What are all the tabs?

OneNote at Work

How are OneNote pages different?You can type anywhere on the page. For example, type your name there:

OneNote keeps track of stuff at Work, Home, or School

General Page 1

OneNote at Home

OneNote at School

General Page 2

How does it work? Watch this 1 minute video:

Click here to play

Also check out the next page tabs over on the upper right.

General Page 3

Take notes of many types

See Home > and Insert >

OneNote saves automatically, so you don't lose anything.

OrganizeCreate as many notebooks, sections, and pages as you need.

New Notebook:File > New

Search

OneNote Basics

General Page 4

SearchJump to favorite pages quickly.

Find even handwritten notes or text in pictures!

Share with yourself or

General Page 5

Share with yourself or others

Share >

General Page 6

Collect product screen clippingsClip maps, diagrams, car photos, weather, wedding dresses, etc.

Insert >

or hold: + S

E-mail out meeting notes,instructions, status, work items, etc.Recipients don't need OneNote.

Share >

Tag and find important items

Top Uses

General Page 7

Tag and find important itemsHomework, ideas, billable items, customer requests, to-dos, etc.You can customize your own tags.

Right-click a note >

Home >

Collect articles from the WebNews, research, quotes, etc.OneNote preserves the link back.

Right-click in IE >

Keep project documents

General Page 8

Keep project documents together with your notes

Insert >

Annotate lecture slide printoutsPrint presentations, documents, or anything else into OneNote for comments or future reference.

Print from any app >

Keep key project e-mails

General Page 9

Keep key project e-mails together with your notesSend e-mails to OneNote.

In Outlook >

Link meeting notes and tasks with Outlook

Home >

In Outlook >

Protect sensitive information

General Page 10

Protect sensitive informationBank account information, web site logins, private journal, etc.

Right-click section tab > Password Protect

Jot a note quicklyIt goes into your Unfiled Notes section.

Hold: + N

Brainstorm without distraction

General Page 11

Brainstorm without distraction

View >

Handwrite class or meeting notes on a Tablet PCYou can even search handwriting, or convert it to text.

Create tables simply by typing some text and pressing TAB.•Calculator: type Space after "=" in expressions. For example: 321*45+876=•Try Page Templates in the New Page drop-down menu. Make your own templates for meetings or projects.•Record audio of a meeting, synchronized with your notes, or drag in audios or videos onto your pages.•

Other Tips

General Page 12

New features in 2010:

Gather, organize, and search Sharing and universal access

Multi-level subpages○

Collapse subpages○

Organize page tabs better:

Jump to any page with a quick search

Dock to Desktop

Link to other notes, like a wiki

Quick Styles for making headings

Auto-link notes to Web pages and documents

Insert Math

Notes on Outlook Tasks

Send content to any section in OneNote

Share on the Web○

View and edit in a browser○

Sync notes to OneNote Mobile○

Access from anywhere:

Unread changes are highlighted○

See author initials○

Version history○

Find recent edits○

Find edits by author○

Faster sync with SharePoint○

Share notes:

Examples:

Organize topics using subpagesDrag tabs to indent and organize pages within a section.

Keep notes visible during other

What's New?

General Page 13

Keep notes visible during other tasksOneNote will link notes to documents and Web pages you view.

View >

What's new in a shared notebook?Unread changes are shown automatically.

What notes are teammates

General Page 14

What notes are teammates working on?

Share >

Select location when sending to OneNoteWhen sending from Outlook or Internet Explorer

Link to information for yourself

General Page 15

Link to information for yourself and others

Insert >

or type [[page name]]

More Resources OnlineVideos, templates, training, help, and discussion groups.

Microsoft® OneNote® 2010 Guide NotebookCopyright © 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.The example companies, organizations, products, domain names, e-mail addresses, logos, people, places, and events depicted herein are fictitious. No association with any real company, organization, product, domain name, email address, logo, person,places, or events is intended or should be inferred.

General Page 16

THE THEORY OF MINDIn the theory of mind, the major debate concerned the question of which materialist theory of the human mind, if any, was the correct one. The main theories were identity theory (also called reductive materialism), functionalism, and eliminative materialism.

IDENTITY THEORYAn early form of identity theory held that each type of mental state, such as pain, is identical with a certain type of physical state of the human brain or central nervous system. This encountered two main objections. First, it falsely implies that only human beings can have mental states. Second, it is inconsistent with the plausible intuition that it is possible for two human beings to be in the same mental state (such as the state of believing that the king of France is bald) and yet not be in the same neurophysiological state.

As a result of these and other objections, type-type identity theory was discarded in favour of what was called “token-token” identity theory. According to this view, particular instances or occurrences of mental states, such as the pain felt by a particular person at a particular time, are identical with particular physical states of the brain or central nervous system. Even this version of the theory, however, seemed to be inconsistent with the plausible intuition that felt sensation is not identical with neural activity.

FUNCTIONALISMThe second major theory of the mind, functionalism, defines types of mental states in terms of their causal roles relative to sensory stimulation, other mental states, and physical states or behaviour. Pain, for example, might be defined as the type of neurophysiological state that is caused by things like cuts and burns and that causes mental states such as fear and “pain behaviour” such as saying “ouch.” Functionalism avoids the second objection against the type-type identity theory mentioned above—that it seems possible for two people to be in the

same mental state but not in the same neurophysiological state—because it is not committed to the idea that the neurophysiological state that plays the causal role of pain must be the same in all people, or the same in people as in nonhuman creatures. This point was often expressed by saying that functional states exhibit “multiple realizability.”

