Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/36

Click to flip

36 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
  • 3rd side (hint)
Appearance-Reality distinction
The way things look vs. the way things really are.
Visual vs. Mental
Knowledge?
Knowledge requires truth.
Requirement
Misleading senses Argument
-the senses sometimes decieve us
-can't distinguish when the do from when they don't
...Hence, for all we know, any particular sense experience is deceptive.
deception of senses
Dream Argument
-It is ok to take your sense experiences as veridical only if you can rule out alternative scenarios where they are deceptive.
-For every sense experience, you cannot rule out that the experience is part of a dream (in which case it is deceptive)
...Hence, it is not ok to take any sense experience as veridical.
Dreams aren't real
Evil Demon Argument
- It is ok to take you sense experiences as veridical only if you can rule out the alternative scenarios where they are deceptive.
-For every sense experience, you cannot rule out that it is produced in you by an all-powerful evil demon.
Evil demon produces it
Cogito
"I think; therefore, I am" - Descartes
Cogito Ergo Sum
Dualism
-I cannot doubt my minds existence.
-I can doubt my bodies existence.
- X=Y only if they share all proper ties.
...Hence, my body ≠ mind.
X ≠ Y
A priori
a statement is knowable a priori, iff its truth can be grasped merely by grasping it's meaning.
water is watery

2+2=4
A Posteriori
opposite of a priori
Tomatoes are vegetables
Rationalism
Some substantive facts, facts about what and how things are, are knowable a priori.
Reason alone, unaided by experience.
Trademark Argument
- I have an idea of a perfect being.
-My ideas have causes.
-There must be at least as much formal reality in the cause of an idea as there is objective reality in the idea itself (the effect).
...Hence, the cause of my idea of a perfect being must have the formal reality of a perfect being.
...Hence, a perfect being exists; God exists.
Ideas have causes
Criticisms of the Trademark Argument
-We finite beings cannot understand the divine.
-ideas must have causes (doubtable and so inadmissable)
-as much formal reality in the cause of an idea (doubtable, ASI).
-Perfectly puntual being
Ideas, causes, not adding up
Empiricism
There is no a priori knowledge of substantive facts; all substantive knowledge comes from experience.
No a priori knowledge of substantive facts.
Foundationalism
A priori knowledge is the base of the house that is perception and experience.
House
Substance Dualism
-Mind and Body are distinct substances.
-Body is material and occupies space; mind is neither.
Mind ≠ Body
Coherentism
Coherentism is a theory of epistemic justification. It implies that for a belief to be justified it must belong to a coherent system of beliefs. For a system of beliefs to be coherent, the beliefs that make up that system must "cohere" with one another
Bolnging to coherent system of beliefs.
Epistemology
An epistemological problem with a theory is an arguement that the theory has unacceptable consequences about what we KNOW.
unacceptable consequences about what we know.
Metaphysics
a metaphysical problem with a theory is an argument that the theory has unacceptable consequences about how the world is (or works) on some fundamental level.
problem with how the world works
Zombie Argument
-If cartesian dualism is true, then I cannot know that others are not zombies (have conscious lives).
-But, I can (and do) know that others have conscious lives.
...Hence, cartesian dualism is not true.
Conscious lives
Mutant Argument
-If cartesian dualism is true, then I cannot know that other's conscious lives are anything like my own.
-I can (and do) know that other's conscious lives are something like my own.
...Hence, cartesian dualism is not true.
Sothing like my own
Zombie Argument II
-If CD is true, then it is possible for me to have a microphysical duplicate... a zombie.
-If my zombie duplicate is possible, then his behavior is not caused by any conscious mental state.
-If my zombie duplicate's behavior is not caused by any conscious mental state, then my own behavior is not caused by any conscious mental state.
-If my own behavior is not caused by any conscious mental states, then my conscious mental states are causally inert.
-But, my conscious mental states are not causally inert.
...Hence, cartesian dualism is not true.
zombie, conscious mental states, causally inert, but not.
Ocassionalism
When Brain cells light up, that is an OCCASSION for God to insert a feeling.
God works on occassion
Logical Behaviorism
Mental concept can be given a priori definitions in terms of physical behavior.
Something is a bachelor if it is an unmarried adult male.
Priviledged Access Problem
- If behaviorism is true then my mental states just are my behavioral disposition.
-Others have at least as good access to my behavioral dispositions as I do.
-Then if behaviorism is true then others have at least as good access to my mental states as I do.
-But that is not the case.
...Hence, behaviorism is not true.
Access to my mental states based on behavior.
Psychofunctionalism
Mental states are to be defined as internal states of organisms- states that play specifiable roles.
-To be in pain is to be in an internal state that has such-and-such typical causes, and such-and-such typical effects. (Both internal and external)
such-and-such
The Qualia Problem
- If funtionalism is true, then all mental states have specific behavioral dispositions.
-Some mental states don't give rise to specific behavioral dispositions.
...Hence, functionalism is not true.
mental states - specific behavior dispositions
Argument for Mental Causation
-Sometimes mental events cause physical events. [mental causation]
-Only physical events can cause physical events. [causal closure of the physical]
...Hence, mental events JUST ARE physical events.
sometimes mental=physical
only physical=physical
...mental just are physical
Psychophysicalism
Mental states can be identified with physical states.
mental can be identified with ???
Argument for Hard Determinism
-Every physical event is causally determined by prior physical events.
-All human actions are physical events.
; then all human actions are causally determined by prior physical events.
-No action that is causally determined by prior physical events is free.
...Hence, no human action is free; we have no free will.
every physical event is causally determined...
Argument for Incompatibilism
-If an action is causlly necessitated by prior physical events, then it could not have been otherwise given these events.
-If an action couldn't have been otherwise (given prior physical events) then it is unfree.
...Hence, if an action if causally necessitated by prior events, then it is unfree.
action causally necessitated- could not have been otherwise.
The Illusion of Free Will
-We are usually not aware of the complex physical causes of our behavior.
-This makes it easy for us to suppose that there are no physical, deterministic causes of our behavior.
not aware of physical causes of our behavior.
Indeterminism (Libertarianism)
-Determinism is false.
-Not all physical events are causally necessitated by prior physical events.
2 types of physical events:
-event causation
-agent causation
Dilemma of Determinism
-Either an action is strictly determined by prior events OR it is undetermined.
-If it is strictly determined by prior events then it is not free.
-If it is undetermined, then it is random.
-If it is random, then it is not free.
...Hence, no action is free.
either determined or random... not free.
Compatibilism
Some actions are both causally necessitated by prior physical events and free.
causally necessitated and free
Incompatibilism
If an action is causally necessitated by prior physical events, then it is unfree.
if causally necessitated then unfree
Minimartian Objection
-If compatibilism is true, then an act is free if it is produced by the agents cognitive system.
-If an act is free if it produced by the agents cognitive system, then the agent whose cognitive system is controlled by minimartians acts freely.
-It is not the case that an agent whose cognitive system is controlled by minimartians acts freely.
...Hence compatibilism is not true.
Minimartiians control the agent