MIDTERM Chapter 1 Philosophy Lecture Notes PDF

**MIDTERM** **Chapter 1** A black and white screen with a white line Description automatically generated - **Metaphysics:** The study of the nature of reality, whether certain things exist or not, and what their nature is. - **Epistemology:** The study of the nature of knowledge, whether...

**MIDTERM** **Chapter 1** A black and white screen with a white line Description automatically generated - **Metaphysics:** The study of the nature of reality, whether certain things exist or not, and what their nature is. - **Epistemology:** The study of the nature of knowledge, whether and how humans can have knowledge ANCIENT GREEK MYTHOLOGY - Focused on gods = living is disordered world - Started a war based on a meteor - **THALES OF MILETUS** - Thales (the first philosopher and scientist) believed the universe was a cosmos (ordered-world), so he tried to understand and predict the order/patterns of nature - Began the scientific/philosophical goal of trying to understand, explain, and predict nature. - Thales cared to discover the truth of nature, and was not concerned with practical gain - Fell into well and was laughed at - **SOCRATES** - Socrates wanted to know the truth about virtue and the good life, so he asked people about life's important questions, such as piety, friendship, love, justice, virtue, etc\... - Socratic Method: Socrates asked other people questions on a topic, then pointed out the implications, problems, inconsistencies with their replies. - Made people a fool led to execution OBJECTION TO PHILOSOPHY: NO PRACTICAL VALUE - If philosophy aims at truth rather than practical gain, then there is no practical value to studying philosophy. SOPHISM - Sophism = wisdom - First were seen wise and great then despised SOPHISM ON TRUTH AND RELATIVISM - Sophists say humans cannot know objective truth. So, truth is relative to a culture or individual - Ie. Is the dress white and gold or black and blue SOPHISM AND CARE FOR TRUTH - \[Protagoras\] was the first to use in dialectic the argument of Antisthenes that attempts to prove that contradiction is impossible. \...Protagoras was the first to declare that there are two mutually opposed arguments on any subject" SOPHISM AND POLITICAL GAIN - Since humans cannot know truth, we do not use our minds to know and tell the truth. Rather, they used their minds for 'practical cunning', or finding tricky ways to get people to do what they want (POLITICS) - In today lawyers, advertisers, and politicians - OBJECTION: INSINCERE PRACTICAL BENEFITS OF PHILOSOPHY - SELF-AWARENESS - THE GOOD LIFE: investigate, form, and do - NOT FOLLOWING THE CROWD: endorse good, reject bad - ORIGINALITY: 'our own' - BULL-CRAP DETECTOR - NOT BEING STUPID: acknowledging biases REASONING SKILLS GOOD REASONING: THE ARGUMENT - Argument: a series of statements, where some statements serve as support/evidence for another statement. - Premise: a statement serving as support/evidence for a conclusion - Conclusion: a statement serving as the point being argued for as being true - Example of Premises: 'Socrates is human' + 'Humans are mortal' - Example of Conclusion: 'Therefore Socrates is mortal' GOOD REASONING: DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS - Deductive arguments: arguments where the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. A deductive argument is sound if all the premises are true, and the reasoning is valid. - Example: modus ponens (if p then q, p, therefore q). If the bears eat me I will be dead, the bear eat me, so I am dead. - Example: modus tollens (if p then q, not q, therefore not p). If the bear eats me I will be dead, I am not dead, so the bear didn't eat me. GOOD REASONING: INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS - inductive arguments: arguments where the truth of the premises rends the conclusion probable. - Example: inference to the best explanation (p happened, q is the best explanation of p, so q probably caused p to happen). The bear is angry, me stepping in between her and her cubs is the best explanation for why the bear is angry, so me stepping in between her and her cubs is probably why the bear is angry. LOGICAL FALLACIES - STRAW PERSON: the Straw Person fallacy occurs when someone presents a weak, incorrect version of an argument for the purpose of refuting that argument. Incorrectly presenting an argument makes the person look biased or unable to understand the issues. - Example: Statement: 'I want to go watch TV.' Reply: 'Why don't want to talk to me!' - APPEAL TO POPULARITY: the appeal to popularity fallacy occurs when a conclusion is based on the popularity of a belief. X is popular, therefore X is true. While the popularity of a belief doesn't make it true, hopefully true beliefs are popular. - Example: over 99 billion people have eaten McDonalds, so it must be goo - ILLICIT APPEAL TO AUTHORITY: Occurs when one improperly bases a conclusion on what an expert/authority says. Appealing to authorities to provide the evidence that supports one's conclusion is fine. But a fallacy occurs if (1) one appeals to someone who is not an authority; (2) one appeals to someone who is an authority on a different subject; (3) the authorities on the issue are split on the correct answer - QUESTION BEGGING: The question begging fallacy occurs when one assumes the truth of the conclusion that they are trying to prove true. P, therefore P. - Example: Elmo is in jail, and innocent people aren't in jail, so Elmo is guilty. - APPEAL TO EMOTION: Occurs when one uses emotion as the basis for believing a conclusion. Conclusions are based on evidence not emotion, but it is fine to show emotion when providing evidence for the conclusion - AD HOMINEM: An ad hominem fallacy occurs when one attacks the arguer instead of objecting to the argument - Example: 'Imelda thinks youths shouldn't have sex until marriage, but she's a boring old prude' - Example: 'Chanel thinks youths should sleep around, but she's just immoral and promiscuous.' - FALSE ANALOGY: Using an analogy is good if the things being compared are similar in ways relevant to the conclusion, bad when the things being compared are not similar in ways relevant to the conclusion. - Good analogy: Chocolate is sweet and sugary and can give you cavities. Gummy bears are sweet and sugary. So, gummy bears can also give you