Philosophy Midterm Study

What is the best evidence that we are free, according to Libertarians? Do you find that evidence convincing? Why or why not?

According to the libertarians, the best evidence that we are free is because it seems that we are free. They think that the best evidence for the existence of free will comes from our own experiences. A libertarian view emphasizes that when we make choices, we sense that we have options and we sense that we have the freedom and power to choose between these options. I do not think that this evidence or argument is convincing because the question of where those options come from arises. Where do the options come from and why do we end up choosing the choice that we do? These questions gives the libertarian view complications in my opinion.

What is the central claim of Functionalism about the nature of mind? Briefly describe the analogy Functionalism uses to convey what their theory claims. Describe an advantage Functionalism has over the Mind-Brain Identity Theory.

Central claim of functionalism is that the mind is not identical to the brain or any other kind of particular matter, but rather the mind is the way the brain functions. The analogy functionalism uses to convey this theory is the computer analogy. The computer analogy says that "Mind is to Brain as Computer Software is to Computer Hardware ". The mind is like a computer program running on the hardware (or "wetware") of the brain. Functionalism endorses the Computational theory of mind: the view that human minds are, in essence, computer programs. One strength to this theory is that according to this theory is that it gives substrate neutrality meaning anything can have, even a computer or alien. This is an advantage over the mind-brain theory which restricted a mind to just being the brain.

Briefly describe Chalmers' "Philosophical Zombie" thought experiment. What theory (describe) is it intended to support, and how does it attempt to do so?

Chalmers describes a being on some possible world that is molecule-for-molecule identical to himself, and behaves just as he does, but is lacking conscious awareness altogether. He calls it his "zombie-twin". This thought experiment is meant to support some form of dualism, although Chalmers is not specific about exactly what form. It looks to be property dualism. Property dualism does not hold that there is a separate immaterial mental substance or "soul". Rather it holds that there are mental properties - such as conscious experiences or "qualia" - that can't be reduced to purely physical descriptions. His thought experiment argues that even if we had all of the physical information that would not be ALL of the information there is. All of the physical information would be sufficient to describe the zombie twin, but it would not fully describe Chalmers himself. To fully describe Chalmers himself, and distinguish him from his zombie twin, we would need to add the information about his conscious experience. The information about his conscious experience is not captured in the physical information, so, Chalmers insists, there must be information that is non-physical that captures the nature of conscious experience as well. Therefore, some form of dualism must be correct.

How does the story of Abraham and Isaac relate to Kierkegaard's concept of freedom? What should we do in order to truly be free, according to Kierkegaard? Explain.

Faith is willing to act on something without having true knowledge to back it up. You act on chosen values without questioning. To Kierkegaard, the story of Abraham and Isaac is the paradigm of faith. Abraham did not question the voice that told him to sacrifice his son, he just got up the next day it went out to do it. Kierkegaard's point is that no one can truly know for sure if our judgements of value and choices are right. At some point, we have to leap to be truly free. We have to act and can't always wait for some confirmation or justification. To be free, you have to leap.

What did Sartre mean when he said "because God is dead, everything is permissible"? How does that relate to his concept of radical freedom? Explain.

If there is no god, there is no external standard, and it is up to us to justify what we choose. There is no objective value or preset purpose, and we have to give that to ourselves. This is our radical freedom. People can tell us what to do and give us advice but it is ultimately up to us to implicate it in our life our throw it away. It's all on us and we are totally responsible for all our actions. We are radically free and radically responsible. Everything is our fault and we cannot blame anyone else. It is up to us to keep our integrity. We give laws and rules to ourselves having radical autonomy.

Briefly describe Locke's Trapped Conversationalist thought experiment. Is the trapped conversationalist free, or not free, according to Locke? Explain.

