Thursday, June 23, 2016

attention: student assistants offering two reviews for exam #2 (summer AB)!!

1- Alexander, Omar, Candida and Ronald have a review scheduled for Monday June 27, from 12-1pm, Building 2, 3rd floor by the Idea Center.

2- Ronald Pauleus will hold a second review on Tuesday from 8-9:30am, in the same place (by the Idea Center Building 2, 3rd floor). 

Kids: Try to make these reviews! It can make a big difference.

Thank you to my student assistants!

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

topics for exam #2 summer AB




find our topics for exam #2 for summer AB here.

student assistants for phi 2010 summer AB class


Candida Hernandez
Omar Gonzales
Ronald Pauleus
Alexander Loureiro

What does it take to be a SA? A person who is willing to help other students.

How does one spot a SA? She participates, does her homework on time, barely misses a class, studies for the test and gets at least a B+.

She shows this behavior consistently throughout the semester. SAs help anyone in need. The reward? x-tra points!

(I'd argue that the ideal SA does what he/she does not for the x-tra points, but for the sake of helping her student-community, in any event, x-tra points don't hurt).

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

REVIEW FOR MIDTERM EXAM (Athenais Aquaviva)


*Most of the test will consist of chapters 2 and 3*

CHAPTER 2 (Mind/Body)

Cartesian Dualism: Mental States = immaterial substance that interacts with the body (the mind = l’├óme, the body = le corps) Arguments: Conceivability and Divisibility. 

Conceivability: You can conceive the mind without the body but you cannot conceive yourself without the mind. Therefore, the mind and body are separate, and you are the mind. 

Divisibility: The mind is not divisible, but the body is.

Logical Behaviorism: Mental States = Behavior Dispositions (Which behavior your mind choose to adopt depends on your brain state).

Counters: Putnam’s Perfect pretender and Putnam’s Super-Spartans. - Perfect Pretender: A person is unable to feel pain, but behaves as if they feel pain. Mental state (does not feel pain) ≠ Behavioral state (shows pain) - Super Spartans: A person feels pain, but behaves as if they do not feel pain.

Mental state (does feel pain) ≠ Behavioral state (doesn’t show pain)

Identity Theory: Mental States = Brain States (Just physiological causes).

Counters: Nagel’s Bats, Lewis’ Pained Martian and Putnam’s Conscious Computer. 

Nagel’s Bats: We cannot have knowledge of the mental state of the bat because we do not perceive life as they do. Mental States are private and felt. Brain states are public and observable. Mental state ≠ Brain state.
Lewis' Pained Martian: Martian has no brain but it still can experience pain. Mental state (pain) ≠ Brain state (there’s no brain) - Conscious Computer: Computer has no brain, but can still be programmed to think and feel as we do. Mental state (think and feel like humans) ≠ Brain state (there’s no brain).

Functionalism: Mental States = Functional States (How the brain functions depends on distinctive mental states).

Counters: Lewis’s Pained Madman, Putnam’s Inverted Spectrum and Block’s Chinese Nation.
Lewis' Pained Madman: Man experiences pain, but functions differently from the common man. He snaps his fingers and does math Mental state (input: pain) ≠ Functional state (output: snaps fingers and math)
Putnam's Inverted Spectrum: To the average person, red appears as red. But to someone with an inverted spectrum, red appears as blue. However both people say the object is red despite seeing red differently. Mental state (input: diff. perceptions of red) ≠ Functional state (output: say color is red).

Chinese Nation: Millions of Chinese people function as a brain, however this does not form a unified mind. Mental state (no mind) ≠ Functional state (million of people interact as a brain).

Turing Test for Intelligence: If a computer could lie, it will be considered intelligent.

Counters: Seattle’s Chinese Room - A person can respond in Chinese by following certain rules without knowing the meaning of the response. The computer doesn’t have knowledge about what it does, it is just giving certain output by following fixed rules, and using given data(s). It can also learn to play chess without understanding it.

Theories about the Mind:

Property Dualism: The Mind emerges from the Brain (or, the Brain causes the Mind). And the Mind makes the Brain function properly (downward cause). 

Biological Naturalism: There are two sort of brain (or the brain has two functions) => There is the 1st order brain (sensitive, to feel), and the 2nd order brain (reflective, to think).

CHAPTER 3 

Hard Determinism: Do not believe in any form of free will. Extremists of the spectrum (Because we are atoms, and everything is atoms, and because we have no control over atoms, we have no control on ourselves, so there is no free will). We simply follow the laws of nature.

Soft Determinism: We can make choices given us free will, but those choices are predetermined. (We have option “A” and “B”).

Traditional Compatibilism: We have free will (Choices) but if we were given another choice or it was made available such as “C”, we would have taken it.

Libertarianism: We have free will over some of our actions (only the actions under our control) . But we must decide what we are doing, and our desire must be our own. Extremists of the spectrum.

Counters: Taylor’s Ingenious Physiologist, and Taylor’s Drug Addiction.

CHAPTER 1 

(Philosophical Problems and Theories) Philosophy Branches Metaphysics= What is reality? Epistemology= What is knowledge? Axiology= What is value? Logic= What is a logical argument? Sufficient conditions = If A condition happens, then B must happens. Necessary conditions = If A condition happens, then B might happens, but It’s not completely sure.
 
Examples: Having gas in a car is a necessary condition to start a car but it is not sufficient to make it start. The car also needs wheels and etc. Years of smoking is neither necessary nor sufficient to getting lung cancer.t is not necessary because not everyone that smokes gets lung cancer. It is not sufficient Oxygen is necessary for human life but it is not sufficient because we also need food to live.

