This is Philosophy Chapters 1 & 2, Philosophy Final exam
Risk averse principle (guilt/innocence version)
Better off to let some guilty go free rather convict more innocent people.
Cosmological argument
Everything is caused by something prior in the casual chain It is absurd to think that the chain of casualation can go back infinitely This un-caused thing is God
Regress of reasons for acting argument
The argument that there is no free will because actions are the result of desires that one does not choose.
Full circle
1. If truth has intrinsic value, then you should prefer the rational principle to the hedonist principle. 2. If you should prefer the rational principle, then it is wrong yo believe false things (because you should gain truth and avoid error.) 3. If it is wrong to believe false things, then it is not OK to believe whatever you want. 4. If it is not OK to believe whatever you want, then you don't have a right to your own opinion.
What are the two options of the Euthyphro dilemma?
A) morality is random and irrational B) god doesn't choose what is good
Michael Schermer
Cayenne pepper, garlic, and lemon potion. Toxin-sucking mud bath Negative ion generator Iridology Pyramid power Rolfing power Electro-Acuscope Megavitamins and minerals
An objection to virtue ethics is
Clashing virtues like whether to be kind or to be honest about a haircut
James vs Clifford on inconclusive evidence
Clifford: Choose option 1. Withhold belief until you have sufficient evidence one way or another. James: setting the evidence bar high, like Clifford does is great for avoiding errors. You're not very likely to be wrong. But it is lousy for gaining truths. If you don't believe very many things, then you don't believe very many true things either.
Faith Sense 1
Confidence Example: Having faith in the Phillies this year, which pre supposes that the Phillies exist
Dechartes response
Connection between the mind and body through the pineal gland.
Classical utilitarianism is
Consequences are everything/minimize net pain
Fingerprints are not a good solution to the problem of sameness because
Fingers can be cut off and you are still you
Reply to the emotion, feelings, and sensation objection
First, the demand that computers are able to have feelings or emotions is too strong. If it is true that computers have no feelings or emotions, that is irrelevant to the issue of whether they can think of have minds. Failing to have a human style mind does not mean failing to have a mind at all. Second, the only reason you have to think that human beings have feelings, emotions, and consciousness is the way they behave and interact.
Pieces of the puzzle
Free Will Determinism Incompatibilism
Compatibilist reply to too little freedom
Freedom comes in degrees you are more or less unfree depending on the extent to which you can act on your desires
Philosophers that defended agent causation
George Berkeley Thomas Reid Roderick Chisholm
According to Kant, the principle of action "promise to achieve your own advantage even when you know you cannot keep the promise" violates the Categorical Imperative because
If nobody kept their promises, nobody would trust anyone
Meaning as use for mental state words
If the meanings of wwords is just certain behavior, then that is true for mental state words like "pain," "happy," "bored," "belief," "frustrated," "excited," etc. "Paul has a toothache" therefor it really means: Paul complains about his tooth, hold his hand to his jaw, moans, chews his food very gingerly and slowly, and so on.
Should we give up the ghost in the machine?
If the only evidence you have about anyone else's mind is what they say and how you see them act, should we just focus on behavior and forget about looking for invisible ideas and sensations?
The question, "do you have a right to your own opinion?"
One way to understand the question: do you have a right to express your own opinion? (This is a legal or social issue, not a philosophical one. Laws and social expectations vary.)
One formulation of Kant's Categorical Imperative is
Only act in a way which that could be a universal law
James and Clifford agree on
Our goal as rational thinkers should be to gain truth and avoid error If nearly all the evidence supports some claim P and there is practically no decent evidence against P, then the rational thing to do is believe P. P is mostly probably true.
Sensation
Particularly whether an experience is pleasant or unpleasant
One objection to ethical egoism is
People could kill if it was in their self interest
The case of Private Ross McGinnis demonstrates
People don't act in their self interest (he sacrificed his life for his men)
The promise of immortality
Perhaps your mind could be perpetually transferred to new hardware, like the preservation of music on new formats, and survive forever Is that possible?
Two kinds of substance
Physical Mental
Problem of sameness
The problem of explaining how you are the same person as some baby of long ago, despite the fact that you have little in common with that baby. you right now = some particular baby 20 years ago.
Problem of difference
The problem of explaining what makes you different from other people.
Soul criterion
The proposal that an incorruptible, immaterial soul solves the puzzle of personal identity.
Physical criterion
The proposal that the closest physical continuer relation connects a person moment-to-moment across their entire life and thus solves the puzzle of personal identity.
Physical substance
This is regular physical, material, corporeal matter, the domain of scientific investigation. Your body is built of this stuff.
