final Flashcards
first conceivability argument
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
second conceivability argument (with leibnizs law)
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
arnaulds triangle
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
metaphysical possibility vs. metaphysical impossibility
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
what does it mean if a state of affairs is conceivable?
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
three levels of skeptical doubt about the external world
- perceptual error
- the dreaming argument
- the evil demon scenario
the dreaming argument
- 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
- there is no way to know if we are dreaming
therefore, - we cannot know anything about the external world on the basis of perception
three levels of skepticism of other minds
- lies, self deception, misunderstandings, etc.
- systematic deception
- zombies; automata
the inverted spectrum
how do i know that my perception of an object is the same as anothers perception of that same object?
metaphysics vs. epistemology
metaphysics studies the nature, constitution, and structure of reality
epistemology studies our ability to acquire knowledge or justified beliefs about reality
argument from analogy
- a usually causes b, and usually only a causes b
- b occured
therefore, - a also occurred
ex.
lightning usually causes thunder, and usually only lightning causes thunder.
thunder occurred.
therefore,
lightning also occurred.
idealism
the thesis that all reality is a construct out of mental phenomena
-the external world is completely dependent upon human perception of it
how is idealism counterintuitive?
because its hard to sell that the physical world is noon existent without us looking at it all of the time
how did berkeley invoke god to defend idealism
says that god perceives everything all of the time
valid argument
when the premises guarantee the conclusion
invalid argument
when the premises do not entail the conclusion
modus ponens
if p, therefore, q
p,
therefore q
behaviorism
the idea that there is nothing more to the mind than its behavioral dispositions
-applies to the if and only if statement
disposition
a tendency to react in certain ways when placed in certain circumstances
behavioral disposition
tendency to exhibit certain type of behavior under certain circumstances
super spartans
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
the amensia argument
suppose i have amnesia
- if i can conceive of a state of affairs, then that state of affairs is possible
- i can conceive of a world where imani davenport does not exist
therefore, - it is possible for me to exist without imani davenport exisiting
but, - it is not possible for imani davenport to exists without imani davenport existing
hence, (by leibnizs law) - i am not imani davenport
- this illustrates how the slide from conceivability to possibility can generate fallacies and philosophical errors
the continuity of nature
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
- there is no sharp boundary between thinking and non - thinking beings
- there is no big difference between creatures that speak a language and creatures who dont
the ontological argument
- i can conceive of a perfect deity
- a deity that exists is more perfect than a deity that does not exist
therefore, - the deity that i am conceiving
cogito, ergo sum
“i think, therefore i am”
- the fact that i am thinking constitutes that i exist in the first place
god no deceiver
god would never want to deceive you, used as a refutation to the third level of skepticism about external world
dualism
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
the argument from doubt
- can doubt the existence of my brain and my body
- i cannot doubt the existence of my mind
therefore, - 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
leibnizs law
- a has certain properties
- b does not have certain properties
- therefore, a and b are not the same thing
ex.
- the murderer is wearing a purple suit
- batman is not wearing a purple suit
- therefore, the murderer is not batman
interactionism
the doctrine that the mind can enter into causal interactions with the physical world
why is interactionism intuitive?
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?
causal overdetermination
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
epiphenomenalism
the doctrine that ones mind exerts no causal impact upon ones body
-if we accept dualism, then it seems difficult to avoid epiphenomanalism
if we support both dualism and interactionism, then..
- the mind can interfere with the physical forces impacting the body, thus violating the laws of physics
- 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
occasionalism
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)
pre established harmony
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
clock example of pre established harmony
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
materialism
the doctrine that everything that exists is physical or material
monism
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
consciousness
the qualitative aspect of experience (what it is like to knowing something vs. just knowing something)
mary argument
- mary knows all of the physical facts concerning human color vision before leaving the black and white room
- but, there are some facts about human color vision that mary does not know before leaving the black and white room
therefore, - there are non - physical facts concerning human color vision
-no way to collect data of consciousness or what it is like to experience something
how does the mental supervene on the physical?
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
why do philosophers think that dualism leads to epiphenomenalism?
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
how does the inverted spectrum pose a difficulty for the thesis that the mental supervenes upon the physical?
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
the turing test
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
blockhead argument against machine passes = it can think idea
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
the computational theory of mind
the mind is just a computer made up of neurons
-mental activity is just computational activity
what do people think makes the mind computational?
syntactic manipulation (like robots)
chinese room thought experiment
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)
chinese room argument
- syntax is not sufficient for semantics
- minds have semantics i.e. representational properties
- computer programs are entirely defined by their formal syntactical structure
therefore, - instantiating a program by itself is never sufficient for having a mind
the systems reply
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)
the robot reply
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
epistemic vs. practical reasons for belief
epistemic reasons are about if you believe that you can do something through knowledge
- practical reasons are realistic
pascals wager
argument that we should practically believe that god exists, because it is in your best interest to believe in this
- i believe that god exists, and god exists (eternal salvation)
- i believe that god exists and god does not exist (no afterlife)
- i do not believe that god exists and god exists (eternal damnation)
- i do not believe that god exists and god does not exist (no afterlife, no punishment or reward)