cavities. - False analogy: Chocolate is sweet and messy and doesn't last. Love is sweet and messy. So, love doesn't last either. - FALLACY OF COMPOSITION: The Fallacy of Composition occurs when one argues that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole. Sometimes what is true of the parts is true of the whole, sometimes not. - Example: one bottle of beer cannot get me drunk, so 24 bottles of beer cannot get me drunk - Example: paying \$400 per month for the car is cheap enough, so the car is cheap enough - FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION: The fallacy of equivocation occurs when the same word is used in two different senses in different premises of an argument. The words are not really saying the same thing, so the premises are not logically linked - Example: Pizza is better than nothing, and nothing is better than sex, so pizza is better than sex. - Example: Anything that makes things up cannot be trusted, atoms make things up, so atoms cannot be trusted - REDUCTIO AS ABSURDUM: Arguing that the truth of some claim would lead to an absurd result, so the original claim cannot be true. This is good reasoning if the link to the absurd result is established, it is bad reasoning if the link is not established - SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF: The burden of proof (the job to prove the claim) rests on the person making the claim. Shifting the burden of proof occurs when the person who has the job to prove the claim asserts their opponent has the job to prove the claim is false - Example: 'I believe rats have no emotions, and I don't need a reason to believe that, I can believe it until someone shows me rats do have emotions.' **CHAPTER 2: TRUTH AND RELATIVISM**  CORRESPONDENCE THEORY( RUSSELL & HAACK) - A statement is true if it corresponds with, or aligns with, reality - Jan's belief 'the sky is blue' is true if the sky really is blue. - Realism: the view that there exists a mind-independent reality (an objective truth), and the things in it are the way they are independently of us, independent of our language, perception, and independently of whether we agree with it or not - OBJECTION: COMPARISON PROBLEM - In order to compare a belief to mind-independent objective reality, we need to access mind-independent reality. But we cannot get out of our own minds (i.e., our own perception and concepts), so we cannot access mind-independent reality, so we cannot show the correspondence. - OBJECTION: MATCHING PROBLEM - Beliefs cannot correspond with or match mind-independent facts, since beliefs are mental states and facts are slices of physical reality COHERENCE THEORY (BLANDSHARD) - A belief is true if it coheres with (is consistent with) a large set of other beliefs - Solves the comparison problem as we have access to our other beliefs. - Solves the matching problem as true beliefs match up with other beliefs that make it true - PROBLEM: TWO CONSISTENT ACCOUNTS - It seems possible for a belief to be consistent with one's own background beliefs, but inconsistent with another person's background beliefs. - OBJECTION: COHERENCE WITHOUT TRUTH - It is possible to make an internally consistent fantasy novel, where all the characters act in line with their character traits, and there are no plot holes. If we can have a coherent set of beliefs that is not true, then coherence is not truth. PRAGMATIC THEORY (JAMES) - an action or belief is pragmatic if is works well, or is useful - a belief is true, or reliable, or trustworthy, if that belief has proven itself to be useful or helpful in life. - ARGUMENT FOR PRAGMATIC THEORY: We cling to beliefs because we think they are true, but they may be false, and those beliefs may harm us. So, we should focus on how our beliefs help/hurt us - Correspondence theory says beliefs are true if they correspond to reality, the pragmatic theory adds that having beliefs that align with reality help us survive and thrive in the world - Coherence theory says beliefs are true if they are consistent with a wide set of beliefs, the pragmatic theory adds that beliefs that humans should survive and thrive are part of that wider set of beliefs, so a belief that is damaging is inconsistent with beliefs about survival - OBJECTION: USEFUL FALSEHOODS: - It is sometimes useful to believe things that are clearly false. On pragmatism, the usefulness of the belief makes it true, though it is false. So, pragmatism fails to be the correct account of truth. - Example: 'Santa exists' is useful, as it makes kids be nice rather than naughty, and gives them hope, so pragmatism may say 'Santa exists' is true for kids, but it is not true. - OBJECTION: USELESS TRUTHS - Some things are true, even though they have no use (or, are harmful), so the pragmatic theory does not properly account for truth. - Example: 'Alpha Centauri is slightly older than the sun' is true but useless. - Example: 'You will not get all you want in life' is true but harmful RELATIVISM (RORTY & SOPHISM) - A belief is true relative to an individual's (subjective relativism) or culture's (cultural relativism) belief system - Anti-realism: there is no mind-independent objective truth that humans can know, our knowledge of the things in the world is dependent upon our perceptions and categorization of them. - OBJECTION: REALITY EXISTS - While we perceive reality through our perceptual systems, and we interpret reality through our conceptualizations, there is still a reality we are perceiving and conceptualizing. - Example: you stand in front of an oncoming train! You insist: 'train' is just my concept and word. You insist: 'train' is just something my visual system perceives. But if you keep standing in front of the train, you will be dead! Our mind cannot stop reality from happening. RELATIVISM AND PERCEPTION - Different perceptual systems in the same creature (i.e., visual, auditory) report the same object very differently, different perceptual capabilities (i.e., seeing infrared, hearing higher pitches) within the same species, and different systems in different creatures (i.e., echolocation), show that our perceptions do not perfectly match reality RELATIVISM AND CONCEPTUALIZATION - We learn categories/concepts from society or language, and impose these categories onto reality, so the reality we experience is shaped by our concepts. - Relativism and Correspondence Theory: since we do not know a mind-independent reality, truth as correspondence to a mind-independent reality fails - Relativism and Coherence Theory: the coherence theory assumes logical consistency shows truth, but consistency is just a philosopher's value, perhaps emotion or poetry is better than cold logic - Relativism and Pragmatism: the pragmatic theory assumes that truth is what works best, but that assumes pragmatic values, perhaps whatever leads to piety, sacrifice, or power, is best? RORTY - An objection to relativism is that it makes one's beliefs not really true, but only true for them. But, people think their beliefs are really true, or true for all people. - Example: if truth is relative to a culture, then 'slavery is wrong' is relative to our culture, and may not be true in other cultures. But, we insist that all cultures must ban slavery. - Richard Rorty solves this problem by saying that while beliefs/values are relative to a culture, we can nevertheless try to get more people agreeing with our values. - "the desire for objectivity is not the desire to escape the limitations of one's community, but simply the desire for as much intersubjective agreement as possible, the desire to extend the reference of 'us' as far as we can. \...We should say that we must, in practice, privilege our own group, even though there can be no noncircular justification for doing so." SUSAN HAACK - OBJECTION: CARE FOR TRUTH - Susan Haack worries that relativism (along with Rorty's claim that we ought to fight to advance our own perspective) leads to groups warring against other groups, using any form of poor reasoning to manipulate others into agreement. This is modern day sophism. - The solution is to care for knowing and telling the truth, which requires believing there is truth **CHAPTER 3: SUBSTANCES: CHANGE AND SAMENESS** THESEUS'S SHIP PARADOX A black background with white text Description automatically generated MILESIAN MATERIALISM (HERACLITUS) - Materialism: only matter exists. Matter for the ancient Greeks = earth, air, water, fire - Change: matter is constantly moving/changing. Seasons come and go. Days turn into nights. Objects come and go. People rush by. The leaves blow around. Rivers rush to the sea, where waves churn endlessly. - OBJECTION: KNOWLEDGE FAILS - We cannot know a claim is true, because the fact that makes it true is gone within a moment HERACLITUS - Heraclitus was a Milesian Materialist, so he says only matter exists (earth, air, water, fire). - But, fire is the most central element, - Heraclitus says the material world is constantly changing, and fire is the source of change. Fire(sun) makes life, and fire destroys things. Fire (heat) turns ice into water, and water into vapour. - An object that changes is, by definition, different. An object that is different is, by definition, not the same. So, the old thing is gone‒it no longer exists. The new thing comes into existence - Universe is like a freeze frame movie - Theseus's ship = not the same ELEATIC IDEALISM (PARMENIDES & ZENO) - Idealism: only ideas exist. Ideas for ancient Greeks = patterns, definitions, numbers, structures - Sameness: ideas remain constant. Day changes to night, but the pattern 'day/night' is the same. The dog grows older, but it remains a dog. Fire is a blaze of motion, but there are constant truths about fire: fire is always hot. - OBJECTION: CHANGE EXISTS - Parmenides concludes that the changing world must be illusory. But, the changing world exists. - If we thought fire was not real, we could step in it. But we do not. We think fire is real. - Parmenides has "taken away fire \... water \... rocks and precipices \... cities which are built and inhabited as well in Europe as in Asia" -- Colotes ZENO - an eleatic idealist who introduces paradoxes of motion to show that motion/change is illusory - An arrow, flying through the air, is still in every instant. It moves and it does not. - Before arriving at a destination, we must first reach the halfway point. Once halfway there, you must now reach the new halfway point. You must always get halfway closer, and never arrive. - an eleatic idealist who uses logic to prove that change is illusory - A thing that changes is different than it was, so not the same. So, for change to occur, the old thing must be destroyed, the new thing must come into existence. He agrees with Heraclitus here. - But, the old thing cannot be destroyed, as it exists and what exists cannot not exist. - And, the new thing cannot come into existence, as it cannot pop into existence out of nothing So change is impossible. - Ex nihilo nihil fit (out of nothing, nothing comes) - Theseus's ship = the ship doesn't change SUBSTRATUM THEORY (LOCKE & ARISTOTLE) - Objects = properties A, B, C, etc\... + a substratum - Properties = attributes that an object possesses - Substratum = a base that joins/collects the properties all together - Example: Object = this sweet, red, fruity apple. Properties = sweetness, redness, fruitiness. Substratum = this apple - OBJECTION: UNOBSERVABLE - Humans observe the properties of things, not the substratum, so the substratum cannot be observed. - Example: this sweet, red, fruity, apple. We taste the sweetness, we see the redess, we see its fruitiness, we touch its appleness. But, these are its properties, we cannot observe its 'thisness' SUBSTRATUM THEORY ON CHANGE AND SAMENESS - Objects change and stay the same. The properties change, but the substratum stays the same. - Example: Fernanda is hungry, then she eats tacos, so now she is full. There is change (from hungry to full), but there is sameness (she is still Fernanda). Fernanda is the substratum or object, and she had the property of 'being hungry', now she has the property of 'being full'. ARISTOTLE SUBSTRATUM THEORY - Objects are both ideal and material. A dog is dog-wise shaped matter. The matter of the dog is the bones, flesh, fur. The idea of the dog is its structure and the definition of 'being a dog'. - Objects change and stay the same because they are a substratum/object that stays the same, and changes by having different properties. - 'Sleeping dog' changes into 'running dog'. 