Final

Question 1

What is idealism?

Answer 1

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

Question 2

Explain why idealism is a counterintuitive position

Answer 2

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.

Question 3

How did Berkeley invoke God in order to defend his version of idealism?

Answer 3

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.

Question 4

What is the argument from doubt?

Answer 4

(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.

Question 5

Explain how the argument involves an illegitimate use of Leibniz’s law.

Answer 5

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.

Question 6

What is interactionism?

Answer 6

• 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

Question 7

What is epiphenomenalism?

Answer 7

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

Question 8

Explain why interactionism is extremely plausible, while epiphenomenalism is extremely implausible.

Answer 8

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.

Question 9

Then explain the doctrine of pre-established harmony, and evaluate whether this doctrine helps epiphenomenalism appear more plausible.

Answer 9

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

Question 10

What does it mean to claim that the mental supervenes upon the physical?

Answer 10

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.

Question 11

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

Answer 11

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

Question 12

valid argument

Answer 12

A valid argument is when the truth of the premises means that the conclusion must be true

Question 13

invalid argument

Answer 13

An invalid (i.e. flawed) argument is one whose conclusion is not proven by its premises

Question 14

modus ponens

Answer 14

Method of affirming
If p then q
P
Therefore,
q

Question 15

three levels of skeptical doubt about the external world

Answer 15

(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

Question 16

Pascal’s wager

Answer 16

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

Question 17

epistemic vs. practical reasons

Answer 17

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

Question 18

the experience machine

Answer 18

• 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

Question 19

Cogito, ergo sum

Answer 19

if I am thinking I must exist therefore I must exist
Proves that the thinker themself exist

Question 20

the ontological argument

Answer 20

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)

Question 21

God no deceiver

Answer 21

God wouldn’t deceive your perception or you
if you can prove that God exist than that means that God guarantees what you see in the external world is reality

Question 22

skepticism about external world

Answer 22

The skeptic about external world denies that we have knowledge about the external world

Question 23

skepticism about other minds

Answer 23

The skeptic about other minds denies that we have knowledge about other minds

Question 24

three levels of skeptical doubt about other minds

Answer 24

(1) Occasional lies
- calls into question particular beliefs about other people’s mental states

(2) Systematic deception (The Truman Show)
- Deceived about what people around him are thinking
- They’re good actors and at pretending
- suggests that I cannot know anything about other people’s mental states

(3) Zombies; automata
- Calls the very existence of other minds into question
- What if people are not actually thinking or conscious
- Can’t know that bodies are thinking beings, or about their mental states

Question 25

Behaviorism

Answer 25

• Behaviorism is the idea that mental states are behavioral dispositions. In other words, a person can’t feel something unless they are behaving in a way that is normally associated with that feeling. The behaviorist offers an account of the things a person behaves in a specific mental state.
• A behavioral disposition is a tendency to exhibit certain types of behavior in certain circumstances.

Example- A person is in pain if and only if that person instantiates appropriate behavioral dispositions.

Question 26

super-Spartans

Answer 26

Putnam’s super-Spartans thought experiment is a play on the Greek ancient city of Sparta. Sparta was a very war-like civilization. This thought experiment is a community of aliens who are much stronger aliens called super spartans who learn to suppress all aspects of pain behavior. In this community, the social norm isn’t to display any behavior that is pain. Though they may admit to being in pain, these individuals would never show pain behaviors.

This undermines behaviorism as behaviorism claims behavior dispositions are necessary for individuals to be in pain however, the super spartans clearly shows that though they may be in pain their behavior won’t show it thus disproving behaviorism.

Question 27

Metaphysics

Answer 27

• Studies the nature, constitution, and structure of reality (REALITY ITSELF)

ex) Does God exist? Life after death?

• Is the external world simply a construct out of mental phenomena? - is idealism correct
• Are mental states merely behavioral dispositions? - is behaviorism correct

Question 28

Epistemology

Answer 28

• The study of human knowledge and justification
  Studies our ability to acquire knowledge and/or justified beliefs about reality (OUR ABILITY TO ACCESS REALITY)

ex) Can I know anything about the external world on the basis of perception? Can I know that there are other minds beside my own?

What is reasonable to believe and what is not reasonable to believe. (R: Looking at weather app to find out if its gonna rain, NR: looking at zodiac chart to determine fate of your day)

• Idealism offers a metaphysical theory of the external world, and thereby dissolves external world skepticism
• Behaviorism offers a metaphysical theory of the mind, and thereby dissolves skepticism about other minds

Question 29

Cartesian dualism

Answer 29

• The doctrine that thinking beings possess immaterial souls entirely distinct from their physical bodies

There’s physical stuff - what body is made of, matter of universe, atoms, physics
There’s mental stuff - what mind is made of, soul-like substance

body | soul
*minds are non-physical entities, they are not located in physical space
* bodies are entities located in physical space

Mind and body can impact one another causally
ex . I stub my toe (physical body), induce pain sent to my mind
I am thirsty (mental) I go to drink water (physical)

Question 30

Conceivability

Answer 30

Can coherently think about state of affairs

Question 31

Metaphysical possibility

Answer 31

State of affairs that could have been obtained if the world had been different

ex)
“I could have been born in New Haven instead of San Diego”
“Laws of gravity could have been different”

Question 32

The conceivability argument

Answer 32

(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 (Evil demon, you exist, your body doesn’t)
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 <- contradiction
Hence, By Leibniz’s law,
(5) I am distinct from my body

Question 33

Leibniz’s law

Answer 33

• if x is identical to y, then every property of x is a property of y, and vice versa.

