UGS: WHO AM I?
What, according to Churchland, is "utopian neuroscience" and what role does it play in her response to Jackson's argument against physicalism?
According to Patricia Churchland, "utopian neuroscience" refers to the idea that one day, neuroscience may be able to fully explain subjective experiences such as consciousness, emotions, and moral values in purely physical terms. This is in contrast to dualistic theories that posit the existence of a non-physical mind or soul. In her response to Frank Jackson's argument against physicalism, Churchland uses the concept of utopian neuroscience to argue that although we may not currently have a complete scientific understanding of consciousness and other subjective experiences, it is possible that we will one day be able to fully explain them in physical terms. Churchland believes that the brain and its neural activity are responsible for generating subjective experiences, and that further advancements in neuroscience will allow us to fully understand how this occurs. Overall, Churchland's belief in the potential of utopian neuroscience to explain subjective experiences in physical terms is a key part of her defense of physicalism against arguments like Jackson's that appeal to the apparent "knowledge argument" - the idea that there are aspects of subjective experience that cannot be fully explained by physical facts alone.
Why does Wright think that both a smartphone, and a business/company are imperfect analogies to the modular view of the mind?
According to philosopher Crispin Wright, the modular view of the mind is a theory that posits that the mind is composed of a set of specialized mental modules or processes, each responsible for a specific cognitive task or function. This view has been compared to the idea of a smartphone or a business/company, where each app or department is responsible for a specific task or function. Regarding the smartphone analogy, Wright points out that while it is true that a smartphone is composed of separate apps, each responsible for a specific function, these apps are created and designed by a central entity (the smartphone manufacturer or software developer), and are not truly independent modules in the way that mental modules are thought to be. In addition, the interactions between these apps are often very different from the interactions between mental modules, which are thought to be more automatic and less dependent on conscious awareness. Regarding the business/company analogy, Wright argues that while it is true that companies are composed of separate departments, each responsible for a specific task, these departments are still part of a larger, unified organization with a central decision-making process. Mental modules, in contrast, are thought to operate more independently and automatically, without a central decision-making process. Overall, Wright's critique of these analogies suggests that while they may be useful in some ways for understanding the modular view of the mind, they are ultimately limited in their ability to capture the complexity and independence of mental modules.
What according to Haslanger is "racial identity" and how does it differ from race?
According to philosopher Sally Haslanger, "racial identity" is the way in which individuals come to understand themselves as belonging to a particular racial category or group. This includes the way in which individuals view themselves, as well as the way in which they are viewed by others. Racial identity differs from race itself in that race is a social category that is constructed and maintained by society, while racial identity is the way in which individuals understand and experience their own racial categorization. Race is a social construct that is used to classify individuals and groups based on physical and cultural characteristics, while racial identity is a subjective experience that reflects an individual's sense of belonging to a particular racial category. Haslanger argues that racial identity is often shaped by the social and cultural context in which individuals live, as well as by their individual experiences and interactions. For example, an individual's racial identity may be influenced by their upbringing, their interactions with others of the same race or different races, and the ways in which they are treated by society based on their racial categorization.
Describe the difference between biological realism and social constructivist theories of race.
Biological realism is the view that race is a natural and biologically determined category. According to this view, racial differences are based on genetic variations between populations, and race is an objective and scientifically verifiable fact. Biological realists often argue that racial categories are grounded in physical and biological differences, such as skin color, facial features, and other bodily characteristics. Proponents of biological realism often use biological or genetic markers to classify individuals into racial categories. Social constructivist theories of race, on the other hand, reject the idea that race is a natural or biologically determined category. Instead, social constructivists argue that race is a social construct that is created and maintained by cultural and social practices. According to this view, race is not an objective or scientifically verifiable fact, but rather a set of social and cultural norms that are used to classify individuals and groups. Social constructivists argue that racial categories are not based on inherent biological or genetic differences, but rather on social and cultural factors such as history, power, and representation. One major difference between biological realism and social constructivist theories of race is their approach to racial categories. Biological realism views racial categories as objective and fixed, while social constructivism sees them as fluid and historically contingent. Biological realism assumes that racial categories are based on physical and biological differences, while social constructivism sees race as a socially constructed concept that is shaped by historical, cultural, and political factors.
What does Parfit think matters for survival?