'Dog' is the same, 'sleeping' changes to 'running' - Theseus's ship = the same ship LOCKE'S BARE SUBSTRATUM THEORY - What is the substratum of 'this sweet, red, fruity apple'? Remove the property of 'being sweet', and we have 'this red, fruity apple'. Remove the property of 'being red', and it is 'this fruity apple'. Remove the property of 'being fruity' and it is 'this apple'. But can't we remove the property of 'being an apple' as well, leaving us with only 'this'? - Bare Substratum Theory on the Mona Lisa Forgery: The forgery has all the same properties, but there is more to the Mona Lisa then just its properties, there is a bare substratum as well. So, they are different Mona Lisa paintings. The original is 'this Mona Lisa', the forgery is 'that Mona Lisa BUNDLE THEORY (HUME) - Objects = bundle of properties A, B, C, etc\... + a substratum - This red, sweet, fruity, apple. Sweetness, redness, fruitiness, appleness are all properties, they are grouped together in this location to be the apple. - OBJECTION: IDENTITY OF INDISCERNIBLE - Identity of Indiscernibles: If x and y have all the same properties, x is identical to y - The Identity of Indiscernibles appears false. We can have numerous exact copies of the same thing: a pile of screws, the same mp3 song, etc\... - If the bundle theory is true, the identity of indiscernibles is true. But the identity of indiscernibles is false, so the bundle theory is false. - The bundle theory entails the identity of indiscernibles because: substance A = bundle of properties AGK. Substance B = bundle of properties AGK. Bundle of properties AGK = bundle of properties AGK, so substance A = substance B. Same bundle of properties means same substance. - Hume says that we should only believe in the existence of things that can be experienced, and the substratum cannot be experienced, so we cannot say a substratum exists. - We experience a bundle of properties, so that is what a substance is. - Example: a long rope is a bundle of small overlapping strands, not one continuous strand - Theseus's ship = not the same - Bundle theory on mona lisa forgery: they are the same But, perhaps fake Mona Lisa has some different properties (missing a scratch, etc PERDURANTISM (HAWLEY) - Substances are four-dimensional objects, spanning all their present 3Ds of space, and all it ever was and will be over time as well. Substances always have all the properties they will ever have, so substances stay the same over change. Substances change by having different properties at different stages of its life - Example: The tree has roots in places and leaves in places, but it is the same one tree with both roots and leaves. Similarly, the tree has leaves at times and no leaves at times, but it is same one tree with both leaves in summer and no leaves in winter. The tree changes because it has leafyness during its summer stage, and not-leafyness during its winter season - OBJECTION: OBJECTS ONLY EXIST PRESENTLY - Perdurantists say objects are not entirely here now, but they have parts in the past and future. - This has odd consequences. Micah asks Sareh if she is ovulating. She correctly responds: "sometimes." Mohammed asks Fatima if she loves him. She correctly responds: "yes, sometimes, but a part of me is kissing my ex right now." **CHAPTER 4: PERSONAL IDENTITY** PLATO ON TELEPORTATION - The teleporter scans and teleports all the material particles, but not the immaterial soul - Stephon's body is perfectly teleported to Paris, but not Stephon's soul. Either Stephon has a new soul in Paris, or, Stephon's body lacks a soul. PLATO ON PERSONS - Jamie as a young child changes into Jamie as a mature adult. - He is different: the young child body ≠ the mature adult body, so the body changes. - He is the same: Jamie = Jamie, so the idea of 'being Jamie' or Jamie's soul, stays the same - "The soul is most like the divine, deathless, intelligible, uniform, indissoluble, always the same as itself, whereas the body is most like that which is human, mortal, multiform, unintelligible, soluble, and never consistently the same." -- Plato - OBJECTION: CHANGING SOULS - Soul-like qualities change too, such as beliefs, desires, character traits, emotional responses - Brad the kid desires to play tennis and believes he will be a journalist, now Brad the adult does not desire to play tennis but does not believe he will be a journalist. - "And it's not just in his body, but in his soul, too, for none of his manners, customs, opinions, desires, pleasures, pains, or fears ever remains the same, but some are coming to be in him while others are passing away" -- Diotima REID AND THE UNCHANGING THINKING SUBSTANCE - Reid grants that beliefs/desires change, but the the self as thinking substance doesn't change - Jennifer's beliefs and desires change, but she is the same thinking substance named Jennifer. - "I am not thought, I am not action, I am not feeling; I am something that thinks, and acts, and suffers. My thoughts, and actions, and feelings, change every moment; they have no continued, but a successive, existence; but that self, or I, to which they belong, is permanent" -- Reid REID ON PERFECT IDENTITY VS. IMPERFECT IDENTITY - Imperfect Identity: when there is not really a persisting object through change, but for convenience of speech we call it by the same name - Example: 'podcasts' not being on ipods but on phones; 'recycle bins' for computer files - Perfect Identity: when there really is a persisting object through change, and we call it by the same name - Example: the thinking soul - Theseus's ship: the same ship - OBJECTION: SOUL SWITCHING - Reid says the self is a not our personality or beliefs, but a soul. So, if our soul was switched out, leaving the same beliefs and personality behind, we would not be the same person - OBJECTION: UNOBSERVABLE - As the substratum that holds properties is not itself observable, so the thinker that holds thoughts is not itself observable HUME'S UNCHANGING SELF NOT EXPERIENCED - Hume finds perceptions, feelings, beliefs, memories, but no unchanging thinker. - "For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe anything but the perception." -- Hume SELF AS BUNDLE OF PERCEPTIONS - As Hume says objects do not have an unchanging substratum but are only a bundle of properties, so the self does not have an unchanging thinking substance but is only a bundle of perceptions - "I may venture to affirm of the rest of mankind, that they are nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement." -- Hume (p. 89). - Nonreductionism: A exists as a separate entity from B - Human