区| 亚洲一码二码三码区别大吗| 国产成人欧美| 中文精品一卡2卡3卡4更新| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 一级毛片精品| 欧美激情极品国产一区二区三区| 两性夫妻黄色片| 国精品久久久久久国模美| a级片在线免费高清观看视频| av天堂久久9| 美女高潮喷水抽搐中文字幕| av一本久久久久| 80岁老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 亚洲精品国产一区二区精华液| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 两人在一起打扑克的视频| 久久精品国产a三级三级三级| 人人妻人人澡人人看| 国产深夜福利视频在线观看| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码| 国产精品影院久久| 国产97色在线日韩免费| 国产亚洲av片在线观看秒播厂| 最新在线观看一区二区三区| 亚洲欧美色中文字幕在线| 777米奇影视久久| 国产日韩欧美在线精品| 欧美一级毛片孕妇| 国产淫语在线视频| www.精华液| 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月 | 青春草视频在线免费观看| www.精华液| 国产一卡二卡三卡精品| 青青草视频在线视频观看| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 啦啦啦中文免费视频观看日本| 女性生殖器流出的白浆| 色老头精品视频在线观看| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 男人添女人高潮全过程视频| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 成人国产一区最新在线观看| 国产高清videossex| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站| 99热网站在线观看| 美女高潮喷水抽搐中文字幕| 久久精品亚洲熟妇少妇任你| 99精品久久久久人妻精品| av欧美777| 亚洲成人手机| 嫁个100分男人电影在线观看| 波多野结衣av一区二区av| 久久久久久久精品精品| 人成视频在线观看免费观看| 日韩制服丝袜自拍偷拍| 久久影院123| 国产亚洲精品久久久久5区| 婷婷成人精品国产| 亚洲avbb在线观看| 亚洲av电影在线进入| 久久人人爽人人片av| 一本色道久久久久久精品综合| 99精品欧美一区二区三区四区| 老司机影院成人| 99久久国产精品久久久| 亚洲成人国产一区在线观看| 不卡av一区二区三区| 免费在线观看黄色视频的| 久久精品aⅴ一区二区三区四区| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 91国产中文字幕| 91成人精品电影| 精品国产乱子伦一区二区三区 | 午夜视频精品福利| 久久久精品94久久精品| 久久人妻福利社区极品人妻图片| 不卡一级毛片| www.精华液| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 美女视频免费永久观看网站| 夫妻午夜视频| 香蕉丝袜av| 在线亚洲精品国产二区图片欧美| √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 亚洲九九香蕉| 久久久久久久大尺度免费视频| 高清在线国产一区| 黄频高清免费视频| 91字幕亚洲| 青春草亚洲视频在线观看| 亚洲国产精品一区二区三区在线| 国产无遮挡羞羞视频在线观看| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码| 国产又爽黄色视频| 国产在线免费精品| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在| 99香蕉大伊视频| 久久国产精品男人的天堂亚洲| 精品第一国产精品| 国产精品自产拍在线观看55亚洲 | 免费女性裸体啪啪无遮挡网站|