Exam 2 Flashcards
Descartes reasons for doubting senses
sometimes your senses may deceive you and therefore cannot be trusted (if the source of a belief is unreliable, then you must doubt the belief)
arguments for illusions
illusions can make you see things that are not truly there which further proves that senses should be doubted
arguments for dreams
if you cannot rule out the possibility that you are dreaming, then your sensory beliefs are unjustified
descartres reason for doubting reason
reason could be doubted because an all powerful figure might deceive you
arguments for evil demon/genius
if an all powerful figure is constantly deceiving us (anything that we believe is actually false), how can we come to the conclusion that we are being deceived. being that we cannot be sure of anything (or know anything)
role of skeptical scenarios in doubt
for your sensory beliefs, you cannot rule out all the skeptical scenarios, which means that you do not know things via the senses
role of certainty in existence in doubt
in terms of dreams you are essentially creating your own reality… therefore whats to say that your reality isn’t a dream (essentially your existence is uncertain)
role of god’s existence in doubt
descartes tries to prove that God exists but if God is omnipotent then he would not allow constant deception
necessary conditions
a condition that must obtain for the concept to apply (a is a necessary condition for B if B can only happen with A occurring). specifying necessary conditions does not guarantee that something will happen but is necessary for it to occur
sufficient conditions
a condition that suffices for the concept to apply (a is a sufficient condition for B if the occurrence of A ensures the occurrence of B) sufficient conditions guarantees the truth of the condition but is not necessary for the condition to occur
traditional analysis
in order for something to be true there needs to be both necessary and sufficient conditions
justification
justification qualifies a belief as knowledge (S know that P if P is true, S believes that P, and S is justified in believing that P) justification must be met for knowledge to be a true belief
gettier cases
proves that the definition of knowledge is insufficient. essentially S can believe P (P can be true and S can be justified in believing that P) but still not have any knowledge of it (refutes JTB theory)
ex. Smith has knowledge that Jones has a ford and believes Jones is in Barcelona (this is believed, true, and justified) but is it knowledge if he hasn’t seen Jones (he sold his car) and hasn’t seen Brown for days (although he is in barcelona)
JTB theory
knowledge is equivalent to a true belief if justification, truth and belief are met
mind body problem
bodies are material and minds are immaterial, but material things do not interact with immaterial things and bodies and minds do interact
body is material and mind is immaterial
bodies are physical properties (subject to physical laws) minds are an element of a person (it does not have a location, mass or shape)
they do interact because when you try to understand a joke (mind) you laugh (body)
idealism
rejection that bodies are material because we could hold that the whole world is in our minds
ephenomenalism
rejects interaction of body and mind (mental effects have mental causes and physical effects have physical causes or mental events have physical causes but not the other way around
interactionist dualism
rejects that the material do not immaterial interact. holds that there is an interaction between material and immaterial at least with mind/body problem
arguments for dualism
religion: major religions are committed to the notion of an immortal soul, if there is an immortal soul then dualism is true
introspection: when we focus on our consciousness, we perceive thought and feelings rather than the actual process, therefore thoughts and feelings are immaterial (if thoughts are immaterial and our brain processes are material then dualism is true)
irreducibility: the way you smell something is a mental phenomenon but it cannot be fully explained by physical processes, therefore mental phenomenon are physical phenomenon
parapsychology: some people can read other’s minds but there is no explanation for telepathy, if there is no explanation then the mind is immaterial and separate from the brain
identity theory
idea that the mind is identical to the brain (individual mental states and processes are identical to individual brain states and processes)
ex. pain is identical to c-fibers firing, but does that mean nothing can be pain unless c-fibers are firing
chauvinism: mind=brain, then it is impossible to have a mind without a brain (robot?)
functionalism
mental states are identified by their functional role not by their physical properties
searle’s chinese room experiment
person in chinese room does the same thing that a computer does (correlates sets to associate meanings of symbols) if the computer understands outputted conversation, so does the person. if the person does not understand then neither does the computer. computers do not think
computer programs cannot understand meaning
a computer program will simply associate a meaning with something but does not truly understand it (there are no internal processes occurring)
