Topics for final exam (Chapter 3 & 5) Summer B MWF, 10:25am

Topics for final exam here.

Link to the book Doing Philosophy here.

Chapter 2 (review for test this friday) MWF Summer B

Chapter 2 (Philosophy of Mind)
2.1 Cartesian Dualism: Ms <---> Nonphysical substance that interacts with the body. Body and mind and different substances. Conclusion: Descartes deductive arguments are valid but unsound. Empirically speaking there is no immaterial substance. Thus, Cartesian theory as it stands is not viable.

2.2
Logical Behaviorism , behavioral dispositions: MS <---> BhS, where BhS are behavioral  dispositions. C/E "Perfect pretender", "Super Spartans." Qualitative content (qualia = the unique, private feeling of our mental states). Conclusion: Logical Behaviorism is a materialist theory because it doesn't postulate the existence of non-material entities. It's a reductive theory because it holds that mental states can be translated into behavioral dispositions. But it doesn't account for the quality of mental states and the translation between behavior and mental states that it envisions cannot be performed. 

Identity Theory: MS <---> BrS, where BrS is the passing of electro/chemical signals from cell to cell. C/E "Nagel's Bat" and "Lewis Pained Martian." (You must be able to grasp and understand these counterexamples and derive conclusions). Conclusion: Identity theory is superior to behaviorism because it can explain mental causation. But there is reason to doubt that mental states and identical to brain states because brain states are knowable by empirical investigation while mental states are not. Moreover, having a brain doesn't seem to be a necessary condition for having a mind (since an alien or a computer could have a mind). 
 

Conscious experience: Nagel's bat experiment shows that mental states have this characteristic that can be felt from the "inside" from a first person POV. But physical properties can all be known from the "outside" --from a third person POV. Since complete knowledge of physical properties cannot yield knowledge of mental properties, the mind cannot be identified with the brain.

2.3 Functionalism: MS <---> FS. According to functionalism, to have a mind is to have the ability to perform certain functions. C/E "Lewis Pained Madman and Putnam's inverted spectrum (imagine a color-blind driver driving like we do, only he inverts green with red). "Turing Test for Intelligence: C/E Searle's Chinese Room. Intentionality (the ability of mental states to be "of" or "about" anything).
 

2.4  Eliminative Materialism: Rorty's demons. Eliminative materialism provides an explanation for the failure of reductive theories of mind: mental states cannot be reduced to physical states because there's nothing to reduce --mental states don't exist.

2.5 Property Dualism:

... is the view that non-physical, mental properties (such as beliefs, desires and emotions) inhere in some physical substances (namely brains).

Primitive Property (intentionality as a primitive property).
Emergent Property and Downward Causation.

MLA citation (paper guidelines)

Electronic Article Citation:

Author Last Name, First Name. "Title of the Article." Journal Name, Volume. Issue (Year of Publication):
Page Numbers. Database Name. Web. Day Month Year of Access.

Example:

Phillips, Scott. "Criminology: Legal Disparities In The Capital Of Capital Punishment." Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 99.3 (2009): 717-755. Academic Search Premier. Web. 19, Mar. 2010.  

Print Book Citation:

Author Last name, First name. Book Title. Publisher Location: Name of Publisher, Year Published. Print.

Example:

McGilly, Kate. Classroom Lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory and Classroom Practice. Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, 1994. 

Web pages:

This can be a bit tricky, so pay attention: Scroll to the bottom of the webpage – this is a common location to cite when the webpage was last updated. Look for a link that says "About Us" or "Site Map" – This is a great place to find out more about who authored the website. Remember that a corporation or an organization can also be an author. If an individual author is not provided, list the corporation or organization as your author in the reference. When you cannot find all the information that you may need, include as much as possible and follow MLA guidelines for the general entry format as closely as possible. The ultimate point is to help your readers to locate the source.

The general format for a web page reference entry:

Author Last name, First name. Title of Web Page. Publication Year. Web. Day Month. Year. 

the neanderthal in all of us

click here to find out.

phi 2010 syllabus (in progress)

alfredo triff, ph.d.

room 3604-28 (Building #3, 6th floor)
tel. 305.237.7554
email: atriff@mdc.edu (math buff,  student-shrink, parodist, cook, music lover, design lecturer, cigar smoker, cat lover, part-time hedonist)
office hours: posted

text: Doing Philosophy: An Introduction through Thought Experiments, by Theodore Schick and Lewis Vaughn (Fifth Edition).

goals
* become familiar with contemporary trends in philosophy. *learning how to problematize issues. basically philosophy seeks truth and honesty. the issues are pursued regardless of PC assumptions. *stimulate the philosophical spirit (curiosity & perseverance), *ethics of dialogue, which is the art of conveying your point & finally, * philosophy for life, which is Sophia's advice to the neophyte.

evaluation

1. grades "A," "B" and "C" stand for outstanding, good and average respectively. "D" is below average. "F" means not enough work to justify credit for the course.

2. we have 4 exams and a paper. all exams are worth the same. the final paper is about 15 pts of the final grade, punctuality and participation the remaining points.

the breakdown is a qualitative approximation (my grades are generally curved).

3. attendance is mandatory. 3 non-excused absences are permitted. each absence thereafter will lower the participation grade by a 1/3 of a grade. missing exams must be justified by a doctor’s note or the equivalent. under no circumstances a student will take two exams in my office!

