• 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

Card Range To Study



Play button


Play button




Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

7 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

Ryle characterizes "Descartes Myth" as the Ghost in the Machine--what exactly does he mean by this, and why is this a problem, for Ryle? Why does he find the "private" inner life philosophically or scientifically threatening? How does this lead to a type of behaviorist theory of the mind and mental states? What does Behaviorism say that the mind and mental states are identical to? How would a contemporary dualist like JP Moreland respond? How would dualist Thomas Nagel respond to his fellow atheist Ryle? Would he support him? Would he chastise him? How so? You must be specific and thorough.

The official Doctrine: Ghost in the machine-Descartes myth -*if you believe in consciousness you believe in ghosts
every living thing has both a body and a mind
-a private, inner mind and a public body

But Ryle says:
-mind is a bodily behavior
-problem: Category mistake-visiting a college allegory, college is not an individual item to find but the whole thing-college is not a physical thing it is the function, its the behavior the camous -leads to Behavorism: redefines consciousness to be public; consciousness is a function
-JP Morland would say: If you know what people are thinking by their behavior then how do you know you’re own thoughts if you're hungry you just know you don't need to look in the mirror Nagel: would chastise Ryle for having no common sense. He would say Ryle has the cosmic authority problem-he wants god to not exist so he comes up with nonsense

Describe in detail the following physicalist theories: Behaviorism, Identity Theory, Eliminativism, and Functionalism. Using 3 examples of mental states (pain in your left pinky, a perception of redness, and what it is like to be you), what would each theory say that those mental states are identical to? In contrast, what would the Dualist say that these mental states are identical to?

Behaviorism: redefines consciousness to be public; consciousness is a function
-pain in your left pinky: You would have to see the behavior, looking at your pinky with a

hurt face maybe tears from the pain saying “my pinky hurts”
-perception of redness: “That’s red”
-what is it like to be you: Look in the mirror, observe your behaviors

Identity Theory: denies the soul but retains soul like language; mental states are brain states -talks like a dualist but believe body is just parts, so pinky hurts is just a the neurons in

our brain telling “you” your fingers hurts
-but they don't really believe in You or your ownership( just mindless neurons)

Eliminativism: mental states are brain states but also there are no mental states; eliminate mental language

pain in pinky, redness, you: brain jargin that doesn't have you or any ownership just brain states

Functionalism: philosophy that claims mental states are patters of cause and effect: input processing behavioral outputs of the body

how do explain what they think?
Dualist would say: mental states are inner private thoughts that we have

According to John Searle's Chinese Room argument, functionalism is defective. How so exactly? How could Searle's Chinese Room Argument be marshaled against Identity Theory and Eliminativism as well? Would JP Moreland agree? How so or how not? Would Nagel agree—how so or how not? You must be specific and thorough.


Describe in detail JP Moreland's "Contemporary Defense of Dualism." What is/are his argument(s) against physicalism as a general worldview? What are his specific arguments against Mind/Body Physicalism? What are 3 of Paul Churchland's arguments against Mind-Body Dualism (including his contention that the argument from introspection is "deeply suspect")? How would Moreland respond to these suggestions? How would Nagel respond? Be specific.

Problems with Physicalism as a world view:

1) If theism is true physicalism is false because god is not a physical being

2) numbers exist-numbers are abstract not physical if you dont believe in numbers then y ou

can believe mathematics or science gives us any knowledge

3) Values- nonphysical property of goodness/badness like moral laws

4) Theories, concepts, laws of logic and such entities seem to be nonphysical

5) Universals exist (redness, hardness) is characterizes the nature o matter-non physical

Problems with mind body Physicalism:
1) Law of identity-mind and body have different properties so they can’t be the same thing

-mental events are private: though, feelings, memories, pictures 2) Private Access and Incorrigibility (incorrigibility=can’t be wrong)

-mental states are incorrigible-cant be mistaken about your own thoughts -a brain surgen could never know my mental life as well as I do

3) The experience of first person subjectivity
-experience of what it is like to be human-to explain in third person would not describe

the experience in its first person view 4) Secondary Qualities (qualia)

-taste, color
-think “what it is like to be a bat”
-metaphysical properties which deal with objects as a whole

5) Intentionality-mind’s aboutness
-I have a thought about my cat

6)Personal identity
-souls is separate from body, if you replace a leg its still the same person

Churchland’s arguments against Dualism
-Ockham’s razor-dualism too complicated and can’t explain everything, needs only to have one kind of substance
-introspection is suspect-we already know other forms of observation-saying red is the same a s the matrix molecule
-evolution-humans are a physical outcome of a purely physical process

moreland would say:
evolution does not explain where our thoughts came from, or our qualia, we have a soul

Nagel: common sense principle, and that church land is suffering from the cosmic authority problem

What are John Locke’s, David Hume’s theories of personal identity? In John Locke, explain how he uses the Prince and the Cobbler; Socrates and the present mayor of Queensborough, the drunk and sober man, and you and Nestor/or Thersites—how do each of these illustrate and help him to define his key terms? Define key terms for Hume, as well. In the film clip we saw in class from “The Hot Chick,” interpret that clip from both a Lockean and a Humean perspective, and clearly distinguish how those interpretations would differ from a Reidian interpretation of it.

