phil 101 final exam

Which ones of the following alternatives to God does Hume/Philo consider as possible designers of the universe?

- A senile deity - Several deities working together - A minor deity that bigger gods make fun of These are the relevant quotes: "Whether all these attributes are united in one subject, or dispersed among several independent beings, by what phenomena in nature can we pretend to decide the controversy?" "This world, for aught he knows . . . is the work only of some dependent, inferior deity; and is the object of derision to his superiors: it is the production of old age and dotage in some superannuated deity." Notice that Hume is not contemplating that the Deity may be malicious, only incompetent.

What further explicit assumptions (that is, mentioned in the video) does Haslanger's argument make?

- An omnibenevolent being would eliminate evil if at all possible - There are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do

The Second Way refers to the efficient cause. The efficient cause of something is what most of us would simple call the cause of something. Why does the table exist? Because a carpenter made it. Why do you exist? Because your parents had you. The carpenter is the efficient cause of the table, and your parents are your efficient cause. Aquinas argues that there is a First Efficient cause. Which two of the following statements would contradict the idea of the First Cause, if we take them together?

- Everything has an efficient cause - It is not possible for something be the efficient cause of itself If everything has an efficient cause, and nothing can be the efficient cause of itself, God would also need to have an efficient cause different from itself. Aquinas is aware of this problem, and introduces a word in his argument that allows us to make an exception for God.

What are some of the objections against James' position that the book discusses?

- If we start by assuming that God exists, we may be susceptible to confirmation bias. - Many philosophers believe that we have good arguments for or against the existence of God. - James assumes that religion is good in itself; it's not clear what he means, or whether his statement is true. James does not propose any arguments for the existence of God. He does not try to prove that God exists. His argument is that it is rational to believe in God, even though we do not have any good evidence for His existence.

According to Haslanger, what are the options left to the theist after confronted with her argument?

- Say that evil does not exist - Hold on to an irratioal belief, namely, the belief in an OOO God - Give up one of the properties of God (e.g. accept that God is not omnipotent)

What are the hypotheses that Ramachandran presents as possible explanations for the religious experiences?

- The seizures create a wealth of extrange emotions that the patient interprets as having religious significance. - The seizures indiscriminatley strengthen the neural pathways that tell us that something is significant, including objects that we would normally not consider significant.

objections against the cosmological argument

- The series of causes could indeed be infinite - the first mover could be an impersonal force or an evil being, not the God of theism.

According to Anselm, an atheist _____________________.

- does not believe that the gratest thing that can be conceived exists. - understands the definition of God.

According to the William Lane Craig, what is evidence for the Big Bang?

- it follows from Einstein's equations - It is consistent with our observations that the universe is expanding - The existence of the cosmic microwave background radiation The Big Bang is not a matter of faith. It is the best theory we have to account for the phenomena astronomers study.

In his critique of design arguments (p. 71 through 73), David Hume hypothesizes that, instead of the God of theism, the universe could have been designed by _______________

- several gods working together - through a process of trial and error - a physical being with a human body

John Hick talks of a "two-stage conception of the creation of man," which will allow us to truly become God's children, made in His image. What are the two stages?

1. The biological process of evolution that produced our bodies and minds. 2. The spiritual process in which we become perfected and more similar to God through the choices we make. Notice that John Hick, one of the most renowned Christian theologians, has not problem accepting the theory of evolution,

What are two reasons why philosophers care about the problem of free will?

1. most people are unsettled by the thought that our choices and actions may not be our own, that everything we do is inevitable, preset, or necessary, so they want to understand if our lives are actually determined or not 2. people also care about the issue of free will because upon it hang momentous questions about moral responsibility, legal punishment, praise, blame, and social and political control

Which of the following would violate the principle of the causal closure of the physical?

A ghost making the bed shake. How can a nonphysical being move a physical thing? Physical things require physical forces to be moved (try moving your car with the "power of your mind"!). A ghost is not physical, and has no physical energy. Where does the physical energy necessary to move the bed come from? If it comes from nowhere (like the ghost story suggests), that violates the principle of causal closure of the physical, that is, the principle that every physical event has a physical cause.

what is a claim consistent with the identity theory?

A thought is just an event in your brain. A sensation is not one neuron. Only when neurons fire with other neurons, sensation is produced. A sensation is a process that involves many neurons, not only one. Brain statements are not nation statements. That choice was mixing apples and oranges, and was a distractor. Brains are brains, and nations are nations. An identity theorist would never say that you are identical to your soul but not your body, since that would imply that souls and bodies are different things. Substance dualistsbelieve this; materialists (including identity theorists) don't. Identity theorists argue that mental states are identical to brain states. A thought is a mental state. Therefore, for an identity theorist, "A thought is just an event in your brain."

What are zombies, in the philosophical sense, as defined by Dave Chalmers?

A zombie looks and acts like a regular human, but is not actually aware of what he or she is doing. Remember that zombies are completely indistinguishablefrom humans in their behavior and in the way their brain works. You can never tell whether somebody other than you is a zombie or not. You know you are not a zombie because you think, you have qualia, but, for all you know, your best friend is a zombie! How do you know I, your instructor, am not a zombie? How do you know that I have a conscious experience while I write this sentences? I could be like Siri. This is important information for when you write this chapter's written assignments.

With which one of these claims would Sartre agree?

All humans have to deal with the same limitations that come from living and dying in this world.

According to libertarians, what is true about agents?

An agent is a self or a person. An agent is capable of deliberation. An agent is the origin of his or her own acts. Notice that, if the reasons for doing something are the cause of the act, then those reasons determine the act. In other words, given those reasons, the act would have to happen. Libertarians would say that the reasons you have for doing something may influence your decision, but that the decision is not fully determined by those reasons. You could always do something totally different. Here is an example: You had your reasons for taking this class: it was online, you needed a humanities class, and so on. If those reasons were the only cause to take this class, then anybody with the same reasons would have to take the class, but a libertarian would argue that somebody could have exactly the same reasons for taking the class, and still decide not to take it.

ontological argument

An argument that tries to demonstrate God's existence by logical analysis of the concept of God

Who is the Buddha to Buddhists?

An example to follow. The ultimate teacher. In Buddhism, Siddhartha Gautama is considered the first person to reach enlightenment and become buddha, which means "awakened." Anybody who reaches enlightenment is a buddha (lower case b), but, when we talk about the Buddha (upper case B), we refer to Gautama.

theodicy

An explanation of why the existence of evil does not disprove the existence of God. A theodicy is a counterargument to the Problem of Evil. Theodicies try to show that the existence of suffering in this world does not disprove the existence of God.

What is Anselm's Ontological Argument? What is Kant's objection to it?

Anselm's ontological argument: God is the greatest thing we can think of, things can only exist in our imaginations, or they can also exist in reality. things that exist in reality are always better than things that exist only in our imaginations. if god existed only in our imaginations, he wouldn't be the greatest thing that we can think of, because god in reality would be better. therefore, god must exist in reality. - his definition of god is that god is that than which greater can be conceived, so he must exist. - the two ways something can exist are only in our minds and be strictly imaginary or it can exist in our minds but also in reality...something we can imagine that is also real Kant's objection: "existence is not a predicate." predicate is something that is said of another object. Kant thought anselm's mistake was in thinking that existence is something hat can be predicated upon a thing, or be used as a defining characteristic. If God exists, then he must be the greatest being we can imagine, but that does not prove that he exists. The ontological argument states that God is the greatest being and that all things are greater in reality than as a thought, so therefore God has to exist in reality. That means God must be the greatest being to eve exist in our reality, whatever that being might be or have been. Kant's argument to this point of view is that the argument relies on the fact that the idea of reality and existence is universally accepted as being the same for everyone and existence would have to be the defining factor.

How do traditional compatibilists, such as Locke, define free will?

As the ability to do what we want to do, without external forces to prevent us from doing it. Compatibilists, believe in determinism, unlike indeteminists, who don't. Compatibilists, like hard determinists, believe in determinism, but, unlike hard determinists, believe that determinism and free will are compatible. To make free will compatible with determinism, compatibilists redefine free will. Traditional compatibilists redefine free will as the ability to do what you want to do, unhindered by external factors.

According to epiphenomenalism, physical states cause mental states, but mental states don't cause physical states. How would an epiphenomenalist explain why we cry (physical state) when we are sad (mental state)?

Because both sadness and crying are caused by the same brain states.

What is the reason Richard Dawkins gives not to preach atheism in his lecture?

Because he assumes most members of the audience are already atheists.

Why does James prefer "the world of chance"?

Because it gives him hope that the future can become better

Why is quantum mechanics relevant to the discussion of free will and determinism?

Because it shows that the not all physical events are fully determined by previous causes.

UCSF researcher Benjamin Libet conducted a series of experiments in the 1980s that showed that people were aware of their intention to move a finger some milliseconds after the process of moving the finger had been initiated in the brain. Why is this relevant to the question of free will?

Because it suggests that the subjects did not consciously choose to move their finger, which means that the decision was made at a subconscious level over which we have no control. In Libet's experiment, subjects were asked to tell at what point they decided to move a finger. The subjects also has sensors connected to their brain that allowed the researchers see at what precise moment the movement was initiated in the brain. What Libet's team found was that the movement was initiated before the subject "decided" to move the finger. In other words, the subject did not consciously choose to move the finger. The decision was made in his or her brain before he or she was aware of the decision. This study seems to indicate that our conscious self does not actually choose, but is only aware at some point of a decision that has been made at the subconscious level.

According to the Basic Argument, why is moral responsibility impossible?

Because it would require that we create ourselves.

Why is existentialism an atheistic philosophy?

Because the existence of God is irrelevant to its basic claims.

Why do black holes pose a challenge to determinism?

Because the information needed to predict what some particles are going to do is lost in the black hole.

Why does Chalmers call some problems related to consciousness "easy"?

Because we can solve them by learning more about how the brain works Easy problems are the ones that can be solved without any appeal to subjective experience, according to Chalmers. They are easy in comparison to the hard problem, but it will still take many years of research in psychology and neuroscince to solve them.

Which religions believe in the God of Theism?

Christianity, Judaism, Islam - defined as the Creator, All-Good (omnibenevolent), All-Mighty (omnipotent), All-Knowing (omniscient), Perfect, Non-Physical and Eternal.

What does Sartre call self-deception?

Claiming that our actions are determined by causes beyond our control.

Which of the following statements does Searle agree with?

Computation is neither sufficient nor necessary for understanding. Searle argues that computation and understanding are independent of each other. Computation happens at the level of syntax (symbol manipulation) Understanding happens at the level of semantics (meaning).

how would you describe Nagel's position?

Consciousness cannot be described in purely physical terms

what is a statement charmer's would agree with?

Consciousness cannot exit without some sort of physical platform (e.g. a brain)

What is the cosmological argument for the existence of God? What is one objection against the traditional cosmological argument (e.g. Aquinas' versions)?

Cosmological arguments are arguments that try to show that from the fact that the universe exists, God exists. The cosmological argument for the existence of God states that some things in the universe are caused to exist, and that nothing can cause itself to exist or come into being through an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first uncaused cause of everything--and this first uncaused cause is God (page 61). Many people, not just philosophers, believe the cosmological arguments. If you have thought or said something like, "If God doesn't exist, how did the universe come into being? How did we come into being? To say that the world wasn't caused by anyone or that it was the result of an accident makes no sense. Only a supreme being could have caused it to exist," (page 61). Many theorists, such as, Aristotle, Plato, Ghazali, Averroës, Aquinas, Spinoza, Richard Swineburne and William Lane Craig all have put forward cosmological arguments (page 66). Aquinas argument from motion states that it is obvious that some things in the universe are moving (changing), and if they are moving, something else must have caused them to move. This "something else" must have also been moving, and set forth by something else, and that thing was set in motion by something else, and so on (page 66). This series Aquinas speaks of cannot go on forever because then there would not be something that started all the moving, which is what is known as the "First Mover" or God. Aquinas's second way is known as his first-cause argument. It is consistent with the first way in that he maintains that everything we can observe has a cause, and it is clear that nothing can cause itself (page 68). He states that for something to cause itself, it must be prior to itself, which is impossible. He also states that something cannot be caused by an infinite regress of causes because that would be a series of causes stretching to infinity. What is made clear in his first-cause argument is that in any series of causes, there must be a first cause, which causes the second, which causes the third, and then the cycle continues forward. He says that there could not be an infinite series of causes because there would be no first cause and no subsequent causes, including causes existing now. Therefore, there must be a first cause of everything, and this first cause we call God (page 68). Criticisms that philosophers have made against Aquinas's claim are that just because an infinite chain of causes has no first cause, does not mean that the chain of causes has no cause at all: in an infinite chain of causes, every link has a cause (page 69). David Hume was a philosopher who saw no logical contradiction in the idea of an infinite regress, and he holds the idea that the universe did not need to have a beginning; it may be eternal, without beginning, and without a first cause or a first mover. The universe may have simply always been (page 69).

Who is the philosopher featured in the video as rejecting the wider implications of Libet's experiments?

Daniel Dennett

Reductionism is about explaining a phenomenon in terms of simpler or more fundamental phenomena. Which reductionist explanation is problematic, according to Nagel?

Depression is just a chemical imbalance in the brain. Nagel is not against reductionism per se, but only against reducing mental states to physical states.

What is the difference between determinism and fatalism? Give an example.