4. homeworks are important but they are your duty. the routine is that we start each class with a HW-review. 

schedule of classes

Chapter 1: Philosophical Problems
1.1: Explaining The Possibility Of The Impossible: Philosophical Problems. Stakes In Philosophical Enquiry: An Account Of Problems, Such As Mind-Body, Free Will, Personal Identity, Moral Relativism, And The Concept Of Evil. 1.2: Evidence And Inference.
1.3: Thought Experiments

Chapter 7: Epistemology
7.1 Skepticism As A Key To Certainty: Descartes
7.2 Perception Of The External World.
7.3 How Much Do We Know? What Knowledge Is: Defeasibility Theory; Causal Theory; Reliability Theory; Explanationist Theory

Exam #1

Chapter 2: The Mind/Body Problem
2.1 The Ghost In The Machine: Mind As Soul: Descartes’ Doubt; Je Pense Donc Je Suis; Conceivability Argument; Divisibility Argument; Causal Impotence Of The Mental; Causal Closure Of The Physical; Other Minds
2.2 You Are What You Eat: Mind As Body: Empiricism; Positivism; Logical Behaviorism; Identity Theory
2.3 I, Robot: Mind As Software: AI; Functionalism And Feeling; The Turing Test; Intentionality
2.4 There Are No Ghosts: Mind And Myth: Psychology; Subjective Knowledge
2.5 Mind As Quality: Primitive Intentionality; Mental Dependence; Downward Causation

Chapter 3: Free Will Or Determinism?
3.1 Freedom As Chance: Hard Determinism; Indeterminism
3.2 Freedom As Necessity: Traditional Compatibilism; Hierarchical Compatibilism;
3.3 Freedom As Self-Determination: Agent Causation

Midterm Exam (cumulative)

Chapter 4: Personal Identity And Selfhood
4.1 Self And Substance: Animalism; The Soul Theory
4.2 Golden Memories: Self As Psyche: Memory Theory; Inconsistency Objection; Circularity Objection; Reduplication Problem
4.3 Self As Process: The Brain Theory; Split Brains; Identity And Survival; Identity And Responsibility; Explaining Selfhood

Exam #3

Chapter 5: Ethics and Political Philosophy
5.1 Might Makes Right: Subjective Absolutism And Relativism; Cultural Relativism; Divine Command Theory; Are There Universal Moral Principles?
5.2 Good Makes Right: Ethical Egoism; Act Utilitarianism: Problems With Rights, Duties And Justice; Rule Utilitarianism
5.3 Duty Makes Right: Kant’s Categorical Imperative: First And Second Formulations; Ross’ Prima Facie Duties;
5.4 Virtue Makes Right: The Virtuous Utilitarian, Kantian; Purpose Of Morality; Aristotle On Virtue, Mcintyre On Virtue; Virtue Ethics

Final Exam

i reserve the right to make changes in the order or chapters, provided i let you know in advance.

____________________
missing tests: if a student has valid reasons for missing an exam, i will grant a makeup (with proper justification). once justification is provided, the student may take the exam in my office. however, there is only one such opportunity. a student will not be allowed to take two exams in my office (or else they forfeit the result of the second test taken for a "C"). 

Welcome to PHI 2010 (for MWF summer B class)

syllabus syllabus syllabus syllabus syllabus  syllabus syllabus syllabus syllabus

your syllabus is here.

it was a pleasure to have you in my class!

professor Linde gets the news

news of inflation corroboration given to professor Linde...

one of the comments to the video reads:

Basically what you're telling me is that everything in our existence has come from nothing. NOTHING? How in the world can nothing produce something? I just don't get it. It's like saying 0+0=1 when obviously that's mathematically incorrect. Can any scientist even create a mind as extraordinary as ours? Even If the whole world were to come together we wouldn't be able to create a single fly. Everything has its origins, a creator of its own.

see the premises in red and yellow. blue is the conclusion. in each premise this person simply assumed what he needed to prove, i.e., creation.

his rambling is as redundant as a rolling ball.

inflation, inflation, inflation

welcome to the inflationary epoch.

how could one establish what happens in the universe between 10^-36 and 10^-33 seconds after the Big Bang? the hypothesis is that the universe increased its volume approximately by a factor of 10⁷⁸.

if you have questions ask Alan Guth!

list of PHI 2010 student assistants

PHI 2010 Honors MWF 10 am

Andres Rodriguez
Johanne Lazare
Julie Castro
Yaite Batista

PHI 2010 Honors MWF 11am

Metzli Contreras
Jose Giron
Julianne Necuze
Cynthia Lopez

PHI 2010 TR 8:25am

Roy Campbell
Mirka Duran
Pia Molina

PHI 2010 T 5:40pm

Alejandra Jimenez Villegas
Ayana Bascom
Carmela Miranda

anthony prats and julia wirmola's study guide for the midterm exam

Ch. 1 and 7 (30%) --- Ch. 2 and 3 (70%)

VERY IMPORTANT NOTE: Go to textbook website and practice each section of all 4 chapters. Do all of the MULTIPLE CHOICE and all TRUE or FALSE. Also use the FLASHCARDS. (That will help you to get familiar with the verbatim and language used on the test).

Here is the link.

Chapter 1

4 main branches of philosophy

1. Metaphysics → The study of ULTIMATE REALITY
2. Epistemology → The study of KNOWLEDGE
3. Axiology → The study of VALUE
4. Logic → The study of CORRECT REASONING

How do philosophical problems arise? They arise when some of our most fundamental beliefs seem to conflict with one another.

How can these problems be solved? By eliminating the conflict.

What do philosophical theories try to explain?
They try to explain how it is logically possible for a concept to apply.

● They are tested by thought experiments (not by physical experiments in a laboratory).

Logically impossible → Everything is logically possible, unless it violates the law of
logic.

What do scientific theories try to explain?
How it is causally possible for an event to occur.

● They can be tested in a laboratory.

Causally impossible → Something is causally impossible if it violates the law of nature.

CAN SOMETHING BE LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE BUT CAUSALLY POSSIBLE?
Answer: NO.