In Locke's Trapped Conversationalist thought experiement, there is a man that is trapped in a room but is in conversation with a person that he really wants to be in a conversation with. So, he is following his own desires, but if he wanted to leave, he couldn't because he is trapped in this room. According to Locke, even though he is following his own desires, because he really wants to talk with this person, he is not free because if he wanted to do otherwise, he cant.

On Penrose's and James' account, how is indeterminism (randomness) supposed to make free will possible? Can randomness allow someone to be free to act as he or she sees fit? Explain.

James said that chance is a gift when it comes to free will. Penrose believed that a free will event is like a random quirk event of the synapses. They believed that the arbitrariness of nature left an opening into the possibility of free will. I do not believe that randomness allows someone to be free and act freely. Usually, when we say that someone did something out of their own free will, we are saying that that person chose this. If it was a completely random act, I do not think that it is fit to call it a free will act.

Briefly describe Lewis' "Pained Alien" thought experiment. What theory (describe) is it intended to criticize, and how does it attempt to do so?

Lewis's pained alien thought experiment was meant to criticize the Mind-Brain Identity theory. The Mind-Brain Identity theory says that the mind is the brain and the brain is the mind. However, if this was true, then anything that does not have a brain does not have a mind. The pained alien thought experiment describes that there might be an alien that feels pain. However the alien does not have a brain, it has a hydraulic mind. This alien feels pain and is conscious. However, according to the mind-brain identity theory, this could never be a case. If the MBI is true, then there could never exist conscious beings without a brain.

Briefly describe "Nagel's Bat" thought experiment. What theory (describe) is it intended to criticize, and how does it attempt to do so?

Nagel's Bat thought experiment attempted to present a weakness to the Mind-Brain Identity theory. If mind is the brain, then in theory we could know anything about the brain of a bat. However, we can never know what it's like to be a bat. Clearly, bats do have brains, and if minds=brains, then we should know everything about a bat's mind but we do not. According to this thought experiment, the Mind-Brain Identity theory cannot be true.

Describe Descartes' theory of Substance Dualism. Discuss at least one strength or advantage of the theory. Also discuss at least one weakness of that theory or problem to which is is vulnerable.

Substance dualism claims that a conscious being is made up of two different kinds of interacting "stuff" or "substances", a material physical body and an immaterial non-physical mind or soul. One strength to this theory would be that this lines up with many peoples religious belief in a material body and an immaterial soul. This opens up to the possibility that their could be an afterlife where our immaterial soul lives on. It supports the idea that mind can exist without body. One weakness to this theory would be that the question of problem of interaction arises. How does the physical interact with the non physical? Descartes came up with the theory that they interact at the pineal gland, but he had no reason why or evidence to support this claim.

Briefly describe Taylor's Unpredictable Arm thought experiment. What is Taylor trying to establish with this thought experiment? Explain.

Taylor's Unpredictable Arm thought experiment describes the idea that he has an arm that is free, meaning that its motions are uncaused. He does not have anything to do with the motions. So if his arm grabs a club and hits the person closest to him, there would be no need to ask why or get any explanation because these motions are uncaused. Taylor is trying to establish that randomness cannot be evidence of free will, proving indeterminism wrong.

According to the Mind-Brain Identity Theory, what is it to be in a mental state, and, by extension, to have a mind? Describe at least one strength and at least one weakness (i.e., some problem to which it is vulnerable) of this theory.

The Mind-Brain Identity Theory claims that the mind is the brain and the brain is the mind. This theory claims that mental states and just brain states. To have a brain is to have a mind. One strength to this theory is that it makes the mind studiable. Also, this theory solves the problem of other minds. Using this theory, we can know for sure if the people we are surrounded by not only have brains but also have minds. One weakness to this theory would be for example the Nagel's Bat thought experiment. If brain=mind, and mind=brain, then since we have a brain and bats have a brain, we should know what it's like to be a bat because we would have the same mind as a bat. Since this is not true, this presents a weakness for the mind-brain identity theory.