made climate change is not just the natural cycles in earth's temperatures, rather human made climate change exists as a distinct phenomenon from these natural cycles - Conservative reductionism: A reduces to B, but A still exists, as B - Example: water is H2O. Does water still exist? Yes. It is H2O - Eliminative reductionism: A reduces to B, but A no longer exists, only B exists - Example: Santa is really mother and father. Does Santa exist, since mother and father exist? No, only mother and father exist. - Hume is a conservative reductionist about the self. The self does not exist as a separate entity from its bundle of perceptions, rather the self is identical with the bundle of perceptions. - Plato and Reid are nonreductionists about the self. The self exists as a separate entity from its bundle of perceptions, there are all our perceptions, then there is also an unchanging thinker BUDDHA ON THE SELF - Anatman: not-self - We crave a permanent self, but there is no permanent self, we should stop identifying ourselves with the stream of passing experience - "one sees all consciousness as it actually is with proper wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.' It is when one knows and sees thus that in regard to this body with its consciousness and all external signs there is no I-making, mine-making." -- Buddha - OBJECTION: UNITY OF PERCEPTION - For Hume, the self is a bundle of perceptions. But, these perceptions are united together. We do not perceive disconnected colours and shapes, but a unified experience of the moment. - "If a multiplicity of representations are to form a single representation, they must be contained in the absolute unity of the thinking subject." -- Kant - OBJECTION: RESPONSIBILITY - On the bundle theory, Frida was bundle of perceptions ABC ten years ago, and now she is bundle of perceptions AFG. Perceptions ABC ≠ Perceptions AFG, so Frida may not be the same person LOCKE ON BODILY IDENTITY - Locke introduces different criteria for establishing the identity of different aspects of someone - Bodily Criterion: "If one of these atoms be taken away or one new one added, it is no longer the same mass or body." -- Locke LOCKE ON HUMAN IDENTITY - Human Being Criterion:("The identity of the same man consists \... In nothing but a participation of the same continued life, by constantly fleeting particles of matter, in succession vitally united to the same organized body" LOCKE ON PERSONAL IDENTITY - Personhood Criterion: "In this alone consists personal identity \... as far as this consciousness can be extended backwards to any past action or thought, so far reaches the identity of that person; it is the same self now it was then." -- Locke (p. 94) - Personal Identity includes present consciousness and stretches back via memory to any earlier conscious states LOCKE ON FORGOTTEN STATE - Are you the same body? No. You have lost/gained particles since the time you forgot. - Are you the same human? Yes. You still have the same life. - Are you the same person? No. You cannot remember to the past state, so that is not you. - OBJECTION: RESPONSIBILITY FAILS - If you commit a crime that you do not remember, Locke says that was not you. Since it was not you, you are not responsible/blamed for that crime. - Locke imagines Socrates committing a crime while sleepwalking. Locke says we do not hold Socrates responsible, but we can hold him responsible because he may be lying about forgetting. - OBJECTION: TRANSITIVITY OF IDENTITY FAILS - Alfred at 80 remembers Fred at 40, Fred at 40 remembered Freddy at 10, so by transitivity of identity, Alfred = Freddy. But Alfred at 80 cannot remember Freddy at 10, so by Locke's model Alfred ≠ Freddy. The transitivity of identity is true, so Locke's model fails ANIMALISM - Locke defines the human as a biological organism. The animalist thinks this biological definition applies to personhood -- a person is the same self if they are the same biological organism - Our identity seems connected to our biology (DNA, fingerprints, etc.) BODILY THEORY - A person is identified with their body. A person is the same self if they have the same body - Our identity seems connected to our body (looks, gender, athleticism, age, etc.) BRAIN THEORY - A person is identified with their brain. A person is the same self if they have the same brain. - Our identity seems connected to our brains (memories, habits, emotional reactions, etc.) PARFIT'S BRAIN TRANSPLANT EXPERIMENT - What happens to me if each half my brain is transplanted into two different bodies? - I cannot be both new persons, as one self ≠ two. I cannot be only one of the two, as I have the same relation to both. I must be neither, the new persons are my descendants or offspring. - Similarly, in the normal case, my future self is not me, but is my descendant. PHYSICAL VIEW ON TELEPORTATION - Stephon's old body is destroyed, and an exact copy with new particles is created in Paris. He may be the same, since he is an exact physical copy. He may be different, since he is made of new particles. The new Stephon is a descendant of the old Stephon. - Imagine a teleporter malfunction, where the old Stephon stays alive, but a new Stephon is created -- who is the real Stephon? OBJECTION: BODY SWITCHING - In The Change-Up, the memories/consciousness of Mitch enter into Dave's body, leaving Mitch's body behind. - Where is Mitch now? It seems that Mitch is in Dave's body. But, the bodily theory says Mitch is still with Mitch's body, though has no memories or consciousness. OBJECTION: CHANGING BODIES - Brute physical theories assume our bodies/brains remain roughly the same over time, so we are the same person. - But, our bodies change over time (cells are replaced, we grow taller, balder, wrinkly, etc.), so we are not the same person over time on these physical theories. RELATIONAL THEORY - The relational view focuses on relational components of personhood, or the relational self, where people are defined by, shaped by, persist by, exist by, their relations to others. - Sammi's beliefs are influenced by parents, Sammi's personality is influenced by her interactions, Sammi could not grow into a functioning person without others birthing her and teaching her, crucial aspects of her identity are related to others (being a mother, a daughter, an American, etc.) BAIER ON THE RELATIONAL VIEW - "Persons