chapter 4 philosophy of mind

Epiphenomenalism: the mind is an ineffective byproduct of physical processes. (The brain affects the mind, but the mind doesn't affect the brain)

Problem of other minds: It is the philosophical problem of explaining how it is possible to know that there are other minds in the world.

CARTESIAN DUALISM (Rene Descartes) The mind is an immaterial thinking/substance that interacts with the body. Decartes brings an interesting proof: 1. "I can conceive I exist without a body", 2. "the body is divisible, the mind is not," therefore: "mind and body are different."

LOGICAL BEHAVIORISM: MS ↔ BS (Mental states are Behavioral states) and Behavioral States are Behavioral Dispositions (the ability to respond to certain stimulus) . So mental states are reducible to behavioral dispositions.

HOWEVER... A behavioral state is not sufficient OR necessary for being in a mental state. How do we know that?

Conuterexamples to Logical behaviorism: 

1. The Perfect Pretender Thought Experiment ● A person who fakes pain and doesn't feel it. ● He acts/behaves as if he was in pain. According to this counterexample: 

Having the right behavioral dispositions is not sufficient for someone to be in that mental state. 

2. Putnam's Spartan Thought Experiment  ● the spartan has the ability to suppress all involuntary pain behavior though  they feel pain. This thought experiment undermines logical behaviorism because the theory would have us believe if the Spartan doesn't ACT as if they are in pain, then they are not in pain, which is obviously not true. 

So, mental states are not reducible to behavioral states. 

IDENTITY THEORY: MS ↔ BrS (mental states are brain states) It is simpler, better than Cartesian dualism because it doesn’t assume the existence of an immaterial substance. There is no need to go beyond the physical to explain the mental. Our behavior is caused by the brain, NOT the mind. Identity Theory is better than Logical Behaviorism because (being the study of the brain) it's closer to the source of the mind. 

Many Identity theorists are epiphenomenalists, e.g., the mind is to the brain as smoke is to fire.

HOWEVER… Knowing a person’s brain does NOT imply knowing what the person is thinking/feeling.

Counterexamples to Identity Theory: 

1.  [Thomas Nagel’s Bat Experiment ] ● We know how bats use sonar as a form of perception. Nagel shows that there’s no way that we can experience or imagine this form of perception. ● WHY NOT? Because facts about what it is like for the experiencing organism are only accessible from one's point of view, which is the organism itself (1st person). ● All of the physical properties of bats can be known by non-bats, BUT, no non-bat will ever know what it's like to be a bat. If mental states were identical to brain states, then it would be possible to know everything about the mind by knowing everything there is to know about the brain. BUT THIS IS NOT THE CASE. 

So, mental states exhibit Nagel's properties: 1- private (1st-person reports), 2. subjective, 3. privileged. They are felt from the inside. Physical properties are 1- public (third person point of view), and 2- objective.

2.  Lewis pained martian (llamémoslo "el marciano adolorido"). 

Lewis ilustra que un marciano puede sentir dolor sin un cerebro. Encontramos un marciano que llega a la tierra en una nave espacial. Su cerebro es hidráulico (contiene agua) no neuronas como nosotros. La plomería del agua pasa por todo su cuerpo. Es decir, es fisiológicamente distinto a nosotros. Cuando pinchas sus C-fibers (no tiene ninguna), lo que sucede es que una parte de su cavidad craneana se inflama. Eso quiere decir que tiene dolor.  Y lo sabemos porque se retuerce, su cara se desfigura en una mueca, tal y como ocurre a los humanos. Es decir, siente dolor, pero carece de los estados neurofisiológicos correspondientes. Es decir, tener un cerebro no es una condición necesaria para tener dolor. 

FUNCTIONALISM: MS ↔ FS 

When two things perform the same function, they are said to have the same “causal role.” Functionalism claims that THE MIND IS WHAT THE BRAIN DOES.

