Knowledge and Reality Flashcards
What are the two types of identity searched for in personal identity?
Diachronic identity, or persistence, and synchronic identity, such as multiple personality disorder, who an individual really is
What is person essentialism?
Whatever a person is at one time, they are always that at whatever time they exist
Who rejects both psychological and bodily identity?
Anticriterialism - not enough evidence from either to show persistence
Why does the memory criterion beg the question?
Given that memories are only genuine you really are the person remembering them, then evidently memories show nothing
How is the problem of memory criterion fixed?
Use of psychological continuous, rather than connected, with only some of your mental states required
What is the fission problem for the psychological view?
When brain halves are split, they work differently so they is no one united mind
What is the solution to the fission problem?
Multiple-occupancy view (Robinson) that both halves are seen as separate in any case, or say that fission is death of individual and birth of two new ones (given special relationship when two halves are together)
What is the physical criterion’s view of the brain?
If enough of the brain remains, persistence is present
How does Williams break the psychological continuity idea?
If uploaded to a computer and then to another brain, it may be the same person but casual link would be broken
What is Williams’ reduplication argument?
If one person believed they were another, already existent individual, then the psychological identity supporter would have to say the two individuals are the same when there really only is one
What is the response to Williams’ computer objection?
The only x and y principle - the facts of x and y, rather than the casual link, show what they are
How is the reduplication view fixed?
Only in the absence of a rival candidate - clause added to criterion
Why does Locke support the personal identity?
It makes sense for why we care for ourselves more than others, and allows for resurrection or immortality
What does Locke believe in terms of ontology?
3 things - persons (finite intelligences), God and men (bodies)
What term does Locke use for the start of psychological connectedness?
Same ‘beginnings of existence’ for x and y to be the same
What example does Locke give for his theory?
An oak tree changing in bodily extension but staying the same tree
Who counts as a person for Locke?
Rational, thinking things including parrots
Who does not count as a person for Locke?
The sleeping or drunk, those not aware of themselves or beside themselves in madness
How does Locke punish the drunk man?
The law may punish him as we cannot be sure he was unaware of his actions, but if he was unaware then it would not be him (for God?), no consciousness there
Why is the mind, or consciousness, believed to be a good differentiator of individuals in terms of extended space?
Whilst the brain may have the same configuration of atoms, there would be different thoughts and memories held by the person - we own and input our own thoughts
Why does Williams reject the bodily account?
Use of physical description is not a clear identifier, such as ‘he was embarrassed and went red’ is for both mind and body, rather than person itself
How does Williams address the cobbler and prince problem?
The voice of the cobbler may be different to that of the prince, so the words of the prince would not be clear - body is an identifying factor therefore, we cannot distinguish what from what
Why is memory problematic for Williams?
Identifying anything requires memory, so memory is insufficient to prove the psychological theory
Why does Olson not believe in thoughts as key?
If your head was emptied, you would still have the same particular basic mental capabilities, and in this vegetative state no new animal has been created - therefore problem with psychological principle
How does Olson use animals to support the bodily theory?
Losing a brain is just losing an organ - if another animal lost an organ, we would not see them as a different animal
How does Olson use foetuses to support his claim?
No interesting psychological features of them so they do not count as persons - psychological account is a future-directed approach with problems due to that
How does the foetus problem become fixed?
Glover - foetus’ are potential persons (yet what about sperm). Or accept that foetus dies, or accept that there are two things in one body, a foetus and person
When does personal identity begin for Olson?
The same after 14-17 days after conception, when cells move together to form one body, as long as our life-sustaining functions remain in tact
What is Reid’s objection to psychological identity and the response?
Breaking of transitivity of memory when individuals forget something
Perry uses the idea of a ‘sequence of person-stages’ rather than across all of life for connectedness
How is the too many memories problem fixed?
Mackie - genuine remembering is related to experiencing or learning what is remembered - a response not fixed in the case of electronic transfer of memories, rather than just reading accounts ie George IV
What are the three reasons for Thomson’s support of the bodily account?
Social nature of persons, the way we interact is through the body, and it is horrifying to imagine another in your body
How does the nature of body in relation to the mind cause support for bodily identity?
Bodily senses affect the mind, or mental experience is produced by body, so less importance of psychological connectedness
How does Carter come to support the bodily account?
Organ transplants are all the same, for all organisms
How does Carter view mental states?
Identical with brain states when it comes to token actions
What is Carter’s answer to the brain transplant problem?
Brown’s mind, rather Brown himself acted when his brain has been transplanted. In addition, a body which has another mind should not be responsible for the minds actions - wrong to the body of original owner
How does Mackie view memory loss?