essentially are second persons, who grow up with other persons. \... each person has a childhood in which a cultural heritage is transmitted \... persons are essentially successors, heirs to other persons who formed and cared for them, and their personality is revealed both in their relations to others and in their response to their own recognized genesis" -- Baier RELATIONAL VIEW ON TELEPORTATION - When Stephon arrives in Paris he continues all of his relations as normal (he texts his friend, he goes to his planned business meeting, he continues to be an American citizen, etc.), so he is the same person - OBJECTION: THE IMPOSTER - You are kidnapped and locked up, another person (your identical twin or someone who gets a face transplant) lives your life in your place -- the imposter takes your place at work, takes your place on the hockey team, still regularly text your mom. No one notices the switch. This imposter has all your relational parts, so is the imposter you now? No. The real you is locked in jail. So, the real you is not just your relational self, but your body, memories, consciousness, soul as well. **CHAPTER 5: MIND AND BRAIN** A screen shot of a computer Description automatically generated DUALISM (DESCARTES & CHALMERS) - Dualism: dual = two. Dualism = there are two different things - Mind/Brain Dualism: the mind is distinct from the brain, though mind is closely connected to brain - Example: fear is mental stuff (experience of fearing the bear, appraisal of the frightful bear) while brain is neural stuff (neural activity in the amygdala). These are not the same thing. ARGUMENT FOR DUALISM: INDISCERNIBILITY OF IDENTICALS 1. If A = B, then A and B have all and only the exact same properties (Indiscernibility of Identicals) 2. Mind is thinking, conscious, purposive, free, lacks space, mass, chemicals 3. Brain is in space, has mass, chemicals, is not thinking, conscious, purposive, is determined, etc ARGUMENT FOR DUALISM: CONCEIVABILITY ARGUMENT 1. If A = B, then it is impossible for A to be separate from B 2. It is possible for mind to be separate from brain (immortal souls) 3. It is possible for brain to be separate from mind (zombies, Mary argument) - "\...the fact that I can clearly and distinctly understand one thing, distinguishing it from something else, is sufficient to convince me that the two of them are different, because they can be separated from each other, at least by God \... I have a clear and distinct idea of myself, insofar as I am merely a thinking thing, without extension, \... it is certain that my mind is completely distinct from my body and can exist without it" -- Descartes INTERACTIONALIST DUALISM - Dualism = mind is distinct from brain. Interactionism = mind and brain causally interact - Mind influences body: Jennie desires a peach, so her body eats a peach. - Body influences mind: Jennie steps on a tack, so she feels pain. - OBJECTION: CONTACT OBJECTION - Mind is immaterial, brain is material, so they cannot come into contact, so no causal influence - "Tell me how the soul of a human being can determine the bodily spirits in order to bring about voluntary actions \...all determination of movement happens through the impulsion of the thing moved, by the manner in which it is pushed by that which moves it" - Princess Elizabeth - OBJECTION: PHYSICAL CASUAL COMPLETENESS - Physical causal completeness: every physical effect has a sufficient physical cause. - Since the total energy of a closed system is constant (no energy is added or taken away), a brain process fully causes our behaviour, and mental states cannot add extra causal energy. SOLUTION: EPIPHENOMENALISM - These objections do not show mind ≠ brain, they show mind cannot causally influence brain - Epiphenomenalism: dualism is true but mind does not causally influence brain - On epiphenomenalism, mind is like a shadow that comes along for the ride, but causes nothing - OBJECTION TO EPIPHENOMENALISM: INTERACTIONALISM - mind and brain do interact. - Common Sense Argument: - Responsibility Argument: k mental causation, we cannot act or refrain from acting, so cannot be blamed - Dualism on Immortality: since the mind is distinct from the brain, it is possible for the mind to exist without the brain - Dualism on Mind Uploading: if the soul/mind is immaterial, it may not be scanned, so the mind/soul may not be uploaded IDENTITY THEORY (KIM & SMART) MIND-BRAIN IDENTITY - The mind is identical with the brain. Mind-brain identity theory is conservative reductionism. The mind reduces to the brain, and the mind still exists as the brain. - Example: fear is mental stuff (experience of fearing the bear, appraisal of the frightful bear) which is neural stuff (neural activity in the amygdala). ARGUMENT FOR MIND-BRAIN IDENTITY: SIMPLICITY ARGUMENT 1. Mind-Brain Correlations Exist From Phineas Gage to contemporary neuroscience, mental states are increasingly correlated with brain states 2. The simplest explanation of mind-brain correlations is mind-brain identity 3. The simplest explanation tends to be true (Ockham's Razor) ARGUMENT FOR MIND-BRAIN IDENTITY: CASUAL ARGUMENT - physical causal completeness says behaviour has a sufficient physical cause, but behaviour must have mental causes (common sense, responsibility), so mental causes must be physical causes - "mentality has causal effects in the physical world; however, the physical world is causally closed; therefore, mentality must be part of the physical world, and, specifically, mental states are identical with brain states." -- Kim - Identity Theory and Immortality: Since the mind is the brain, it cannot exist without the brain, so immortality would require an accompanying 'resurrection of the body' - Identity Theory and Uploading: Mind is carbon-based but physical, so perhaps mind could be uploaded into a physical computer, but perhaps not as computers are silicon-based. - OBJECTION: DISCERNIBLE DISTINCTIONS - Dualists presented ways that mind has different properties than brain, so the identity fails - Identity theorists compare the mind-brain relation to other examples of conservative reduction, such as water is H₂O. Dualists compare the mind-brain relation to other examples of non-reductionism, such as the non-identity of the lost city of Atlantis to Venice. Which one is correct? - OBJECTION: MULTIPLE REALIZABILITY - One thing can be realized in multiple ways. 