philosophy study guide

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

What is hard determinism? Illustrate the theory with an example.

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. Notice that the so-called external factors are factors beyond our control, but they are also inside us—our genes, any brain injury, our hormones... those are internal to our bodies, but we cannot control them. 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 factors beyond his control and that he is not morally responsible because he was abused as a child or for whatever reason. 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 not commit this type of a crime again.

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

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. 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

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 realKant'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 argument is based on the premise that God is defined as the greatest being. If He did not exist, He would not be the greatest being (a being that existed would be greater!). That means that He has to exist. Kant's argument to this point of view is that the argument relies on the fact that existence is a defining property (like being omniscient, omnipotent and good), but that existence is not a defining property. We can add all the properties that we want to a definition (if I define a schmwach as a pink elephant, then it is true that a schmwach is pink), but we cannot do the same with existence (I cannot add "existence" to my definition of schmwach to make schmwachs exist!) In the same way, if I define God as being omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, that means that God is all those things. But I cannot add existence as another property and make God exist. If we could define things into existence, that would be like doing magic :)

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 the future. 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.determinism 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 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 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

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

Libertarians believe in a pseudoscience called downward causation, which believes one's environment, physical body and mind all synergize into a greater entity. 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.

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?" 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.

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

Pascal's Wager was a pragmatic argument on the belief of God by a 17thcentury French philosopher named Blaise Pascal. His argument states that god either exists or doesn't exist and we can't figure out which, so we have to choose blindly. He states that if he exists and you believe in him you get to go to heaven for an "infinite reward," but if you believe and he doesn't exist or you don't believe and he doesn't exist you don't really lose anything. While if you don't believe and he does exist you go to hell and receive an "infinite punishment." His conclusion was that if there is even the slightest chanced of God existing that its your best bet to believe in God. One objection to Pascal's Wager is that God may know that you are believing for selfish reasons and therefor are not a true believer and may punish you for 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 heavenobjections: 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 reasonsgod favors honest doubters who use their god-given power of reasoning to believe only according to the evidencenothing people do matters, they are predestined for heaven or hellGod hates people who gamblepeople are rewarded for not believing in something like Pascal's advicegod is malicious, withholding eternal happiness from both nonbelievers and believers

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

Substance dualism claims that the mind (soul) is a separate 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,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 is that they both believe that consciousness and qualia are not reducible to anything physical. With the difference being 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 the argument from evil (aka the problem of evil)? State the premises and the conclusion.

The argument from evil is that if god exist then why is there so much evil and suffering in the world. Some evil/pain may be explainable and deemed necessary like getting shot that may hurt but will help protect you from diseases but some seems unnessary like why would God allow a innocent child to get ill and die young and in turn cause a great deal of suffering to their parents and family who may be very loving and good people. The reason why the argument of evil is so popular is because God is supposed to be all knowing, all powerful, and all good. So if he knows everything, then he would know when and where evil is going to occur. If he's all powerful then he would have the power to stop evil when or before it occurs, and if he's all good then that means he would want to stop it from happening. Therefore the conclusion of this argument is that these two ideas(the existence of evil and the OOO God) contradict each other so one cannot exist and evil already does. Thiswas found in section 2.1 on pages 63 & 64. 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.

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 Existence precedes 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"

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. A hard determinist would argue that, even though criminals are not morally responsible for their crimes, we need a criminal justice system, but the purpose would not be punishment per se or retaliation, but rehabilitation and deterrence

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

The neurologist Benjamin Libet performed a sequence of remarkable experiments in the early 1980's that were enthusiastically, if mistakenly, adopted by determinists and compatibilists to show that human free will does not exist. In that experiment, test subjects were hooked up to a brain scanner and asked to flex their wrists whenever they wanted to. They were also asked to watch a special clock and record the time at which they made each decision to flex. What Libet found is that test subjects reported that they made a decision to flex, on average, about 0.15 seconds before their muscles actually flexed (after correcting for the 0.05 second error of subjects). However, their brain showed signs of "ramping up" to flex (he calls this the "Readiness Potential", or RP), on average, about .55 seconds before their muscles flexed.

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

Theists are people who believe in the existence of God, particularly the OOOO God of theism--the God of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. An atheist is someone who denies the existence of God. Someone who is agnostic neither supports nor rejects the existence of God either because they do not believe there is enough evidence for either perspective, or because the belive we simply will never be able to prove or disprove the existence of God. It is beyond our reach to understand, it is unknowable. Theists often do not need absolute certainty that God exists, in fact many use faith to fill in the gaps of their understanding of God and human experiences. Others use reasoning, such as Pascal's Wager, that it is better to believe and have faith--even though there is not certainty--for the possible reward that faith brings. Atheists also do not have absolute certainty, however they use logic and reason to come to the conclusion that God probably does not exist. Though it is a probability statement, they do not need 100% certainty. 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.

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.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.

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

What philosophers mean by zombies is someone or something that is physically identical to you, but lacks conscious experience. The zombie will perceive everything exactly as you do but lacks the mental states that give us conscious experience. The conceivability of zombies demonstrates that it is metaphysically possible for there to be zombies, which means consciousness is non-physical so materialism must be false. 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?

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 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 The physical causal closure thesis challenges this account. It attempts to reduce all teleological final (and formal) causes to efficient causes.