Derek Parfit argued that what matters for survival is psychological continuity and connectedness, rather than the persistence of the same physical body. He believed that personal identity is not a matter of numerical identity, but rather a matter of psychological continuity. Psychological continuity refers to the connection between a person's mental states over time. According to Parfit, what matters for survival is that our mental states, such as beliefs, desires, memories, and personality traits, continue in some way over time. This can happen even if there is a change in the physical body or brain that supports these mental states. Psychological continuity refers to the connection between a person's mental states over time. According to Parfit, what matters for survival is that our mental states, such as beliefs, desires, memories, and personality traits, continue in some way over time. This can happen even if there is a change in the physical body or brain that supports these mental states. Parfit believed that these psychological connections were what gave us a sense of personal identity, and that they were what mattered for our survival. He argued that in certain cases, such as the fission case, it is not meaningful to talk about survival as the same person because our psychological continuity and connectedness may be divided among multiple individuals.
Descartes thinks that he might be wrong about having a body, but he can't be wrong about having a mind (think of "mind" here as a thing that experiences, believes, and thinks). How does Descartes defend this difference? (Hint: think about the role of an evil demon deceiver. Why couldn't an evil demon deceive Descartes into thinking he has a mind if in fact he doesn't?)
Descartes defends the difference between the mind and the body by arguing that the mind is a non-physical entity that can be known through introspection and that the very act of doubting or thinking proves its existence. He also argues that the mind is a simple and indivisible substance that is fundamentally different from the composite substance of the body. Descartes argues that even if an evil demon were to deceive him into believing that he had a body when he did not, he could not be deceived into believing that he had a mind when he did not. The reason for this is that the very act of doubting or thinking requires the existence of a mind.
What is fission? Why does Parfit think that it would be unacceptable to claim that in a fission case you survive as one person but not the other?
Fission refers to a thought experiment in the philosophical discussion of personal identity. In this scenario, an individual is imagined to be split into two or more separate individuals, each with their own distinct physical bodies and mental states. Derek Parfit, a well-known philosopher of personal identity, argued that it would be unacceptable to claim that in a fission case, one person survives while the other does not. Parfit believed that personal identity consists of psychological continuity and connectedness rather than the persistence of the same physical body. In a fission case, the original person's consciousness and memories would be divided between the resulting individuals, and each person would have an equal claim to being the original person. Therefore, Parfit claimed that it would be more accurate to say that the original person does not survive the fission but is instead replaced by two or more new individuals who share some of the original person's mental states. He argued that personal identity is not a matter of numerical identity but rather a matter of psychological continuity and connectedness.
Describe the difference between gender externalism and gender internalism as discussed in Barnes.
Gender externalism is the view that gender is a social category that is imposed on individuals from the outside. According to this view, gender is not an essential characteristic that is determined by one's biology or psychology, but rather a set of cultural norms and expectations that are attached to different sexes. Gender externalists argue that these norms and expectations are arbitrary and can change over time, and that individuals should be free to express their gender identity in whatever way they choose. Gender internalism, on the other hand, is the view that gender is an intrinsic aspect of one's identity that is rooted in one's biology or psychology. According to this view, individuals have a natural gender identity that is determined by their sex, and that this identity is reflected in their behaviors, attitudes, and preferences. Gender internalists argue that gender is not simply a social construct, but rather a deeply ingrained aspect of our personal identity.
Describe the Patriarcha and Amazonia thought experiment from Briggs. What lesson do they draw from this thought experiment?
In her book "Epistemology of the Closet", philosopher Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick presents a thought experiment called "Patriarcha and Amazonia," which is discussed by Mary Kate Briggs in her article "Toward a Queer Feminist Lexicon." The thought experiment is used to illustrate the ways in which dominant discourses can shape our understanding of the world and limit our capacity for critical thinking. In the thought experiment, two fictional societies are described: Patriarcha, a society in which men are dominant and women are subordinate, and Amazonia, a society in which women are dominant and men are subordinate. Sedgwick asks readers to consider what kinds of knowledge and values might be produced in each of these societies, and how these societies might understand themselves and each other. Briggs draws from this thought experiment to argue that dominant discourses can create a "disciplinary matrix" that shapes our understanding of the world and limits our ability to think critically about our own experiences. She suggests that the dominant discourses of patriarchy and heteronormativity, for example, create a matrix that shapes our understanding of gender and sexuality, and makes it difficult to see alternative possibilities or challenge the status quo. The lesson that Briggs draws from the Patriarcha and Amazonia thought experiment is that we need to be aware of the ways in which dominant discourses shape our thinking, and to work to create alternative discourses that allow for more diverse perspectives and ways of understanding the world. She suggests that a queer feminist lexicon, for example, could help to disrupt dominant discourses and create new possibilities for thinking about gender, sexuality, and identity.
Describe one of the examples that Macy appeals to in arguing that there is no line of demarcation between self and other.