NECESSARY CONDITION → A condition that must be met in order for something to exist or occur. (A requirement).
X→ Y
Y cannot exist without X, but X does not guarantee Y.

EX: HIV → AIDS: (AIDS cannot exist without HIV. However, not everyone with
HIV has AIDS).

SUFFICIENT CONDITION → A condition that meets all the requirements. (Gives you everything you need).
If there is X there is Y.

EX: AIDS → HIV: (If you have AIDS, then you must have HIV. AIDS
is therefore sufficient for HIV).

CRITERIA OF ADEQUACY
Features that distinguish a good theory form a bad theory.  In lack of facts, your truth will be anything that accommodates the Criteria of Adequacy. If you have a good CA, you can be quite objective in journalism.

● Simplicity → Quality of relying on only a small number of assumptions
(less is more).
● Scope → The amount of diverse phenomena
(more is more).
● Consistency/Coherence → Lack of contradictions.
(especially internal contradictions)
● Fruitfulness → The number of new facts predicted or problems solved
(ability to make predictions).
● Conservatism → Quality of fitting well with existing theories
(previous conclusions).

_____________________________________________

ARGUMENTS
An argument is a set of premises (statements) and a conclusion.

Deductive argument → It is a “truth preserving” argument, because the truth of its premises guarantees the truth of its conclusion.

VALID deductive: The conclusion ALWAYS follows the premises, even if the premises
are false. It is logically impossible for the conclusion to be false if the
premises are true.
EX: Premises → If Bogota is north of New Orleans (false), and New Orleans is north
of Mexico City (true), then Bogota is not north of New Orleans (true).
Conclusion → Therefore, Bogota is not north of Mexico City.

This is VALID but not sound (because the premises aren’t true).

SOUND deductive: The premises are ALWAYS true and so are the conclusions.

EX: Premises → Socrates is a man (true). Men are mortal (true).
Conclusion → Therefore, Socrates is mortal (conclusion is true, follows premises).

Inductive argument → Can only establish a conclusion with high/low probability. The truth of their premises does not guarantee the truth of their conclusion.

STRONG inductive: Establishes conclusion with high probability IF the premises are
true.
EX: Premises → Two independent witnesses claimed John committed the murder.
John's fingerprints are the only ones on the murder weapon.
Conclusion → So, John MOST LIKELY committed the murder.

COGENT inductive: Contains only true premises.

EX: Premises → It has rained for the past 364 days. There is 70% chance of rain
tomorrow → will it rain?
Conclusion → It is LIKELY that it will rain tomorrow.

SOUND DEDUCTIVE = COGENT INDUCTIVE

_________________________________________________________

FALLACIES - mistaken beliefs - usually based on unsound arguments

BEGGING THE QUESTION: A restatement of the premises (does not have a conclusion).
EX: A mother says to her child: “Because I said so..”

FALSE DILEMMA: 2 radical statements (ultimatums)
EX: “You are either with me or against me”

APPEAL TO IGNORANCE: If you can’t disprove it, it is supposedly true.

APPEAL TO THE MASSES: This fallacy relies on the power of popular opinion.

APPEAL TO AUTHORITY: A person claimed to be an authority makes a claim on a certain subject. Because the person is an “expert” his/her claim is believed to be true.

APPEAL TO THE PERSON: Responds to arguments by attacking a person’s character rather than the contents of their argument.

APPEAL TO TRADITION: Thesis deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with past/present tradition.

APPEAL TO FEAR: Attempt to create support by increasing fear and prejudice towards a competitor (for example, by using deception and propaganda).

HASTY GENERALIZATION: Making a fast conclusion without considering all of the variables.

Chapter 7

Beliefs, Truth & Knowledge

Belief → A psychological state in which an individual holds a premise/proposition to be true. The difference between a belief (something I accept) and knowledge is that not everything I believe is true.

*Belief is not a sufficient condition for knowledge.
*Belief is simply a mental state of acceptance.

Knowledge by acquaintance: Knowledge of what it is to have certain experience.
Performative knowledge: Knowledge of how to perform a certain activity.


● JUSTIFICATION is an internal/mental process.
● KNOWLEDGE is external

Belief and truth are completely independent of each other. We all have false beliefs because we are all infallible.

*You doubt in order to know, once you LEARN, you leave the doubts aside.

THEORIES OF TRUTH:

Correspondence → Truth is a fact, and a fact cannot be false
(EX: snow is white).

Pragmatic theory → Truth is what best does the job at hand
(EX: Dom Perignon is a good champagne)

Coherence theory → Truth is what best coheres with the rest of my knowledge or our
belief system.

___________________________

Standard account of knowledge → A justified true belief. (JTB)

[ Thought experiment: Gettier’s guy in Barcelona ]
● Smith supposes that jones owns a Ford because he has strong evidence of it
● Smith has another friend (Brown) whose whereabouts he is totally ignorant of.
● Smith chooses to believe that Jones owns a Ford and that Brown is in Barcelona because he is justified to believe that this is true.
● He happens to be correct → However, he doesn’t have knowledge because his belief of not related to what makes it true.

Jones owns a Ford Brown is in Barcelona
(JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF=evidence) (TRUE BELIEF=no evidence)

JTB is necessary but not a sufficient condition for knowledge
_________________________

Defeasibility theory → Undefeated justified true belief (UJTB)

[ Thought experiment: Demented Mrs. Grabit ]
● A Person saw Tom Grabit steal book from the library (UJTB, knowledge)
● Tom’s mom said it was Tom’s identical twin that stole the book. ( → creates DOUBT → the defeater destroys the person’s knowledge).
● Mrs. Grabit is a compulsive liar (defeats the defeater)

Although the 2nd defeater shows that the person was correct, BUT he does not have knowledge.
*** BECAUSE → The very second that the person doubts UJTB, his knowledge is destroyed. (epistemic process is destroyed). That is why the thought experiment undermines the defeasibility theory.
____________________________

Causal theory → Knowledge is suitably (pretty close) caused true belief (SCTB)
It is externalist because the conversion of belief into knowledge can depend on external factors (facts or item of which you are not aware).