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 freelythe 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

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 forthconclusion: 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

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 differenthe believes conscious states are subjective

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

contemporary compatibilism (nahmias anddennett): its not just when your brain makes you do it, its when you act after you deliberate, there is something about when you make a conscious decision, you consider all the possibilities and then choose among them. making a conscious decision for a certain reason is different than acting out of impulse. your action is free if it is the result of conscious deliberation if somebody is acting out of impulse, addiction, it is not the same as choosing what class to take an agent could, in some cases, be morally responsible for things he does, even when he could not have done otherwiseex: 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.

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.

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. The free will defense is the argument that the Problem of Evil does not disprove the existence of God. The belief in an Omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God raises questions amongst philosophers about why would an "all good and powerful" God not prevent evil. God and evil however can coexist, because by giving people freewill he cannot choose how they use this freedom. If one is forced to make a decision then it isn't truly free, there for there cannot be a free world with no evil. A determinist would be opposed to this because they believe that every event is determined by both preceding events and the laws of nature. In determinism there are no surprises because same causes result in the same effects. Even if free will exists, many philosophers argue that it does not provide a satisfactory explanation for why suffering exists. The two main objections are that: 1. "there is no reason why an omnipotent God could not have created free agents who always choose the good." 2. "even if God could nott 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."

What is functionalism? What is one objection against functionalism?

functionalism: the view that the mind is the functions that the brain performs objection: the causal exclusion problem...being able to explain someone else's pain by looking at their neural state proves that functionalism is incorrect objection: "causal exclusion problem", the worry about whether role functionalism can account for what we take to be the causal efficacy of our mental states. For example, if pain is realized in me by some neural state-type, then insofar as there are purely physical law-like generalizations linking states of that type with pain behavior, one can give a complete causal explanation of my behavior by citing the occurrence of that neural state (and the properties by virtue of which it figures in those laws). And thus, some have argued, the higher-level role properties of that state—its being a pain—are causally irrelevant.

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 Libertarianism asserts that some actions are free, for they are ultimately caused, or controlled, by the person, or agent. So libertarians believe that (1) Determinism is false, (2) Determinism and free will are incompatible, and (3) we sometimes act freely. Indeterminism is the view that not every event is determined by proceeding events and the laws of nature. Note that libertarianism holds 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. The difference between the two is libertarianism believes that a number of a persons actions can be free but are ultimately causes by an agent, while indeterminism rejects the idea that all actions are cause by previous events, they believe it is believe its too general of a statement.

Why do so some find libertarianism problematic?

it counters what we know about the physical world with event causation and agent causationevent causation: no physical event can occur without having been caused by a previous physical event, the physical world itself is deterministicagent 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 ownwhere 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

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; the same mental state could appear in different brains, you do not need to have a mammalian brain to think like ours artificial intelligence: there is the idea that we may be able to in the future have computers that have mental states like ours, if you believe this, you believe multiple brains could be like ours...still a physicalist idea it is consistent with physicalism, reductive theory it is inconsistent with functionalism 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 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 endorses reductionism, William James rejects it physicalism (materialism): the doctrine that every object and event in the world is physical, Berkeley endorses physicalism, Nagel rejects it

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

states that from the very fact that the universe exists, it is logical to assume that so does God. St. Thomas Aquinas argues that some things in the universe are caused to exist and that nothing can cause itself to exist through an infinite series of causes. Aquinas says that there must be a first uncaused cause of everything which would be God. One objection to the traditional cosmological argument is that this argument, at best, proves that there was a first mover or first cause, but that doesn't mean that the first cause/mover was God. Skeptics of the cosmological theory propose an impersonal substance or energy, or a supreme but evil demon as potential "first movers." Scientific discoveries in cosmology eventually led to the creation of the Kalam cosmological argument. tries to show that from the fact that the universe exists, God exists. Aquinas' has four cosmological arguments that were what he considered to be evidence in support of his beliefs. The argument from motion, the argument from causation, the argument from contingency, and the argument from degrees are what make up Aquinas's cosmological arguments. His argument from motion basically states that everything is in motion, and that something static must have set it all in motion. Therefore, that static being must have been God. His argument from causation explains that anything that is caused has to have been caused by something, and that first causer is God. Aquinas's argument from contingency explained that we cannot have a world where everything is contingent, because it all could have easily never existed. It was made to prove that an infinite regress would be impossible, therefore, there must be one necessary thing, which is God. In his argument from degrees, he proves that God is the pinnacle of perfection by stating that in order for there to be some degrees of perfection, there must be something perfect. One objection to Aquinas's argument is that they are self-defeating. God should not be exempt from the rules Aquinas created because other things could be exempt from them too.

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 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

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

the soul-making defense proposes that evil and suffering exist in this world to help human beings grow and develop into better beings. God purposely created imperfect beings so human beings can grow through this world. An objection against this position is that we are referring to "moral evil" and it seems unfair that an all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God would make certain individuals suffer more than others despite trying to achieve the same goal. 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.

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

traditional compatibilism: you are free if you basically do what you want to do. if you are able to do what you want to do, then you are free. (stace) you are free if you are doing what you want to do and if there is nothing outside that is preventing you from doing it...your action is free if your brain made you do it 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 do with metaphysics. objection: If determinism is true, and if at any given time, an unimpeded agent is completely determined to have the wants that she does have, and if those wants causally determine her actions, then, even though she does do what she wants to do, she cannot ever do otherwise. She satisfies the classical compatibilist conditions for free will. But free will requires the ability to do otherwise, and determinism is incompatible with this. Hence, the classical compatibilist account of free will is inadequate. Determinism is incompatible with free will and moral responsibility because determinism is incompatible with the ability to do otherwise.

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 disabilitiesa 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.