'Being a car wheel' is realized by the old or new tire - Mental states are multiply realizable. 'Hunger for fish' is realized by brain state X in five year old Juan, brain state Y in twenty year old Juan, brain state Z in Maria, brain state F in the shark, etc. - So, 'hunger for fish' can be present where 'brain state X' is not, and a thing cannot be present where it is not present, so 'hunger for fish' is not identical with 'brain state X'. FUNCTIONALISM (FODOR) - Functional states define the function, job, role, of a thing. - Example: the leaf is green, flat, beautiful, and has the function of converting light into energy - Mental states are functional states. - Example: fear feels scary, is amygdala activity, and has the function of causing escape behaviour FUNCTIONALISM AND MULTIPLE REALIZABILITY - Functional states are multiply realizable. - Example: 'being the car wheel' can be realized by a Michelin tire, or Mavik tire, or \... - Example: 'being hungry for fish' is realized by brain state X in Juan, brain state F in the shark. TURING TEST - Alan Turing suggests an Imitation Game to decide if machines think. A human interviewer asks questions to a hidden interviewee, then guesses if they are talking with a machine or human. If the machine fools them into thinking they are human, then the machine is thinking. - OBJECTION: CHINESE ROOM - an English speaker receives Chinese symbols as inputs, looks up the appropriate response in a book of instructions, then outputs the correct symbol - The English speaker behaves as though he understands Chinese, but does not. So, correct behavioural responses does not show thinking and understanding. FUNCTIONALISM AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE - The Turing Test defines 'thinking' as functionalists would. They both say that 'thinking' amounts to giving the correct outputs to our inputs. - Example: Sonny behaves as though angry, so Sonny is angry, as behaviour is all there is to anger - Functionalism and Immortality: the mind is not identical with the brain, but needs a brain to realize it. The mind could persist through changes/death to brain, as long as it has some realizer. - Functionalism and Uploading: the mind is a system with functions, so we could program those functions and behavioural patterns into a computer and upload the mind to a computer. - OBJECTION: MISSING CONSCIOUSNESS - The Turing Test defined 'thinking' behaviourally, but fails because we can respond correctly to questions without understanding them. - Similarly, functionalism defines mental states behaviourally, but fails because we can behave correctly without conscious experience. - Example: 'fear of bears' is not just escape behaviour, it is the scary feeling. - Example: 'pain at touching the hot stove' is not just 'hand withdrawal', it is the seering pain. ELIMINATIVE MATERIALISM (CHURCHLAND) - The mind doesn't exist, only the brain exists. This is eliminative reductionism. The mind reduces to the brain, and the mind does not still exist, only the brain. - Example: fear is neural stuff. The camper is not scared because he believes bears are dangerous, and desires to live, leading to fear as a reasonable response. Rather, the camper is scared because the bear caused neural activity in his amygdala, which causes escape behaviour ARGUMENT FOR ELIMINATIVE MATERIALISM - Folk psychology' (i.e., our explanation of people's behaviour in terms of beliefs/desires and reasons) is a false theory. False theories should be rejected. So folk psychology should be rejected. Neuroscientific vocabulary will replace folk psychology someday - OBJECTION: SELF-REFUTING - I believe there are no beliefs' is self-refuting. If this statement is true, it is false. - Eliminative materialism is supported by reasons (i.e., folk psychology is a false theory, false theories should be rejected, so folk psychology should be rejected), but if eliminative materialism is true, people do not believe things based on reasons IDEALISM (BERKELEY) - Only the mind exists, the body is actually a perception of the mind. - Example: fear is mental stuff, so is the bear and the trees, as they are all percepts of the mind. - "It is indeed an opinion strangely prevailing amongst men that houses, mountains, rivers, and in a word all sensible objects, have an existence, natural or real, distinct from their being perceived by the understanding\.... what are the forementioned objects but the things we perceive by sense? And what do we perceive besides our own ideas or sensations" -- Berkeley **CHAPTER 5: FREE WILL AND DETERMINISM**  DEFINITION OF DETERMINISM - **Determinism**: a set of conditions C at a given time determines, or makes happen, only one possible outcome E at a later time. Given C, only E can occur. - Given that Henry was raised by criminals and that Henry sees a car with its keys left in it, Henry will certainly steal the car VARIETIES OF DETERMINISM: THEOLOGICAL DETERMINISM - **Theological Determinism**: God knows what you are going to do tomorrow. God cannot be wrong, so you are not free to do other than what God knows you are going to do. - **Biological Determinism**: Your genetic makeup, your instincts and environmental stimuli determine how you act. You do not choose who you are, rather you are born a certain way. - **Cultural Determinism**: upbringing, family, and peer influence determine how you act. You do not choose who you are, rather you are socially constructed. ARGUMENTS FOR DETERMINISM: THE PRINCIPLE OF SUFFICIENT REASON - Every event has a sufficient cause/explanation. - Rejecting the principle of sufficient reason is to suggest effects can, like magic, occur uncaused ARGUMENTS FOR DETERMINISM: PHYSICAL CASUAL COMPLETENESS - Physical Causal Completeness: every event, including all human actions, has a sufficient physical cause. So, the brain is doing the work, not the agent's choice. - Example: Libet experiments DEFINITION OF FREE WILL: ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES - Alternative Possibilities: given conditions C, effect E or F may occur - Given that Henry was raised by criminals and he sees a car with its keys left in it, Henry can steal the car, or not steal the car. DEFINITION OF FREE WILL: ULTIMATE SOURCE HOOD - Ultimate Sourcehood: the ultimate source of our actions is in us, not in factors outside of us and beyond our control. - The