Mental substance
This is what ideas, thoughts, and sensations are composed of
Psychological criterion
The proposal that the closest psychological continuer relation connects a person moment-to-moment across their entire life and thus solves the puzzle of personal identity.
Personal identity
The puzzle of simultaneously and consistently solving the twin problems of difference and sameness.
Mill argued that in addition to maximizing the quantity of pleasures, utilitarians should also be concerned with
The quality of pleasure
Mental matter
This is what ideas, thoughts, and sensations are composed out of. Your mind is or is made out of, a mental substance. Your brain is a physical thing, but your mind is not.
The question "is it OK to believe whatever you want?"
This question seems analogous to is it OK to do whatever you want? Obviously, it is not OK to do whatever you want, because somethings are wrong to do.
Physical matter
This regular physical, material, corporeal matter, the domain of scientific investigation. Your body is built of this stuff, for example, your brain is a physical thing
Utilitarianism is an agent-neutral moral theory, which means
You'd have to treat everyone equally even your loved ones ❤️
According to Simpson's Paradox,
You'd technically have to make a lot of people a little unhappy for a few to be super happy
Objection 2: Too much freedom
You're free no matter what. You freely did something more than any other action available to you.
Consciousness
Your ability to taste, feel, learn
Response to dilemma argument
Libertarian free will Compatibilist free will
Other surprising scientific identity discoveries
Lighting is identical to an electrical discharge Gold is identical to atoms with 79 protons, 118 neutrons, and 79 electrons the stars the greeks call hesperus and phosphorus are really the same celestial object, the planet Venus the grape varieties Syrah and Shiraz are genetically identical Temperature is the mean kinetic energy of molecules
Test of three
1. Certainty 2. Goodness 3.Usefulness.
Objections to functionalism
1. Emotions, feelings, and sensations 2. Creativity
Mind
= brain
Mental states
= brain states
Mental states are identical to brain states
= the sensation of vision
Another objection to ethical egoism is
Morality would be purely subjective
Moral relativism is
Morals could be wrong in one place but permissible in another (mutilation)
Samuel Johnson
"All theory is against the freedom of the will; all experience is for it"
Hume writes that
We are just bundles of perceptions in constant movement
Objection 3: Other minds
(If dualism is true) it apperently has the implication that it is impossible for us to know to know anything about the minds of other people. We do often know what others are thinking, or how they are feeling, or what they intend to do. Therefore dualism must be mistaken. 1) When you are in pain, you exhibit certain pain behaviors 2) When other people show the same pain behavior, they are in pain too. 3) If (2) is true, then you can know when other people are in pain-you can know something about their minds by observing their behavior. Can't give evidence for (2)
Ways to interpret scripture
1) Assume that it is divinely inspired 2) Do not assume it is divinely inspired
Objections to Substance Dualism
1) Conceivability and possibility 2) The mind-body problem 3) Other Minds
The dilemma argument against free will
1) Either determinism is true or its false (trivial) 2) If determinism is true, then you can never choose to perform one action instead of another (incompatibilism thesis) 3) If you can never choose to perform one action instead of another, then you don't have free will (from the definition of free will) 4) Therefore determinism is true, no one has free will (from 2,3) 5) If determinism is false, then some events are random (those not are determined (premise) 6) If you do something randomly, then it is not result of choice (premise) 7) Therefore, an action that is random is not the result of free will. 8) Therefore, if determinism is false there is no free will 9) Therefore, there is no free will
Paley's Conclusion
1) Everything in the universe is organized, detailed, complex, and precise. 2) Nothing explains this complexity and order except intelligence design. 3) If it is the result of design, then there must be a designer 4) The designer is god
Ontological argument
1) God is the most perfect being imaginable 2) Either God is purely imaginary or God is real 3) It is more perfect to exist than not to exist 4) Therefore a purely imaginary God is less perfect than a real God 5) Therefore a purely imaginary God does not correspond to the concept of God, which is of the most perfect being 6) Therefore God is real
Objections to the Cosmological Argument
1) Inconsistency 2) Problem of the attributes 3) Alternative Scientific explanations
preliminary positions
1) Look for some properties that DOESN'T CHANGE 2) ONLY YOU HAVE 3) YOU HAVE FROM BIRTH UNTIL DEATH
Mind-Body Interaction
1) Minds are immaterial, nonphysical things. (according to substance dualism) 2) Bodies are physical, material things. (according to substance dualism) 3) The mind causes things to happen in the body, and things that happen in the body cause thoughts and sensations in the mind. 4) Yet physical things and nonphysical things can't have any causal interaction with each other. 5) Therefore dualism is false.