Determinists believe the future is fixed specifically due to causality; fatalists and predeterminists believe that some or all aspects of the future are inescapable but, for fatalists, not necessarily due to causality. Determinism is the view that the laws of nature together with the universe's initial state are sufficient to determine the state of the universe at every other point in thefuture. ... Fatalism is the view that every future-tensed proposition has a determinate truth value. determinism: incompatible with free will/ dependent on causality/ the future is causally determined/ what we think, say, and do is part of the causal process/ does not lead to defeatism, as our conscious thought and action leads to future events/ we have an effect on our future outcome/ often a secular understanding of causality/ causality and what it implies can be logically inferred fatalism: incompatible with free will/ not dependent on causality/ the future is "fated"/ we are fated regardless of what we think, say, or do/ often leads to defeatist attitudes, as we think or do doesn't matter to the fated future/ we are powerless to affect our future/ often a religious idea of being fated by a deity or god/ no logical evidence for fatalism ex: fatalism: if it is fated for you to recover from an illness, then you will recover whether you call a doctor or not. Likewise, if you are fated not to recover, you will not do so whether you call a doctor or not. but either it is fated that you will recover from this illness, or it is fated that you will not. therefore, there is no reason to consult a doctor. determinismL if you are caused to recover from this illness, calling a doctor might be part of that causality. likewise, if you are caused not to recover, not calling the doctor might be part of that causality. but either it is that you will be caused to recover from this illness, or you will be caused not to recover. since calling a doctor might be a cause of your recovery, it isn't futile to consult a doctor.

What is Pascal's advice if you are an atheist and find the idea of God preposterous?

Fake it till you make it. Go through the motions of believing and eventually you will believe. If God does not exist, atheists will not even have the satisfaction of knowing that they made the right bet! If betting that God does not exist turns out to be the correct bet, neither atheists nor believers will ever know.

According to Stace, what is the difference between acts that are done freely and acts that are not done freely?

Free acts are caused by our desires and beliefs

According to Stace, what are true statements about free will?

Free will is compatible with moral responsibility Free will is compatible with predictability Free will is compatible with determinism

If humans have free will, then there is something over which God has no control. What is the argument used in your textbook (p. 83) to prove that human free will does not contradict God's omnipotence?

God cannot do anything that is logically impossible, and totally controlling the actions of a free agent would be logically impossible. - To theologians, omnipotence does not mean the power to do anything at all, but the power to do anything that is logically possible.

According to James, if indeterminism is true, then ______________________

God could not be omniscient "So the creator himself would not need to know all the details of actuality until they came; and at any time his own view of the world would be a view partly of facts and partly of possibilities, exactly as ours is now." (p. 22)

The argument from evil says that ______________

God does not exist, since, if He did, He would not allow unnecessary evil in the world. - it is the most important argument used to prove that God does not exist.

After having read the first two ways, what can we conclude about the nature of God?

God existed before the universe - Notice the conclusions of the two ways, and how Aquinas says "This we call God." However, when we talk about God, we ascribe many more characteristics to the concept than those derived from Aquinas' arguments. Can we conclude from the arguments that God is eternal? What do you think?

Richard Swinburne argues that ____________

God is a simple explanation for many different observable phenomena, from the existence of natural laws to miracles and religious experiences. - A naturalistic explanation is one that does not rely on the supernatural, that is, one that does not include God in the picture. - According to Swinburne, it is simpler to say that the explanation of the universe comes down only one thing—God.

In his lecture, Dawkins argues that God is not a good explanation for the universe's complexity because ___________________

God would have to be even more complex than the universe.

Describe Benjamin Libet's famous experiment. Why is it relevant to the question of free will?

Hard determinism is the theory in which philosophers and scientists believe humans do not have free will and that determinism is true. It says that our behaviors and actions are determined by external factors, rather than ourselves controlling our behaviors and actions. These external factors can be the way you were raised, the area you grew up in, the friends you surrounded yourself with, past traumas, etc. Hard determinist also believe that you are not morally responsible for your actions, because you do not have free will. An example of this would be if someone, say Mark, attacked a woman. If Mark's situation was being investigated and they were trying to find punishment for him, the hard determinist perspective would say that he did this crime because of his external factors and that he is not morally responsible. They would not punish him with jail, but instead try to help him solve his external factors that caused him to attack the woman. They would possibly place him in a treatment center or a facility that would help him create better external factors for himself so he won't commit this crime again.

what are properties of bodies, according to Descartes?

Having a shape Being perceivable by the senses Having a location Notice that Desartes lived before Newton. He is still using the Aristotelian notion of impetus, in which things can only moved if they are moved by something else. This should remind you of Aquinas' Unmoved Mover Argument for the Existence of God.

Partisans of strong AI make two claims: 1. a machine and its program do explain the human ability to understand. 2. a machine can literally be said to understand. Which which of those claims does Searle agree?

He agrees with neither claim.

What is Stace's method?

He looks at what we would consider free actions, and then tries to find what they have in common.

questions asked about theism and religious experience

How can our senses detect God, if God cannot be sensed? How can feelings be a reliable source of knowledge? How can you be sure you are perceiving God, as opposed to a very powerful being who is not all powerful?

what does Chalmers consider "hard problems"?

How does consciousness arise from a physical brain? Why is it that when our brains process light of a certain wavelength, we have an experience of deep purple? - According to Chalmers, hard problems are the ones concerned with conscious, subjective experience.

Which of the following expresses the mind-body problem? How does your brain produce thoughts? How are your brain and your heart connected? How are sad thoughts different from happy thoughts? How many neurons are there in an average brain?

How does your brain produce thoughts? The brain is a part of the body. Thoughts exist in the mind. Explaining how thoughts (mental) arise from the brain (body) is one of the questions that the mind-body problem addresses. The mind-body problem is about explaining how the mind and the brain are connected.

Which of the following are offered as objections against the free will defense in your textbook?

Humans could have free will, and not be able to choose really bad things. Humans could have free will and, still, always choose the good.

Theist response to: God is defined as all-powerful, all-knowing, and good.

I believe that God does exist.

Atheist response to: God is defined as all-powerful, all-knowing, and good.

I believe that God does not exist.

What was Descartes conceivability argument for substance dualism?

I can imagine not having a body, but I cannot imagine not having a mind. That means that my body and my mind are different things. Think of two different things. For instance, Kanye West and Kim Kardashian. Can you conceive of one without the other? Con you imagine a situation in which Kanye is there but Kim isn't, or vice versa? You have no difficulty in doing so, since they are different people. Descartes argued that, if we can conceive of one thing without the other (that is, if we can imagine of one thing without the other), that proves that they are different things. Can you conceive of your mind without a body? Most people can. That is why they believe that, in the afterlife, they will continue to exist, even if their body has completely decomposed. They can conceive of themselves as purely nonphysical beings. Can you conceive of your body without a mind? Yes, you can. That is exactly what your body will be like after your die—a corpse is a body without a mind. Descartes concluded that, since you can conceive of your mind without the body and your body without a mind, that proves that your mind and your body are different things. This is the so-called conceivability argument. But is it a good argument? Is it true that, if we can conceive of two things as separate, that proves that they are in fact separate?

Agnostic response to: God is defined as all-powerful, all-knowing, and good.

I have no opinion on the question of the existence of God. Maybe God exists, maybe he does not. Who knows?

In James' definition, which of the following is an example of a forced option?

If you are pregnant, the choice between carrying on with the pregnancy or having an abortion. If you have the possibility of not choosing at all, then it is not a forced option. A forced option is one in which it is impossible not to make a choice, since the very act of not choosing is choosing one of the alternatives.

a statement descartes would agree with

It is possible that I don't have a body, but it is impossible that I don't have a mind Notice that the very fact that I am thinking about this shows that I have a mind. I could not exist without a mind, since I am defined as a thinking thing. The difference between mind and body is key to Descartes' philosophy, and will be the topic of our next class discussion.

Which of the following statements would Rowe disagree with?

It's reasonable to suppose that there is always some greater good coming from seemingly pointless suffering. If we cannot see what that good is, it's only because we are limited, ignorant beings. - In the story of the fawn, Rowe argues that there is no good reason for the poor fawn to suffer in that fire. No good comes out of it. Its suffering is completely pointless. Rowe disagrees with the claim that, if we don't see the good of it, is because we are too ignorant.

What does James mean by "genuine option," and why is it relevant to the question of the existence of God?

James argued against Clifford's evidentialism, the idea that it is wrong always, everywhere, and for everyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. He argued that we need to believe first, then the evidence will follow. According to James, if an option is live, forced and momentous, then it is a genuine option. This is relevant to the question of the existence of God because James believes that the decision to believe or not to believe in God is a genuine option that intellect cannot help us decide. "We are supposed to gain, eden now, by our belief, and to lose by our non belief, a certain vital good." The more advantageous choice when it comes to religion is to forfeit your chance in life to be on the winning side, and to decide on your own.

What is a good example of a scenario of Sartre's existentialist approach?

Jean was very shy since he was a little boy. He did not make a single friend in high school. He was considered a loner, and was left alone. On his first week in college, he sees a flyer for a ballroom dancing club meeting. He has no interest in dancing, but he figures that would be a way to meet people, and, although it gives him a lot of stress, he makes himself go. There are very few guys, and he is in high demand. He makes an effort to talk to his dancing partners. As time goes by, it becomes easier. He joins a couple other clubs. At the end of the school year, he does not even consider himself shy anymore. - In the correct answer, Jean becomes a different person because of the choices he makes. He is the one who chooses to join the club, and, as a result, determines his destiny. According to existentialism, the kind of person you are is based solely on the choices you make. If you say "I cannot do this, because I'm shy," you are putting essence before existence, and you are making excuses for your behavior. A true existentialist considers him or herself master of his or her destiny. Nothing and nobody other than yourself is responsible for the kind of person you become.

The version of the cosmological argument that Craig proposes is called the ________________ cosmological argument.

Kalam - Kalam is not a person. "Kalam" is the Arabic word for "theology." Craig argues that he is using the same argument that Muslim theologians had used in the past.

What is the Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God? Include a reference to the Big Bang in your answer. What is the difference between the traditional cosmological argument and the Kalam version? (NOTE: Kalam is NOT the name of a philosopher; it means "theological reasoning" in Arabic).

Kalam cosmological argument: scientific evidence suggests that the universe suddenly came into existence about fourteen billion years ago in an unimaginably massive explosion known as the Big Bang. until that moment, the universe that we experience today simply was not. both philosophical reasoning and evidence show that the universe began to exist. anything that begins to exist must have a cause that brings it into being. so the universe must have a cause. philosophical analysis reveals that such a cause must have several of the principle theistic attributes. the difference between the kalam cosmological argument and the cosmological argument is that in the cosmological argument the universe always just existed, but the kalam argument says the big bang started the universe

How do libertarians define a free action? Why is the main argument in favor of libertarianism? (NOTE: We are not talking politics here, but metaphysics)

Libertarians define free action as a sense that we have genuine options. When we feel we have the power to choose or not choose among alternative courses of action, then what we finally choose and do is genuinely and ultimately up to us, then it is considered a free action. A free action is also caused by an agent (person) and isn't fully determined by previous events. "How can an agent cause A when there is no previous event B in the agent that causes event A, and no prior event C that causes event B, and so on?" - 245 5.1 The main argument in favor of libertarianism is against the compatibilist, that determinism, or the idea that every event is determined by preceding events and the laws of nature, is false. Because Libertarians believe in free actions they cannot believe in determinism or else that would be contradicting. The consequence argument is also prevalent and says that if determinism is true, then our acts are the consequences of the events in the past. But it is not up to us what happened in the past and neither are the laws of nature. So, therefore, the consequences of the past and present aren't up to us.

Which theory only recognizes observable behavior?

Logical behaviorism. Cartesian dualists believe in the existence of things we cannot observe, such as souls, thoughts, memories, and so on. Some materialists may agree that thoughts cannot be observe, although they argue that they still come out of the brain. Identity theorists believe that thoughts are brain processes, but some of those processes may not be observable.

Which of the following are examples that Eagleman uses to illustrate how our actions are determined by the chemistry of our brain?

Mass murder Homicide Pedophilia Gambling

Churchland argues that folk psychology (that is, our intuitive understanding of mental states) has been, or could, be wrong about a variety of mental states. What are the examples she gives?

Memory Attention The will

According to property dualists, what is the relationship between physical states and mental states?

Mental states emerge from physical states, but are not reducible to them. An emergent property is one that a complex system has that the individual parts of the system do not have. For instance, ant colonies can accomplish amazing feats that individual ants could never accomplish, just because of the way they are organized. Another example is that salt is salty, but neither chlorine nor sodium (the two elements that make up salt) are salty on their own. An irreducible property is one that cannot be explained in terms of its simple components. For instance, electromagnetic phenomena cannot be reduced to mechanical phenomena, whereas molecular phenomena can be reduced to atomic phenomena.

In Paley's argument, what is the watch an analogy for?

Nature

William Clifford (1845-1879) argued that "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for everyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." Does James agree?

No James argues that it is not only possible, but unavoidable, to believe in things without sufficient evidence. Most of our basic beliefs are not substantiated by reason and evidence, but are motivated by what he calls our "willing nature."

In Section 6 (Contrary Views on the Main Question), Turing makes a prediction. Did his prediction come true?

No Turing predicted that, by now, we would have computers that can converse like regular humans. Well, he was wrong. And, no, Siri would not pass the Turing test. Have you ever tried having a conversation with it?

Philo's argument is that, even if we agree that there is a designer of the Universe, there is very little we know about the designer ("the Deity") to make any claims about the Deity's nature. According to Hume, do we have any good reason to say that the Deity is infinite and perfect?

No, since we only have nature to judge the Deity, and we have no good reason to say that anything in nature is infinite and perfect. - Hume says that we cannot judge how wonderful the world is, since we do not know any other worlds we can compare it to: - "It is impossible for us to tell, from our limited views, whether this system contains any great faults, or deserves any considerable praise, if compared to other possible, and even real systems."

