Philosophy Exam 2

Front 1

Dualism

Back 1

-the world's composed of 2 kinds of things
1)physical
2)non-physical

-minds are the negative definition of the physical

Front 2

2 types of dualists

(come up with mind-body interaction theories)

Back 2

1)INTERACTIONISM
-minds & bodies can causally interact

2)PARALLELISM
-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)

Front 3

Interactionism

Back 3

-type of dualism
-descartes

minds & bodies can causally interact

Front 4

Parallelism

Back 4

-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:
1)Occasionalism
2)Pre-Established Harmony

Front 5

Occasionalism

Back 5

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)

Front 6

Pre-Established Harmony

Back 6

1 explanation of parallelism

the correlation between mental/physical was set up at the beginning onf time---set causal chains in motion

Front 7

Monism

Back 7

There is only 1 kind of substance

type:
1) materialism

Front 8

Materialism

Back 8

type of monism
-ONLY PHYSICAL, no mental

2 forms of materialism:
1)Behaviorism
2)identity theory

Front 9

Behaviorism

Back 9

type of materialism
-RYLE
-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

Front 10

Identity Theory

Back 10

type of materialism
-minds & brains are the same thing (brain activity = mental activity)
-EX. morning star & evening star are both venus

Front 11

do behaviorists
& identity theorists
think gammas & robots have minds?

Back 11

behaviorist: yes

identity theorist: no

Front 12

what theory compatible with existence of a soul?

Back 12

dualism not materialism

Front 13

descartes Cogito Argument

Back 13

-(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”

Front 14

Descartes IS

Back 14

-dualist
-interactionist
-rationalist
-mind & body can causally interact somehow

Front 15

meditations

Back 15

-descartes
-M1:doubted everything ever taught
-M2:how can we trust our thoughts? -tries to find something we can be certain of

Front 16

Wax Example

Back 16

-descartes
-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

Front 17

Hume IS

Back 17

-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)

Front 18

Ryle IS

Back 18

-behaviorist

Front 19

Nagel IS

Back 19

-not sure what he is
-critical of materialism, functionalism, & dualism
-consciousness-subjective awareness- makes all ^above arguments false

Front 20

Functionalism

Back 20

-worry about what the mind DOES, not what its made up of
-input->internal processing->output

Front 21

Descartes & extension

Back 21

physical objects are extended (occupy space)
minds aren't extended (don't occupy space)

Front 22

"I'm a thinking thing, I'm not my body"

Back 22

Descartes

Front 23

"I exist as long as I'm thinking"
"I can exist w/o my body"

Back 23

Descartes

Front 24

Descartes reasoning for God

Back 24

-god goes with existence like mountain goes w/valley-can't exist w/o eachother
-god exists w/same certainty of mathematics

Front 25

"the mind is entirely private"

Back 25

Descartes

Front 26

Counter position to Descartes?

Back 26

HUME

Front 27

ideas/impressions

who & what?

Back 27

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

IMPRESSIONS:
-experiences occuring right now
-more forceful/lively

IDEAS:
-remembered impressions
-used in thinking & reasoning

SIMPLE ONES:
-specific physical characteristics (smell, color, temp)

COMPLEX ONES:
-combination of simple ones into an object
-can be distinguished into parts
-red+crisp+shape=apple

Front 28

Pineapple Example

Back 28

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

HUME

Front 29

Unicorn
&
Space Shuttle example

Back 29

Unicorn:
false complex idea

Space Shuttle:
false complex idea until it was built

Front 30

Hume's thoughts on "self"

Back 30

-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)

Front 31

"we could have popped into existence 5 minutes ago with memories implanted"

Back 31

HUME

Front 32

"The controversy concerning identity is not a dispute of words, the 'identity' we describe is false"

Back 32

HUME

Front 33

Category Mistakes

describe and who?

Back 33

RYLE

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)

Front 34

Ryle's Arguments against the "official doctrine"

Back 34

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"...how do mental and physical interact?

Front 35

Glove example

Back 35

RYLE

-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

Front 36

University Example

Back 36

-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

Front 37

Ryle's argument that minds aren't totally private (for behaviorism)

Back 37

-there must be something about our minds that isn't totally private bc we don't doubt that other people have minds

Front 38

Functionalism

Back 38

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)

Front 39

Turin Machine

Back 39

explains functionalism

input->internal processing->output
symbol->recognizing, deleting, replacing->new symbol
stimulus->internal processing->response

Front 40

Toaster Example

Back 40

-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

Front 41

Functionalism's criticism of
-behaviorism
-identity theory

Back 41

-behaviorism doesn't account for internal processing

-identity theory focus on internal processing and forget about the behavior aspects

Front 42

Why could Q's story be another reason to reject determinism?

Back 42

it breaks subjective awareness into objective facts

Front 43

Nagel's
rejection of
Behaviorism

Back 43

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

Front 44

Nagel's
rejection of
Identity Theory

Back 44

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

Front 45

Nagel's
rejection of
Functionalism

Back 45

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

Front 46

Bat Example

Back 46

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

Front 47

"we don't know what its like to say a mental state 'is' a physical state"

Back 47

NAGEL

Front 48

why don't functionalism & materialism work
according to Nagel

Back 48

they're both objectifying (external accounts)
-they can't take consciousness into account