Arguing the bible
1) Most of the historical claims in the bible can be proven to be true by modern archaeology and historical study. 2) If the historical claims (dates,places,battles,king,and cities) are true then religious claim (gods,demons,spirits,miracles,and afterlife) are probably true 3) Therefore the religious claims are probably true
Objections to the Ontological Argument
1) The fools response 2) Reverse parody 3) Existence is not a parody
The concievable argument for dualism
1) Whatever is conceivable is possible. 2) It is conceivable that you think and nothing is extended 3) Therefore it is possible that you think and nothing is extended 4) Necessarily, if you think then you exist 5) Therefore it is possible that you exist and nothing, including you, is extended 6) Physical things are essentially extended 7) Therefore you are not extended at all- you are not a physical thing.
Knowing the minds of others
1) when you are in pain, you exhibit certain pain behavior (for example, you jump up and down, curse, ell, grimace, and so on.) 2) when other people show the same pain behavior, they are in pain too. 3) If (2) is true, then you can know when other people are in pain-you can know something about their minds by observing their behavior.
The regress of reasons argument against free will
1) you always act according to your greatest desire 2) Your desire and their relative strengths are outside your control 3) Therefore your actions are outside of your control 4) If your actions are outside of your control, then they are not the result of your choices. 5) Therefore your actions are not the result of your choices 6) If your actions are not the result of your choices then you have no free will 7) Therefore, you have no free will
Objection 3: The Chinese Room
1. In the Chinese room you do not understand Chinese, even though you are perfectly competent syntax-crushing symbol manipulator. 2. Computers are just like the Chinese room. 3. Therefore, computers are just syntax-crunching symbol manipulators with no understanding or awareness of what they are doing. 4. Therefore, at best, computers only simulate minds. 5. The Turning test can't distinguish between real minds and simulated minds. 6. Therefore it isn't an adequate test of whether computers are capable of having minds. The Chinese room argument seems to show that thought has to be something more than just mathematically manipulating symbols.
Yellow and bees
1. Mental states are identical to brain states (mind-brain identity theory) 2. Therefore seeing yellow = brain states Y. (from 1) 3. Honeybees cannot be in brain state Y. (premise) 4. therefore, honeybees cannot see yellow (from 2,3) 5. Honeybees can see yellow (premise) 6. (4) and (5) contradict, therefore the assumption in (1) must be false. Mental states are not identical to brain states.
Objection 2: The Brave officer paradox
1. Someone identical to an earlier person if and only if they can remember being that person 2. The officer=the boy(from 1, and the officer can remember being the boy) 3. The general=the officer (from 1, and the general can remember being the brave officer) 4. Therefore, the general=the boy (from 2,3, and the transitivity of identity) 5. The generalxtheboy (from 1, and the general does not remember being that boy.)
Officer Paradox argument
1. Someone is identical to an earlier person if only and only if they can remember being that person 2. The Officer = the boy (The officer can remember being the boy) 3. The general = the officer ( the general can remember being the brave officer) 4. Therefore, the general = the boy (The transitivity of identity) 5. The general x the boy (The general does not remember being the boy 6. Since (4) and (5) contradict each other, the primary assumption in (1) is false.
Objection 2: creativity
1. The output of a computer is strictly a predictable function of input by human programmers. 2. Humans, on the other hand, do not have the limitations; we are fully capable of originality and creativity. 3. Thus no matter what mighty powers of computation a computer might display, it will never rival the thought of human beings.
The two options of the value of truth
1. The value of truth is intrinsic 2. The value of truth is instrumental.
How much evidence do we need
1. We need a lot 2. Go on, take a chance
Three possible things to do if evidence is inconclusive
1. Withhold belief about P. Just refuse to either believe or deny P until more evidence comes in that clearly settles the matter about P and you can make a informed decision. 2. Go ahead and believe P anyway. 3. Go ahead and deny P anyway.
Brain Transplants
1. Your brain + new body 2. Your body + new brain After your brain transplant, did you get a new brain or a new body? If you think where your brain goes and you get a brain transplant then you have a new body.
According to virtue ethics,
A good person is virtuous with character
In the Felicific Calculus, the fecundity of a pleasure or pain is
A pleasure like reading which means you can read many books like a hobby
Reverse Parody
A purely imaginary God is more perfect than a real God Example: The more we handicap Rafa Nadal, the more impressive it is when he still beats you at tennis. The greatest handicap is non existent. Therefore if Nadal beats you when he doesn't even exist, he is the greatest possible player.