[ Thought experiment: Goldman’s fake barns ]
● Henry drives through a district where he sees barns in the distance.
● He does not know they are fake, so he assumes they are real because he does not walk up close enough to investigate.

Henry has SCTB but he does not have knowledge. (SCTB is not sufficient for knowledge)
→ His distance from the source creates his true belief.
→ If he had investigated the barns he would’ve created reliably produced true belief.
______________________________

Reliability theory → Reliably produced true belief (RPTB) It is also external.

[ Thought experiment: Mr Truetemp ]
● Mr. Truetemp has a device implanted in his brain that allows him to make accurate statements about his body temperature.
● He does not know that the device is there.
● He is always correct

Mr. Truetemp has RPTB but he does NOT have knowledge because he does not have JUSTIFICATION to why is body temperature is what it is. He happens to be correct but he does not know why he is correct.

_________________________________________

EXTERNAL THEORIES (causal theory + reliability theory) Do not have justification

(TB)
Object ------(true belief)-----> Antennas (you pick up TB without knowing how)
External object creates true belief though senses/instincts but you do not know what
caused your TB.

RPTB is an improvement over SCTB because the reliability theory establishes belief in
a more reliable way than the causal theory. The causal theory does not require us to
have reliable evidence for our beliefs.

INTERNAL THEORIES (standard account + defeasibility theory) They have justification

* None of these 4 theories are sufficient for knowledge. But if you combine their internal and external factors you have an improved theory (Sousa’s theory).

__________________________________________________________________________

Sousa’s Theory → VIRTUE PERSPECTIVISM → knowledge = Apt belief

According to Sousa: knowledge requires aptness.

APTNESS = ACCURACY + ADROITNESS
(goal seeking) (skill)
Sousa combines both approaches: Animal knowledge (accuracy) and reflective knowledge (skill). Animal knowledge is externalist. The animal is not aware of its knowledge. Reflective knowledge is internal: a second-order knowledge that is acquired by reflecting on the processes of animal knowledge.


ANALYZE THE THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS ACCORDING TO SOUSA’S THEORY:

1. JTB → Smith is accurate, not adroit → So…. he has animal knowledge

2. UJTB → The person who saw Tom was initially both accurate and adroit. BUT his doubt destroyed his knowledge.

Initially he was: accurate + adroit = knowledge

Then, Mrs, Grabit defeated his justification. So the adroitness disappeared.
Therefore, he ended up only having animal knowledge.

3. SCTB → Henry was not accurate, and not adroit. (no animal or reflective knowledge).

4. RPTB → Mr. Truetemp was accurate, but not adroit. (only animal knowledge).

According to Sousa, NONE of these experiments exemplify knowledge, because they only have ONE part of the equation.

Chapter 2

Philosophy of Mind

What is epiphenomenalism? It is the doctrine that the mind is an ineffective byproduct of physical processes.
(The brain affects the mind, but the mind doesn't affect the brain)

What is the 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.

What is the verifiability theory of meaning?
The doctrine that the meaning of a statement is its method of verification.

According to empiricism, what is the source of knowledge?
Empiricism claims that the only source of knowledge about the external world is sense experience.

CARTESIAN DUALISM (Rene Descartes) → When an immaterial substance (the mind) interacts with the body.
→ Rene Descartes tries to distinguish between the mind (soul) and the brain (body). He was the first one to say that the mind interacts with the body.

Conceivability theory: States that anything you can conceive is possible. And that
the mind can survive without the body. **(THIS IS NOT TRUE)

Divisibility theory: States that the mind undivided and indivisible, but the body is divisible (you can cut it into pieces).

Conclusion: Descartes’ deductive arguments are valid but unsound. Empirically speaking there is no immaterial substance. Thus, Cartesian theory as it stands is not viable.

Dualists make a category mistake in assuming that minds exist in the same way that bodies do. Minds, like universities (in Ryle’s thought experiment), are simply complex patterns of behavior.
LOGICAL BEHAVIORISM → States that being in a mental state means having the right behavioral dispositions and patterns, regardless of what you are feeling. Logical behaviorism maintains that feelings are irrelevant to mental states.
→ States that mental states can be translated into behavioral dispositions.

HOWEVER...
** A behavioral state is not sufficient OR necessary for being in a mental state.
** Mental states cannot be reduced to brain states.

We have: Qualitative content “the FEEL” (qualia = the unique, private feeling of our mental states).

→ Behavioral dispositions can be conditioned without affecting “the FEEL”. (Behaviors are simply habits/neural paths, NOT equivalent to the mind). This is shown by the following thought experiments:

[ Thought experiment: Perfect Pretender ]
● A person was born without the ability to feel pain
● He has learned to exhibit the appropriate pain behavior in appropriate situations.
● If someone kicks him, he pretends that it hurts him (he acts/behaves like someone who is in pain).

According to this counterexample: Having the right behavioral dispositions does NOT
GUARANTEE (not sufficient) that someone is in a certain mental state.

[ Thought experiment: Putnam’s Super-Spartans ]
● There is a community in which the adults have the ability to successfully suppress all involuntary pain behavior.
● The are able to feel pain and they dislike it just like we do.

This thought experiment undermines logical behaviorism because the theory would have us believe that the Spartans are never in pain because they never ACT as if they are in pain. This is obviously not true.