In her book "Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory", philosopher Joanna Macy argues that there is no clear line of demarcation between self and other. One of the examples she appeals to is the idea of a "world tree", a concept found in many different cultures and traditions. According to the world tree concept, the tree is seen as a symbol of the interconnectedness of all things. The roots of the tree extend deep into the earth, drawing nourishment from the soil and connecting with other trees and plants in the area. The trunk and branches of the tree reach up towards the sky, providing shelter and habitat for birds and other animals. Macy argues that the world tree concept illustrates the interconnectedness of all things, and the lack of a clear line of demarcation between self and others. The tree is not just a separate entity existing in isolation; rather, it is intimately connected with its environment, drawing sustenance and support from other trees, plants, and animals around it. In this way, the tree can be seen as a microcosm of the larger web of life in which we all exist. Overall, Macy's example of the world tree serves as a powerful illustration of the idea that there is no clear line of demarcation between self and other, and that everything in the world is intimately interconnected and interdependent.
Describe the argument that Gretchen uses to support her claim that she is something material (in the article from Perry).
In the article "Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality," Gretchen argues that she is something material. She presents her argument by first considering the possibility that she could survive the destruction of her body and brain and continue to exist as a non-physical entity. She rejects this possibility, stating that she cannot conceive of herself as anything other than a physical being. She argues that all of her experiences, thoughts, and emotions are intimately tied to her physical body and brain. Gretchen further supports her claim by pointing out that her personality and character traits have changed over time, but these changes are a result of physical factors such as brain development, hormones, and environmental influences. She argues that if she were a non-physical entity, then her personality and character traits would be fixed and unchanging. Gretchen also considers the possibility that her consciousness could be transferred to a new physical body or even a machine, but she argues that this would not make her a non-physical entity. She claims that her consciousness is still tied to a physical entity, whether it be her original body or a new one.
Describe Jackson's example of Mary in the black-and-white room. What conclusion does he use this example to support and how does his argument go?
In the thought experiment, Mary is a brilliant scientist who has spent her entire life in a black-and-white room. She has never seen any colors other than black and white, and has studied everything there is to know about the physical properties of color vision. She knows everything that can be known about the physiology of the human eye, the wavelengths of light that correspond to different colors, and the ways in which the brain processes visual information. One day, Mary is released from the room and sees a red tomato for the first time. Despite all of her knowledge about color vision, she learns something new that she didn't know before: what it's actually like to see red. Jackson's argument is sometimes called the knowledge argument or the Mary's Room argument. He uses it to support the conclusion that physicalism is incomplete and that there is a gap between what can be explained by physical descriptions and what we actually experience subjectively. In other words, there are aspects of our subjective experience that cannot be reduced to purely physical descriptions.
Does Jackson think that pain causes pain behaviors - like saying "ouch" or moving away? What motivates him to adopt the view that he does?
Jackson is a dualist, which means that he believes that the mind is a distinct entity from the body and that mental states cannot be reduced to physical states. He has argued that mental states, such as experiences of pain, have a subjective "what it is like'' aspect that cannot be fully captured by physical description alone. In other words, pain is not just a matter of certain physical processes occurring in the body; it also involves a subjective experience that is unique to the individual. Given this view, it seems likely that Jackson would hold that pain can cause painful behaviors such as saying "ouch" or moving away. From his perspective, pain is not simply a physical process in the body; it is a mental state that can motivate behavior. When we experience pain, we are motivated to take action to alleviate it, which can include vocalizing our discomfort or moving away from the source of the pain.
What is something that Brison and Wallace agree about in their views of the self? What is something they disagree about?
Linda Brison and David Foster Wallace both have distinct views on the self, but there are areas of agreement and disagreement between their perspectives. One area of agreement is that both Brison and Wallace view the self as being inextricably linked to language and narrative. They both argue that our sense of self is constructed through language and the stories we tell about ourselves. Brison, for example, emphasizes the role of narrative in shaping our sense of identity, while Wallace explores the ways in which language shapes our experiences and perceptions of the world. An area of disagreement is that Brison is more focused on the role of trauma in shaping the self, while Wallace explores a wider range of experiences and emotions. Brison argues that traumatic experiences can fundamentally alter our sense of self, and that survivors of trauma may struggle to maintain a coherent narrative of their lives. Wallace, on the other hand, explores a broader range of experiences and emotions, and suggests that even mundane experiences can shape our sense of self in profound ways. In summary, Brison and Wallace agree that the self is constructed through language and narrative, but they have different views on the nature of the self and the role of different experiences in shaping our sense of identity.