The turning test
A thing has a mind if you can talk with it as sensibly as you can a human being
functionalism
According to functionalism your brain is no more than an old wax master that encodes your mind. Agrees with dualism that the mind is somehow abstract and immaterial Agrees with physicalist views like behaviorism and mind-brain identity theory that the mind is essentially connected to physical objects.
Objection 2: Multiple realizability
According to the identity theory, John sees yellow = the lateral geniculate nucleus relays the cellular excitation information from John's retinal cells to such-and-such neurons in the primary visual cortex, which fire in such and such patterns.
Compatibilist reply
Actions that arise from your own character and authentic desire are free, coerced actions are not
Examples of computers that are capable of unpredictable, apparently creative behavior are
Actually just following directions
Objection 2: Magic
Agent says that human beings can start new casual chains in the world, separate from the web causation that holds everything else together . Such causation looks like casting magic spells that affect the world but were caused by nothing outside our walls.
Explain criticisms of the divine command theory other than the Euthyphro dilemma.
All your opinions like loving pizza would be arbitrary. Reasons wouldn't matter
The software of music
Analogy: minds are like music. Your brain is like an old wax master, but the music of your mind might survive on other hardware.
In Euthyphro, Plato asked
Are things good because god loves them or does god love them because they are good
Objection 3: Identification
Are you your soul? Are you identical to your soul, so that you= some particular soul? If no: (One) Your soul is solely part of you. meaning you are made up of two parts (body and soul). (Two) Your soul is a possession of yours, the sort of thing that you might sell,trade,lease, or lend. If yes: You identify people by how they look , how they act, what they say and do. (same body same soul)
Objection 2: Aristotle's Answer
Aristotle insisted that there are no facts about the future. No statement about the future is either true or false. There are concrete facts about the present and the past, but the future is no more than a formless void Example: God knows (a) but doesn't (b) or (c) until tomorrow comes, there is nothing to know
Begging the question
Assuming the very thing that needs to be proven; typically when the premises of an argument presuppose its conclusion.
Faith Sense 2
Belief without any evidence or reasons Example: Why isn't this a terrible plan? Won't it get you suckered by con men swindlers
Descriptive relativism is
Beliefs about morality vary across place and time
Risk positive principle
Better off to add more errors rather than miss out on some truths.
Risk positive principle (pleasure/pain version)
Better off to add more pain rather than miss out on some pleasures
Risk positive principle (guilt/innocence version)
Better off to convict more innocent people rather than let any guilty people go free.
Risk averse principle (pleasure/pain version)
Better off to miss out on some pleasure rather than add more pain
Risk averse principle
Better off to miss out on some truths rather than add more errors.
Pascal's wager
Blaise Pascal's argument that it is rational to believe that God exists because it is only if God exists that you have something to win or lose by believing, and if he does exist you win big by believing and lose big by not believing. 1) You bet that there is a God, and he really does exist. You win. 2) You bet that there is a God, and he does not exist. You lose. 3) You bet against God's existence, there is no God. You win 4) You bet against God's existence and there is a God. You lose.
Sue Barry
Born crossed eyed. Dr. Oliver Sacks asked if she knew what stereoptic vision Objects "popped out" Was wrong about being able to imagine what it was like to see with two eyes.
Reply to the creativity objection
Deep Blue, EMI, and Watson are all computers that have the ability to think and compose chess moves, music, and answers to jeopardy questions.
Conceivability implies possibility
Descartes claimed that whatever is conceivable is possible, and whatever is inconceivable is impossible Example: can you conceive of a circle that is wider than it is tall? Or a two-year-old human that is also an adult? Or a married bachelor
Define and distinguish descriptive and moral relativism.
Descriptive relativism is a reason to believe moral relativism. Descriptive just says beliefs vary while moral says we can't judge other cultures morality
The threat of determinism
Determinism states that there is exactly one physically possible future. If you have free will then you have a choice, you could either do action x or action y. If determinism is true, then the future is closed; there is only one way things could go no matter how much you felt like you could have done something else.
Natural evils
Diseases, floods, famines, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, volcanoes, etc. To be contrasted with moral evils.
Objection 1: Atheism and agnosticism
Either deny that there is an omniscient God or refuse to have an opinion either way.
Incompatibilism
Either we have no free will or determinism is false. The view that free will and determinism are in conflict.
Randomness
Even if quantum randomness undermines global determinism, how will that save free will? It isn't going to make us free
Physical things are essentially extended and mental things are not
Every physical object must take up space. (Must have physical extension) Your book couldn't shrink to zero dimensions and still exist. Mental object can't possibly take up space. Your ideas and sensations aren't three dimensional. There are no big ideas or small ones.