If a robot and a human can perform the same task (same causal role), they are said to be in the same state of mind. Something else about functionalism is that mental states can cause other mental states, i.e., if you see your boyfriend cheating with another woman (input), the following mental states occur (outputs): 1- shock, 2- jealousy, 3- bitterness, (even vengeance).

Counterexamples to Functionalism:  

1. [Putnam's Inverted Spectrum Thought Experiment] ● Imagine an individual is born with an inverted color spectrum. What is red she sees green and vice-versa. ● Then she learns how to tell the difference. She grows up and gets her driver's license. If you asked her: “What color is the top light of the traffic light? She would say RED (she sees it GREEN). ● Her visual experience (the qualitative content - the feel IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE REST OF US). This proves that not every time we are in a functional state (STOPPING AT A RED LIGHT) we are in the same MENTAL STATE.  

2. Lewis' Mad Man Thought Experiment: A person feels a headache (input) but instead of going "ouch" (output, function of pain) he studies calculus. Here he's in the same mental state normal people are, but in a different functional state. This proves one can be in a mental state and not in the same functional state.

TURING TEST FOR INTELLIGENCE: Imitation game. There is a man (A) and a woman (B) and an interrogator (C) who may be of either sex. → The object of the game is for the interrogator to determine which of the two is the man and which is the woman. → It is A’s object in the game to try to cause C to make the wrong identification. The object for the game of B is to help the interrogator.
For Turing there’s nothing more to being intelligent than being able to use language as we do. WHICH MEANS… If a computer is able to do this, then it is smart.

MENTAL STATES ARE IRREDUCIBLE TO BEHAVIORAL STATES, TO BRAIN STATES, TO FUNCTIONAL STATES. MENTAL STATES ARE IRREDUCIBLE. WE CALL PROPERTY OF MENTAL STATES A PRIMITIVE PROPERTY.  This means that Mental States are autonomous processes caused by physical phenomena at an EMERGENT LEVEL.

THE ROLE OF INTENTIONALITY

intentionality is the power of minds and mental states to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs. 

intentionality means we have mental representations with contents. we talk to others about these contents we draw symbols or pictures for the purpose of conveying our mental states. these contents also have intentionality. 

"you are my best companion", "I feel so lonely", "this pizza is amazing!", "I love this song because my grandmother used to sing it", "do you smell the salt in the air?" "wow, the sky and the sea are so blue," "this is such a beautiful landscape,"   

INTENTIONALITY IS A PRIMITIVE PROPERTY, it's the “ABOUTNESS” of a thought. Without intentionality our life would be completely mechanical. A SYNONYM FOR INTENTIONALITY IS QUALIA, i.e., THE UNIQUE PRIVATE SUBJECTIVE "FEEL" OF YOUR MENTAL STATE. 

NOW COMES MY ANALISYS OF THE MIND AS SYSTEMIC PROPERTY OF THE BRAIN. 

 

this is a sketch of a systemic model for the mind (going up emergence, going down supervinience)

Emergent property → is a property which is caused by things that lack that property & interact in certain ways. IN SISTEMS THE WHOLE IS BIGGER THAN THE PARTS. The emergent property arises when all parts are put together. ● The mind is emergent upon and caused by brain activity. EX: Love at first sight. ● Life is an emergent property. ● HURRICANES (baja presión, agua caliente, lluvias, aire frío y caliente, tormenta) ← ALL of these variables MUST happen in order for the emergent property to arise.

click here for examples of emergent properties,

Downward causation → Downward causation is used to explain the effect of the environment on biological evolution. It suggests the causal relationship between the HIGHER levels of a system to LOWER levels of that system. For example: mental events causes physical events. There is a two-way interaction between consciousness and the brain: Consciousness determines the succession of nerve impulses, and nerve impulses determine the content of consciousness.

click here for a brain-systemic model for the mind,

Aquí otra opción al asunto: el pansiquismo. 