Sosa discusses a property of God's definitions that presents a problem to free will. Which is it?

Omniscience

Is there anything to lose by believing in God?

Only superfluous things that have no real value. Pascal argues that believing in God will make you a better person. You may not become rich and famous, but who cares? Your life will be better in every other respect.

What is Paley's Watchmaker Analogy? What is one of Hume's objections against it?

Paley's Watchmaker Analogy: the Universe is the watch, and God would be the watchmaker. Hume's objections: instead of the God of theism, the universe could have been designed by several Gods working together, through a process of trail and error, or it could have been a physical being with a human body

What is Pascal's Wager? What is its conclusion? What is one objection against it?

Pascal's Wager: We should believe in God even though there is no good argument for his existence. "If there is a God, he is infinitely beyond our comprehension...We are therefore incapable of knowing either what he is or if he is." Pascal insists we can have only a pragmatic justification for believing in God, believing is advantageous, because if he is real and you believe in him you have a chance to go to heaven objections: If Pascal looked at the rules God has set for his people, Pascal would not want to gamble that God is real for every reason he gave. god ignores or punishes those who believe for self-serving reasons god favors honest doubters who use their god-given power of reasoning to believe only according to the evidence nothing people do matters, they are predestined for heaven or hell God hates people who gamble people are rewarded for not believing in something like Pascal's advice god is malicious, withholding eternal happiness from both nonbelievers and believers

Argument from religious experience

People have felt the presence of God. That shows that God probably exists.

Who believes that the mind/soul could, in principle, survive without a body?

Plato Descartes Contemporary Christians The answers to this question can be found on the "What Do You Believe? The Immortal Soul" section in your chapter. Please make sure to post on the discussion board if the answers are still not clear! Notice that the Bible does not make a single reference to disembodied spirits. In fact, one of the items in the Nicene Creed, which is the statement of faith in most Christian churches (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant) is the resurrection of the dead, implying that we can only enjoy the afterlife if our bodies are resurrected

Consider William L. Rowe's argument on p. 80. According to Rowe, both theists and atheists would agree on the truth of one of those three sentences. Which one?

Premise 2 Both atheists and theists agree that any omniscient, omnipotent, wholly good being would prevent any unnecessary suffering. Why would a good God allow people to suffer for not reason? The disagreement comes to this: • Atheists argue that there is many instances of suffering in this world that does not compensate for any possible good that can be derived from it. • Theists believe that God has good reasons for allowing suffering in the world. Theists agree with Premise 2, but the disagree with Premise 1, and, therefore, disagree with the conclusion that God does not exist.

What does James attempt to do in this lecture?

Prove that it is better to believe in free will than in determinism

Strawson says that the claim that "you do what you do, in any situation in which you find yourself, because of the way you are," is "incontrovertible." Which philosopher would definitely not agree with it?

Sartre

In Jackson's thought experiment, what is happens to Mary when she finally sees the color red?

She will learn something new about the world—what red looks like. Jackson's argument is that there is something to conscious experience that cannot be reduced to mere physical processes.

criticisms against the soul-making defense

Since suffering is so beneficial, trying to eradicate it would be wrong, which is a counter-intuitive idea. A good God would not let His children suffer for their own good. Suffering often makes us worse, not better people.

What are the similarities between substance and property dualism? What are the differences?

Substance dualism claims that the mind (soul) is a separate spacial * identity apart from that of the physical human being and will proceed past death and the deterioration of our bodies (although you need to believe in substance dualism to believe the mind can survive without the body, you can be a substance dualist and NOT believe that the mind will survive the death of the body. Substance dualism makes an uncorporeal afterlife possible, not not necessary) , on the other hand, Property dualism claims that the mind, although being different than the physical human body, is not a thing separate from the body (the only substance is a physical substance) is still interconnected and will cease with our death. The SImilarities between them both are the fact that they both have the belief that the mind (soul) is different and separated from the physical presence. is that they both believe that consciousness and qualia are not reducible to anything physical. With the difference being if the soul moves on past death or dies (ceases) to exist when you die. that substance dualists believe that qualia arise from a nonphysical mind/soul, whereas property dualists believe that qualia arise from the brain itself. *Under substance dualism, the mind is not "spacial." Only physical things take up space. That is why Descartes called the physical substance the "extended substance" (res extensa), meaning that it is extended in space, that is, it takes up space, which the mind does not.

What is substance or Cartesian dualism?

Substance dualism is defined in chapter 4, page 206 of the textbook as "the mind and body consist of two fundamentally different kinds of stuff, or substance- the mind being of non-physical stuff and the body of physical stuff". The mind's mental states- desires, sensations, emotions, and thoughts- are states of nonphysical or (immaterial) stuff. The body's physical states- electrochemical and biomechanical- are states of physical (material) stuff. Together these two substances- this dualism of stuff- make up a person. For substance dualists, the entire world is constituted by these two substances. Some famous substance dualists are Plato and Descartes. Cartesian dualism is the theory proposed by René Descartes that states "not only are the body and the soul composed of two distinct and independent substances (mental and physical) but that these two parts of a person interact casually. The mind, though immaterial, can influence the material body, and the body can affect the mind.

What is Turing's response to the theological objection that God has given a soul only to humans, and one needs a soul to think?

That God could give a soul to computers when they reach a certain level of complexity. Turing has no interest in theological discussions, but believes that that objection would not hold any water under the assumption that God is omnipotent.

What does Collins mean by theistic evolution?

That God designed the very process of evolution through natural selection that has given birth to all species, including our own.

What does James think of Pascal's suggestion that one should believe in order to earn a chance to go to heaven?

That God may want to punish those who believe in him just to get the reward.

What is the conclusion of Mary's thought experiment?

That Mary will learn something new when she sees colors for the first time.

What do philosophers mean by the multiple realizability of mental states?

That a brain completely different from ours could produce thoughts very much like ours. Can Superman have thoughts? How about R2D2? Wall-E? If you believe that an extraterrestrial alien or a robot can conceivably have thoughts, then you believe that mental states can be produced ("realized") by different sorts of brains, not just human brains. That is what philosophers mean by the multiple realizability of mental states.

What is the hypothesis that Chalmers proposes in his article?

That consciousness is the subjective aspect of an information state

What is van Inwagen's Consequence Argument attempt to demonstrate?

That free will and determinism are not compatible. The Consequence Arguments shows that, if determinism is true, then free will does not exist. In other words, if you want to believe in free will, then you have to reject determinism. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too, like compatibilistsare trying to do.

After applying the method of doubt on Meditation I, Descartes comes close to concluding that the only thing that remains true is "perhaps just the one fact that nothing is certain." However, he is able to find certainty in the next paragraph. What can he be certain of?

That he exists.

What is Sosa's opinion of indeterminism?

That is even worse than determinism, when it comes to the topic of free will.

What are some of the points that Descartes is trying to make when discussing the wax?

That it is our mind, not our senses, that tell us that it is still the same wax after it has melted. That the one thing that remains constant as the wax changes states is that it is extended (that is, that it takes up space) Descartes is a rationalist, not an empiricist. He argues that our senses can and do deceive us. Better to use reason!

What point is Philo trying to make when he compares the Deity to a carpenter and the universe to a ship?

That maybe the Deity is not so smart, and has created this world through trial and error - Philo says, "Many worlds might have been botched and bungled, throughout an eternity, ere this system was struck out; much labour lost, many fruitless trials made; and a slow, but continued improvement carried on during infinite ages in the art of world-making."

What does Chalmers' zombie thought experiment attempt to demonstrate?

That mental states cannot be reduced to physical states. Chalmers does not believe that zombies are real. Moreover, even if they were, we could never prove that they exist. We cannot prove that zombies exist and we cannot prove that they don't, since the only thing that distinguishes zombies from conscious humans is consciousness itself, which is strictly subjective. Chalmers introduces the concept of zombies to show that there is something else to consciousness than being in a certain brain state. If consciousness and other mental states could be reduced to physical states, then it would be impossible to even conceive of the possibility of zombies. Please post on the discussion board is this explanation is still not clear.

One objection against epiphenomenalism is that, if qualia do not have an effect on our survival, why have we evolved to have mental states? Jackson provides a possible response to this objection. What is it?

That mental states emanate from brain states that are evolutionarily advantageous

What is Turing's response to the consciousness objection?

That one can only be aware of his or her own consciousness. This is reminiscent of Descartes' "I think, therefore I am." I know I think, and I know that I am conscious, but I cannot be sure that my mother, my husband and my best friend are conscious. If I had to be 100% certain that somebody is conscious to say that they think, then I could not conclude that anybody other than myself thinks. Turing calls this "a solipsist point of view," and, as such, it is completely unreasonable. I am pretty confident that others think because of how they interact with me. If a computer could interact with me in the same way, it would be reasonable to conclude that it thinks, too (Turing would say).

Turing argues that the objection that machines will never be able to "be kind, resourceful, beautiful, friendly, have initiative, have a sense of humour, tell right from wrong, make mistakes, fall in love, enjoy strawberries and cream, make some one fall in love with it, learn from experience, use words properly, be the subject of its own thought, have as much diversity of behaviour as a man, do something really new" is based on the principle of scientific induction. What does that mean?

That people are talking about the machines that they have already seen, not about the machines that could potentially exist. To pass the Turing test, the computer would need to have those abilities. Otherwise, it would be very easy to tell it apart from a human. When discussing the Turing test, it is very common to think of our desktops, laptops and smart phones. We have already agreed that none of our computers can pass the Turing test yet. But that does not mean no computers will ever be able to pass it in the future. That is an empirical question for computer scientists to work on. For philosophers, the question is not whether a computer can pass the Turing test, but what happens if it does? That is the question that Searle addresses in his paper.

What did the studies that Nahmias conducted on Georgia State students show?

That people believe that human action can be predictable and free at the same time.

When Stace argues that "moral responsibility is not only consistent with determinism, but requires it," what does he mean?

That punishment and reward only make sense insofar as human actions have causes.

What is Eagleman's conclusion regarding our criminal system?

That sentencing should be tailored to the criminal, not the crime.

What is the point that Paley is trying to make in the "Statement of the Argument"

That somebody made the watch

Hicks argues that "this world must be a place of soul-making." What does he mean by that?

That suffering teaches us a lesson, and makes us stronger. A counterargument to Hicks position would be that, if God is omniscient and omnipotent, He could surely find a way to teach us a lesson that did not involve so much misery.

Anthropologists have suggested that most human societies can be classified as 'guilt cultures' or 'shame cultures." According to Strawson, what does this indicate?

That the concept of moral responsibility is not learned, but innate.

What is Richard Swinburne's position regarding the incompatibility of religious experiences?

That the incompatibility may be only in the details, and that they all present evidence for the existence of the supernatural. Using the example above, Swinburne would argue that Mary and Mazu are different ways in which the Divine presents itself to people of different cultures. Different people interpret the Supernatural in different ways, depending on their religious tradition.

In one of the examples in the lecture, men that participated in a study were more attracted to women whose pupils were dilated. What was the point that Eagleman was trying to make with that example?

That the men in the study did not know the real causes why the preferred some women over others.

What is the surprising finding in Libet's studies?

That the subjects started moving their finger before they had consciously decide to move their fingers.

What was the surprising finding in Benjamin Libet's experiments?

That the subjects started moving their hand before they made the conscious decision to move their hand.

Most biologists agree that the theory of evolution through natural selection provides a naturalistic explanation for the apparent design of biologial life (see the PHILOSOPHY NOW box on p. 76 and 77). However, a few biologists (e.g. Michael Behe) disagree. What is their argument?

That there are some biological systems that can only have been created whole, not in the step by step fashion of natural selection. - The theory of evolution proposes an alternative to the theory that there had to be a designer. According to the theory of evolution through natural selection, living beings are the way they are, not because they were designed that way, but because they are the result of a long process in which some features were selected by the environment.

What does James mean by chance?

That there is no guarantee that things are going to be a certain way

What is the point of the Oxford Street and Divinity Avenue example?

That we are fully responsible for the choices we make

What did Laplace mean when he said that God was an unnecessary hypothesis?

That we can explain everything that happens using determinist laws.

When Sartre says that "we should act without hope," what does he mean?

That we can't anticipate the future, since people can do unpredictable things.

What is James' objection to Pascal's Wager?

That we cannot make ourselves believe a hypothesis that is dead for us.

What is the conclusion of Fred's thought experiment?

That we would learn something new about Fred if we could see red1 and red2 like he can.

One of Sartre's most famous quotes is "Existence precedes essence" (that is why his philosophy is called "Existentialism"). What does the quote mean?

That you create who you are through the choices that you make. In the existentialist jargon, existence refers to the the choices that we make, and essence to the characteristics that define us. According to Sartre, we are defined by the choices we make, not the other way around.

What is Anselm's position? (ontological argument)

That you need to have faith to understand. - "For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe, —that unless I believed, I should not understand."

What is a summarization of William Lane Craig's position?

The Big Bang can be used as evidence for the existence of God.

What does Strawson mean by self-determination?

The ability to create who we are from scratch.

examples of beliefs James offers that say we have "for no reasons worthy of the name"

The belief in free will. the belief in our democracy Our moral preferences.

What does "Existence precedes essence" mean? How does this quote relate to the question of free will?

The best example of "Existence precedes essence" is in our "Jean-paul Sartre" reading, theres a video that sums this down pretty well. the example used is about a pen knife, the pen knife has and "essence"(something that makes it what it is) but its essence Pre- exists its existence due to the fact that there is a blueprint that essentially says "to make a pen knife there needs to be a knife that flips out, thats what makes it what it is." the same cannot be said for Humans, thee is no blueprint for how we should be, no path that is certain to become what you should be. Sartre believes you create your own path and this is what become of "Existentialism", you create yourself through your choices. Your Existenceprecedes your Essence. To Free will, Existentialists believe in personal choice and in a way this means free will exists but we know that can be somewhat problematic, to be free means that we have no excuses. to be free means we choose things because we choose them and no other possibility is possible. In relation of free will, Sartre simply puts it as "we are nothing but our choices"

Which of the premises in the argument from religious experience is problematic?