Psychological egoism is
Everyone always acts in their own self interest
According to ethical egoism,
Everyone should act in their own self interest
Determinism
Given the laws of nature and a set of initial conditions, there is exactly one physically possible future. If determinism is true then the future is closed. There are only one way things could go. If you perform x, then that was the only thing that you could have done, no matter how much it felt like you could have done something else.
Divine command theory
God decides what is moral
God as creator
God is the explanation of the existence of the universe Popular in the middle ages, the best known version comes from St. Thomas Aquinas
Locke believes that he is identical to a person who saw the River Thames flood last year because
He remembers it
Substance Dualism
How can unthinking bits of matter come together and make conscious beings? It can't!
An example of a hypothetical imperative is
Hypothetically if I stole someone's car, they'd be mad. But it doesn't mean 100% that they are mad
Objection 1: The subjectivity of experience
Identity theory fails to explain the subjectivity of experience. What it is like to be a dog, understanding the world primarily through smell, or a bat, navigating by echolocation? Can we understand what it is like for them, on the inside, by neuroscience alone? (Wouldn't be able to understand that consciousness)
Will randomness make us free?
If any event is truly random, then it might not have occurred given precisely the same initial conditions and laws of nature. The regress of reasons argument against free will
According to Kant, the principle of action "act selfishly" violates the Categorical Imperative because
If everyone acted selfishly we'd go extinct
Objection 1: Conceivability and possibility
If you can conceive of something, then that thing is possible. People have apparently conceived of impossible things. (A time before the big bang, what they would be like if they had different parents, that water might have turned out to be something other than H2O) Therefore conceivability is unreliable test for a possibility. therefore premise (1) of the argument for dualism is false.
Turning argued
If you were to engage in a conversation with a computer and you couldn't tell whether you were talking with a computer or a real human being then you would have perfectly good evidence that a computer has a mind like a human.
Free Will and moral responsibility
If you're not free then there was never anything else you could do, no matter what you do. Either forces outside of your control determine every action you perform, in which case you never had a choice, or your actions are a result of randomness, in which case you never had a choice.
Objection: Severe psychological disruption
If your mind is a woven rope through time, what happens if it is severely damaged? Two ropes connected by a thread or one rope severely frayed in the middle?
Response to the identity theorist response
Internal sensations are only one way to know the facts about mental states.
An objection to utilitarianism is
Invasiveness ; doesn't matter when you throw out the trash or eat.
A problem with the Golden Rule is
It assumes everyone has the same preferences
The objection to the psychological criterion lurking in the cases of Clive and Gage
It fails to give a precise account of the boundaries of personhood. There seems to be no exact matter of the fact as to when a person goes out of existence.
Clifford's Principle
It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. He means that you need considerable evidence to believe something; The evidence needs to obviously point to one thing before believing that claim to be true is the right choice.
We need a lot
Its not enough to have some evidence for a claim.
Theism
Judging that there is a God.
Atheism
Judging that there is no God.
Analysis of knowledge, second attempt
Knowledge=justified true belief
Analysis of knowledge, first attempt
Knowledge=true belief
Problem of the Attributes
Lets assume that there really is some un-caused thing at the beginning Remember God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent What reason does the cosmological argument offer to think that the first cause have everyone of these properties?
Soul=Mind
Long standing tradition that soul simply means mind. If "soul" is just an old-fashioned or confusing name for "mind," then the soul criterion is really just the proposal that your identity through time is to be explained by your psychology - your thoughts, beliefs, emotions, and perceptions. Soul= mind doesn't provide an alternative theory of personal identity
Identity theorist response
Many of the other identifications that science has made go against or ignore our subjective sensations. Sensations are only one way to learn about facts. Science is another. You're not missing out on something if you can't experience it. Example: Temperature is objectively the mean kinetic energy of a group of molecules. Sensations of hot or cold indicate temperature, but they do not constitute it. you don't need sensations to learn what temperatures it is. Analogously, you don't need to be a bat to know all the facts about echolocation.
Five Khandhas in Buddism
Matter Sensation Mental Formations Consciousness Convention
Cogtio ergo sum
Means "I think, therefore I am." It is impossible for you to think and not exist.
choice
Means effective choice. True choice is not idle.
Advantages of Behaviorism
Mental states are publicly observable facts We do not need to worry about secret, invisible substances Minds are just like everything else in the natural world-open to public inspection and examination
According to Kant
Moral law is a categorical imperative
Plato argued
Morality and religion are logically independent
Moral evils
Murder, war, rape, torture, theft, deception, assault, etc. To be contrasted with natural evils.
