final

Question 1

first conceivability argument

Answer 1

an argument for dualism
1. if i can conceive of some state of affairs, then that state of affairs is possible (meaning that god can bring it about
2. i can conceive of myself as existing without a body
therefore,
3. it is possible for me to exist without my body

Question 2

second conceivability argument (with leibnizs law)

Answer 2

an argument for dualism
1. if i can conceive of some state of affairs without contradiction, then that state of affairs is possible (god can bring it about)
2. i can conceive of myself as existing without my body
therefore,
3. it is possible for me to exist without my body
but,
4. it is not possible for my body to exist without my body existing
hence (by leibnizs law),
5. i am distinct from my body

Question 3

arnaulds triangle

Answer 3

an argument against the conceivability argument

just because something could be conceived of does not show that the state of affairs is possible

i.e. i can conceive of a right triangle where the hypotenuse is not the sum of the squares of the squares of the two sides
conceivability does not imply possibility (illegitimate slide from one to the other)
this is metaphysically impossible

Question 4

metaphysical possibility vs. metaphysical impossibility

Answer 4

possibility - saying that this is the way that the world might have been

impossibility - saying that this is not a way that the world could have been

Question 5

what does it mean if a state of affairs is conceivable?

Answer 5

means that we can coherently think about it

• it could be conceivable without contradiction if it does not involve any kind of logical or definitional incoherence

Question 6

three levels of skeptical doubt about the external world

Answer 6

1. perceptual error
2. the dreaming argument
3. the evil demon scenario

Question 7

the dreaming argument

Answer 7

1. if there is no way to tell that i am dreaming, then we cannot know anything about the external world on the basis of perception
2. there is no way to know if we are dreaming
   therefore,
3. we cannot know anything about the external world on the basis of perception

Question 8

three levels of skepticism of other minds

Answer 8

1. lies, self deception, misunderstandings, etc.
2. systematic deception
3. zombies; automata

Question 9

the inverted spectrum

Answer 9

how do i know that my perception of an object is the same as anothers perception of that same object?

Question 10

metaphysics vs. epistemology

Answer 10

metaphysics studies the nature, constitution, and structure of reality
epistemology studies our ability to acquire knowledge or justified beliefs about reality

Question 11

argument from analogy

Answer 11

1. a usually causes b, and usually only a causes b
2. b occured
   therefore,
3. a also occurred

ex.
lightning usually causes thunder, and usually only lightning causes thunder.
thunder occurred.
therefore,
lightning also occurred.

Question 12

idealism

Answer 12

the thesis that all reality is a construct out of mental phenomena
-the external world is completely dependent upon human perception of it

Question 13

how is idealism counterintuitive?

Answer 13

because its hard to sell that the physical world is noon existent without us looking at it all of the time

Question 14

how did berkeley invoke god to defend idealism

Answer 14

says that god perceives everything all of the time

Question 15

valid argument

Answer 15

when the premises guarantee the conclusion

Question 16

invalid argument

Answer 16

when the premises do not entail the conclusion

Question 17

modus ponens

Answer 17

if p, therefore, q
p,
therefore q

Question 18

behaviorism

Answer 18

the idea that there is nothing more to the mind than its behavioral dispositions
-applies to the if and only if statement

Question 19

disposition

Answer 19

a tendency to react in certain ways when placed in certain circumstances

Question 20

behavioral disposition

Answer 20

tendency to exhibit certain type of behavior under certain circumstances

Question 21

super spartans

Answer 21

an refutation to behaviorisms “if and only if” pain statement
being in pain does not constitute the behavioral disposition of pain
warriors in sparta did not do that

Question 22

the amensia argument

Answer 22

suppose i have amnesia

1. if i can conceive of a state of affairs, then that state of affairs is possible
2. i can conceive of a world where imani davenport does not exist
   therefore,
3. it is possible for me to exist without imani davenport exisiting
   but,
4. it is not possible for imani davenport to exists without imani davenport existing
   hence, (by leibnizs law)
5. i am not imani davenport

• this illustrates how the slide from conceivability to possibility can generate fallacies and philosophical errors

Question 23

the continuity of nature

Answer 23

an objection to dualism

• dualism presents that to have a soul and to have a body are different, and that the soul is on a different ancestral plane

1. there is no sharp boundary between thinking and non - thinking beings
2. there is no big difference between creatures that speak a language and creatures who dont

Question 24

the ontological argument

Answer 24

1. i can conceive of a perfect deity
2. a deity that exists is more perfect than a deity that does not exist
   therefore,
3. the deity that i am conceiving

Question 25

cogito, ergo sum

Answer 25

"i think, therefore i am" - the fact that i am thinking constitutes that i exist in the first place

Question 26

god no deceiver

Answer 26

god would never want to deceive you, used as a refutation to the third level of skepticism about external world

Question 27

dualism

Answer 27

the doctrine that thinking persons have non physical souls that are completely distinct from their physical bodies -physical stuff is separate from the mental stuff and the mind is not contained in physical space, rather than outside of the universe

Question 28

the argument from doubt

Answer 28

1. can doubt the existence of my brain and my body 2. i cannot doubt the existence of my mind therefore, 3. my mind is not the same thing as my brain or my body -conclusion claims dualism -mind and body do not share at least one property -leibnizs law uses a wrong version of it

Question 29

leibnizs law

Answer 29

1. a has certain properties 2. b does not have certain properties 3. therefore, a and b are not the same thing ex. 1. the murderer is wearing a purple suit 2. batman is not wearing a purple suit 3. therefore, the murderer is not batman

Question 30

interactionism

Answer 30

the doctrine that the mind can enter into causal interactions with the physical world

Question 31

why is interactionism intuitive?