IDENTITY THEORY → The identity theory proposes that mental states are brain states. It is simpler 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.
→ States that our behavior comes from the brain, NOT the mind. (mind=brain activity)

MS (mental state) ------> BS (brain state)
epiphenomenal

Epiphenomenalism: Believer of the identity theory agree that the mind is an ineffective byproduct of brain states.
→ The mind is to the brain as smoke is to fire.

HOWEVER…
The theory can be undermined because knowing a person’s physical brain components, does NOT mean you know what the person is thinking/feeling.

** Mental states cannot be reduced to synaptic activity.
This is shown by the following thought experiments:

[ Thought experiment: Nagel’s bat ]
● This thought experiment explains 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.
● Facts about what it is like for the experiencing organism are only accessible from one 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 its like to be a bat.

If mental states are identical to brain states, then it is possible to know everything
about the mind by knowing everything there is to know about the brain. THIS IS NOT TRUE. Because mental states have this characteristic that can be felt from the "inside" from a first person point of view, while physical properties can all be known from the "outside" from a third person point of view.


[ Thought experiment: Lewis’s Pained Martian ]
● The Martian has no neurons or brain.
● But he can feel pain, love, sorrow, and homesickness.

This thought experiment shows that having a brain is NOT NECESSARY for having a
mind.

FUNCTIONALISM → Mental states are functional states. When two things perform the
same function, they are said to have the same “causal role.” So 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.

[ Thought experiment: Lewis’s pained madman ]
● Lewis’s madman is in pain, but his pain has a very different function than ours.
● When in pain, his mind turns into mathematics and makes him cross his legs and snap his fingers.

This undermines functionalism because if the theory were true, it would be impossible
for someone to be in pain and function differently than we do when we are in pain. Being in a certain functional state is NOT a necessary condition for being in a mental state.

Mental states cannot be reduced to functional states.

[ Thought experiment: Putnam’s inverted spectrum ]
● Two people with inverted spectra are in the same functional state.
● If you asked them, “What color are stop signs?” they would both say, “Red.” Similarly, if you asked them, “Are ripe tomatoes the same color as stop signs?” they would both say, “Yes.”
● BUT their visual experiences (qualitative content - the feel) are vastly different -- one experiences redness when looking at red objects, whereas the other experiences blueness.

If functionalism were true, it would be impossible for people with the same functional
organization to be in different mental states. This counterexample undermines that theory.
** Having a specific functional organization is NOT a sufficient condition for being in a certain mental state.

_________________________________________

TURING TEST FOR INTELLIGENCE: (The 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 intelligent.

[ Thought experiment: Searle’s Chinese room ]
● Searle puts himself in the place of the computer, inside a room.
● People outside the room (who understand Chinese) hand in small bunches of symbols.
● In response, Searle manipulates the symbols according to the rulebook and hands back more small bunches of symbols.
● To those outside the room, it appears that he understands what the symbols mean, for the string of symbols he produces in response to the string of symbols he receives is the one like a native Chinese speaker would produce.
● But he doesn’t understand Chinese.

Conclusion: passing the Turing test is not a sure sign of intelligence, because the man in the room doesn’t understand Chinese. So computers can’t UNDERSTAND a language solely in virtue of running a program.

PROPERTY DUALISM → Property dualism states that mental properties are something over and above physical properties. Mental states have BOTH physical and nonphysical properties (Non-reductive, and has both an upward and downward causation).

States that brain activity (since it is CAUSAL) has the upper hand advantage.

Property dualism has also been called: “emergent materialism”
“nonreductive materialism”
“soft materialism”

Intentionality → “Bedeutung” It is the “ABOUTNESS” of a thought.

(Remember: this is NOT referring to the regular meaning of intent, which means: doing something “on purpose”).

It is CRUCIAL → If life did not have intentionality, life would be completely mechanical.

PRIMITIVE PROPERTY → Because the qualitative content (the FEEL) and the intentional content (the OBJECT) of a mental state are not reducible to physical or functional properties, they are “primitive” properties. A primitive property cannot be explained in terms of anything more fundamental.

Intentionality is a primitive property because a thought directly intends the object. We don’t think about objects by means of anything else. We simply thing ABOUT them

EMERGENT PROPERTY → A property which is elicited when things that lack that property interact in certain ways. The WHOLE is bigger than all 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 (wind-rain-destruction) ← ALL of these variables MUST happen in order for the emergent property to arise.

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.

EX: Triff (neurons) loves (craves) chocolate

→ Neurons takes Triff to the chocolate factory.
→ Sometimes he has the willpower to go there and not buy anything. THIS IS
DOWNWARD CAUSATION: the fact that you leave in spite of yourself, and you
don’t feel proud of yourself.
→ these neurons (variables) are causing the EMERGENT PROPERTY to happen,
NOT the other way around.

** A lot of decisions come about with the synergy between mind and brain.

Chapter 3

CAUSAL DETERMINISM → It is the doctrine that every event is the consequence of past events plus the laws of nature.

Hard determinism → the doctrine that there are no free actions (based on causal
determinism). According to hard determinism there is only ONE possible future. The
universe MUST unfold in the way dictated by the laws of nature.

According to Spinoza we are all like the “conscious stone,” falsely believing that we
have free will because we are unaware of the causes of our behavior.

** BUT if hard determinism is true, then there is NO HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY for any actions.

Does science show that causal determinism is true?
Yes, because science has shown that everything behaves according to unchanging laws of nature. Events that were once mysterious have been revealed to have identifiable causes. Physical relationships have been described with mathematical precision.