Objection to agent causation
Mystery Magic
Female problem
Nervousness, hysteria, weakness Contains some vegetable root extracts and was 19% (38 proof) alcohol. This of course, was not mentioned in their advertising.
Modest skepticism
No more than critical thinking. You should demand evidence before you believe a claim, buy a product, join a religion, or vote for a candidate. And when you are offered reasons, you should scrutinize those reasons closely and consider opposing points of view. Make sure that the premises of the arguments you're considering really do support their conclusions, and that the premises themselves are acceptable ones.
Similarity
Not only did the physical processes and mechanisms of younger you produce and create college you to come into existence, but college you is physically more similar to younger you than you're to anyone else.
One objection to utilitarianism is
Not practical because you could argue anything to potentially have bad consequences
Why there is no free will, Part 1: Divine Foreknowledge
Objection 1: Atheism and agnosticism Objection 2: Aristotle's answer
Objections to the supernatural soul criterion
Objection 1: Definition Objection 2: Evidence Objection 3: Identification
Teleological argument (a.k.a. the argument from design)
One of the traditional arguments for God's existence. According to this argument, God exists because his existence best explains the complexity and order of the universe.
inconsistency
Premise 1 states that everything is caused by something prior in the casual chain Premise 3 states that there is an un-caused thing at the beginning
The question, "are there things that are wrong to believe?'
Proposal: it is wrong to believe false things It might not be morally wrong, but it is intellectually wrong.
Define and distinguish psychological and ethical egoism.
Psychological egoism is that people naturally act in their self interest and ethical egoism states people should act in their self interests
What's on your mind?
Q: how can you know your own mind, what what you are thinking, feeling, planning, remembering? A: Through immediate introspection Q: how can you know the minds of others?
Second worst invention
Radium suppositories
False memories vs. Genuine memories
Real memories recall things that really did happen to you, and false memories do not. The test for something being a genuine memory is that it really happened to you. But what's the test for being you?
Error Theory
Sentences that seem to be about mental states (like "Paul has a toothache") are really about behavior This is analogous to "The sun rises in the east" We know full well that the sun does not really move.
The normative universe is populated by
Shoulds,oughts, duties, rights, permissible and non permissibel
First objection to the memory interpretation of the psychological criterion
Sleep, when we sleep we don't remember anything about our selves. Are those previous selves not earlier versions of you because you can't remember them?
Principle of the non-identity of discernibles
Small differences between person A and person B prove that A and B are not identical.
The worlds worst invention
Soothol radium bougies. for men suffering from prematurity.
Concepts
Soul=mind Soul=ghost Soul=vitalist force Soul=supernatural stuff
Objection 1: Definition
Souls are supposed to have all sorts of wonderful qualities . They are supposed to be immortal, incorruptible, and make you who you are. But what exactly is this thing with those great features? It's not your body, it's not your mind, personality, or your conscience, it's not what makes you alive.
Natural theology
The philosophical tradition of using reason to evaluate claims of the divine.
The case of Clive Wearing
Suffered brain damage as the result of viral encephalitis brought on by herpes simplex virus and now has irreversible amnesia. Both of his hippocampi destroyed. Can't store new long term memories and his short term memories are ten minutes long Lacks episodic memories of any kind although retains semantic memories. (Remembers that he has kids but can't remember having them.) Also retains procedural memories ( remembers how to speak Latin, play the organ, conduct choirs, sing, etc.) Feels that he is just waking up. Lost his memories but kept his personality
Soul=Supernatural Stuff
Supernatural souls aren't minds, or movie ghost, or vitalist forces. A soul is a supernatural immortal entity. In traditional Hinduism the soul is the breath of life - an incorporeal, immortal, and unchanging
Wittgenstein's beetle
Suppose everyone has a private box into which they alone can look. Everyone calls then contents of their box "a beetle." I know there is a beetle in my box because I can look right at it. Can I tell that there is a beetle in your box too? "I can have anything in my box but I just call it a beetle." Even though everybody is exhibiting mental state behavior that doesn't mean that person is exhibiting that behavior) if dualism is right The beetle problem showed that substance dualism can't explain how we know the minds of others. Maybe "beetle" means no more than how people use the word. We learn the meanings of words from the verbal behavior of others; perhaps there is nothing more to meaning than that behavior.
Luz bone
Supposed to be unchanging , immutable thing that made each other who they were
Third Worst invention
Testone radium engergizer. Applies gamma rays to the male gonnads. To give greater energy.
Compatibilist reply to too much freedom
That arise from your own character and authentic desires are free coerced actions are not
Anatta
The Buddhist view that there is no substantial self.