The best explanation for religious experiences is that God caused the experience. Everybody agrees that God seems to be sensed in some religious experiences. The question is whether God is actually sensed, or whether there is another explanation for the experience (e.g. it could be some sort of hallucination).

determinism

The doctrine that every event is determined by preceding events and the laws of nature.

What is the hard determinist attitude regarding the criminal justice system?

The hard determinist perspective is that we do not have free will. This is because we are born with predetermined destinies, we do not decide the external factors that make us who we are. With this idea relating to the criminal justice system, we cannot take moral responsibility for our actions. We do not act based on free will, so we shouldn't be morally responsible. "He is born without his own consent... his ideas come to him involuntarily... he has no control" If society were to accept hard determinism as the correct theory, society would be much more lenient and sympathetic in terms of accepting and understanding human behavior. Because people would be treated based on their actions more leniently, then tolerance for behavior would be higher. If hard determinism was a correct theory, then all citizens could justify their actions on external factors, not free will. Because hard determinism supports that free will does not exist, then society would look to fix the negative external factors that exist. I believe that our correctional facilities would be very different. Instead of having harsh consequences or punishments, corrective measures would be much more therapeutic. Essentially, the blame placed on bad behavior would be a result of factors out of everyone's control. In this sense, people would be able to get away with more actions which could be positive, but also negative as well. For example, you could kill someone you didn't like and just blame it on external factors such as having negative influences or that they were a danger to society, and then you would get away with it because hard determinism would be a correct theory.

Materialism is the theory that the mind (or soul) cannot exist without a physical brain. What are materialistic theories of the mind?

The identity theory Property dualism Logical behaviorism Substance dualism states that there are two substances: a material substance, and a immaterial substance. Substance dualism is the commonplace view that the body is material but the mind is not. If the mind is not material, that implies that it is independent of the body. Cartesian dualism is a kind of substance dualism in which the mind and the body, despite being made of completely different substances, still interact. Materialism states that there is only one substance: the material substance. Materialists do not believe that the mind is an immaterial thing, since they deny the existence of immaterial things. Materialists argue that mind always needs a brain (which is material) to exist.

substance dualism

The notion that mind and body consist of two fundamentally different kinds of stuff, or substances.

what is the dao?

The power that gives order and stability to the universe

what are advantages of the identity theory?

The principle of the causal closure of the physical is preserved. It offers an explanation of how mental states cause behavior. It is fully compatible with science.

what is nirvana

The state that comes from the realization that the self is just an illusion. Nirvana is not a place one goes to when one dies. Nirvana means "to blow out" in Sanskrit (the ancient language of India). It means that the illusion of the self is blown out like a candle in the wind. It disappears. All that is left is unspeakable peace and contentment. Nirvana is reached while one is alive. When you reach nirvana, you become buddha (awakened, enlightened). It's not that all desires have been fulfilled; it's more like one does not have any desires any more.

What is the relationship between moral responsibility and free will?

The two concepts are intimately related.

compatibilism

The view that although determinism is true, our actions can still be free.

hard determinism

The view that free will does not exist, that no one acts freely.

According to Paley, if we found both a stone and a watch in a meadow, what would the key difference be?

The watch consists of different parts that work together, the stone doesn't

list a claim would Nagel agree with?

There are facts in the world that we humans will never be able to describe.

What is the conclusion of the First Way?

There had to be a first mover that started the chain reaction of movement in the universe - Three of the options are premises in the argument. Only one option is the conclusion. Aquinas' argument is based on some assumptions about the physical world. If you have taken a physics class before, you will see that some of those assumptions are false. Which ones?

What is the conclusion of Aquinas' argument from motion?

There has to be a First Mover (God) that set the whole process in motion.

What is James' position regarding truth and knowledge?

There is truth, but we will never know if we know it. James' refers to his position as empiricism, but a better name for it, which he introduced in a later paper, is pragmatism, since empiricism has a very specific meaning in epistemology.

According to Sartre, what do all existentialists have in common?

They believe that existence comes before essence

What do Cartesian dualism and property dualism have in common?

They both believe that not everything is ultimately material. Cartesian dualists are also called subtance dualists. They argue that there are two kinds of stuff in the world—mental and physical. Property dualists only believe in one kind of stuff, the material stuff. Mental properties would not exist without the support of a physical brain, but are not reducible to any of the physical properties of the brain.

Stace argues that some philosophers deny the existence of free will because of a "semantic problem." What is the problem?

They don't define "free will" as it is commonly used.

What is the point of knowledge arguments?

To show that there are some facts in the world that are not physical.

Why does Strawson bring in the concept of heaven and hell?

To show that they rely on the intuition that we are morally responsible.

Many theists argue that one can only be truly free if one has the very real capacity to choose to evil over good. True or False.

True Think about this: if we could only make the right choice every single time, would we be really free?

What are some consequences of the fact that we are the one who create ourselves.

We are responsible for what we become We have nobody to blame for who we are but ourselves Every person is responsible for all humans "Thus, the first effect of existentialism is that it puts every man in possession of himself as heis, and places the entire responsibility for his existence squarely upon his own shoulders. And, when we say that man is responsible for himself, we do not mean that he is responsible only for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men."

Which of the following is consistent with Plantinga's response in the video?

We do not know why God permits so much evil in the world.

According to the libertarians, what is the best evidence for the existence of free will?

We feel that we make free choices. "The best evidence for the existence of free will comes from our own experience . . . Our experience of choosing and acting seems to give us evidence for free will that is at least as strong as that for physical objects." In your life, you frequently have the experience of choosing, both in small and big things, and we feel very strongly that the decision is up to us and us alone: latte or mocha? enlist in the military, or go to college? have the baby, or have an abortion? get up early to go to school, or stay in bed a little longer? Libertarians argue that we experience ourselves as free agents, and that we need to take that experience very seriously.

What is the commonplace view when it comes to the mind and the body?

We have a nonphysical mind and a physical body The commonplace view is the view adopted by most people, not by professional philosophers. Most people believe that the mind and the body are different things, the mind being nonphysical and the body being physical. Philosophers call this position substance dualism, since it implies the existence of two different substances (kinds of things)—a physical, material substance and a nonphysical, immaterial, spiritual substance. Everybody agrees that the brain is a physical thing, an organ in your body, just like a kidney or a heart. The big question is whether the mind is nonphysical, and, therefore, separate from the brain.

What is Pascal's position in the reading?

We should believe in God even though there is no good argument for his existence. "We are incapable of knowing ... if He is." "Reason cannot decide for us one way or the other" whether God exists or not.

James argued that there are some important topics that cannot be settled using reason and evidence. What to do then?

We should go with the option that we find most appealing.

What is "the hard problem" that Chalmers describes? Give an example.

What Chalmers mean by a "hard" problem is how ones own brain can create a conscious subjective experience, this is used in comparison to the "easy" problem in which is about more objective actions the brain performs such as the process in which a brain takes in information and how it uses it for example. What he means by a "conscious subjective experience" is how someone feels when they see or experience something for themselves which in turn creates their own unique way they process it. Basically the "hard" problem is figuring out how the brain even creates these subjective experiences in the first place. Some examples would include a visual sensation in which we experience a vivid blue through different wavelengths of light that our brain processed from or something more simple such as feeling pain after being punched in the gut because not only would it generate an reaction we would also feel the sensation within our own body. Part of what makes the brain so unique is not just how it functions but also how each brain is fairly unique on its own since it we all have our own subjective experiences that others may not experience in the same exact way even if they were in the same exact situation. To get this answer I used the David Chalmers reading assignment, "The Puzzle of Conscious Experience" and used page 92 of it.

When did the theory that the universe was deterministic emerge?

When the science of astronomy showed that the universe obeyed definite laws.

In Searle's thought experiment, could the person in the room be replaced by a computer and still give the same sorts of answers in Chinese?

Yes, because the person is just carrying on a program.

Which of the following claims would Strawson agree with?

You can only be responsible for your present self if you are responsible for your past selves.

According to Murphy, what determines what you do?

Your brain Your environment The real you

what is something epiphenomenalists deny?

Your desire to eat ice cream is one the causes why you to eat ice cream.

What do philosophers mean by zombies? What does the conceivability of zombies presumably demonstrate?

Zombies in philosophy are imaginary creatures designed to illuminate problems about consciousness and its relation to the physical world. Unlike the ones in films or witchcraft, they are exactly like us in all physical respects but without conscious experiences: by definition there is 'nothing it is like' to be a zombie. Yet zombies behave just like us, and some even spend a lot of time discussing consciousness. Zombies are conceivable. Whatever is conceivable is possible. Therefore zombies are possible. chalmers argument: His first argument goes roughly as follows. Suppose a population of tiny people disable your brain and replicate its functions themselves, while keeping the rest of your body in working order (see Block 1980a); each homunculus uses a cell phone to perform the signal-receiving and -transmitting functions of an individual neuron. Would such a system be conscious? Intuitively one may be inclined to say not. Some, notably functionalists, bite the bullet and answer yes. However, the argument does not depend on assuming that the homunculus-head would not be conscious. It depends only on the assumption that its not being conscious is conceivable — which many people find reasonable. In Chalmers's words, all that matters here is that when we say the system might lack consciousness, 'a meaningful possibility is being expressed, and it is an open question whether consciousness arises or not' (1996, p. 97). If he is right, then conceivably the system is not conscious. In that case it is already very much like a zombie, the only difference being that it has little people where a zombie has neurons. And why should that make a difference to whether the situation is conceivable? Why should switching from homunculi to neurons necessarily switch on the light of consciousness?

According to Anselm, which one is greater: a being that exists in reality or a being that exists only in the mind.

a being that exists in reality - Imagine that you are looking for romance, and that I tell you that I have two friends that would be perfect for you—attractive, funny, smart, wealthy, hard working, good values, the right age... The only difference is that one is real and the other one is imaginary. Which one would you prefer? Right! If a thing is good, existence only makes it better.

What is downward causation? Give an example and explain why it is relevant to the question of free will.

a causal relationship from higher levels of a system to lower-level parts of that system: for example, mental events acting to cause physical events. The term was originally coined in 1974 by the philosopher and social scientist Donald T. Campbell.

In the determinist worldview, the universe is compared to ____________________

a clock

If you believe that we will eventually be able to program computers that can actually think like a human does, then you are probably __________________.

a functionalist Substance dualists believe that you need to have an immaterial mind, a "soul" in order to think. We cannot program souls, so computers will never be able to think. Property dualists believe that, although the mind comes from the brain, it is not the brain. The mind consists of nonphysical properties that emerge from the brain. These nonphysical properties are not reducible to physical properties. We do not really know what they are, but we know when we have them (I know when I'm in pain, or seeing something blue). We could program a computer to respond like a human, but not to feel and think like a human. This is the point that Searle makes in his Chinese room thought experiment. Identity theorists believe that mental states are brain states. A thought is just a group of neurons firing together. Computers have circuits, but they do not have neurons. You need a human brain to be able to think like a human. Only functionalists would agree with Turing—if a computer appears to think, then it means it does. Once we can program computers to behave totally like humans, we will know we have succeeded in programing a computer that can think like a human.

A determinist would argue that we cannot make 100% accurate predictions about the behavior of particles (smaller than an atom) because we do not know enough about the underlying reality of quanta. Einstein, who was a determinist, argued that the randomness described in quantum mechanics is just like the randomness of the weather—a product of our ignorance, not a proof that the universe is not deterministic. Einstein believed that there are deterministic laws that explain the behavior of particles but that we have not uncovered yet, which is what we call ___________________

a hidden variable theory

Einstein was a determinist who did not believe in free will, which means that he was a hard determinist. In the example that Kaku uses, even _______________ would not be responsible for their actions.

a mass murderer

in Ned Block's Chinese nation thought experiment, each Chinese citizen with a two way radio plays the role of ________________.

a neuron In Ned Block's thought experiment, all the one billion people in China together are being used as a brain. Each individual citizen represents a "neuron," connected to other "neurons" by a "two-way radio." The population of China as a whole would function as a brain, but would it have any mental states? would it have any qualia? Block does not think so, and, for that reason, he concludes that functionalism is not the correct theory.

Dennett's quote: "If algorithmic processes can account for the brilliant design that goes into making ____________, I think it can handle a poem, too."

a nightingale

in his famous analogy, William Paley compares the universe to ______________

a watch - In Paley's analogy, the Universe is the watch, and God would be the watchmaker.

According to Sartre, what makes a person brave?

acting bravely "Man... is therefore nothing else but the sum of his actions."

I don't believe in God because organized religion is the cause of much evil in the world. The fallacy is __________________

ad hominem - It is true that religion is the cause of much evil in the world (the Crusades, the Inquisition, ISIS and the treatment of the Rohingya come to mind), but that says something about some religious people, not about the existence of God. - That some believers do terrible things does not mean that God does not exist. Horrible people can believe things that are true.

When Stephen Hawking declares that "spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist," he is arguing ___________

against the premise that "whatever begins to exist has a cause." - Spontaneous creation is basically the idea that something can come from nothing, which contradicts the premise that everything needs to come from something else, that is, have a cause. - This does not prove that God does not exist, but it certainly makes God unnecessary to explain why the universe does.