Does reflective common sense show that causal determinism is true?
Yes, reflective common sense does show that causal determinism is true. A belief based on reflective common sense is one that we still believe even after we reflect on it and assess it carefully. A part of this assessment is trying to think of COUNTEREXAMPLES that would show the belief to be false. If we carefully evaluate the belief and find no counterexamples to it, we are JUSTIFIED in believing it.

HOWEVER…
Quantum mechanics gives us an unprecedented understanding of the physical
world and yet it does not assume that every event has a cause. So causal
determinism is not vindicated (proven) by EITHER science or reflective common sense.

INDETERMINISM → It is the doctrine that free actions are uncaused (because of quantum mechanics).

BUT, if that was the case, there is no freedom either (if a brain event is caused by a
probabilistic event, and not one’s self causing it).

COMPATIBILISM (SOFT DETERMINISM) → It is the doctrine that determined actions can nevertheless be free.

(Traditional theory) Free actions are (1) caused by one’s will and (2) not externally
constrained.

All actions have causes, but your actions are free if they are caused by your mental
states.
→ Those acts that are directly caused by the internal psychological states of the agent are free.
→ Those that are directly caused by something external to the agent, like a gun pointed at his head, are not free.

**We can be held responsible ONLY for the acts we perform freely.

SO.. this brings us to the PRINCIPLE OF ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES

● One can be held responsible for doing something only if one could have done otherwise.
● If you chose (1), you could have chosen (0).
● This means that you are RESPONSIBLE for your action.

[ Thought experiment: Taylor’s ingenious physiologist ]
● Taylor imagines that his body is moving in various ways. The motions are not externally constrained; they are in accordance to his desires.
● However, his desires are caused by an ingenious physiologist, who can induce all Taylor’s volitions (desires) through the push of a button.
● So in this situation, the conditions of traditional compatibilism are met: his actions are caused by his will and they are not externally constrained.
● HOWEVER, his actions are not free because his desires are not his own. They come from the ingenious physiologist.

Conclusion: Conditions specified by traditional compatibilism are NOT SUFFICIENT for acting freely. If your will is not under your control, then your actions aren’t free.

HIERARCHICAL COMPATIBILISM → Free actions are caused by second-order volitions.

1st order desire --------> 2nd order desire ----------> 2nd order volition-----> FREE ACTION
- Goals & aspirations - Internal desires (rational) - You WANT to act
- Impulses (external) - desires about desires upon 2nd Desire.

**You are always AWARE of your 1st order desires. YOU MAKE THE DECISION.

HIERARCHICAL COMPATIBILISM MATRIX
** Frankfurt states that compatibilism is an EMERGENT PROPERTY under hierarchical compatibility.

Frankfurts 3 addicts:
WA = Wanton addict
HA = Happy addict
UA = Unwilling Addict

1st order desire 2nd order desire 2nd order volition Free action
WA ✓ ----- ----- -----
HA ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
UA ✓ ← (says no to 1st) ✓ -----
UA wants to act on 2nd order desire, but
he is incapable, so → NO free action.

COUNTEREXAMPLE to hierarchical compatibilism:

[ Thought experiment: Slote’s hypnotized patient ]
● Robert has two conflicting first-order desires X and Y.
● A hypnotist puts him in a trance and induces him in a second-order volition in favor of X.
● As a result, Robert acts to satisfy X, never suspecting that the hypnotist has induced his decisiveness.
● Although Robert acts on his second-order volition that he identifies with his action is not free, because his volition is not his.

It undermines the theory because it shows that second order volitions can be
manipulated from the INSIDE. If your actions aren’t your own you aren’t acting freely. Free actions are the products of the self. Our desires or volitions may be immediate causes of our actions, but unless we had a hand in shaping those desires, our actions are not truly our own.

[ Thought experiment: The willing bank teller ]
● A bank teller is held up at gunpoint
● you realize that you wont have to hand over the money to the robber if you manage to take away his gun. BUT your chances aren’t great.
● SO, you hand over the money to the robber

This is a counterexample because it shows that second order volitions can be manipulated beyond our control.

COMPATIBILISTS’ VIEW ON THE TOPIC OF PUNISHMENT:

Punishment: Punishment cannot be retributive (eye-for-an-eye).

The only legitimate way of punishment is rehabilitation and deterrence. Criminal actions are dictated by genes and habits (nature and nurture). Retributive punishment makes sense if it's deserved. But nothing people do is up to them.

LIBERTARIANISM → Libertarians believe that our free actions are under our control because they are caused by ourselves. According to libertarianism, free actions are actions that are caused, not by other events, but by agents or persons.

(the mind can cause the brain) These are the following arguments:

1. Argument from experiment 2. Argument from deliberation

LIBET’S NEUROPHYSIOLOGICAL CHALLENGE 

It seems to show that consciousness of a decision arises only after the decision has already been made (the 300 millisecond gap between the decision to press the button and the brain signal).

Rebuttal by libertarians: There's a difference between making a "conscious
decision" and a "meta-conscious decision" (meta-conscious awareness is second
order). For the libertarian, the subject in Libet's report is not having a "conscious" but a "meta-conscious" decision. So it's no surprise that it happens "after" the conscious decision was made.

Radical Libertarianism (Existentialism):

Jean-Paul Sartre's kind of libertarianism (known as Existentialism) holds that the self is essentially free. His analysis is ONTOLOGICAL ( the study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations).

Sartre's lemma: "l'existence précède l'essence," i.e., existence precedes essence.

*** We exist first, and are "defined" later. This happens because the self (l'être) is in a constant state of becoming (devenir).

Being FOR itself: Being IN itself:
- l'être-pour-soi - l'être-en-soi
- main property: being for itself - main property: without qualification
- meaning→ "a freedom that chooses" → (sans nuance)
(une liberté qui choisit).