2 + 2 = 5

La suma del título (arriba) tiene un pasado notorio.

Aquí forman tremendo ruido y no arreglan nada.  

Aquí by reductio resulta interesante, pero queda coja.

Aquí el mío por reducción al absurdo (sin usar otra cosa que adición y números enteros): 

Probar que  Θ 2 + 2 = 5

1. Supongamos 2 + 2 = 4 es falso.

2. Entonces,  (1 +1 ) + (1 +1 ) = 4  Por asociatividad.

3. Se tiene,     2 + 2 = 4

Sin embargo, dado Θ,  

           2 + 2 ≠ 4 

_________________________

No hay nada que añadir. El resultado es equivalente a esta pintura de Magritte:

 

  

Homework #4 (Epistemology, 2024)

1. Explain what kind of knowledge: correspondence, pragmatic or coherence is being employed here:

Recomiendas el Restaurante X a un amigo. El te pregunta "cómo es la comida". Respondes "¡excelente! ¿Qué clase de conocimiento has empleado? a) Correspondece, b) pragmaatic,  c) coherence.

2. ¿Is justification more important than explication? 

3. ¿What are the general requirements for knowledge?

4. ¿Can you have a true belief without having knowledge? Provide an example. 

5. Briefly answer: ¿Is suspension of belief similar to doubt? ¿Is it preferable to suspend than falsely believe? ¿How can you tell? 

6. From the textbook. 6.2 on Rationalism p. 289.  

7.  Is number five an objective entity for Plato? Explain. 

8. Briefly explain Plato's Rationalism. 

9. What are Plato's FORMS?

10. Briefly comment on Descartes' doubt and Descartes' certainty.

From Textbook, exercise 6.2, page 301. Answer  #1, #2, #4, 

chapter 4 (the philosophy of mind)

watch this sort of funny video as an introduction to the problem, 

click here for my notes to chapter 4,

Thought experiment

A thought experiment: is the description of a possible situation in which the concept should apply if the theory in question is true.

Counterexample: A counterexample that runs counter or conflicts with a theory.

Correlation doesn't mean causation

Correlation: A mutual relationship or connection between two variables. 

When there is a positive correlation, an increase in one variable is associated with an increase in the other. (For instance, scientists might correlate an increase in time spent watching TV with an increase in risk of obesity.) 

Where there is an inverse correlation, an increase in one value is associated with a decrease in the other. (Scientists might correlate an increase in TV watching with a decrease in time spent exercising each week.) 

A correlation between two variables does not necessarily mean one is causing the other. Thus, is not sufficient for causation.

Different possibilities of causation

1. Direct causation: A causes B (direct causation). 

The pool stick striking the billiard ball causing it to jump. 

2. Reverse causation: B causes A (reverse causation). 

The correlation between recreational drug use and psychiatric disorders. Perhaps the drugs cause the disorders, or else, people use drugs to self medicate for preexisting conditions, which brings causes the disorder. 

Children that watch a lot of TV are the most violent. Clearly, TV makes children more violent. 

This could easily be the other way round; that is, violent children like watching more TV than less violent ones!       

3. Concomitant causes: A and B both cause C 

In the case of COVID 19, a person with a preexisting condition. John gets Covid, but he's 76 years old, and has a heart condition. 

Is COVID a direct cause of death? 

Before we answer let's keep in mind these 4 conditions: 

1. COVID must precede John's death (IT DOES), 

2. It's nearly impossible for COVID being there and John not dying (FALSE, John could survive the COVID and his existing heart failure and not die). At this point the answer is already NO, because we need the four conditions together, but revise the last two:

3. the cause must make a difference (IT DOES to some extent). 

4. there is no common cause (AND HERE THERE IS: the heart condition!). 

So, this shows clearly that COVID IS CANNOT BE THE DIRECT CAUSE OF DEATH.