Stace argues that _________________________

all free actions are caused

According to Rowe, Locke argued that _______________

all free actions are voluntary In Locke's view, there is a distinction between voluntary and free actions. I will illustrate it with an example. Consider the woman in the image below. Let us call her Aysa, and suppose that she wants to wear the burqa. The question is, Is Aysa really free to wear the burqa? Locke would say that it depends on external factors. • If Aysa were living in Afghanistan under Taliban rule, where the burqa was mandatory for women, her action would be voluntary but not free. It is voluntary because it is what she wants to do, but it is not free because, if she did not want to wear it, she would still have to wear it. • If Aysa were living in London, where there is no law that says that women have to wear the burqa, her action would also be free. She wants to wear the burqa, and that is why she is wearing it. However, if she did not want to wear the burqa, she would not wear it. It is all up to her will.

Which theories of free will allow for moral responsibility? Which don't?

allow: libertarianism, compatibilism, indeterminism don't allow: hard determinism, determinism, incompatibilism

What is the conclusion of Haslanger's argument?

an OOO God does not exist

How do contemporary compatibilists define free will? Give an example. Why do some object to the definition?

an agent could, in some cases, be morally responsible for things he does, even when he could not have done otherwise ex: democratic party kidnaps voters and implants something in their head that makes them vote for the democrats. if you got chipped, but you were already going to vote for the democrats, you would be free. If not, you are still responsible because you are morally responsible for your actions. even if you were chipped, you are morally responsible for your actions.

argument from evil

an argument purporting to show that since there is unnecessary evil, an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good god must not exist

Sartre argues that one is not only responsible for shaping who one is; each of us is also responsible for shaping the definition of what it means to be human through the choices one makes. The realization of this extreme responsibility often creates a feeling of ____________

anguish

In his paper, Turing proposes a test to determine whether a machine can think. What does the computer have to do to pass the test?

answer the questions just like a human would To pass the Turing test, the computer has to make the interrogator believe that it is human. If the machine knew all the answers (like Siri), then it would be obviously a computer, since no human knows all the answers. To pass the test, the computer needs to lack some knowledge or needs to pretend to lack some knowledge.

What is the feeling that the absolute freedom and responsibility described by the existentialists evoke?

anxiety "The existentialist frankly states that man is in anguish. His meaning is as follows: When a man commits himself toanything, fully realising that he is not only choosing what he will be, but is thereby at the same time a legislator deciding for the whole of mankind - in such a moment a man cannot escape from the sense of complete and profound responsibility."

James argues that we are free to believe _______________________

any living option that is not contradicted by the evidence.

If determinism is true, then ______________________

anything that did not happen could not have happened

God exists because, without God, life has no meaning. The fallacy is ____________________

appeal to emotions - That the truth may be depressing does not mean it is not true. Philosophy cannot be based on wishful thinking. - Also, is it true that life cannot have meaning if God does not exist? Share your thoughts in the discussion.

God is real because most people in the world believe in God. The fallacy is ___________________

appeal to popularity - It is true that most people in the world believe in God, since about one third are Christian and about one fourth are Muslim, but that does not mean that their beliefs are true. Most people in the world have been wrong before (you can see the coronavirus pandemic as an example; how many people were taking it really seriously a month ago?) - Also, notice that, although Christianity and Islam are the two most popular religions in the world, the next two most popular religions (Hinduism and Buddhism) do not believe in the God of theism, as you will see in section 2.6 of the textbook.

I believe in God because I was raised Catholic (or Jewish, or Lutheran, or Muslim, or other). The fallacy is __________________

appeal to tradition - Most people keep the religious beliefs of their families. That is why the majority of people in Italy are Catholic and the majority of people in Nepal are Hindu. That you have certain religious beliefs because of your family is an explanation of why you have certain beliefs, but it is not an argument. - If you say that your belief is true because that is what your family has believed for generations, you are committing a fallacy. - Your family may be wonderful people, but that does not mean they are infallible. - When you are doing philosophy, you need to base your conclusions on evidence and reason. Your religious beliefs are not an exception.

What does Haslanger call believing in God just based on faith, without any evidence?

arational theism

Teleological arguments ________

are based on our experience of the universe - Notice that the correct spelling is teleological (not "theological"). Theological comes from Theos (God). Teleological comes from Telos (aim, goal or purpose). "Television," "telescope," "telephone" all share the "Telos" root.

Cosmological arguments ________

are based on our experience of the universe - notice that "cosmos" means universe in greek

Ontological arguments ________

are based on purely logical relationships - "Onto" is related to the word "entity," and it means "Being" in Greek.

What is the argument from evil (aka the problem of evil)? State the premises and the conclusion.

argument from evil: purporting to show that since there is unnecessary evil, an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good god must not exist. 1. there exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient ring could have prevented without thereby preventing the occurrence of any greater good. 2. an omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby preventing the occurrence of some greater good. 3. therefore, there does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.

God does not exist because nobody can prove that God exists. The fallacy is ___________

argument from ignorance - Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Just because you cannot "prove" something, it does not mean it is false. Remember Descartes. You cannot prove that you are not dreaming... that does not mean you are.

cosmological arguments

arguments that try to show that from the fact that the universe exists, god exists

teleological (design) arguments

arguments that try to show that god must exist because features of the universe show signs of purpose or design

One problem with having two contradictory beliefs is that ____________

at least one of them has to be false

According to Turing, for a computer to be able to pass the Turing test, it will probably have to _____________

be able to learn In the past, everything a computer did was based on an algorithm that had been written by a human. That is certainly the way it was during Turing's times. Nevertheless, Turing envisioned that, in the future, computers would be able to rewrite their program in ways that the original programmers could not have anticipated. Well, the future is here. The most successful AIs that we have today have not been programmed by a person, but have developed their own program by learning from experience. Take the case of AlphaGo, the best Go player in the world (Go is a strategy game, like chess but harder). Nobody programmed AlphaGo. AlphaGo played many games of Go, and learned from its mistakes. This is called deep learning. What that means is that nobody really knows how AlphaGo "thinks," because it has not been programmed to play a certain way. AlphaGo just figured it out. AlphaGo has not been programmed by anybody, and it plays go much better than its original designers. We do not know if a computer will ever pass the Turing test, but, if it ever happens, it will most likely be because it is able to learn, just like Alan Turing envisioned in 1950.

according to Nagel, we can never know what it is like to be a bat. Why?

because the bat's brain and our brain are too different

Why do humans, and not a fungus or a cauliflower, get to create themselves?

because they are conscious "Man is, indeed, a project which possesses a subjective life."

According to d'Holbach and the other hard determinists, why do we believe that we are free?

because we do not know all the causes of our actions Hard determinists believe that, if we were able to know everything about a situation, we should be able to predict the future with 100% accuracy. The reason why we cannot predict the weather is because there are so many different variables that we cannot control. In the same way, we cannot predict human behavior because of all the many factors that affect it. That is why we conclude that people act out of their total free will, when, it reality, there are hidden causes that make us do what we do.

God exists because that is what the Bible (or the Qur'an or other scripture) says that God exists. The fallacy is _______________

begging the question - This could be an appeal to authority, but it goes deeper than that. - Why would anybody believe what the Bible says, as opposed to what, say, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire says? Well, because the Bible is a sacred book that is the Word of God, whereas Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is a fictional story written by J.K. Rowling. - But notice that anybody who believes that the Bible is "the Word of God" already believes in God! You have to believe in God before your accept the authority of the Bible. - This is circular reasoning, and it will not convince anybody who was not already convinced.

I believe in God because I have faith. The fallacy is __________________

begging the question - You are basically saying that you believe in God because you believe in God. - But why do you have faith? - If it is based on some sort of gut feeling, this could be an appeal to emotion (believing in God may be comforting or it may relieve your loneliness). - If it is based on what you learned as a child, this would be an appeal to tradition. - If it is based on some sort of religious experience you had, you would need to justify the validity of that experience (more on that to come later in the module). - If your faith is based on solid argument, let's hear the argument! - If having faith means that you do not have an argument, but you believe it anyway, then you are not even trying to do philosophy. Or maybe Mark Twain was right when he said that "faith is believing what you know ain't so."

theism

belief in the existence of god

Dennett argues that a big problem with the problem of free will is that people have been looking at physics for an answer, when they should have been looking at a different science. What science is that?

biology

If we accepted Dennett's definition of free will, we would have to give up _____________

blame

What is the causal (not casual!!) closure of the physical? What philosophical theory of the mind violates it? Explain your answer.

causal closure of the physical: the principle that the world is a closed system of physical causes and effects. it affirms a physical cause for every physical effect. the world is a closed system of physical causes and effects; nonphysical (mental) causes are superfluous. for any physical effect, scientists can in principle map out a detailed series of physical causes leading up to that effect. which leads to the belief that there is no need for mental causes epiphenomenalism (the view that mental properties do not affect physical ones) seems to violate the causal closure of the philosophical. "Among the facts of the universe to be accounted for, it may be said. is Mind; and it is self evident that nothing can have produced the mind but mind.

Blackmore argues that, even if we agreed that there is no free will, we could still use the justice system to put people in prison, make them pay a fine, etc. when they break the law, "to ___________ their behaviour in the future, or to _______________ other people from behaving badly in the future."

change and deter

What is the Chinese Room? What was Searle attempting to show with it?

chinese room: you are a person who speaks no chinese, you are placed in a room full of chinese characters and a codebook in english with instructions about what chinese characters to use in response to what input, chinese speakers are slipping you notes under the door to respond to, you figure out how to respond using the codebook, the chinese speakers outside believe you know chinese after passing the notes back and forth conclusion: you do not speak chinese, you just understand how to manipulate the characters to fool people into thinking you know something you do not know searle's point: designed to show that the passing for human isn't sufficient to qualify for strong AI, just because a machine can fool people does not mean it has strong AI, strong AI would mean it has to have actual understanding, which he thinks is impossible for any computer to achieve objections: sure, you do not know chinese, but no particular region of your brain knows english either. the whole system that is your brain knows english

Which of the concepts introduced so far in the class readings corresponds to James' soft determinism?

compatibilism

What point was Nagel trying to make when he wondered what it was like to be a bat?

consciousness cannot be described purely in physical terms There are facts in the world that we humans will never be able to describe. we will never know what it is like to be a bat because our brains are too different he believes conscious states are subjective

Nahmias argues that ____________________________

consciousness plays an important role in decision making.

When philosophers argue that the universe may have always existed, they offer an objection against the __________________

cosmological argument

Swinburne's principle of ________________ states that in the absence of reasons to the contrary, if something seems to be present, then it probably is present.

credulity

If Dennett had to give a prize for the single best idea, he would give it to _______________.

darwin

Anselm's argument for the existence of God is ____________________

deductive, based on the definition of God - Anselm's argument is that, if God is defined as the greatest thing that can be conceived, then God has to exist. - Anselm uses the logical technique known as proof by contradiction, reductio ad absurdum or indirect proof. - He starts by assuming the opposite of what he wants to prove, namely, that God does not exist. - In that case, God would not be be the greatest thing that can be conceived, because we could imagine something (let's call it Bob) that has all the properties of God plus existence, and Bob would be greater than God, since something that exists is superior to something that doesn't. But God is the greatest thing that can be conceived (by definition). So the assumption that God does not exist has to be wrong. Therefore, God exists.

When it comes to the belief in God, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were

deists - Deists argue that this universe is too complex and beautiful to be the mere result of chance. Just by looking around you, you can see that it was created by an intelligent being. In fact, deists often refer to God as the "Grand Architect." - That does not mean that God is around to listen to our prayers, and worry about football games and calculus tests, or that He gave us an immaterial soul and has a heaven and a hell waiting for us. - According to Deism, God set this beautiful universe in motion and let it run.

A compatibilist would say that we are responsible for some of our actions ________________________

despite determinism being true

What is determinism? Give an example that does not involve human action.

determinism: does not allow options, it holds that every event is caused by a previous event. an agent could never have done anything other than what they did, therefore, they are never free. example: a hurricane. certain things had to happen in order for the hurricane to form. it was determined to happen if warm moist air over water rises, then is replaced by cooler air. When the cooler air warms and starts to rise, a hurricane forms. The events of the warm air happening are what caused the hurricane to happen.

Complete the following quote by J.L. Mackie: "Theologians themselves have long recognized that it is not easy to decide, about particular visions and messages, whether they come from God or from the _____.

devil Imagine God tells you that you need to kill your son. How do you know the message comes from God and not from the devil pretending to be God? You could argue that God would never ask you to do something so horrific... but that is exactly what He asked Abraham to do!

What are the two basic beliefs that seem to be in conflict, creating the problem of free will?

every event has a cause some of my actions are the result of my free choices -Remember that the problem of free will has nothing to do with political freedoms. If every event has a cause, that means that everything that you do has a cause. The cause would the sort of person you are, your surroundings, etc. You enrolled in this class because of where you live, your schedule, your interests, your plans, what you knew about the class, and so on. That cause predetermined that you took this class. So, if there was a cause (or combination of causes) why you took this class, how can you say you were free to take it? There appears to be a contradiction there.

Property dualists believe that our minds do not require physical bodies to exist. true or false

false

According to property dualists, the mind can survive without the brain. true or false

false According to the property dualists, "the mind is an arrangement of non physical properties arising from—yetdependent on—physical properties" What that means is that the brain produces our mental states (thoughts, memories, feelings, emotions, and so on). Without the brain, there are no mental states. Here is a metaphor. Consider your throat and your voice. Your voice is not reducible to your throat (you cannot describe the voice by describing the throat), but it comes from the throat. If you did not have a throat, you would not have a voice. In the same way, if you did not have a brain, you would have no thoughts, even though your thoughts cannot be fully described by describing the brain. This is a key difference between substance dualists and property dualists.