BUT... What is being? → There are 3 categories:

1) Devoid of objectivity or any consciousness (world of objects)
a) Plant life, rocks (Alive...maybe, BUT they are INERT**)

2) Selves - CHOICE → when you don’t choose, you choose not to choose

3) Choice → you choose freedom, but this produces a VERTIGO. When the self is
confronted with his or her own freedom, the self finds the need to activate a defense
mechanism---------> BAD FAITH (means blaming someone/something else for something that YOU are responsible for). It is a “way out.”

EX: Let’s say you have homosexual fantasies, and that you are very angry at yourself
because of that. In BAD FAITH, you become a gay basher.

**Yet, we remain RESPONSIBLE for our actions, because even when we think we don't choose, we choose. (SELF-DENIAL)

The only possible constraint to our freedom is our FACTICITY (the stuff we don't choose, like being born and having a certain name and parents).

GOODLUCK EVERYONE!

Final Exam Summer B MWF 10:25am

Chapter 3 
3.1
Causal Determinism (every event has a cause that makes it happen + laws of nature) and Hard determinism (the doctrine that there are no free actions). Hard determinism assumes that if CD is true, then there are no free actions because as our bodies made up of matter, we must be subjects to the same laws of causation. In class we discussed an argument to problematize HD. If HD is true, then there is no human responsibility: i.e., if we are not free, we cannot be responsible for our actions (since one is responsible if and only if one can make choices). 

3.2
Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive.

Soft determinism: Determined actions can nevertheless be free. One "soft" theory is Traditional Compatibilism (Free actions are 1- caused by one's will and 2- not externally constrained). The reasoning is this:

Principle of alternative possibilities:  one can be held responsible for doing something only if one could have done otherwise. "could have done otherwise" means "if you had chosen otherwise, then you would have done otherwise." Think of our "fork-example" of a student being late for class. He chooses ( A) "having coffee with lots of traffic," instead of (B) "not having coffee and no traffic." For Traditional Compatibilism the student is responsible for being late since "if he had choosen (B) instead of (A), he would have been on time for class.  

C/E "Taylor's Ingenious Physiologist. In class we discussed how TV can "plant" desires. So in a way is a kind of ingenious physiologist.

"Hierarchical Compatibilism: First and Second Order Desires; Second Order Volitions. Remember: A first order desire is directed to an object or state of affairs, a second order desire is a desire about a desire, a second order volition is a second order desire one decisely acts upon. Harry Frankfurt's three drug addicts: 
(Let's call a first order desire: FOD, a second order desire: SOD, a second order volition: SOV) So we get the following:  
Wanton addict: FOD, not SOD, not SOV, not free.
Happy Addict: FOD, SOD, SOV, free.
Unwilling Addict: FOD, SOD (only this desire is against his taking the drug, not SOV, not free).C/E to Hierarchical Compatibilism: Slote's Hypnotized patient and The Willing Bank Teller. One proves that SOV can be manipulated from the inside. The other shows rthat SOV can be manipulated beyond our control.  

Punishment: How do compatibilists see punishment? p. 203. Punishment cannot be  retributive (eye-for-an-eye). The only legitimate way of punishment is rehabilitation and deterrence. Criminal actions are dictated by genes and habits (nature and nurture). Retributive punishment makes sense if it's deserved. But nothing people do is up to them. 

3.3
Libertarianism
Event and Agent Causation. Event---> event or Agent---> event. 

Libertarianism holds that agents can cause events. How? remember we talked about the possibility that the mind causes the brain. There are two arguments:

Argument from Experience. Argument from deliberation. 
Libet's Neurophysiological challenge: it seems to show that consciousness of a decision arises only after the decision has already been made (the 300 millisecond gap between the decision to press the button and the brain signal). Rebuttal by libertarians: There's a difference between making a "conscious decision" and a "meta-conscious decision" (meta-conscious awareness is second order). For the libertarian, the subject in Libet's report is not having a "conscious" but a "meta-conscious" decision. So it's no surprise that it happens "after" the conscious decision was made.
 
Radical Libertarianism (Existentialism): Jean-Paul Sartre's kind of libertarianism (known asExistentialism) holds that the self is essentially free. When he says: "L'existence précède l'essence" he means that we exist first, and are "defined" later. Sartre puts it as such: "il n'est rien d'autre que ce qu'il fait de sa vie." 


Section 5.1

1. Subjective Absolutism: The view that what makes an action right is that one approves of it;Objections: (a) SA makes moral evaluations a matter of personal opinion, (b)impossibility of moral disagreements (one can only agree with the absolutist and the reason is that he believes he's the ONLY ONE THAT'S RIGHT). 

 2. Subjective Relativism: What makes an action right is that it is approved by that person.Objections (same as above). You must be able to tell the difference between the (the absolutist thinks she's the only one that's right, whereas the subjective relativist believes that many people can disagree and still be right at the same time) absolutist and the subjective relativist. 

3. Emotivism: The doctrine that moral utterances are expressions of emotions. Basically, the emotivist is saying that right and wrong ARE NOT REALLY OUT THERE!
Counterargument: Blanshard’s Rabbit. What matters is not one's suffering but the victim's suffering (factual force of the victim's suffering). I've brought up the argument of throwing acid into women's faces, as a proof that these women's suffering warrant a moral judgment of condemnation.  

4. Cultural relativism: The doctrine that what makes an action right is that it's approved by that culture. Counterarguments: 1- Logical contradiction (see above), impossibility for moral disagreements and 2- The fact that cultures are not that different at a deeper level. One can point to differences between "deep" values (moral values, i.e., human behavior of fundamental consequence for human welfare) and "superficial" values (domestic habits, etiquette, fashion, etc) other cultural values to the effect that most cultures seem to share the same deep moral values.

