Final Flashcards
What is idealism?
All reality is a construct of mental phenomena
There is no such thing as mind-independent reality
Ex) You access the perception of the tree
You access the mental image, perceptual representation of a tree
There is no tree distinct from your ideas of it
Ex) When I see a table, I have the idea of a table in my head, so I am immediately accessing the idea of the table and not the table directly itself
Physical universe and objects are constructs of our ideas
Idea = mental representation, mental item that represents something of reality
Explain why idealism is a counterintuitive position
Idealism is a counterintuitive position since it is based on the idea of your perception of a certain item, if you are not seeing an item does it cease to exist. It doesn’t make sense that the table disappears when you stop looking at it.
How did Berkeley invoke God in order to defend his version of idealism?
Berkeley tried to use God to say that God is always having the idea for it to exist. Berkeley believes that even when no human perceives an object, God perceives it at all times. Thus, the object continues to exist, because it consists of ideas in the mind of God.
What is the argument from doubt?
(1) I can doubt the existence of my brain and body.
- This is derived straight from the evil demon scenario (third level of skeptical doubt) shows that you can doubt the existence of your body and the existence of other bodies because there is an evil demon who is tricking you to believe that there is an external world. You exist, your body doesn’t.
(2) I cannot doubt the existence of my mind.
- This is taken from the cogito, which is an argument that if I am thinking I must exist therefore I must exist being that it takes a mind to do the thinking I do in fact exist.
Therefore,
(3) My mind is not the same thing as my brain and body.
- This argument aims to prove that the mind is separate from the body by relying on Leibniz Law.
Explain how the argument involves an illegitimate use of Leibniz’s law.
Leibniz Law because this law states that if A and B are the same object, then they have the same properties. So if A and B do not share all the same properties then A and B are not the same object. An example of this law would be
Superman flying across the sky.
Jimmy Olsen is not flying across the sky.
Therefore, Superman is not Jimmy Olsen.
Being that Jimmy Olsen and Superman do not share the same property, which is flying they are the same. In this case, A is Superman and B is Jimmy Olsen. This shows that A and B are distinct objects.
What is interactionism?
- The doctrine that the mind can enter into causal interactions with the physical world
- Mind causes body to do something
ex) I stood up to drink because I was thirsty
*enormously plausible
What is epiphenomenalism?
The doctrine that one’s mind exerts no causal impact upon one’s body
- there is no causal interaction between the mind and body
- opposite of interactionism
Explain why interactionism is extremely plausible, while epiphenomenalism is extremely implausible.
Epiphenomenalism is not extremely plausible while interactionism is extremely plausible because we prove every day that our mind causes our body to do something such as when I am thirsty then I stand up to go get something to drink.
Then explain the doctrine of pre-established harmony, and evaluate whether this doctrine helps epiphenomenalism appear more plausible.
The pre-established harmony doctrine says that God made a physical universe and mind/soul universe. They operate within their own principles and there are no causal interaction between them. They evolve separately but create an illusion of mind-body causation. For example I develop thirstiness on my own and God sets me up to go get water at the same time which makes it seem like there was mind-body causation to quench my thirst. The harmony is that the physical and mental mesh and make it seem like it’s causation but it’s not. It’s a result of some physical processes. God synchronized these two to make it seem like they’re the result of each other. This doctrine is a form of epiphenomenalism
*If we accept cartesian dualism, then it seems difficult to avoid epiphenomenalism
What does it mean to claim that the mental supervenes upon the physical?
To claim that the mental supervenes upon the physical means that two entities that share the same physical properties must also share all the same mental properties. For example with paintings, two paintings with the same physical properties then share the same beauty and aesthetic since they are the same. Or, how computers run the same program/game if they are sharing the same physical properties.
How does the inverted spectrum pose a difficulty for the thesis that the mental supervenes upon the physical?
Inverted spectrum = normal and abnormal share the same physical properties while possessing different mental properties.
Red: looks red to normal, looks green to abnormal
The inverted spectrum poses a difficulty for the thesis that the mental supervenes upon the physical because two objects can be physically the same but mentally different such as two subjects who are the same physically and neurologically, but one sees a strawberry as red and the other sees it as green. This shows how objects can be physically identical but mentally distinct.
A form of materialism: Everything that exists is physical (material), All there is to your mind is your body, your brain, your patterns of neural firing, etc., You don’t need an extra entity, the immaterial “Soul”, to think
valid argument
A valid argument is when the truth of the premises means that the conclusion must be true
invalid argument
An invalid (i.e. flawed) argument is one whose conclusion is not proven by its premises
modus ponens
Method of affirming
If p then q
P
Therefore,
q
three levels of skeptical doubt about the external world
(1) Perceptual error: illusions, hallucinations, etc.
Calls into question particular beliefs about my immediate surroundings.
Ex.if you take drugs are you really seeing a cow riding on a pig?
(2) The dreaming argument.
Suggests I cannot know anything about the external world on the basis of perception.
(3) The evil demon.
Calls the very existence of an external world into question
Pascal’s wager
4 options
In my best interest to believe that God exists because it can’t hurt, it can really help
Practical reason, not epistemic, for believing that God exists
epistemic vs. practical reasons
Practical reason - in your best interest to believe : Bad guys are chasing after you so you have to jump a long distance from roof to roof. You have no choice to jump but if you believe you’re going to make it then you are more likely to make it, giving you reason to believe you’re going to make the jump. Consideration that makes it a good idea for you to believe it
Epistemic reason - what the evidence points to: you are not going to make it in the jump
the experience machine
- You can pre program any experience you want into the experience machine for however long (such as meeting your ideal partner). You volunteer to plug yourself into it.
- There’s no actual interaction with people (there’s no actual ideal partner you’re with)
Two scenarios:
- You know ur in the machine the whole time
- When you plug in ur memories are erased so u dont know ur in it
Life is about experiencing, not just getting all the good pleasures because that would be boring like if the experience machine was all good
Cogito, ergo sum
if I am thinking I must exist therefore I must exist
Proves that the thinker themself exist
the ontological argument
God exists
(1) I can conceive of a perfect deity
(2) A deity that exists is more perfect than a deity that does not exist (If it is perfect it exists, “santa would be perfect if he existed”)
Therefore,
(3) The deity that I am conceiving exists (i.e. GOD EXISTS)