Most contemporary philosophers believe that the body is physical, but the mind is not. true or false

false Although substance dualism is the most common theory among regular people, most philosophers are materialists—they do not believe that the mind can exist without a brain.

Modern science has demonstrated that minds are not divisible, giving further support to substance dualism. true or false

false Another argument that Descartes presented in support of dualism is the divisibility argument. The premise of the argument is that the mind cannot be divided, whereas the body can. That would prove that they are two different things. It is obvious that the body has different parts (arms, legs, head, and so on), but is it true that the mind is indivisible? It does not appear to be so. Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) was the first one to argue that the mind consists of different parts: id, ego and superego. Modern science supports Freud's idea that there are different modules in the mind. In fact, the conscious part of the mind is a very small part of it; most of what happens in the mind is unconscious, and not accessible to our conscious experience.

Compatibilists believe that some actions are not fully determined by previous causes. true or false

false Compatibilists do believe in determinism, which states that all events are determined by previous causes. Their argument is that, even if our actions are fully determined by previous causes, they can still be free, as long as the causes that determine our action are internal, not external.

Functionalists believe that only human beings can have minds. true or false

false Functionalists believe in the so-called multiple realizability of the mind, meaning that mental states can be produced by different brains (human, alien, electronic, and so on).

The question of free will is a political question—some countries have free will, and some countries do not. true or false

false It does not even make sense to say that some countries have free will and some don't. If free will exists, all conscious humans have it, regardless of their nationality. Even in a place like North Korea, people could choose whether to talk to their neighbor or not, whether to do five push-ups in the morning or not, or, taking it to the extreme, whether to challenge the regime or not (that most Koreans choose not to do that because of the terrible consequences does not mean that the choice does not exist). Alternatively, if free will does not exist (that is, if hard determinism is correct), no humans have it, regardless of their nationality. Even in a place like the USA, people would not have real free will. You may think that you are free to vote Democrat or Republican, but a hard determinist would argue that, based on your genetic predispositions, the way you were raised, your socio-economic status, your level of education, your religion, your ethnicity, your gender, your sexual orientation, the part of the country you live in and so on, there is only one real way that you can place your vote (or not vote at all). The question of free will is a question about the human condition, not about different political systems.

Pascal's argument is that we should believe in God since God's existence is more probable than God's nonexistence. true or false

false Pascal does not get into whether it is more probable that God exists or that He doesn't. Regardless of the probabilities, Pascal argues that it would be foolish not to believe in God, since you have nothing to gain and everything to lose, whether, if you believe in God, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain. This is how Pascal saw it: If you don't believe in God and He does not exist, what will happen you die? Nothing! Oblivion! You will not even know that you were right. But what will happen if He does exist? You will go straight to Hell. Now, compare that to the possible outcomes of believing in God. If you believe in God and he doesn't exist, what will happen when you die? Nothing! Oblivion! You will not even know that you were wrong. But what will happen if He does exist? You will go to Heaven! So, Pascal would ask, why risk it? Believing in God is some sort of insurance for the afterlife. The worst that can happen if you believe is that you may be wrong, but, who cares? You will be dead and you will never find out.

All religions believe in an all-powerful, all knowing God who created the universe and answers our prayers. True or false.

false People with a Jewish, Christian or Muslim background often believe that all religions believe in God. Nevertheless, in Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and most Asian religions there is no concept of the God of Theism, an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, eternal Creator.

Substance dualism gives a satisfactory account of how the mind and the body interact. true or false.

false Substance dualism does NOT give a satisfactory account of how the mind and body interact. That is the main reason why contemporary philosophers and scientists reject substance dualism. Dualists basically say that some sort of miracle/mystery is produced when you think "I'm going to raise my hand," and you actually raise your hand, or when you take Prozac and you feel happier. Contemporary philosophers and scientists have not given up trying to find an explanation for how that happens

Immanuel Kant agreed with Anselm, that existence is a defining property, that is, that, just like red, big, sweet or good, it can be part of a definition. True or False.

false - Kant argued that existence cannot be a defining property. Let me illustrate this with an example. You know what the definition of mermaid is, right? Basically a being that is like a woman form the waist up but has a fish tail. Do mermaid have fish tails? Duh, of course! That is part of the definition. Now, allow me to define a new word: mermade. A mermadeis exactly like a mermaid (half fish, half woman), but with an added attribute: existence. Do mermades exist? Duh, of course! That is part of the definition of mermade. But, wait a minute, that does not make sense! You cannot define things into existence. Kant would argue that the reason is that existence is not a property, and that is why it cannot be used in definitions. When we say that something exists, we are not adding another property to its definition; we are stating that that thing is real in the world.

According to Thomas Nagel, if we learn everything there is to know about a bat's brain, we will also learn what it is like to be a bat. true or false

false Just like Chamers' zombies, Nagel's thought experiment attempts to demonstrate that mental properties cannot be reduced to physical properties. Both Chalmers and Nagel are property dualists. Property dualists believe that mental states arise from brain states, but they do not believe that mental states are reducible to brain states. In other words, they believe that one cannot have a mind without having a brain (they are not substance dualists!), but they also believe that mental states cannot be fully explained in virtue of physical states, since physical states are objective and mental states are subjective.

The view that there is such a thing as destiny, and regardless of what we do, that is the destiny that is awaiting us is called _______________

fatalism Hard determinism and fatalism are different concepts, although students often get them confused. I will demonstrate the difference with an example. How would a hard determinist and a fatalist explain that Jane has decided to enroll in a French class in school? A hard determinist would argue that Jane's decision is the result of a chain of past events: she needs to take a class in a foreign language to graduate, the introductory French class fits nicely within her schedule, Jane likes the sound of French, her friend Pam is also enrolling, the instructor has good reviews on ratemyprofessors.com, Jane wants to be original and not take Spanish like everybody else... All those factors together are the cause why Jane, being how she is and considering her circumstances, has to take that French class. A fatalist, on the other hand, would argue that Jane took that French class because it was her destiny to meet her future husband in that class. If she had chosen not to take the class, she would have never met him, but meeting him was her destiny. As you can see in the example above: • Hard determinists argue that every instant fully determines what is going to happen next. The present if determined by the past. • Fatalists argue that there is a future that is "written in the stars" (your destiny, if you will), that is pulling you towards a final destination. The present is determined by the future. Hard determinism is fully compatible with science, since it is based on the traditional idea of cause and effect, where the cause always happens before the effect. On the other hand, fatalism is incompatible with science, since it implies that the cause happens before the effect. However, they are both similar in that they deny that we are really free to choose what we do. In the case of hard determinism, because we are pushed by our past. In the case of fatalism, because we are pulled by our future.

What is the difference between metaphysical freedom and political freedom? Give an example to illustrate the difference.

for example: the difference between libertarian free will and political libertarians are that both views get their names from the word liberty, but political libertarians are all about freedom from the government, while people who accept libertarian free will could be anything fro political libertarians to socialists - they just think that metaphysically we can act freely the example illustrates that metaphysical freedom is based on making decisions freely and that everything we do is not inevitable, and that political freedom is being free from government control

"To be or not to be" (that is, commit suicide or continue living): living option, forced option, or momentous option (according to James)

forced option you need to choose. If you do not choose either, it is the same as choosing to be.

Jackson describes himself as a "qualia ___________."

freak

In a court of law, the prosecutor sides with __________________.

free will The prosecutor's job is to convince the jury that the accused is guilty. One can only be guilty of actions he or she freely chose. That's why, if a person is shown to be insane at the moment of the crime, they cannot be guilty of it. Insane people are not able to make free choices.

Libertarians and hard determinists agree that _______________

free will and determinism are incompatible Libertarians and hard determinists agree that free will and determinism are NOT compatible. That means that, if you side with one, you have to dismiss the other. • Libertarians side with free will, and dismiss determinism. • Hard determinists side with determinism, and dismiss free will. On the other hand, compatibilists argue that free will and determinism ARE compatible, and they believe in both. Remember that, when we talk of free will, we are not discussing political freedoms. If free will exists, people have free will also in North Korea, and, if free will does not exist, people don't have any free will in America. (If this is still confusing, please post on the discussion board). For that reason, the libertarianism we are discussing in this chapter is NOT that of political libertarians like the Koch brother, Rand Paul, and Ayn Rand. The motto of the Libertarian is "Minimum Government, Maximum Freedom."

What is the free will defense? What is one objection against it?

free will defense: claims that it is a great good that humans have a certain sort of free will which i shall call free and responsible choice, but that, if they do, then necessarily there will be the natural possibility of moral evil...a god who gives humans such free will necessarily brings about the possibility, and puts outside his own control whether or not that evil occurs. it is not logically possible, that is, it would be self contradictory to suppose--that god could give us such free will and yet ensure that we always use it in the right way. objections: 1. the contention that there is no reason why an omnipotent god could not have created free agents who always choose the good. 2. even if God could not have made humans so they always freely choose the good, he could have at least made people such that they do less evil than they actually do. God could have given people better moral character so their desire to do good would be stronger and their desire to do evil would be weaker. this would not diminish people's acting freely, even the slightest change would reduce evil in the world.

What is the conclusion of the argument for hard determinism?

free will does not exist The premises of the argument are: • The universe is deterministic. • Free will and determinism are incompatible. The conclusion of the argument is: • Free will does not exist.

If you believe you could have chosen not to take this class, and could have enrolled in something else instead, then you are adhering to the view that ____________.

free will is real Free will is the idea that one gets to choose his or her future. Your past may influence your future, but you are the one who is ultimately in control of your actions.

What is functionalism? What is one objection against functionalism?

functionalism: the view that the mind is the functions that the brain performs

According to James, if an option is live, forced and momentous, then it is a _____________ option.

genuine

On the topic of religion, philosophers _________________.

give arguments for their positions. - Just like with any other topic, philosophers do not simply state their positions—they give arguments to support their positions.

According to William Lane Craig, the Big Bang _____________.

gives evidence in favor of the Cosmological Argument - Craig, a famous Christian apologist, uses the Big Bang theory as part of the argument that God exists. This is explained with more detail in one of the videos that you have to watch this week. - There is no contradiction between the Big Bang theory and the belief in God, as long as one allows for a non-literal reading of the Bible, like most mainstream Christian denominations allow for.

The opinion supported by Haynes, Coyne and Harris has been called _____________________

hard determinism

In the Chinese Room thought experiment, the person who is locked in the room can _____________________

have a conversation in English understand English have a conversation in Chinese

Churchland discusses various arguments in favor of dualism. For which one of those arguments he can't find an objection?

he can find an objection for all of them

According to W.T. Stace, if Joe sat in his room all day because _________________, then Joe acted freely.

he was afraid to go outside that is what he felt like doing Being locked in a room, and being forced to stay there are external factors. Being afraid to go out, and wanting to stay in are internal, psychological factors. Stace and the other traditional compatibilists argue that an action is free if it is constrained only by internal factors, and not by external factors.

Who gets to define what humans are?

humans themselves "Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself."

What philosophical theories state that free will and determinism are incompatible? What philosophical theories state that they are compatible?

incompatible: libertarianism, incompatibilism, hard determinism compatible: compatibilism, indeterminism

What is indeterminism? Give an example that does not involve human action.

indeterminism: the view that not every event is determined by preceding events and the laws of nature example: the flip of a coin. If the outcome is only probable, not certain, then the event can be said to have been caused by the coin flip, but the head or tails result was not predictable. So this causality, which recognizes prior events as causes, is undetermined.

What is the difference between libertarianism and indeterminism?

indeterminism: the view that not every event is determined by preceding events and the laws of nature libertarianism: the view that some actions are free, for they are caused or controlled by the person or agent libertarians hold that indeterminism is necessary for free will, that free actions can occur only in a world where not all events are determined by prior events and natural laws. where they differ, is that they do not believe that free will and determinism are compatible. libertarians reject determinism and embrace compatibilism

We cannot ignore the problem of free will because some other important concepts depend on it. What are some of those concepts, according to Sosa?

individuality and responsibility

Dennett's says "we have to make free will compatible with determinism... but we are going to show that [our actions] are not ___________________."

inevitable

Murphy argues that the whole person _____________________

is more than the sum of his or her parts has an effect on his or her brain

Why do so some find libertarianism problematic?

it counters what we know about the physical world with event causation and agent causation event causation: no physical event can occur without having been caused by a previous physical event, the physical world itself is deterministic agent causation: an agent being propelled by a mind can start a whole chain of causality that was not caused by anything else, agents can make stuff happen on their own where would these free decisions, the ones that launch from entirely new causal chains come from? if you can answer what causes an agent to act, you are reinforcing the position that actions are caused rather than free

Libertarians object to indeterminism as solution to the problem of free will because ______________.

it does not explain how we can be responsible for our actions, if what we do is beyond our control. If our actions are random, are we really responsible for them? Let us consider the case of somebody (Jay) who committed murder. A hard determinist would say that Jay did not really choose to murder. The crime is the unavoidable effect of causes that go back to Jay's birth, and even before—his family, his uprising, his friends, his influences, his poverty, his genetics, and so on. For that reason, Jay is not morally responsible for the crime. An indeterminist would say that all those previous causes did not determine Jay's crime. Jay was in a certain situation and then, randomly, something triggered in his brain that made him pull the trigger. Libertarians would argue that the indeterministexplanation is not better than the hard deterministexplanation. Either way, Jay did not choose to murder anybody, so he cannot be held morally responsible.