Partial memory loss creates partial personal identity
How does Mackie view personal identity?
It is whatever is co-conscious with our thoughts, such as our central nervous system
What is Thomson’s belief on drugs?
Since LSD can alter the brain, it creates another personal identity, particularly if you are thinking you are another person
How does Thomson answer the ship of Theseus problem?
It also affects the psychological account, such as with partial memory loss
How does Mackie view dead people?
Without psychological endowments, they cannot be people. There has been ambiguous phrasing in the past to explain dead people ie Thomson
How does Descartes describe himself in front of the demon?
On guard against accepting any falsehoods
How does Descartes describe thought?
One thing that cannot be separated from me
What are the two different types of scepticism?
Global and local
What is Pyrrhonean Scepticism?
Since the goal of life is peace and tranquility, we should not adopt beliefs as they lead to prejudice, turmoil and disruption. Instead, find evidence for both sides of the argument
What is the argument that Pyrrhonean scepticism is hypocritical?
It asks us to dogmatically follow scepticism, surely a form of belief. Yet sceptics claim they are following a way of life, not a belief system
What is the practical impossibility problem for Pyrrhonean scepticism?
Cannot live a life without making a judgement on anything. Response is to live through habit, custom and involuntary impulses
What is the ugly results of Pyrrhonean scepticism?
Without the forming of beliefs, goals cannot be set and ethical stances cannot be taken - tacit support for all evils therefore
What is the dreaming argument for Descartes?
Dreams are indistinguishable from being awake, yet are not real, so how can we be sure that we are not dreaming
What is the demon argument for Descartes?
A world controlled by an evil deceitful demon would look the same as a current one
What is Putnam’s argument for scepticism?
A life as a brain in a vat would be same as one without that situation
How does externalism overcome scepticism?
Given that knowledge comes from the outside world around us, we cannot be in an brain in the vat situation? Either that, or we would have knowledge claims all the same as knowledge is sensitive to changes to the world (ie electronic impulses to the world)
What is the lottery paradox?
You do not expect to be rich tomorrow (you have that claim to knowledge) yet you may win the lottery, so you cannot be sure and therefore few claims to future-oriented knowledge. All this is due to epistemic closure
What is Nozick’s retort to scepticism?
Knowledge is being sensitive to change, and as we cannot be sensitive to demon, care not for it?
What is the semantic argument against contextualism?
Adjectives have gradeability, yet knowledge does not act in such a way
How does learning ruin contextualism?
Learning can lead to increased doubt for Williamson, yet there is no change of context - depends on definition of context
What weird normative principles does contextualism cause?
If you really had less knowledge in a seminar, you would not want to leave it? Sense of superiority gained from scepticism only (Williamson)
What are two problems for Moore?
Claims general and philosophical in nature need to be answered by Moore (Nagel). Also rationality does not always equate to simplicity, ie detective case
What is Moore’s approach?
I have hands, hands are external objects, therefore external objects exist due to epistemic closure principle This offers conclusive evidence for claims of knowledge, rather than proof
What is the classic response to Moore?
It begs the question as I have hands is a questionable conclusion - yet apparently we are meant to trust commonsense
What is Russell’s response to scepticism?
Interference to the Best Explanation - logically possible for sceptical scenario, yet we should always opt for best solution when all else is equal - belief in knowledge is simplest way to take our life experiences
What is the response to Russell?
Reasonable and simple is not always correct. Also, a supercomputer is a simpler explanation of life
What is the overall conclusion of contextualism?
We have lots of everyday knowledge in ordinary contexts, even if we cannot meet high sceptical claims
What is the fundamental flaw of contextualism?
There is still no way we can know that we are not in a sceptical scenario, regardless of context
How does Williamson view a change in contexts?
It just causes us to question if we have enough evidence to reach an original existing standard for knowledge, rather than increasing epistemic standards
How does Putnam refute scepticism and brains in vats?
Since you cannot refer to something physical in the world beyond the simulation, as there is no way of achieving knowledge in that area due to semantic externalism, there is knowledge available
How does Chalmers view the matrix?
Thoughts and beliefs refer to something computational rather than physical objects. This is akin to learning of string theory - it damages our idea of matter, but should not affect our knowledge claims too much ie requiring to refer to objects in new ways
How does Chalmers view his theory?
A metaphysical argument that the physical world made from a computer is a real one
How does Chalmers understand knowledge claims?