Deductive Arguments: If P (premise) is true, then C (conclusion) is true. => Sound deductive argument. If P is false, then C is true. => Unsound deductive argument. Truth preserving arguments, what it is says in there has to be true. - Can be sound or unsound.

Inductive Arguments : If P is true, then C is true. => Strong inductive argument, and cogent. If P is false, then C is false. => Strong inductive argument, but uncogent. If P is true, then C is false. => Weak inductive argument. Not truth preserving arguments, what it is says in there doesn’t have to be 100% true. - Can be strong or weak - Can be cogent (If the premises are true) I.B.E = Influence to the Best Explanation.

Criteria of Adequacy: ● Consistency ● Scope ● Fruitfulness ● Simplicity ● Conservatism

Fallacies: ● Petitio principii: The snake eating itself (ouroboros), it is the metaphor of the Fallacy. The snake thinks that everything is fine to eat the tail of another snake, but he doesn’t figure out that he is eating himself. (Begging the question) Fallacies : ● Appeal to authority ● Appeal to tradition ● Appeal to fear ● Appeal to masses ● Hasty generalization ● False dilemma ● Begging the question ● Ad hominem

Conceivable ≠ Possible Logically Impossible Something is logically impossible if it violates the law of logic (nothing can have a property and lack it at the same time) .

Causally Impossible Something is causally impossible if it violates the law of nature (Physics) .

CHAPTER 7 

(Knowledge - Epistemology) Beliefs do not equal Knowledge.
The difference between a belief (something I accept) and knowledge is that not everything I believe is true. In other words, beliefs is not sufficient condition for knowledge.
Beliefs ≠ Knowledge Believe: Mental state of acceptance.
Knowledge: aptness=accuracy + adroitness
Accuracy: Goal seeking
Adroitness: exhibiting skill

Theories of Truth:

Correspondence: Truth is a fact (example: "Snow is white.")
Pragmatic Theory: Truth is what best does the job at hand. (example: "Dom Perignon is a good champagne.")
Coherence Theory of Truth: Truth is what best coheres with the rest of my knowledge.

Theories of Knowledge:

Standard Account of Knowledge: K=JTB (Knowledge = Justified True Belief) Counter: Gettier’s Guy in Barcelona.

Defeasibility Theory: K=UJTB (Knowledge = Undefeated Justified True Belief) Counter: Lehrer’s Compulsive Liar Mrs Grabit. (Lehrer has both animal and reflective knowledge but he doubted himself, so he destroyed his own knowledge.)

Causal Theory: K=SCTB (Knowledge = Suitably Caused True Belief) Counter: Goldmann’s Fake Barns. (Goldmann has animal knowledge but lacks reflective)

Reliability Theory: K=RPTB (Knowledge = Reliable Produced True Belief) Counter: Lehrer’s Human Thermometer.

Sosa's Virtue Perspectivism: K = apt belief (apt = accuracy and adroitness) This theory includes both Animal Knowledge and Reflective Knowledge.
AK= Knowledge acquired by Senses, 1st order Knowledge.
RK= Reflection over our Animal Knowledge, 2nd order Knowledge.


Philosophers/ Philosophical Movements Empiricists: Sense experience is the source of knowledge - Plato: Plato’s cave: Reality is in the forms. For example our reality is in the senses (physical world).

A posteriori knowledge: Knowledge based on sense experience

Rationalists: Reason is the source of knowledge.
Descartes : Descartes refutes (undermines) Plato by saying that our perception could trick us. 

A priori knowledge: Knowledge acquired prior/ or independently of sense experience.

Kant's synthetic a priori knowledge = Kantian synthesis: truth discovered by understanding are synthetic. They are not logical truths and a priori because they apply to all possible experiences. Example: Mathematics are synthetic a priori, because mathematics are the governing principles of the universe. We must filter anything received from the world through mathematics.

Monday, June 13, 2016

Why is 7+5=12 synthetic apriori


Why does 7+5=12 is not considered "analytic a priori" by Kant?

According to Kant, analytic statements really tell us nothing new about the world: they simply assert a structural relationship between subject and predicate, i.e., a predicate that is already "contained" in the subject as part of its meaning. They are "analytic" in the sense that the predicate can be found by analyzing the meaning of the subject. They merely clarify information that is already contained in our concepts of things. "All bodies are extended" is analytic because part of the definition of a body is that it occupies space (which is what "extended" means here). This statement clarifies what we already understand a body to be, but does not tell us anything more about them.

Synthetic statements, on the other hand, assert more of a thing than is already contained in the definition of that thing. They "synthesize" one concept with another, and tell us that they are found together in some specific thing. They are really "ampliative" in that they convey substantive information about a thing, information that is not contained in the very concept of that thing.

See that "All bodies are heavy" is synthetic because "having weight" is not part of the definition of "occupying space." While we cannot conceive of an unextended body (any more than we can conceive of a married bachelor), we can conceive of a spatial object that has no weight. Perhaps it is false that there are any weightless bodies. But the claim that there are is not contradictory. In addition,

... the negations of synthetic statements are not contradictions, while the negations of analytic statements are.

Take a look at this:

12=12 obvious
7+5= 12 (one had to add them)
24 - (2x6) = 12 (less obvious)

Actually I can have an infinte number of combinations on the right hand side of the equation that equals 12.

Same with "straight line" and "two points" and "shortest line" and "two points", neither of which can be analytically "extracted" from the other.

__________________
* "The principle of contradiction is a formal criteria of logic which determines the logical possibility...of a cognition." Namely, it is the principle that a cognition "be logically possible, that is, not contradict itself".