According to Alan Turing, a computer will prove that it has a mind when ____________.

it is able to have a conversation like a regular human. Alan Turing subscribe to functionalism when he developed his famous "Turing test," a test to determine whether a computer can actually think. Turing realized that thoughts are private, and we only have direct access to our own thoughts. How do we know that somebody else thinks? By his or her behavior. In particular, if somebody is able to have a normal conversation with us, we surmise that they think, even though we cannot access their thoughts. Turing argued that the same could be applied to computers. If a computer can have the sort of conversation that we have with other people, to the point of being able to deceive us into believing that it is actually a person, then we are justified in concluding that the computer thinks, and, therefore, has a mind. One could argue that the computer can only produce responses based on its program. But don't we all? A true functionalist would argue that our brain is also a computer, a computer shaped by evolution, experiences, and so on, and that all the things that we can ever say or do are the result of that program. We will never know if a computer has the same sort of subjective experience that we have, but the same can be said about other people. As Descartes noticed in his famous cogito, I only know that I think, but I cannot be sure that others do.

To Francis Collins, Intelligent Design is a threat ot faith because ___________

it will be proved wrong, and our faith should not depend on theories that will probably turn out to be wrong.

When it comes to a paper-knife, _____________

its essence precedes its existence The essence are the characteristics that make you be what you are. In the paper-knife example, its essence existed in the mind of the manufacturer before the paper-knife was even made.

According to Buddhism and Hinduism, what determines your next rebirth?

karma All religions that originated in India (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism...) believe in reincarnation. If you do what you are supposed to do, you will go up in your next reincarnation; if you don't you will go down. The law that guides this process is Karma. Karma is a cosmic law like gravity—no judge has to enforce it. It is just the way things are. To Hindus and Buddhists, Karma only makes sense in the context of reincarnation, since it is obvious that, in only one life, not everybody gets what they deserve. Wonderful people have terrible luck and suffer horribly (cancer, poverty, abuse, and so on), whereas horrible people have long, happy lives, and die of all age surrounded by people who adore them (think Stalin!). Karma explains why some people are born to terrible circumstances. They must done something very bad in a previous life! (Stalin may have reincarnated as a rat, which may give you some comfort).

Sartre's existentialism is an extreme version of ______________________.

libertarianism "He [Sartre] not only believes that we are free, but also insists that we are radically free. We may be influenced by the factors for nature and nurture (heredity and environment), but ultimately we are not determined by them."

what philosophical positions are based on the assumption that determinism and free will are incompatible?

libertarianism hard determinism Libertarians and hard determinists believe that one has to choose between free will and determinism. Libertarians choose free will over hard determinism. Hard determinists choose determinism over free will. Compatibilists believe that one does not have to choose. Our actions can be both fully determined by our past, and, nevertheless, be free. Indeterminists argue that determinism is not always real. Whether that offers a good solution to the question of free will is a different question.

vote republican or democrat: living option, forced option, or momentous option (according to James)

living option those are options that make sense to a 21st century American, as opposed to, say, voting Tory (which would be a living option for a Brit) or voting for ZYRIZA (which would be living if you were Greek).

What theory does Churchland endorse?

materialism

sociologists and religion

may study how religion interacts with other aspects of society such as race, culture, social class, and so on.

anthropologists and religion

may study how religion originated among the earliest humans

neurologists and religion

may study if something happens to the brain when people have religious experiences.

psychologists and religion

may study why some people are religious and some people are not, and how religious beliefs may affect behavior.

The Republican (or Democratic) presidential candidate asks you to be on his/her ticket as the candidate for vice president.: living option, forced option, or momentous option (according to James)

momentous option how many chances will you get of being on the ticket? How is that going to affect your life? "Being a candidate for the vice-presidency" is not a trivial option like deciding what to have for lunch—it is a momentous option

When theologians and philosophers discuss the problem of evil, by "evil" they mean anything that causes suffering in the world. They distinguish between two kinds of evil:

moral evil, which comes from human choices and actions, and natural evil, which results from the workings of nature. - When we talk of evil, we usually mean intentional evil. - Notice that, in the context of this argument, evil is anything that causes suffering, even if it is something unintentional like disease or hurricanes.

what is a concept that depends heavily on the assumption of free will?

moral responsibility Moral responsibility, the idea that you are accountable for your actions, that you are worthy of praise or blame, only makes sense if you are the one choosing your actions. Here are a few examples: • You would not be morally responsible for having a miscarriage (since you did not choose it), but you would be morally responsible for having an abortion (since that's something you choose to do). • You would not be morally responsible for being white(since you did not choose it), but you would be morally responsible for being a racist (since that's something you choose to be). • You would not be morally responsible for being gluten-intolerant (since you did not choose it), but you would be morally responsible for being a vegetarian (since that's something you choose to be). • You would not be morally responsible for having a high I.Q.(since you did not choose it), but you would be morally responsible for graduating from college (since that's something you chose). NOTE: Notice being "morally responsible" applies both to doing things that are right and doing things that are wrong. The very concept of right/wrong relies on the idea of moral responsibility, and, therefore, of free will.

What is the multiple realizability of the mind? Which philosophical theories of the mind are consistent with it? Which philosophical theories are not?

multiple realizability: the capacity to be realized or instantiated in a variety of forms and materials it is consistent with functionalism, logical behaviorism it is inconsistent with materialism, identity theory objection: One could argue that the computer can only produce responses based on its program. But don't we all? A true functionalist would argue that our brain is also a computer, a computer shaped by evolution, experiences, and so on, and that all the things that we can ever say or do are the result of that program. We will never know if a computer has the same sort of subjective experience that we have, but the same can be said about other people. As Descartes noticed in his famous cogito, I only know that I think, but I cannot be sure that others do.

What functionalists have in common with identity theorists is that _______________.

neither has an explanation for the subjective feel of experience. Identity theorists believe that "that every mental event corresponds to a particular brain event;" functionalists do not. Absent qualia arguments are the arguments that say that a theory that does not account for qualia (that is, the subjective feel of experience) is wrong. Neither functionalism nor the identity theory offer an explanation for qualia, but they do not believe that proves their theories wrong. The identity theory and functionalism are materialistictheories, because they both argue the only substance is the material substance, and that the mind cannot exist without a physical brain. This is the opposite of substance dualism, which states that mind and brain are made of two different substances.

Does Searle agree that the Turing test is a good test to determine whether a computer can think?

no The Chinese Room thought experiment is the most famous objection against the Turing test.

Ramachandran argues that ______________________

now science can deal with the topics of God and religion

When Haslanger talks about the OOO God, what are the features of God that she is referring to?

omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent

The free will defense, namely, that evil exists because God made us free, addresses _____________

only moral evil Human free will does not account for earthquakes, cancer, hurricanes, and so on.

Sosa describes us as _______________ systems

physical

What is the philosophical theory that Eagleman endorses in his talk?

physicalism "This vast wet biological network is you. It's all your hopes, and your dreams and your aspirations, it's the agony and the ecstasy, it's all contained in this stuff that is kind of alien to us."

Nahmias argues that unconscious neural activity ______________________

prepares us for action but does not determine our actions

Which of the following theories of the mind is consistent with Nahmias position, as described in the article?

property dualism "Until neuroscience is able to explain consciousness—which will require a theory to explain how our minds are neither reducible to, nor distinct from, the workings of the brain—..."

What theory of the mind does Murphy support? (She does not say it explicitly, but you should be able to figure it out)

property dualism Even though Murphy is a Christian philosophy, she says "we no longer think that the real I is a soul inside here or a mind." And she is definitely not a reductionist!

What is reductionism? What is physicalism? Name one philosopher we have studied in class who endorses both theories and one who rejects them.

reductionism: the view that all parts of the world. and of our own experience, can be traced back, or reduced down, to one singular thing, Nagel supports reductionism "what is it like to be a bat", Ned Block supports physicalism in his writing "troubles with function" physicalism (materialism): the doctrine that every object and event in the world is physical, Nagel rejects physicalism, Ned Block supports physicalism

What concept is inconsistent with the idea of determinism, according to James?

regret

Ramachandran argues we as a species may have evolved to have religious feelings because ________________________-

religion contributes to the stability of society

ontological argument

since God is, by definition, perfect, He needs to exist. If He did not exist, He would not be perfect.

cosmological argument

since the universe exists, somebody must have created it, and that somebody is God.

teleological argument

since the universe shows signs of design, somebody must have designed it, and that somebody is God.

agnostic

someone who neither denies nor accepts god

What is the soul-making defense? What is one objection against it?

soul-making defense: the two stage conception of the creation of man which will allow us to truly become God's children: 1. the biological processes of evolution that produced our bodies and minds. 2. the spiritual process in which we become perfected and more similar to God through the choices we make suffering teaches us a lesson and makes us stronger objections: suffering can warp a person's character as well as build it. since suffering is so beneficial, trying to eradicate it would be wrong, which is a counter-intuitive idea. A good God would not let His children suffer for their own good.

God does not exist because it is ridiculous to believe that there is a bearded man sitting in a cloud in the sky. The fallacy is ___________________

strawman - Most believers over six do not believe that God is sitting in a cloud. Let's apply the principle of charity and give believers a little credit.

religious scholars and religion

study the tenets of different religions—their history, art, beliefs, moral codes, worship, and so on

What is the name philosophers give to theory that the body is physical and the mind is non physical?

substance dualism Substance dualism is the theory that there are two substance: a physical substance, and a nonphysical substance. Although most people believe that substance dualism is the correct view, most philosophers disagree. The soul-in-a-vessel theory is a cool name, but nobody callsit that. The mind-body problem is not a theory, but a problem that different theories of the mind attempt to solve.

What are some of the reasons Churchland gives to show that materialism is a better theory than dualism?

t is simpler It fits quite well with the theory of evolution It can explain more things

Design arguments are also called _________________

teleological arguments

What is the teleological argument? Why is the theory of evolution an objection against it?

teleological arguments: arguments that try to show that God must exist because features of the universe show signs of purpose or design - the teleological theory has been modernized to explain how god was the one who created the evolution, and that he set up the correct conditions that it required, rather than coming about by accident - the theory of evolution is an objection against the teleological argument because it is something that science considers to be complex enough to explain how humans came to be The Teleological argument states that since the universe shows signs of design, somebody must have designed it and that somebody is the God of Theism. William Paley uses an analogy to represent an intelligent designer by comparing the universe to a watch. Teleological arguments are based on our experience of the universe and are also known as design arguments. The Theory of Evolution is an objection to the theory that there had to be a designer(teleological argument) because according to the theory of evolution through natural selection, living beings are the way they are, not because they were designed that way, but because they are the result of a long process in which some features were selected by the environment.

What is the conclusion of the argument from evil?

that God does not exist The argument from evil, also known as the problem of evil, is the most famous argument for atheism. Proponents of the argument conclude that the God of Theism, (all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good) cannot exist, given the existence of evil (bad things) in the universe. Notice that this is only an argument against the God of Theism, that is, the God of Islam, Christianity and Judaism, not about any other gods (Zeus, Thor, Vishnu) or higher power.

While continuing to apply the method of doubt, what does Descartes know about himself?

that he thinks Three of those options could be false under the method of doubt (for instance, if there was an evil demon intent in deceiving him about everything). Only one of the options has to be true even if the evil demon exists.

What does Phineas Gage's case show?

that our personality changes when our brain changes

What is Strawson's position regarding punishment and reward?

that they are never just

In John Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment, __________________.

the Chinese Room is like a zombie in that it produces the right response, but has no subjective experience. in the Chinese room thought experiment, the room acts like a computer that does pass the Turing test, since it fools a Chinese speaker into thinking that he or she is having a conversation with a conscious being that understand Chinese. Searle's Chinese room and Block's Chinese nation are both arguments against functionalism, which attempt to demonstrate that there is more to understanding than being able to produce an appropriate response. The Chinese room does produce the appropriate response (being able to participate in conversation in Chinese), but Searle argues that it is obvious that there is no real understanding in the room. In that respect, the Chinese room is very similar to Chalmers' zombies—it is functionally indistinguishable from a conscious human, but it lacks the subjective experience (qualia) that is essential to consciousness.

example of a contradictory belief

the Earth is flat, but it is not flat

Dennett defines free will as ___________________

the ability to avoid possible futures

polytheism

the belief in many gods

Monotheism

the belief in only one god

pantheism

the belief that God and the Universe are one in the same.

deism

the belief that god designed the universe, but does not interfere with His creation.

Property dualism argues that _______________________.

the body can exist without the mind As the book puts it, property dualism "posits not mysterious immaterial substance." For the property dualists, there is only one substance (the material substance), but bodies have some properties that are irreducible to physical properties. What that means is that, even if you could not have thoughts without a brain, a thought is more than mere brain activity. This is a hard concept. Please make sure to ask questions about it.

He compares the conscious part of your brain to ________________________

the broom closet in a mansion. a stowaway on a transatlantic.

multiple realizability

the capacity to be realized or instantiated in a variety of forms and materials

problem of free will

the challenge of reconciling determinism with our intuitions or ideas about personal freedom

atheism

the denial of the existence of god

materialism

the doctrine that every object and event in the world is physical

What sorts of religious experiences do patients with seizures originating in the temporal lobes have, according to Ramachandran?

the feeling of being one with the cosmos being visited by a personal god

How do traditional compatibilists define free will? Why do some object to the definition?

the great appeal of compatibilism is that it provides a plausible way to reconcile free will and determinism. it says that determinism is true and so is the common sense belief that we have free will. thomas hobbes, john locke, david hume, and john stuart mill all subscribe to the idea of compatibilism. they insist that even though our desires are determined, we can still act freely as long as we have the power to do what we want, and nothing is preventing us from doing it. freedom can be present or absent in situations for reasons that have nothing to dowith metaphysics.

logical behaviorism

the idea that mental states are dispositions to behave in particular ways in certain circumstances

What does James mean by pessimism?

the idea that the world as a whole is bad

just by looking into somebody's brain, it is impossible to know what they are thinking. That would be an objection against _______________.

the identity theory Identity theorists believe that a thought is just a physical thing in your brain. Physical things can be seen. If thoughts cannot be seen, then that means that they are not physical things.

