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

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


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

48 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
-the world's composed of 2 kinds of things

-minds are the negative definition of the physical
2 types of dualists

(come up with mind-body interaction theories)
-minds & bodies can causally interact

-there's a causal chain for everything mental and another causal chain for everything physical (they run forever parallel-one doesn't cause the other)
-type of dualism

minds & bodies can causally interact
-type of dualism

there's a causal chain for everything physical & one for everything mental but they run forever parallel (they never cause eachother)

2 explanations:
2)Pre-Established Harmony
1 explanation for parallelism

a busy god at every moment correlates the mental & physical events

(takes the occasion of hitting toe to sensation in mind then causes desire to massage toe)
Pre-Established Harmony
1 explanation of parallelism

the correlation between mental/physical was set up at the beginning onf time---set causal chains in motion
There is only 1 kind of substance

1) materialism
type of monism
-ONLY PHYSICAL, no mental

2 forms of materialism:
2)identity theory
type of materialism
-the mind debate can be settled with words
-"mind" refers to our ability to behave in response to stimuli
-given the right stimulus you'll behave a certain way
-"to behave kind is to be kind"
-Davis criticizes w/ 2+2=4 & imagining an orange
(what behavior's associated with this mental state?)
-when we talk about the mind we're talking about speech/expressions/movement, not workings of liver/heart/etc
-the mind isn't the brain, the mind is behavior
Identity Theory
type of materialism
-minds & brains are the same thing (brain activity = mental activity)
-EX. morning star & evening star are both venus
do behaviorists
& identity theorists
think gammas & robots have minds?
behaviorist: yes

identity theorist: no
what theory compatible with existence of a soul?
dualism not materialism
descartes Cogito Argument
-(1)- If I can convince myself of something then I must exist as the thing which is being convinced
-(2)- If I’m being deceived then I must exist as the thing which is being deceived
-(3)- I am, I exist
-(4)- as a thinking thing [non-physical mind]
-(5)- as often & as long as I think [existence doesn’t depend on physical nature]
-(6)- Conclusion: “I think therefore I am”
Descartes IS
-mind & body can causally interact somehow
-M1:doubted everything ever taught
-M2:how can we trust our thoughts? -tries to find something we can be certain of
Wax Example
-perception of wax affirms own existence
-wax changes states but still beleives is same piece of wax
--->it was always extended-always occupied space
-it exists
Hume IS
-not a dualist or materialist
-not sure if anything exists
-beleives "BUNDLE THEORY"
-->there is no "self"
-Empiricist –knowledge is based on experience—not reasoning (rationalism)
Ryle IS
Nagel IS
-not sure what he is
-critical of materialism, functionalism, & dualism
-consciousness-subjective awareness- makes all ^above arguments false
-worry about what the mind DOES, not what its made up of
-input->internal processing->output
Descartes & extension
physical objects are extended (occupy space)
minds aren't extended (don't occupy space)
"I'm a thinking thing, I'm not my body"
"I exist as long as I'm thinking"
"I can exist w/o my body"
Descartes reasoning for God
-god goes with existence like mountain goes w/valley-can't exist w/o eachother
-god exists w/same certainty of mathematics
"the mind is entirely private"
Counter position to Descartes?

who & what?
all of our perceptions & experiences are either impressions or ideas.
-there are simple & complex impressions & ideas

-experiences occuring right now
-more forceful/lively

-remembered impressions
-used in thinking & reasoning

-specific physical characteristics (smell, color, temp)

-combination of simple ones into an object
-can be distinguished into parts
Pineapple Example
you can't have a simple impression without a simple idea

-you can't imagine the way a pineapple tastes without experiencing tasting it
-you can't describe the way a pineapple tastes to someone

Space Shuttle example
false complex idea

Space Shuttle:
false complex idea until it was built
Hume's thoughts on "self"
-there is no self
-self implies something unchanging within us
-there's no unchanging impressions
-every moment our bundle of perceptions is different than the last
-there are no 2 moments when we're identical w/ourselves
-over time small moment to moment changes add to big changes (like change after 5 years)
"we could have popped into existence 5 minutes ago with memories implanted"
"The controversy concerning identity is not a dispute of words, the 'identity' we describe is false"
Category Mistakes

describe and who?

category mistakes=
---a property's ascribed to something that can't have it
----mistake to treat the mind like made of immaterial substance

-people put things in the wrong logical category
-descartes is wrong in thinking the mind is a mysterious REAL THING
-with analysis of language (mistaken categories) no mind-body problem exists

**category mistakes are the source of the double life theory (that we have private mental & public physical life)
Ryle's Arguments against the "official doctrine"
the "official doctrine" (that there's a mind and body and mind survives death) are wrong

-mental states refer to our ability to respond to stimulus
-criticizing descartes = the "ghost in the machine" do mental and physical interact?
Glove example

-dualism makes the category mistake of:::
-asking to see the right & left glove THEN asking to see the pair (same thing)
-same thing as mental & physical--->they're the same thing just said different ways
University Example
-ryle example of category mistake
-foreigner sees all building/teachers then asks where the university is
-the university exists on a different level than the buildings & such
Ryle's argument that minds aren't totally private (for behaviorism)
-there must be something about our minds that isn't totally private bc we don't doubt that other people have minds
neither materialism (though davis says so) or dualism
-we worry too much about what the minds made up of and not the function of the mind
-the whole of :
input->internal processing->output

-allows for robots (they have internal processing--doesn't matter what kind of internal processing you have)
Turin Machine
explains functionalism

input->internal processing->output
symbol->recognizing, deleting, replacing->new symbol
stimulus->internal processing->response
Toaster Example
-for functionalism

-you can talk about the plastic/metal/parts but you don't know what its function is.
-*it Browns*(function)

--focus on what mind does not its properties
Functionalism's criticism of
-identity theory
-behaviorism doesn't account for internal processing

-identity theory focus on internal processing and forget about the behavior aspects
Why could Q's story be another reason to reject determinism?
it breaks subjective awareness into objective facts
rejection of
refers mental states to behavior... doesn't account for subjective awareness

-we both call a shirt "blue" but you see green and i see blue
-we're acting the same but internal experiences are different
rejection of
Identity Theory
means if we have the same brain state we have the same mental state

-in perceiving green its your favorite color and not mine
--something isn't accounted for something isn't right
rejection of
in turin machine the wavelength of color is compared
-the machine can process info but doesn't take subjected awareness into account---it doesn't have a favorite color
Bat Example
we can't describe our subjective awareness to one another --why the other theories don't work
-we don't know what its like for a bat to be a bat we can only imagine what its like for us to be a bat
-we can't have a theory that takes awareness into account because describing awareness would be objectifying in itself
"we don't know what its like to say a mental state 'is' a physical state"
why don't functionalism & materialism work
according to Nagel
they're both objectifying (external accounts)
-they can't take consciousness into account