4. Cyclic causation: A causes B and B causes A 

In predator-prey relationship, predator numbers affect prey numbers, but prey numbers (i.e. food supply of predators) also affect predator numbers.

5. Indirect causation: A causes C which causes B  

6. Fringe case: A and B are consequences of a common cause, but do not cause each other. 

Example (from psychology): The relationship between anxiety and shyness shows a statistical value (strength of correlation) of +.59. Therefore, it may be concluded that shyness, causally speaking, influences anxiety.

Yet, there is a catch, the so-called "self-consciousness score", with a sharper correlation (+.73) where  shyness brings up a possible "third variable" known as "self-consciousness". So now we have shyness, anxiety and self-consciousness together. When three such closely related measures are found, it suggests that each may be a cluster of correlated values each influencing one another to some extent. 

So, the first conclusion above (in gray) is false.Ishmael hits Ahab with his car. Ahab is rushed to the hospital and is sent into surgery. During the course of the operation, the surgeon is careless and causes Ahab more injuries. 

No causation: There is no connection between A and B (coincidence)

See the two curves in the chart above (consumption of margarine and the divorce rate in Maine over 10-year period). As if Americans' fondness for margarine correlated with the divorce rate in Maine. This is an instance of two unrelated data sets showing a coincidental pattern.

Confounding (in statistics): A situation where one or more unrecognized variables (conditions or events) were responsible for some effect. 

This could give the faulty impression that the effect was due to something else. Confounding often occurs when researchers did not “control” for the possibility that other variables were or could be at work. 

Example:  The estimated risk ratio for CVD (cardiovascular diseases) in obese as compared to non-obese persons is RR = 0.153/0.86 = 1.79, suggesting that obese persons are 1.79 times as likely to develop CVD compared to non-obese persons. 

However, it is well known that the risk of CVD also increases with age. Could any (or all) of the apparent association between obesity and incident CVD be attributable to age? If the obese group in our sample is older than the non-obese group, then all or part of the increased CVD risk in obese persons could possibly due to the increase in age rather than their obesity. If age is another risk factor for CVD, and if obese and non-obese persons differ in age, then our estimate of the association between obesity and CVD will be overestimated, because of the additional burden of being older. Thus, age meets the definition of a confounder (i.e., it is associated with the primary risk factor(obesity) and the outcome (CVD). In fact, in this data set, subjects who were 50+ were more likely to be obese (200/400 = 0.500) as compared to subjects younger than (100/600=0.167), as demonstrated by the table below.   

different kinds of knowledge and examples

1. knowledge by acquaintance: knowledge of what it is to have a certain experience.

example: knowledge of what it is like to be pregnant, knowledge of how it feels to have a heart attack, etc.

2. performative knowledge: knowledge of how to perform a certain activity. 

example: knowledge of how to dance tango or how to ride a bicycle.

3. propositional knowledge: knowledge of whether a proposition is true or false. 

examples:  

"Napoleon died in 1821," 

"John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963,"

" F = ma"

"A planet is an astronomical body orbiting a star,"  

4. a priori knowledge: knowledge that can be acquired independent of experience. 

examples: 

"brothers are male siblings," 

"5 is a prime number," 

"two points determine a line," 

"if two lines intersect, then they intersect in exactly one point."

5. a posteriori knowledge: knowledge based on experience. 

examples: 

"all mammals are vertebrate," 

"water boils down at 100 degrees celsius," 

"Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system",

"A mushroom is the fleshy, spore-bearing fruiting body of a fungus",

"Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter was born and raised in Houston, Texas,"

6. analytic proposition: a proposition that is a logical truth or can be turned into a logical truth by substituting synonym for synonym. 

examples: 

"all bachelors are unmarried males," 

"all triangles have three sides,"  

7. synthetic proposition: a proposition whose predicate concept is not contained in its subject concept but related. 

examples: 

"All creatures with hearts have kidneys,"

"An invertebrate is a cool-blooded animal with no backbone."