If you believe that a thought or an emotion is just a set of neurons firing together, then you subscribe to ______________.

the identity theory Substance dualists say that thoughts are immaterial things. Property dualists would say that a thought is necessarily subjective (only accessible to the person having the thought), whereas neurons are objective (accessible to anybody who observes it). That means that the thought is not a bunch of neurons (even though the thought comes from the neurons) Functionalists would argue that a thought is not necessarily identical to something in your brain, but a thought is something that your brain does.

mind-body problem

the issue of what mental phenomena are and how they relate to the world

From his definition of a thinking thing, we can conclude that Descartes is talking about _________________

the mind The thinking thing "doubts, understands, affirms, denies, is wiling, is unwilling, and also imagines and has sensory perceptions." All these are consisted mental states.

epiphenomenalism

the notion that mental properties do not cause anything, but merely accompany physical processes

Which of the following would be the best argument in support of deism?

the teleological argument - As you may remember from the feedback to Quiz 2.1, Deists often refer to God as the Grand Architect. - Theists argue that the teleological argument shows that the God of theism exists (that is, a God that is all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal, perfect, loving, concerned with human affairs, and so on). - Deists argue that the universe is too complex and intricate to be the result of accident, yes, but all we can infer from that is that there had to be a Designer, and that that Designer was pretty smart. When we start adding other attributes to the definition of God, we are jumping to all sorts of unwarranted conclusions.

When Sartre says that existentialism is a humanism, he refers to __________________________.

the theory that humans get to create themselves.

agent causation (libertarianism)

the view that a free action is caused by an agent (person) and is not wholly determined by previous events

incompatibilism

the view that if determinism is true, no one can act freely

identity theory

the view that mental and physical states are identical to physical brain states

property dualism

the view that mental properties are nonphysical properties arising from, but not reducible to, physical properties

cartesian dualism

the view that mind (or soul) and body are completely independent of one another and interact causally

indeterminism

the view that not every event is determined by preceding events and the laws of nature

libertarianism

the view that some actions are free, for they are caused, or controlled, by the person or agent

functionalism

the view that the mind is the functions that the brain performs

What do theist, atheist, and agnostic mean? Do theism and atheism require absolute certainty? Explain your answer.

theist: someone who believes in God atheist: someone who denies God's existence agnostic: a person who neither denies nor disbelieves in God This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, "atheism" is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The "a-" in "atheism" must be understood as negation instead of absence, as "not" instead of "without". Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods). "Is there a God?" There are only two possible direct answers to this question: "yes", which is theism, and "no", which is atheism. Answers like "I don't know", "no one knows", "I don't care", "an affirmative answer has never been established", or "the question is meaningless" are not direct answers to this question.

When Sartre says that "there is no human nature," what he means is that _______________.

there are no human qualities that have been fixed by God. According to Sartre, God did not create us; we get to create ourselves through the choices we make. "Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself." The concept of human nature suggests a set of fixed characteristics that define who we are as humans. But we are a work in progress, so we cannot talk of fixed characteristics. By the way, the use of "man" to refer to all humans really dates Sartre. Contemporary philosophers, both male and female, favor more inclusive language.

According to Alvin Plantinga, the greatest world would be one in which...

there is sin and the consequent suffering, since that makes God's incarnation and atonement possible.

What is the relationship between the atman (the individual soul) and Brahman (the unviersal consciousness) in the Upanishads?

they are one and the same

According to indeterminism, some of our actions are free because _________________.

they are simply the result of chance. Indeterminists argue that, if determinism is false, that means that our actions are free. Critics respond that, if determinism is false, then our actions are random, not free. The difference is that, if our actions are free, then we are morally responsible for them; if they are random, then we are not.

According to Nagel, what is the defining characteristic of conscious states?

they are subjective

The arguments in this section offer a pragmatic justification to believe in God, in other words _________________.

they argue that, even if we cannot prove that God exists, it still makes sense to believe in God. Pragmatists argue that it is ok to believe in certain things even if we do not have any evidence that they are true, as long as we find those beliefs useful. Pragmatists are more interested in usefulness than in truth. Pragmatism is the quintessential American philosophy.

In Blackmore's view, __________________________.

thoughts and actions are both consequences of the inner workings of our brain.

An Italian newspaper summarized Dennett's position in the headline: "Yes, we have a soul, but it is made of lots of _____________."

tiny robots

What is the ultimate goal in Hinduism?

to achieve liberation from reincarnation

What is the ultimate goal of Buddhism?

to end suffering The cornerstone of Buddhism are the Four Noble Truths. Buddhism offers a recipe for ending suffering—ifone can stop all cravings, suffering disappears. Buddhists believe that all cravings are based on the illusion that we have a permanent self.

According to the argument presented on p. 92 (last paragraph), that people from different religious traditions have incompatible religious experiences would indicate that religious experiences are unreliable. true or false

true A devout Catholic may have the religious experience of being visited by the Virgin Mary, and a devout Taoist may have the religious experience of being visited by Mazu, the goddess of the Sea. How can both the Virgin Mary and Mazu be real? One of them has to be the product of the imagination... or maybe both.

According to O'Connor, agents have special properties that allow them to produce free actions. true or false

true O'Connor calls those properties "volition-enabling properties." What that means is that we agents have some properties that allow us to make choices. Your choices may be influenced by other factors, but, ultimately, the only cause of your actions is your choice. You do things (drink coffee, come to school, get married, and so on) because that is what you choose to do. Notice that, in philosophy, an agent is simply a being that can do things, that can act. A table is not an agent, since it cannot "do" anything other than be.

Property dualism does not explain how an emotion, such as being sad, can cause a physical event, such as crying. true or false

true Property dualism is not substance dualism. Substance dualists believe in an immaterial, spiritual substance; property dualists don't. Property dualists argue that the mind comes from the brain, even though it is not reducible to the brain (remember that throat/voice example above). Property dualists agree that one day computers may be able to pass the Turing test, in other words, they will be able to fool humans into believing that they are conscious. However, property dualists argue that passing the Turing test is not the same as being conscious, because consciousness involves qualia, and qualia cannot be programmed. The big advantage of property dualism over the other materialistic theories (the identity theory, logical behaviorism and functionalism) is that it makes room for qualia. The biggest objection against property dualism is that, by making mental states irreducible to physical states, it fails to explain how a mental state can cause a physical state.

Property dualists believe that mental states are not reducible to physical states. true or false

true Property dualists argue that there is only one substance (the material substance), but that it has two different sorts of properties: physical properties, and nonphysical properties. Physical properties are objective properties that can be observed by third parties. Weight and volume are physical properties of the brain. Physical properties are measurable. Nonphysical properties are subjective, and are not observable by anybody other than yourself. Mental states consist of those nonphysical properties. Here is an example: • Physical Properties: If your finger touches something extremely hot, there is a chain of nerve reactions that go from your fingertip all the way to your brain. This is a process that we can described well from a purely physiological perspective. • Nonphysical Properties: If your finger touches something extremely hot, it hurts! How can you describe that sort of pain to anybody? How can somebody who has never experienced that sort of pain understand what you are going through? You could explain the physical process to somebody,and they still would not understand the pain you are feeling. This is reminiscent of Thomas Nagel's bat thought experiment — a zoologist could describe and understand the process of echolocation quite well, and still not understand what it's like to be a bat. To property dualists, this means that nonphysical properties are not reducible to physical properties.

When it comes to the relationship between mind and body, d'Holbach is a materialist. true or false

true When d'Holbach writes "Man is a being purely physical," he is expressing the materialistic view we learned in Chapter 4, that is, the idea that humans do not have a spiritual or nonmaterial soul or mind.

William James argues that, in some cases, it is rational to believe in something even in the absence of evidence. true or false.

true James argued against Clifford's evindentialism, the idea that "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for everyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."

What is the Turing test? Which philosophical theories of the mind does it support? Which does it contradict?

turing test: a procedure for discovering whether machines can make a believable simulation of the human mind, it had a powerful influence on the field of AI consistent with: logical behaviorism, multiple realizability, funcitionalism inconsistent with: substance dualism, mathematics, theology, cartesian dualism objections: the theological objections, the head in the sand objection, the mathematical objection, the argument from consciousness, arguments from various disabilities a test to determine whether a computer can actually think. Turing realized that thoughts are private, and we only have direct access to our own thoughts. How do we know that somebody else thinks? By his or her behavior. In particular, if somebody is able to have a normal conversation with us, we surmise that they think, even though we cannot access their thoughts. Turing argued that the same could be applied to computers. If a computer can have the sort of conversation that we have with other people, to the point of being able to deceive us into believing that it is actually a person, then we are justified in concluding that the computer thinks, and, therefore, has a mind. One could argue that the computer can only produce responses based on its program. But don't we all? A true functionalist would argue that our brain is also a computer, a computer shaped by evolution, experiences, and so on, and that all the things that we can ever say or do are the result of that program. We will never know if a computer has the same sort of subjective experience that we have, but the same can be said about other people. As Descartes noticed in his famous cogito, I only know that I think, but I cannot be sure that others do.

What is one of Jackson's knowledge arguments? What was Jackson attempting to show with it?

two parts: the first is to appeal to what Daniel Stoljar & Yujin Nagasawa term the knowledge intuition: the intuition that no amount of knowledge of the physical information or physical facts concerning certain experiences can by itself suffice for knowledge of what these experiences are like, i.e., knowledge of their qualitative character or distinctive qualia (2004, 2-3). The second is to make use of thought experiments which are similar to Jackson's famous example of Mary. These thought-experiments typically involve a being who has complete knowledge of the physical information or physical facts concerning certain experiences, but who (it is claimed) lacks knowledge of what those experiences are like. the point of the knowledge arguments is to show that there are some facts in the world that are not physical

The unreliability of weather forecasts shows that _____________________________

unpredictability does not imply indeterminism Determinism could be true, and, yet, we may not be able to make the right predictions because of our ignorance of the many laws that apply and the many factors that come into play. This is the argument a hard determinist would give to explain why we cannot predict human behavior with absolute accuracy.

What is Rowe's criticism of Locke is that ________________, which shows that we are not truly free.

we cannot choose what we want to do or not do Rowe argues that, even if we do what we want to do, we cannot choose what we want to do. If our actions are based on what we want, but what we want is ultimately determined by factors beyond our control, how can we say that we are truly free? Can you choose to stop liking chocolate? Can you make yourself stop being sexually attracted to women and start being attracted to men, or vice versa? Can you make yourself want to be poor, or want to be an engineer, or want to live in a less expensive place such as El Paso? Stace's argument is that, if we do not have the power to will (that is, if we cannot choose what we want and what we don't want), we cannot ultimately be considered free.

William L. Rowe objection to Swinburne's principle is that ________________.

we have no grounds for distinguishing between reliable religious experiences and unreliable religious experiences. In every day life, if it seems that something is there, we accept it is there (unless we have good reasons to doubt it). Here is an example. Suppose that you open your bathroom door, and see a snake on the floor. You would just accept that the snake is there (and, if you are like me, would probably scream pretty loud). That is under regular circumstances, of course. If you had been dropping acid, you would have good reasons to suspect that there is actually no snake. Swinburne argues that we should question religious claims in exactly the same way: if a supernatural being appears to be there, then we should just accept it is there (unless we have good reasons to doubt it). This is the so-called Principle of Credulity. Rowe's counter-argument is that religious experiences are not at all like other experiences. With regular experiences, we know when we have good reasons to doubt what we are seeing. In most cases, we can easily tell whether we are actually seeing something or we are just dreaming it or hallucinating. With religious experiences, it is not so clear.

The dilemma of determinism that gives name to this lecture is that, if we believe in determinism, either we have to be pessimists or _____________________

we have to accept that good and evil are subjective concepts

Which has priority for James: (1) we must know the truth, or (2) we must avoid error?

we must know the truth If we insist on basing all our belief on complete evidence (as Clifford argued), we will never make mistakes, but we may miss the chance of being right, too. To have the possibility of being correct, we need to risk the possibility of being wrong.

James argues that _______________________.

we need to believe first, and then the evidence will follow. This is like the idea that you can only see fairies if you believe in them.

People who reject the notion of free will believe that, when it comes to criminals, _________________.

we should concentrate on rehabilitating them Hard determinists (people who don't believe in free will) are as interested in having a well-functioning society as anybody else. They just believe it is not fair to punish people for actions they did not choose. Hard determinists would argue that nobody chooses to become a criminal. People become criminals because of the circumstances in their lives. If we can change those circumstances, criminals can come around and become law-abiding citizens.

According to Chalmers, _________________________

we will be able to develop a scientific theory of consciousness when we accept that consciousness is not reducible to anything else

Churchland argues that a deeper scientific understanding of a mental phenomenon will not make the phenomenon go away. What does she produce as an example?

we will still fall in love

Jackson argues that, if we knew all the physical features of Fred's brain, ____________________

we would not know how he sees red1 and red2.

According to Searle's definitions, a GPS system would be an example of __________________

weak AI A GPS system is just a tool designed for a very specific purpose.

For philosophers, the big question is _______________.

whether there are good arguments to support beliefs on religion - Only philosophers try to determine whether religious claims are reasonable or not, and the way to do that is by presenting arguments.

According to Pascal, if you bet that God exists, ......

you have a chance to go to heaven. Pascal says that "there is an equal risk of winning and of losing." However, even if the odds where infinite to 1 that God does not exist, you should bet that he does, since betting on God's not existing will give you no rewards. This is akin to playing the lottery. If you buy a lottery ticket, your chances of winning are 1 in a billion. However, if you do not buy a ticket, your chances of winning are 0.