5. Logical Structure of Moral Arguments: Moral standards + factual beliefs = Moral judgments(this is not a formula, just an approximation). What is a factual belief? A belief held by factual evidence (i.e., child abuse is wrong because of the facts we know about psychology, human rights, child development, etc,).

6. Are there universal moral principles? YES! 1- Principle of mercy (Unnecessary suffering is wrong) and 2- Principle of justice (Treat equals equally).

Section 5.2
  
1. Difference between consequentialist theories and formalist theories. Consequentialism is the theory that judges the rightness or wrongness of an action in terms of its consequences. Formalism is the theory that judges the rightness or wrongness of an action in terms of the action's form (i.e., "killing is wrong": the formalist believes that moral actions are objective).

2. Intrinsic (value for its own sake; personhood is an essential value: a-reason, b-autonomy, c-sentience, d-freedom) and instrumental values (value for the sake of something else). 

3. Ethical egoism: What makes an action right is that it promotes one's best interest in the long run = PRUDENCE. Counterarguments: (a) Egoist's motivations (if known, the egoist's intentions seem to betray reversibility principle). (b) Egoism is not a socially or politically cogent theory (i.e., you would not vote for an egoist in office). 

4. Act Utilitarianism: What makes an action right is that it maximizes happiness everyone considered (which means, "bringing happiness for the greatest majority of people").Counterarguments: (a) McCloskey’s informant (b) Brandt’s Heir, (c) Ross' unhappy promise, (d) Goodwin's Fire Rescue, (e) Ewing's Utilitarian torture. In each one of these cases one has violated principles of justice, duty and equality. 
 
5. Rule Utilitarianism: What makes an action right is that it falls under a rule that if generally followed would maximize happiness everyone considered. RU is a better theory than AU. Why?Because if applied, it can solve the problems posed by the previous counterarguments.

Section 5.3

1. Kant’s Categorical Imperative: What makes an action right is that everyone can act on it (which yields universalizability), and you'd have everyone acting on it (which yields reversibility:Golden Rule).
 
2. Perfect duty: A duty that must always be performed no matter what. And imperfect duties. Problem with Kant's first formulation: (a) Hare’s Nazi fanatic (I've commented this as Bin-Laden Syndrome).  How can we solve that?
 
3. Kant's Second Formulation: TREAT PEOPLE AS ENDS, NEVER AS MEANS TO AN END. Problems with the second formulation? Problem of exceptions to the rule. Some times we have to treat people as means to ends. Example: Broad's Typhoid Man. What to do then?


Pluralistic Formalism: What makes an action right is that it falls under the highest ranked duty in a given situation. 

4. Ross’ Prima Facie Duties. Actual duties: One that must be performed in a particular situation. Prima Facie Duty: A duty that must be performed unless it conflict with a more important duty. You must know hierarchy and each one of these duties as I explained in class: 1- Justice, seems the most prominent duty. Then all the rest follows: 2- fidelity, 3- reparation, 4- beneficence, 5- non-maleficence, 6- gratitude, 7- self-improvement. Ross doesn't say how to proceed, only that it rests on our intuition. It makes sense.

5. Pluralistic Formalism improves upon Kantian theory's problem with exceptions. 

final paper guidelines (don't panic).

don't panic guys. this can be real fun.

TOPICS:

1- animal rights or animal dignity.
2- same sex marriage.
3- women's rights
4- drug prohibition/liberalization

LENGTH: about 1,400 words.

STYLE: MLA

SUGGESTIONS:

1. pick your topic. something you feel invested in. maybe you've heard about a topic that feels interesting. go ahead! you'll learn as you go.

2. think of a title. a title helps construct the line of arguments. titles change as you write. it's OK.

3. the narrower the topic the better. look for one single argument. you save yourself time and effort.

4. after you've picked your topic, now figure out what you think about the issue. get information: wikipedia, articles, etc. wikipedia is a quick instrument for getting acquainted, not a citation source. try to write jot down an outline of your paper.

5. introduction. this is a good one:

"In this paper, i will show that_______" or "will try to prove that_________"


5. structure. make the structure of your paper clear.

a) divide your paper into sections and state what you will do in each section. b) try to give the reader guideposts along the way. you might say you're going to discuss two objections to a certain argument, and then introduce each objection as you get to it with a phrase like:

"turning to the first objection", or "the final objection against such and such..."

for conclusions, use words like: "therefore," "thus," "because," "since," etc.

6. think about the contribution each paragraph is making toward your overall argument. if a paragraph isn't contributing, it shouldn't be there. don't write superfluously, if you really love a point that doesn't contribute to the thesis make it a footnote.

7. word choice and tone. look at the word choices you've made. have you picked the best words to convey your meaning?

a) be careful about word choices. for example, in a paper concerning the morality of abortion, it would be a mistake to use the words "person" and "human being" interchangeably, at least without saying at the outset that you are going to do so. in philosophy the word "person" refers to beings with some sort of moral standing. "human being" on the other hand is considered a biological term. the claim that persons have rights is much less controversial than the claim that human beings have rights.

b) be sure you understand how philosophy uses certain terms. for example, if you are writing about plato's view on justice, you should not assume he is using the word in the same way it gets used in law and order.

9. quotations use quotations wisely. if you are discussing how to interpret a certain passage of text, you will definitely need to quote that text for the reader. quotations can be used effectively to support points in your paper. however, don't include more quotations than necessary. don't include four quotations where one would do.

10. read your paper out loud. read it to someone else. it's a great way to catch places where you are insufficiently clear and places where your writing is awkward.

here is a step-by-step template paper.
here is a MIT site for papers.
here is one sample paper.
find other good advise here.