Answer 31

your mind automatically reasons with this why did i go to drive to the airport? because i needed to pick my friend up from the airport? why did i feel pain? because someone punched me in the face?

Question 32

causal overdetermination

Answer 32

every physical event has a physical cause and a mental cause, meaning that every event or state of affairs has multiple causes for one event -if a given bodily movement also has a mental cause (interactionism) then the movement would be causally overdetermined

Question 33

epiphenomenalism

Answer 33

the doctrine that ones mind exerts no causal impact upon ones body -if we accept dualism, then it seems difficult to avoid epiphenomanalism

Question 34

if we support both dualism and interactionism, then..

Answer 34

1. the mind can interfere with the physical forces impacting the body, thus violating the laws of physics 2. the mind simply reinforces the physical forces impacting the body, thus entailing massive causal overdetermination -meaning that the mind and the body can be out of sync by telling us to do separate things

Question 35

occasionalism

Answer 35

the idea that our actions that are done by our body are caused by god -god makes the body move and is the causal interaction between the two (inteferes with the idea of a closed system)

Question 36

pre established harmony

Answer 36

idea that god set up the universe from the beginning in two parts (mind and body universe), kind of making a two track world -they develop according to their own principles -no causal interaction between them but appears so -if i want water, god set things up so that there is me being thirsty, and the moment that the track evolves to be thirsty, the physical track simultaneous evolves to move and get water -physical occurrences look like they are being caused by mental occurrences, but they mesh together and operate on their own terms

Question 37

clock example of pre established harmony

Answer 37

clocks that tell the same time do not communicate with each other, but the clockmaker set it up so that the time is the same on all of the clocks -appears to be a causal interaction between the two, but in reality it is pre established that they are working at the same time

Question 38

materialism

Answer 38

the doctrine that everything that exists is physical or material

Question 39

monism

Answer 39

the world contains only one type of stuff -some monists claim that the world contains only mental stuff - other monists claim that the world contains only physical stuff - they strongly believe in one or another

Question 40

consciousness

Answer 40

the qualitative aspect of experience (what it is like to knowing something vs. just knowing something)

Question 41

mary argument

Answer 41

1. mary knows all of the physical facts concerning human color vision before leaving the black and white room 2. but, there are some facts about human color vision that mary does not know before leaving the black and white room therefore, 3. there are non - physical facts concerning human color vision -no way to collect data of consciousness or what it is like to experience something

Question 42

how does the mental supervene on the physical?

Answer 42

with the idea of supervenience -that if two entities share all of the same physical properties, then they also share all of the same mental properties -minimal version of materialism "i believe in materialism, but i think that there are beings out there where their physical properties could be the same, but their mind could be saying different things" how does that work? if one person is in pain, then the other person must be in pain if they are both hold their foot and crying out in what seems to be pain this is what people say when the mental supervenes on the physical

Question 43

why do philosophers think that dualism leads to epiphenomenalism?

Answer 43

dualists are forced into epi because it would be an interference from something outside of physical laws if the soul were to intervene upon the body therefore, they must accept that the mind has no causal impact on the body

Question 44

how does the inverted spectrum pose a difficulty for the thesis that the mental supervenes upon the physical?

Answer 44

the idea of the inverted spectrum presents that the mental does not exactly supervene upon the physical; things with the same physical properties do not have the same mental properties

Question 45

the turing test

Answer 45

game that had people guess whether or not the thing that they were talking to was a robot or a human -also called the imitation games -turing believes that we will be able to build a machine that passes the test and is capable of passing as human

Question 46

blockhead argument against machine passes = it can think idea

Answer 46

blockhead is a computer that is fed sentences, and is programmed to respond back in a human manner - if he passes the test, that does not mean that he is thinking but he is just programmed that way

Question 47

the computational theory of mind

Answer 47

the mind is just a computer made up of neurons -mental activity is just computational activity

Question 48

what do people think makes the mind computational?

Answer 48

syntactic manipulation (like robots)

Question 48

chinese room thought experiment

Answer 48

argument against the computational theory -man put in a room where he knows syntactically how to put the chinese words together but he cannot speak chinese difference between syntax and semantics (representational and qualitative)

Question 49

chinese room argument

Answer 49

1. syntax is not sufficient for semantics 2. minds have semantics i.e. representational properties 3. computer programs are entirely defined by their formal syntactical structure therefore, 4. instantiating a program by itself is never sufficient for having a mind

Question 50

the systems reply

Answer 50

the person doesnt understand chinese, but the system as a whole does understand chinese (part of a larger system, i.e. the guy, the rulebook, the pencil, the piece of paper)

Question 51

the robot reply

Answer 51

for humans, there is syntax and semantics -causal interaction with the world is also needed for semantics -however this is all consistent with the computational theory of mind - think of it like a robot -robot is performing syntactic manipulation -also has causal interaction with the world (representational aspects) -not a computer, but a robot that has things like limbs, a camera, etc. then semantics can be experienced

Question 52

epistemic vs. practical reasons for belief

Answer 52

epistemic reasons are about if you believe that you can do something through knowledge - practical reasons are realistic

Question 53

pascals wager

Answer 53

argument that we should practically believe that god exists, because it is in your best interest to believe in this 1. i believe that god exists, and god exists (eternal salvation) 2. i believe that god exists and god does not exist (no afterlife) 3. i do not believe that god exists and god exists (eternal damnation) 4. i do not believe that god exists and god does not exist (no afterlife, no punishment or reward)