John Lock on Personal identity: Dualist
-an animal is a body -man is a body
-a person is a bundle of memories, as far back as you remember your conscious exists - no strict identity of a person throughout time
-the man body is born but you(your conscious) doesn't come along into that body till

later(your earliest memory) examples:

-Nestor and Thersites-suppose the soul of Nestor, for souls don’t care which matter they are in, came into you. Are you the same person as Nestor? No because you don’t pocess the same memories as Nestor-you don’t remember the siege of Troy. Sameness in soul is not sameness in person

-Drunk man and Sober man-a man drunk and sober is the same person even though the sober man doesn’t recall the drunk man’s doings? It may be reasonable to think no one should be punished for what they know nothing of but human laws justly punish him

-the deed happened but it wasn’t “you” you didn;t exist at that moment
-Prince and Cobbler-if the soul of the prime enter the body of the cobbler-would the prince and the cobbler be the same man? Sameness of soul is not sameness of person, sameness in person is memories
-Socrates and present mayor of Queensborough: can’t punish waking socrates and was never conscious of sleeping socrates action, for something sleeping socrates did -it would be like punishing one twin for what his brother did-when he knew nothing of the crime

Hume: Empiricist( perceptions are the sole source of knowledge) -knowledge of the world is derived from experience -theres a bundle of perceptions
-can never see myself without perceptions

-so we don’t exist
-“you, I. my” are just grammatical for convenience sake

How does Reid defend a Common Sense theory of personal identity against those of Locke and Hume? Make sure you are faithful to the structure of Reid’s piece, including accurate, precise summaries of all parts. Be sure to state the essential difference between Commonsense and the Empiricist theories in Locke and Hume. Be thorough and specific, and thorough, too.

-identity in general: a relation between a thing which is known to exist at one time and a thing wich is known to have existed at another time, uninterrupted continuance of existence

-identity cannot be applied to perceptions, thoughts, pleasures,
-Personal identity/personality: all of mankind places their personality in something that cannot be divided or consist of parts(uninterrupted continuance of existence)

-memory gives evidence of that identical person throughout time, without memory you know its relation to you and it could have been something you did

-all bodies consist of parts that change but we keep the name because our language could not afford a different name for every different state. ex: old regiments that still exist and retain the origonal name even though all original members have died

-identity when applied to a person has no ambiguity it is fixed and precise On Locke:

1 consequence(locke was aware of)-if the same consciousness can be transferred from one person to another, multiple people could be the same person
2) if he looses the memories then he is not the same person so he may be multiple other people if he so loses his memories so often( a new person for each new or lost memory)
3) a man maybe be and at the same time no be the person that did a particular action. If a officer remembers being a young boy and the general remembers being the officer but not the young boy the general is the officer and the officer the boy but the general isn't the officer and is

Doesn't even adress hume as a person that exists because Hume himself doesn't say he himself exists
-reid says hume goes against common sense
-Hume believied against his principles because he is stating he and the reader do not exist but that he should be read and should retain his personal identity so he can reap the honor and reputation of his book
-if these hume is right then that would live us nothing to discuss about
-If hume truly believed his own philosophy his heir could immediately call a jury and sieze his estate

So reid believes we have memories and perceptions thoughts-we have ownership of them. Hume=we are perecepions, Locke=we are memories

What is the conclusion of the argument in Thomas Nagel’s “What is it Like to Be a Bat?” How does he argue for that conclusion? How does that conclusion fit with what Nagel deems to be the cosmic authority problem in “The Last Word”? What is “the cosmic authority problem”? What tendencies does it support, according to Nagel? According to Nagel, would Churchland, Dennett (Youtube video), and Searle (in the “Basic Metaphysics” chapter excerpt from Mind Language and Society) be examples of those who have a “cosmic authority problem”? Why or why not. Would Moreland? Be specific, and thorough, and clear.

Nagel: atheist dualist
What is it like to be a bat? even if we dress up like a bat and pretend to be a bat we would not be a bat. You'd have to have he consciousness of a bat to know what its like to be a bat Science depends on logic...he like many other atheist want atheism to be true so badly it can cloud his judment ie the cosmic authority problem: not a rare condition, the cause of scientism

scientism: the claim that all knowledge can be attained through he scientific method and that there is no other reliable route to truth(where Churchland, Dennet, Searle arise from which arises Physicalism)

-we couldnt even know scientism theory through scientic method

-tendency to reduce mental states to brain states and getting rid of ownership of mental states

-overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life -no consciousness because we dont have souls
-no more common sense