The process that our minds are connected to, by motor inputs and outputs are key - mind over reality is key for knowledge, so start every word with virtual
How does Chalmers use science in his argument?
There is no precision in knowledge claims in matrix, much like there is no precise quantum wave function
How does Pritchard use science to come to his argument?
Science has shown us that nothing is truly flat or empty, so there are never any knowledge claims
How does DeRose criticise Lewis?
Rule of Accommodation does not differ for strong or poor argumentation, which could alter contexts
How does DeRose compare contexts to find knowledge claims?
To find if something was non-accidentally true, or sensitive to the world, then use nearby worlds to see if the same holds - brain in vat world is a very distant world
How does DeRose deride the sceptic?
Not-P worlds are quite distant, and if you enlarge the sphere of epistemically relevant worlds which include the nearest false one, then there would be a very large circle and therefore the sceptical scenario requires too high epistemic standards
How does DeRose describe the standards of the sceptic?
Unusually inflated standards
How does Putnam show the grounding problem of scepticism?
There is no connection between representation and what something represents ie snail in sand or brain in vat
How does Putnam overcome the brain in the vat?
We cannot refer to brains in vats, as we have to have some kind of causal connection between an object and our reference to it. There is a causal constraint to our reference of a BIV therefore
How does Williamson use probability?
Given that the probability of sceptical scenarios do not decrease when we do not know about them, no reason for contextualism
How does Williamson use the verb ‘know’ to disown contextualism?
He views it as a factive verb with no context dependence
How does Williamson use the seminar room to rebute contextualism?
Within the seminar room individuals express truths that are relevant outside of the seminar, so there are no real contexts, with some contexts spilling into another
How does Williamson show the pointlessness of contexts?
Third and first person context changes do not change knowledge - situation is still materially the same
How does Unger create a sceptical idea?
To know something, a person must be absolutely certain, something with rarely arises as certainty is an absolute term - there is never anything of which he is more certain
What does Unger think of contextualists?
They take everyday conversation as knowledge, even when one isn’t certain
How does Schiffer address the contextualist?
When know is a fluid verb as contextualists believe, there will be confusion as individual may think lower epistemic standards in play and incorrectly believe someone
Why does Lewis decide to find a contextualist solution?
A certain amount is presupposed in any conversation
What does Lewis believe about Unger’s argument?
There is no reason for a higher epistemic standard rather than a lower one being more legitimate
How does Lewis defend the uneducated?
In their original contexts, the statements are true - but true to who?
What does Dretske believe?
Be pragmatic and practical with knowledge, not absolutes but instead shifting relevancy sets to what truly is knowledge
What does exists simpliciter mean?
All that exists ie presentism as present as what exists simpliciter, with that changing from moment to moment
What are the theses used in presentism?
Ontological thesis (restricted to current moment) and dynamical thesis (that the present moves)
How does the eternalist describe now, the current moment?
An indexical notion, simply simultaneous with your current being - the future is to exist later, the past is to exist earlier - all in a relative sense
How does the eternalist describe the present?
Only that which happens to be nearby
What is the answer to the book thought experiment?
Question of what is present is trivial, as the present is only present relative to itself, with nothing that special about it
What is the problem for the eternalist with the flow of time?
Prior - there is an idea of waiting for an event before it happens, then experiencing in the present, then reflecting on it as a past experience - the temporal flow shown here is us passing into and out of progressive presents
How could the flow of time argument be answered?
By showing how the use of all tenses, past present and future, reveals the existence of these planes ie being able to reflect on the past only occurs because of it’s existence, or not being able to wait for the thing in the future that you know will happen in some way
What is the asymmetrical problem for eternalism?
Presentism can accommodate the idea of a fixed past and an open future, rather than a real and fixed future
What the truthmaker idea?
An ontological commitment to something exist - if p is true, then there has to be something that makes p true - problem for presentist brought up by Armstrong
How can the presentist remove avoid the truthmaker problem entirely?
Denying the importance of truthmakers, as they cannot make a proposition true potentially. Also, how about negative truths such as there are no unicorns?
How is the truthmaker problem overcome in a more head on way?
Bigelow - the past is not lost given the limited number of particles in the world, and these are the truthmaker. The world will always be one with the property of having once been thus and so
How can presentism overcome the truthmaker problem with other theories?
Determinism, showing that the past and future is grounded by the laws of nature
What is the overall problem for the presentist when it comes to truthmaking?
The existence of material objects in the present is very different to the existence or truthmaker of past objects
What classic idea ruins presentism?
Time travel
What is the twins paradox?