Existence is not a property
The Ontological Argument assumes that existence is a property that things may or may not have Existence is not a property, its a precondition to having any properties Example: If your girlfriend doesn't exist then she can't have properties (curly hair, brown eyes nice smile, plays tennis, etc.)
Religious pluralism argument
The argument that there is no God because it is inconsistent to believe in one god over any of the thousands of others that people have believed in, when the evidence for any of these gods is the same.
Problem of evil
The argument that there is no God because worldly suffering is incompatible with the attributes of God.
Divine foreknowledge argument
The argument that there is no free will because God's infallible knowledge of the future precludes free choice.
Dilemma argument
The argument that there is no free will because all behavior is either determined or random, and both preclude free choice.
Compatibilism
The belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent.
The Casual Chain
The cosmological argument is based on the idea that every event apparently has a cause Each event is caused by some earlier event
According to consequentialism,
The ends justify the means
The hedonist's challenge
The hedonist principle: you should believe whatever makes you happy. Hedonists aren't opposed to the truth, they're merely indifferent to the truth. "Who cares whether we believe is true or false?" Who cares about the truth? Why not just believe whatever gets you through the day? If it's true, fine, if not, who cares.
Causation
The later editions of you were caused by the earlier versions of you.
Matter
The material world, including the physical body
Soul=Vitalist
The mechanistic principles that describe the motion and forces of nonliving objections cannot explain the behavior and actions of living organisms. (In death the vital force dissipates or leave the body which then returns to the status of a mere inanimate object.) The vitalist view was that there is a fundamental difference between organic matter and inorganic matter. (You would never be able to synthesize organic materials from inorganic ones.)
The third objection to the memory interpretation of the psychological criterion
The memory idea actually builds in a self-defeating circularity. The difference between real, genuine, actual memories and mere pseudo, or false, memories. False memories are things that feel like genuine memories but never really happened. (We can recall mental images or events that never happened, or we misremember actual events so clearly that we're completely convinced that's how things really happened)
Objection 2: The mind-body problem
The mind causes the body to do things, and stuff happens to your body causes sensations in your mind. 1) The mind causes things to happen in the body, and things that happen in the body causes thoughts and sensations in the mind. 2) If substance dualism is true, those commonplace interactions are impossible. 3) Therefore, Dualism is false. Physical events cause other physical events to occur. Non-physical things don't have any effect on material objects. How can immaterial minds communicate with material bodies?
Stereoptic visison
The sense of depth produced by having two eyes seperated from each other but focused on the same thing was like.
The second theory of the mind: Behaviorism
The theory of mind that mental states are really just behaviors, or that sentences referring to mental states can be translated without loss into sentences that only refer to behavior.
Empiricism
The theory that all knowledge comes either directly from experience or inference from experience.
Agent causation
The view that any willful agent can spontaneously begin a new chain of causation is the world, one that has no causal history prior to the act of willing. The Idea is that the alternative to determinism isn't randomness at all, but our own free will.
The Bundle Theory
The view that you are nothing more than a loosely unified confederation of interests, motivations, beliefs, sensations, and emotions. Genuine personal identity over time is a fiction and an act of the imagination; we identify persons over time out of custom, without a more profound or defensible philosophical reason.
Previous Decisions vs Outside forces
There seem to be only two possible answers, namely that the explanation is rooted ultimately in you and your decision - making, or that the explanations is rooted outside of you in other forces and factors.
Frankfurt's argument against the "Principle of Alternate Possibilities"
There were cases in which one was intuitively still responsible for an action, even when one's action was completely unavoidable. One is not morally responsible for what one does if one does it only because one could not have done otherwise. Only addresses when one is not morally responsible for acts, and says nothing about omissions. A lack of free will kills moral responsibility.
Under the Bundle Theory,
There's is no true continuous personal identify
Objections to Compatibilism
Too little freedom Too much freedom
Kant's other formulation of the Categorical Imperative is
Treat others as ends and never as a means to your own ends
The value of truth is instrumental.
Truth is only valuable insofar as knowing it allows us to survive, achieve our goals, and make us happy. That is, the truth is no more than a useful tool to help us get what has intrinsic value.
The value of truth is intrinsic
Truth is valuable in itself, for its own sake, regardless of whether knowing it produces happiness or any other valuable thing.
Intrinsic or instrumental is not exclusive
Truth often has instrumental value-this is not controversial. But does it also have intrinsic value?
The problem with counting on DNA to solve thepuzzle of personal identity is
Twins share the same DNA but are different
The identity of indiscernibles
Two objects that have all the same properties in common are identical; they are really just one object.
