Exam

Question 1

Metaphysics

Answer 1

• Metaphysics
  
  • What is the nature of reality?
  • Looks for the generator of the observations
• Physics
  
  • Physics tries to find a function that correlates all obervations

Both investigate the conditions and constraints under which observing systems can exist.

Question 2

Ontology

Answer 2

• parses the observations into different entities.
• Asks which entities are the most fundamental

It investigates what types of entities exist, how they are grouped into categories, and how they are related to one another on the most fundamental level (and whether there even is a fundamental level).

Question 3

Epistemology

Answer 3

• Asks what can be known.
• Sets the constraints to what observing systems can know about universes and themselves

Question 4

Functions

Answer 4

• Capture the invariance in the variances.
• Are used to model the structure found in the observations.
• Make up the models that observing systems can create.

Question 5

Epiphenomenalism

Answer 5

Stance that qualia are caused by functional processes but have no causal influence themselves (byproduct of brain activity)

Question 6

Dualism

Answer 6

Ontological stance that assumes two different fundamental substances

Question 7

Interface Problem

Answer 7

Physics is defined as causally closed. Everything that interacts with the domain of physics is by definition part of physics. Dualist stances cannot let the two different substance have any influence on each other because of the interface problem.

Question 8

Occasionalism

Answer 8

„Solves“ the Interface Problem by positing that synchronicity between mind and body in a dualist framework are not caused by the substances themselves but by God as the only cause.

Question 9

Interactionist Dualism

Answer 9

Pretends to solve interface problem. Mental realm can causally influence physical realm.

Question 10

Principle of Determinism

Answer 10

Same event, same cause.

Question 11

Principle of Causality

Answer 11

Every event has cause

Question 12

Causal Determinism

Answer 12

Every state of the universe is determined by the previous state

Question 13

Why treat causality with caution?

Answer 13

It is an artifact of modeling the world as seperate entities.

Question 14

Incompatibilism

Answer 14

Free Will and Determinism incompatible

Question 15

Compatibilism

Answer 15

Free Will and Determinism compatible
(usually argued for via a weekend concept of pur everyday notion of freedom of will)

Question 16

What is Truth?

Answer 16

A property of propositions

Question 17

Correspondeny theory of truth

Question 18

Coherence theory of truth

Answer 18

Proposition is true if it coheres with other accepted propositions.

Question 19

Eliminative Materialism

Answer 19

Mental states are postulates of folk psychology will be replaced by neural statements, theories. Elimination of mental states.

Question 20

Identity Theory (Type I & Type II)

Answer 20

• Mental states are objects of scientific investigation.
  
  • Type: One mental type identical to one physical type.
  • Token: One mental type realized by more that one physical type

So mental statements and physical (biological) statements have the same reference but different meaning.

Question 21

Argument (+ Axioms + First Principle Thinking)

Answer 21

Argument - series of sentences propositions
Any argument has to start somewhere. Some premises will always be necessary - axioms.

• Is that always the case?
  performative contradiction can give you the first premises
  
  • first principle thinking.

(Axiom, Aussage innerhalb einer Theorie, die mit deren Mitteln nicht beweisbar ist. Ein Axiom kann daher nur als Prämisse, aber nie als Ergebnis eines deduktiven Arguments (Deduktion) auftreten. Aus der Gesamtheit der Axiome, dem Axiomensystem, sollen alle Sätze der Theorie deduzierbar sein.)

Question 22

Valid Argument

Answer 22

An argument is valid if and only if it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless be false

Question 23

Sound Argument

Answer 23

• Valid argument with true premises aka proof
• Not every valid Argument is sound.
• Not every sound argument is a strong/good/ productive argument

circular (petitio principii/ begging the question)

The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument’s premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. In other words, you assume without proof the stand position, or a significant part of the stand, that is in question. Begging the question is also called arguing in a circle.

Question 24

deductive arguments

inductive arguments

abductive arguments

Answer 24

Deductive Arguments
- Deductive reasoning is a logical approach where you progress from general ideas to specific conclusions.

Inductive Arguments
- inference to the best explanation
- specific observation -> pattern analysis -> general conclusion

Abductive Arguments
- seeks the simplest and most likely conclusion from a set of observations
- Abductive conclusions do not eliminate uncertainty or doubt, which is expressed in retreat terms such as “best available” or “most likely”

Question 25

Emergence

Answer 25

• Subset of Supervenience (mostly Synonymus imo)
• Emergence typically used for claims like: „more than the sum of the parts“ or claims by „top-down causation“.
• Hate the example but: water molecules don’t let you measure their wetness. wetness/liquidity is emergent of the interaction of water molecules.
• State of Matter/Aggregatzustand translates to aggregate dynamics:= group dynamics - more precise: statistical group dynamics.

Question 26

JTB

Answer 26

1. P is true
2. S believes that P is true
3. S is justified in believing that P is true

What kind of condition are 1,2,3 and what kind of condition is the conjunction „1 and 2 and 3“ for „Knowledge“?

Question 27

Gettier Problems

Answer 27

Claims that the 3 conditions of JTB are not sufficient for Knowledge.

Smith and Jones apply for the same Job. Smith is justified in believing that:
1. Jones is getting the job (e.g. because the Boss of the hiring company told him, the Jones will get the job)
2. Jones has 10 coins in his pocket (e.g. because he
counted the coins in Jones’ pocket 5 minutes ago for some reason)
From both of these justified believes Smith deduces: „The man with 10 coins in his pocket will get the job“

Now imagine the following scenario:
The Boss changes her opinion after all and gives the job to Smith instead of Jones. At the same time Smith does have 10 coins in his pocket himself, without knowing about it. In this scenario Smiths previous claim would still be correct and fall under the definition of JTB despite common sense telling us that Smith didn’t know shit.