If time is based on mass and speed, then twins in different locations may have time passing at different rates ie in space or earth - present is therefore a reference frame
What view on time does Cameron support?
Moving spotlight theory - mix of eternalism with idea of special present, denies relative idea of present
What view do Casati and Torrengo support?
Shrinking-block view of future existing but past not existing
What is the view McCall supports?
Shrinking-tree idea of past as trunk of tree, present as point of branching and future as the multiple branches that disappear when they are not taken
Why did Broad support the growing block view in Scientific Thought?
Time not only has an intrinsic order but an intrinsic sense, or direction from past to future, rather than in reverse - cannot change direction of events in time
Why does Miller disagree with the growing block view?
It is impossible to tell the difference between the past and the present as they are seen as just the same thing. Statements affirming the present of now appear false as they fall into the objective past immediately
Why does the eternalist avoid the When am I? problem?
They see no difference between the past, the present and the future - it is all relative
How does Forrest overcome problems for the growing block theory?
Life and sentience are activities, not states, that only occur the boundary of reality rather than states in the past - yet state of shock?
What is the problem for Forrest?
The dead past idea - everyone in the past is dead, and there is no life or phenomenology, even if being alive is dependent on having other slices of time that evidently exist in the growing block theory
How do Curtis and Robson separate presentism from eternalism?
Presentism is a tensed idea, whilst eternalism is tenseless making the whole thing based on semantics
What is the singular proposition objection to presentism?
When addressing past-tensed sentences directly about some object, you see that object as existing, something the presentist denies
What is the cross-temporal relations objection to presentism?
Since those in present can have relationships with things in the past, these things must exist ie I like Hume
What is the thick and thin objection to presentism?
If present is thick then just shorter eternalism. Russell argues that events take time to occur so the present cannot be thin (perhaps everything in a state of doing however)
How does Miller deny the growing block theory?
Presentists see other hyper-planes than the present as things that did exist and will exist - so just taking past eternalist?
What is the reason for things existing for Bigelow?
Limited particles and the fact the world itself instantiates the properties of having once contained dinosaurs
How does Keller overcome add to Bigelow?
Haecceitism - every individual posses an essential property of ‘thisness’, being the thing which it is. If this property is an entity in it’s own right, then it can exist whilst being unsubstantiated ie a megagon
What is the benefit of Keller over Bigelow?
Events and facts are more fine-grained with multiple haecceities with many things having properties of being
How does Keller use atomic particles in his second suggestion?
Particles have encoded within them their entire history, including where they have been at different times - therefore there were some arrangements of a particles, particles that still exist in the present, that were objects in the past
What is internalism?
The idea that the first person perspective of the believer is crucial for belief - only ever justification of a belief if you are aware of a justification through reflection
What are the types of justification relevant for the internalist?
Things we are aware of - evidence and the reason to trust it. Things we are not aware of are irrelevant such as reliability of cognitive system
What is the simplest reason to support internalism?
It is intuitive - one can only be justified with the evidence they are aware of and can articulate - justification is tied to the ability to justify therefore
Why does responsibility ideas help the internalist?
You should do all you can to ensure your belief is true so you can justify it, so ensure belief system is consistent with evidence you hold
What is the historical response to internalism?
We cannot remember reasons for some beliefs even if we feel they are justified
Why do some agents not come up to the standards of internalism?
Animals and children cannot reflect and have access to reasons for belief - yet they still appear justified
What is the infinite regress problem for internalism?
P only justified if good reason for P, q gives good reason for P, therefore requirement to justify this well and so on. Some beliefs do not appear of this nature and need no justification
Why does fake news create a problem for internalism?
If you are unaware that it is fake, then you are still justified in believing in it
What is the basis of externalism?
Our beliefs must have an appropriate relationship with the truth, even if evidence is not consciously accessible
How does externalism fix internalist issues?
Bypassing the problem of accessing reasons and going straight into the truth
What is the causal account of knowledge?
Belief is knowledge if it is appropriately caused by the facts
What is the alternate account of knowledge?
Truth-tracking account - idea of sensitivity, so that you have a tendency to believe that p is true if it is, and not to when it is false
What are the simpler reasons for supporting the truth-tracking account?
Knowledge is not a one-off fluke, link between truth and knowledge, and intuitive as truth moves with the facts
How does truth-tracking solve Gettier?
As Smith does not track the truth, he does not have knowledge
How does truth-tracking help scepticism?
We have knowledge as long as we are not in a sceptical scenario as belief can track the truth
What is the worry for externalism?
It is unclear that we can really know something if we cannot provide reasons for what we believe, rather than created merely in the right way