The Principle of Equal Treatment implies
Two people should be treated the same unless there is a relevant difference between them
Another objection to utilitarianism is
Ultimately even murder in some circumstances would be permissible
Aristotle thought
Virtues were the golden mean so not too stingy and not wasteful but generous
Radical Skepticism
We can neither avoid error nor gain truth. We're either incapable of eliminating error, invariably committed to circular reasoning, or should suspend judgment indefinitely. If we have any true beliefs at all, we have them by accident. There's no trustworthy way to separate the true from the false, or, if there is, we can't figure out what it is.
Bentham thought
We could measure future pains and pleasures of our actions
Objection 1: sleep
We don't have memory in sleep, but are still in existence
Reply to the sleep objection
We never actively remember every preceding moment. But we are capable of remembering them
Objection 2: Evidence
What evidence do we have that says or shows that souls are real
Objection: saying and asserting
What is the behaviorist analysis of "Einstein believes E=MC2"? It has to be more than "Einstein say that E=MC2" since a five-year-old can say E=MC2 but doesn't believe it. Sneaks in the unanalyzed mental-state terms "understands" and "asserts"
Locke's psychological view
What makes you the same person despite change? Answer: you are connected over time by continuing consciousness. (You are the same person who saw Thames flood last winter because you remember seeing it overflow.)
Will behavior tell us about immaterial minds?
When other people exhibit the same behavior as you, they have the same mental state you do? Would asking them help? Isn't that just verbal behavior?
Second objection to the memory interpretation of the psychological criterion
Who can remember all that stuff?
Agnosticism
Withholding judgment about the existence of God.
Objection 1: Emotions, feelings,, and sensations
Without the full suite of human emotions and feelings, a computer will never have a human like mind.
Objection 1: Mystery
You act for reasons. Either (a) those reasons for acting are due to causes outside of you, or (b) you choose which reasons are important to you and to what degree. If (a), and your reasons for acting are the result of outside causes, then agent causation is obviously wrong.
Closest psychological continuer
You are connected through memory to your past you
Principle of alternate possibilities
You are morally responsible for an action x only if at the time you did x, there was alternate possible action y that you could have done instead.
Since you could lose many parts (your arm, a leg, an ear, and so on) without going out of existence, this suggests that
You are really just your brain/self
The puzzle of consciousness
You are thinking meat. How is that possible? Given that very little has a mind, why is anything conscious? How is consciousness related to the basic forces of nature?
If Sue Barry is right
You can know how to see but never really experience it or know it
According to 'the criticism objection,'if moral relativism is right, then
You can never criticize another cultures morality
The Fools response
You can prove the existence of practically anything using the ontological argument Example: Guunilo's lost island - the concept of the lost island is that of the most perfect island imaginable
One objection to Kantian ethics is
You can't lie even if it's to save people because the intent is bad
Response to brave officer paradox
You don't have to remember every prior moment just the immediately preceding one.
Objections 1: Too little Freedom
You often can't do what you want, so you're still not free
The rational principle
You should gain truth and avoid error. It's an intellectual mistake to believe false things; you shouldn't believe them. Instead you should believe true things. "We should do whatever we can to have only true beliefs; we don't want any false beliefs."
The advantage of compatibilism
Your actions might be completely determined, but so long as you are doing what you want, your are still free, free will is compatible with determinism. Random action still wouldn't be free, since it is not the result of your beliefs, desires, and intentions.
According to the mind-brain identity theory,
Your mind is your brain
Compatibilist free will
Your performance of an action is free just in case it is the result of your beliefs, desires, and intentions.
The main problem with the view that morality is just acting on your principles is
Your principles could be wrong
Previous Decisions
Your reasons for acting are the result of some previous decisions you made
Outside forces
Your reasons for acting somehow came from forces and influences outside of your mind (example: authority, family, society, environment, or innate biological instincts.)
Soul=Ghost
Your soul is physical entity and has physical properties like hollywood ghost. They have location, are visible, have shapes, moves objects, make noise, and even wear ghost clothes
Free Will
Your will is free just in case you can choose to perform one action instead of another.
Libertarian free will
Your will is free just in case you can choose to perform one action instead of another.
split brain patients
can use both sides of their brain simultaneously
Case of Phineas Gage
damaged frontal lobe leads to impaired memory and impulse control After the steel rod accident, his personality changed from a reliable, efficient, responsible, etc. To fitful, irreverent, indulging at times in the grossest profanity. Women were advised to stay and he was unable to hold a job Lost his personality but kept his memories
critical reply
sue (could only see out of one eye at a time.) lacked stereopsis.
The Teleological argument
the argument for God's existence based on the evidence of design in the world