-

Question 34

The amnesia argument

Answer 34

(1) If I can conceive of a state of affairs, then that state of affairs is possible
(2) I can conceive of a world in which I exist but Michael Rescorla does not exist
Therefore,
(3) It is possible for me to exist without Michael Rescorla existing
But,
(4) It is not possible for Michael Rescorla to exist without Michael Rescorla existing
Hence, (by Leibniz’s law)
(5) I am not Michael Rescorla
*False conclusion because I am Michael Rescorla
There is no world in which I (Michael Rescorla) exists but Michael Rescorla does not exist
*Conceivable but not possible

Question 35

Arnauld’s triangle

Answer 35

• Shows that premise 1 is false - the mere fact that Descartes can conceive of some state of affairs does not show that the state of affairs is possible.
• You can conceive of the hypotenuse 14 for a right triangle with 12 and 5, but that doesn’t mean it’s possible by Pythagorean Theorem.
  *Conceivability doesn’t imply possibility

Question 36

The continuity of nature objection

Answer 36

• There is no sharp boundary between thinking and non-thinking beings. There are many intermediate cases, both in evolution (dolphins, apes) and in human development (pre-linguistic infants). There is no magic boundary at which a hunk of matter suddenly becomes associated with a soul.
• *While Descartes needs a sharp boundary: things that have a soul and things that don’t have consciousness and the capacity to experience pain result from brain processes that emerge gradually in both development and evolution
• Objection to dualism
• Dualism cannot do justice to the causal interactions between mind and body

Question 37

Causal overdetermination

Answer 37

• Every physical event has a physical cause. So every movement of my body has a physical cause. But, if a given bodily movement also has a mental cause then the movement would be causally overdetermined
• Two causes for one event

Physical cause - muscles and the mental firing of the brain to clap hands
Mental, soul like - something happened in your soul to clap your hands together

Question 38

Occasionalism

Answer 38

• Whenever you decide to make an involuntary movement of your body, God comes in and forces you to move. So you didn’t make your body move god did however, this violates the law of physics.

Question 39

Pre-established harmony

Answer 39

The pre-established harmony doctrine says that God made a physical universe and mind/soul universe. They operate within their own principles and there is 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

Question 40

Materialism

Answer 40

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
As long as your brain and body are configured in the right way, then you can feel pain without additional help (the soul)

*easily accommodates the causal interactions between mind and body. The mind is just a physical phenomenon
*avoids epiphenomenalism

Question 41

Monism

Answer 41

World contains only one type of stuff
IDEALISTS - only mental stuff (berkeley)
MATERIALISTS - only physical stuff

Question 42

The mary argument

Answer 42

(1) Mary knows all 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

*In a black and white room and studies everything about red but will not know what red looks like until she sees it. Materialism therefore fails to account for the experience of seeing the color red

Question 43

The turing test

Answer 43

A machine that fools a participant in the imitation game = turing test -> to think its a human being when its a machine.
Provides us good reason to believe the machine can think
No emotions, but they can think

Question 44

Blockhead

Answer 44

Pre-programmed responses
A path of response for conversation
> passes the turing test -> its not thinking, not capable of thought, it just has responses programmed & memorized

Question 45

The computational theory of mind

Answer 45

The mind is just a computer (made of neurons) and mental activity is computational activity
Mind = computer

Pushing out syntactic manipulation like strings of 0s and 1s without knowing what they mean

But what about representation?

Mind = soul (dualism)
Mind = behavioral disposition (behaviorism)
Mind = brain (mind-brain identity theory)

Question 46

The chinese room

Answer 46

The person inside the Chinese room doesn’t understand Chinese

Yet the person manipulates syntax so as to yield results indistinguishable from someone who understands Chinese

Concludes that syntactic manipulation is not sufficient for true mentality

(He has instructions telling him to write the chinese symbols so it looks like he understands but he really doesn’t)

Syntax = pushes out 0s and 1s without knowing what they mean, this doesn’t represent the external world

Representation/semantics = what the 0s and 1s mean and refer to in the external world

(1) syntax is not sufficient for semantics
(2) Minds have a semantics, ie, they have 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

Goes against the computational theory of mind because the chinese room argument suggests that running a computer program does not suffice for having a mind like in the computational theory. The chinese room argument suggests that the computer program only gives syntax and not semantics so therefore the mind is not a computer, like the computational theory of mind suggests.

Question 47

The systems reply

Answer 47

The person doesn’t understand chinese, he’s a part of a larger system which understands chinese

Question 48

The robots reply (more convincing)

Answer 48

Syntax = pushes out 0s and 1s without knowing what they mean, this doesn’t represent the external world

Representation = what the 0s and 1s mean and refer to in the external world

Syntactic manipulation does not by itself give rise to semantics, its only a part of giving rise to semantics and representation

Causal interaction, meeting someone, or knowing what they look like like on tv, or seeing a photograph someone took of them, is needed for semantics

*consistent with the computational theory of mind , syntactic crunching system is embedded in the external world, the robot manipulating syntax will move about the world and interact with the world (computation), the robot thereby comes to think about the external world

Casual interaction + syntax = representation, genuinely thinking

***- It is right that syntactic manipulation does not by itself give rise to semantics
- Causal interaction with the world is also needed for semantics
- But this is consistent with the computational theory of mind

Question 49

Syntactic manipulation

Answer 49

the idea that a computer manipulates pieces of data (strings of 0s and 1s) according to single mechanical rules

If _ then _ , computer sci AND statement

Question 50

What it is like

Answer 50

• to have the experience to really get what something is

ex) bat uses echolocation and you can describe it in detail, but it will never tell us what IT IS LIKE to be a bat using echolocation

Subjective aspect cannot be covered with just description

CONSCIOUSNESS = the qualitative aspect of experience (what it is like)

*objection to materialism because it leaves out the “subjective character of experience.” No matter how sophisticated philosophy is, it can never capture what it is like to feel pain, see the color red, to navigate like a bat etc.