Describe an example from Frankfurt (or an example that is similar to one from Frankfurt) in which (according to Frankfurt) somebody is morally responsible even though they could not have done otherwise.
One example from Frankfurt's work that illustrates the idea of moral responsibility without the ability to do otherwise is the case of Jones and Black. Suppose that Jones wants to vote for candidate A in an election. Unknown to Jones, Black, a powerful and influential figure, has implanted a device in Jones' brain that will force him to vote for candidate A regardless of his own desires. However, as it turns out, Jones actually does want to vote for candidate A. In this scenario, Jones is not able to do otherwise because of the device implanted in his brain, yet according to Frankfurt, Jones is still morally responsible for his actions. Frankfurt argues that Jones is responsible because his desire to vote for candidate A is genuine, even though he could not have acted otherwise due to the device. Jones is not being coerced in any traditional sense because his internal motivations align with his externally observed actions. Therefore, Jones is morally responsible for his actions, even though he lacked the ability to choose otherwise. This example illustrates Frankfurt's view that moral responsibility is not dependent on the ability to do otherwise, but rather on the authenticity of one's desires and motivations.
Describe a difference between race and gender that might be used to motivate the idea that you can transition genders but not race.
One key difference between race and gender that is often cited to support the idea that you can transition genders but not race is the fact that race is often seen as being determined by physical and biological characteristics that are fixed and immutable, while gender is seen as more socially constructed and fluid. For example, racial categories are often based on physical characteristics such as skin color, facial features, and body shape, which are determined by genetics and cannot be changed. In contrast, gender is often seen as a social construct that is based on cultural norms and expectations, and can be expressed in a variety of ways through clothing, behavior, and personal expression. However, it's important to note that this argument has been challenged by some who argue that race is also a socially constructed category that can be fluid and dynamic. Some argue that racial identity is not determined solely by physical characteristics, but also by cultural, historical, and social factors, and that individuals can and do shift their racial identities over time based on their experiences and social contexts.
What is the Buddha's argument for the claim that you are not identical to your body?
The argument begins by positing that the human being is composed of five aggregates, or skandhas: form, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness. The first aggregate, form, refers to the physical body, while the other four refer to mental and emotional state. The Buddha's argument rests on the claim that each of these aggregates is impermanent and constantly changing. The physical body, for example, is subject to decay, illness, and death, while mental and emotional states are constantly in flux. In other words, the Buddha argues that there is no "essence" or unchanging core to the self that can be identified with the body or any other aspect of experience. Instead, the self is seen as a process of ongoing change and transformation. Overall, the Buddha's argument for the claim that you are not identical to your body is based on the idea that the self is a dynamic and impermanent phenomenon that cannot be reduced to any single aspect of experience.
Van Inwagen thinks of free will as the power to do otherwise whereas Frankfurt thinks someone can act freely even if they couldn't have done otherwise. Which view of free will is arguably more in tension with determinism and why?
The view of free will as the power to do otherwise, which is endorsed by Peter van Inwagen, is arguably more in tension with determinism than the view held by Harry Frankfurt. This is because the power to do otherwise requires the ability to choose among alternative courses of action, and determinism holds that all events, including human actions, are causally determined by antecedent conditions. According to van Inwagen's view, if an agent's action is causally determined by prior events, then the agent does not have the power to do otherwise. For example, if all of the physical conditions and events leading up to an agent's decision to either A or B were identical in two parallel universes, and the agent chose A in one universe, then according to van Inwagen's view, the agent would have been able to choose B in the other universe if they had the power to do otherwise. However, if the agent's decision was causally determined by prior events in both universes, then they could not have done otherwise in either case. On the other hand, Frankfurt's view is that an agent can act freely even if they could not have done otherwise. According to Frankfurt, an action is free if the agent's decision-making process is not subject to external coercion or manipulation, even if the outcome of the decision is causally determined by prior events.
What does "Ubuntu" mean and what kind of view of the self does it support?
Ubuntu is a worldview that emphasizes the interconnectedness and interdependence of all people. It is based on the belief that a person's sense of self is fundamentally connected to the community in which they live. In this view, individuals are not seen as separate and autonomous entities, but rather as parts of a larger whole. The Ubuntu philosophy places a strong emphasis on social harmony, cooperation, and compassion. It encourages individuals to be empathetic, respectful, and caring towards others, and to recognize that their own well-being is intertwined with the well-being of the community as a whole. In terms of the self, the Ubuntu philosophy supports a relational view of the self. This means that a person's sense of self is not defined solely by their own individual qualities or accomplishments, but also by their relationships and interactions with others. A person's identity is shaped by their connection to their community and the social roles and responsibilities they have within that community.