What is the causal principle, or principle of sufficient reason (POSR)? What role does that principle play in the free will debate?

The central claim of the causal principle is that everything has a determined cause. For many, this implies that there can't be free will. If everything has a determined cause then no matter what I do, nothing will change because everything has a determined cause. For others, this means that you can still be free and have free will if you have the opportunity to do otherwise. They think that even if everything has a determined cause, if you have the opportunity to do otherwise, you are free.

What are the two conditions necessary for free will, according to Compatibilism (or Soft Determinism)? Explain.

The compatibilist believes in determinism but also believes that you can still be free if your actions are your own desires and if you have the possibility to do otherwise. So if your are doing something that you desire but you do not have the opportunity to do otherwise, then you are not free according to the compatibilist.

Describe the Hard Determinist argument against free will. Do you think the argument is sound? Why or why not?

The hard determinist argument against free will is that because determinism is true, free will cannot exist, and no one acts freely. To see if it is sound, we have to evaluate if the argument is valid and if the premises are true. The argument in itself is valid, but are the premises true? The first premise has a fairly weak defense, it claims that we all have to believe in determinism and this might not be the case. The second premise is false. The statement that no one acts freely and the claim that free will does not exist cannot be supported. Even if everything does have a cause there can still be free will, like the compatibilist's believe. This argument is valid but possibly not sound.

What is the problem of interaction? Which theory (describe) is most vulnerable to this problem? Why?

The problem of interaction is the question of how does the physical become mental and how does the mental become physical? Since there is no way to know how the physical and non-physical interacts, this presents a big problem for the substance dualism theory. Since the substance dualism theory claims that there is a physical body and non-physical mind, the problem of interaction presents a big question to this theory.

What is the problem of other minds? Which theory (describe) is most vulnerable to this problem? Why?

The problem of other minds is that if minds truly are completely non-physical than we can never know for sure who actually has a mind. Since they are invisible to all perception, then we will never be able to tell if the people around us truly have a mind. This makes the theory of substance dualism vulnerable because substance dualism claims that a conscious being is made up of two different kinds of interacting stuff: a physical body and a non-physical mind or soul. And since there is the problem of other minds and we can never know for sure if others have minds, then we are all led to Solipsism, which is the view that the only mind we can truly know exists our my own. According to this, substance dualism could not be true.

Briefly describe Block's "Chinese Brain" thought experiment. What theory (describe) is it intended to criticize, and how does it attempt to do so?

This thought experience attempts to criticize functionalism. Functionalism is the view that mind is like a computer program. If this was the case, then we should be able to figure out how to run this program and try running it on a substance. This is the situation that Block's Chinese Brain thought experiments describes where each of the billion people in China are connected through WiFi to an artificial body in order to make a sort of human mind.. The Chinese authorities created this computer like program that is like a brain and wanted to run it on the people of China. Our intuition says that this cannot ever happen and therefore we cannot agree that our mind is a computer program.

Why does Sartre say we are "condemned to be free"? How does that relate to his concept of radical freedom? Explain.

We are condemned to be free, because we have radical freedom. Radical freedom means that everything that we do is ultimately our fault. No one can make us do anything. We are totally responsible for everything that we do. There is no preset purpose or objective or values, we set them for ourselves.

What is the "infinite regress" argument against Libertarianism? Does that argument convince? Why or why not?

You are free when you rationally choose between alternatives. The infinite regress argument emphasizes that your rational choices are actually not your choices because when you think about it, where did that choice stem from? So, taking the example that we used in class about either buying Diet Coke or coke. You go through rational reasons in your mind for doing one thing over the other. Where do these reasons come from though? And if you answer that question, you could ask well where did that thought come from, and so on and so on... this is referred to as the "infinite regress". I think this argument is convincing and it promotes thoughts regarding where do our rational choices come from? If you think more and more about it, you can see that maybe our rational choices aren't so free after all, like the libertarians believe.