Saturday, October 24, 201511:44 AM

General Page 17

Functionalism was inspired in part by the development of the computer, which was understood in terms of the distinction between hardware, or the physical machine, and software, or the function that the computer performs. It also was influenced by the earlier idea of a Turing machine, named after the English mathematician Alan Turing. A Turing machine is an abstract device that receives information as input and produces other information as output, the particular output depending on the input, the internal state of the machine, and a finite set of rules that associate input and machine-state with output. Turing definedintelligence functionally, in the sense that for him anything that possessed the ability to transform information from one form into another, as the Turing machine does, counted as intelligent to some degree. This understanding of intelligence was the basis of what came to be known as the Turing test, which proposed that, if a computer could answer questions posed by a remote human interrogator in such a way that the interrogator could not distinguish the computer’s answers from those of a human subject, then the computer could be said to be intelligent and to think. Following Turing, the philosopher Hilary Putnam held that the human brain is basically a sophisticated Turing machine, and his functionalism was accordingly called “Turing machine functionalism.” Turing machine functionalism became the basis of the later theory known as strongartificial intelligence (or strong AI), which asserts that the brain is a kind of computer and the mind a kind of computer program.

In the 1980s Searle mounted a challenge to strong AI. Searle’s objections were based on the observation that the operation of a computer program consists of the manipulation of certain symbols according to rules that refer only to the symbols’ formal or syntactic properties and not to their semantic ones. In his so-called “Chinese-room argument,” Searle attempted to show that there is more to thinking than this kind of rule-governed manipulation of symbols. The argument involves a situation in which a person who does not understand Chinese is locked in a room. He is handed written questions in Chinese, to which he must provide written Chinese answers. With the aid of a computer program or a rule book that matches questions in Chinese

General Page 18

answers. With the aid of a computer program or a rule book that matches questions in Chinese with appropriate Chinese answers, the person could simulate the behaviour of a person who understands Chinese. Thus, a Turing test would count such a person as understanding Chinese. But by hypothesis, he does not have that understanding. Hence, understanding Chinese does not consist merely in the ability to manipulate Chinese symbols. What the functionalist theory leaves out and cannot account for, according to Searle, are the semantic properties of the Chinese symbols, which are what the Chinese speaker understands. In a similar way, the Turing-functionalist definition of thinking as the manipulation of symbols according to syntactic rules is deficient because it leaves out the symbols’ semantic properties.

A more general objection to functionalism involves what is called the “inverted spectrum.” It is entirely conceivable, according to this objection, that two humans could possess inverted color spectra without knowing it. The two may use the word red, for example, in exactly the same way, and yet the color sensations they experience when they see red things may be different. Because the sensations of the two people play the same causal role for each, however, functionalism is committed to the claim that the sensations are the same. Counterexamples such as these demonstrated that similarity of function does not guarantee identity of subjective experience, and accordingly that functionalism fails as an analysis of mental content. Putnam eventually agreed with these and other criticisms, and in the 1990s he abandoned the view he had created.

ELIMINATIVE MATERIALISMThe most radical theory of the mind developed in this period is eliminative materialism. Introduced in the late 1980s and refined and modified throughout the 1990s, it contended that scientific theory does not require reference to the mental states posited in informal, or “folk,” psychology, such as thoughts, beliefs, desires, and intentions. The correct view of the human mind, according to eliminative materialism, is that there are no mental states in the folk-psychological sense and that the mind is nothing more or less than the brain. Furthermore, because there are no mental states, both the identity theory and functionalism are trying to do the impossible—i.e., to reduce nonexistent mental events to neural activity. Just as late 18th-century chemical theory did not try to reduce the fictional concept of phlogiston to molecular states but simply dispensed with any reference to it, so the entire mentalistic vocabulary of folk psychology can be eliminated in a sophisticated scientific theory of the mind. Such a theory will simply describe how the brain works.

Three main objections were posed against this view. The first was that it failed to explain how semantic properties such as meaning, truth, and reference could be elicited from, or instantiated in, neural activity. In brief, this objection argued that it is simply a conceptual mistake to try to ascribe truth or falsity, or any semantic property, to brain processes, as eliminative materialism would seem to require. The second objection was that eliminative materialism denied the existence of certain things that all accept as real: namely, felt sensations (known as “qualia”). To deny that qualia exist is tantamount to saying that there are no such things as sounds, only air vibrating at various frequencies.

The third objection to eliminative materialism emphasized the fact that each person has access to his own mental experiences in a way that no other person has. Pains and visual images, as well as countless other kinds of thought, possess a kind of subjectivity that cannot be captured in a purely scientific account, because scientific descriptions concern only the objective properties of natural phenomena. There were many variants of this position. Among the philosophers who rejected reductivism on these or other grounds were Searle, Roderick

General Page 19

philosophers who rejected reductivism on these or other grounds were Searle, Roderick Chisholm, Zeno Vendler, Thomas Nagel,Roger Penrose, Alastair Hannay, and J.R. Smythies.

That there are still divisions among analytic philosophers concerning the theory of reference and the theory of mind (though in much-altered form) shows both the continuity of the movement and the changes that have occurred. Although it is not possible to forecast the future trends in analytic philosophy in any detail, it seems likely that the two general approaches to the discipline established by Russell and Moore, formalism and informalism, will continue well into the 21st century.

Pasted from <http://www.britannica.com/topic/analytic-philosophy#ref843287>

General Page 20