ultimate source of Henry stealing the car is in Henry, not his upbringing or genetics or prior physical forces beyond his control LIMITS TO FREE WILL - Free Will does not mean you can do anything you want. - Reasonable Limits to Free Will: logical laws, physical laws, biological/cultural constraints - Free will is still true if we only sometimes act freely, and must choose between limited options - Logical law constraint: I wanted to make a four sided triangle, but I couldn't - Physical law constraint: I wanted to levitate but I couldn't Study of 4-5 year olds -- 16% said we could do a physically impossible act (step off a stool and float) - Biological law constraint: I wanted to be a bat for a day, but I couldn't - Social Law Constraint: - I wanted to sleep in the whitehouse last night, but couldn't, the police stopped me - We know that parenting and society, genetic makeup and upbringing, have an influence on what we become and what we are. But were these influences entirely determining, or did they ARGUMENTS FOR FREE WILL: MORAL RESPONSIBILITY - Humans are morally responsible for their actions. Moral Respsonsibility requires the agent can act or refrain from acting. Agents can only act or refrain from acting if they have free will. So, humans have free will. - Ought Implies Can: "The action to which the 'ought' applies must indeed be possible under natural conditions" - Kant, Critique of Pure Reasoning, A548 - "For if the moral law commands that we ought to be better human beings now, it inescapably follows that we must be capable of ARGUMENTS FOR FREE WILL: COMMON SENSE - Humans experience openness to various options, then they experience themselves deciding, and their behaviour following their decisions. - For example: You face a decision: McDonalds or Harveys. There are reasons for both (McDonalds has a better Big Mac, but Harveys has better poutine). While deliberating, there appears before you a calm, unhindered moment of clarity where you can simply choose one or the other. In that quiet moment, you decide McDonalds, and your activity is caused by your decision and/or deliberation. HARD DETERMINISM (HOLBACH & PEREBOOM) - Free Will and Determinism are Incompatible. - Incompatible = We cannot have both free will and determinism. Determinism says 'given C, E must occur'. Free will says 'given C, E or F may occur'. They are contradictory, we cannot have both - Free will and determinism are incompatible, so we can only have one of the two. Determinism is true, and free will is false HOLBACH'S HARD DETERMINISM - "Man's life is a line that nature commands him to outline upon the surface of the earth, without his ever being able to swerve from it, even for an instant. He is born without his consent; his organization does in nowise depend upon himself; his ideas come to him involuntarily; his habits are in the power of those who cause him to contract them \... he is good or bad, happy or miserable, wise or foolish, reasonable or irrational, without his will counting for anything" - d'Holbach, 1770 HOLBACH'S HARD DETERMINISM AND BURIDAN'S DONKEY - "When the brain is simultaneously assailed by causes equally strong that move it in opposite directions, agreeable to the general law of all bodies when they are struck equally by contrary powers, it stops \... it is neither capable to will nor to act; it waits until one of the two causes has obtained sufficient force to overpower the other." -- Holbach REASONING SKILLS -- REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM (REDUCES TO ABSURD) - A legitimate way of reasoning where you draw out the logical consequence to a statement and show this logical consequence to be false, which demonstrates the original statement is false. - if P then Q, \~Q, so \~ P. - This is fallacious reasoning if the consequence does not follow: if P then Q, \~S, so \~P - OBJECTION: MORAL RESPONSIBILITY FAILS - The legal system and moral responsibility requires free will. If free will is false, then the legal system and moral responsibility fails, which is absurd - "the actions of fools are as necessary as those of the most prudent individuals" -- Holbach - OBJECTION: REACTIVE ATTITUDES FAIL - Reactive Attitudes: the attitudes we have in reaction to the good/bad of people or events - Examples: praise, blame, indignation, contempt, pride admiration, gratitude - If we lack free will, hence moral responsibility, then our reactive attitudes are unfounded DEREK PEREBOOM ON FREE WILL PEREBOOM'S QUARANTINE MODEL - As patients with infectious diseases are quanrantined for public safety without being blamed or morally responsible for their illness, so criminals are detained in prisons for public safety though they are not blamed or held morally responsible for their crimes LIBERTARIANISM (REID & KANE) - Free Will and Determinism are Incompatible. They agree with hard determinists on this. - Determinism says 'given C, E must occur'. Free will says 'given C, E or F may occur'. - Determinism says our behaviour is ultimately caused by factors beyond our control, free will says our behaviour is ultimately caused by ourselves. - Free will and determinism are incompatible, so we can only have one of the two. Free will is true, and so determinism is false. - "Consider someone who has the power to will to unlock a door and the power not to will that: if he then voluntarily unlocks the door, he is free with respect to that action. But if the determination of his will to unlock the door is the necessary consequence of something involuntary in the state of his mind, or of something in his external circumstances, he is not free with respect to that unlocking of the door" - Thomas Reid REID'S LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL ON BURIDAN'S DONKEY - "They say: 'every deliberate action must have a motive \... when there are contrary motives, the strongest must prevail' \... I grant that \... motives can influence action, but they don't themselves act. They are comparable with advice or urging, which leaves a man still at liberty." -- Reid (p. 140) - Our desires urge/influence us in various directions, but the will can select one of the options OBJECTION: ARBITRARINESS - Henry has reasons to steal, and reasons not to steal. His will just chooses one way over the other, for no reason. He could have just as easily gone the other way. So it is aribitrary that he decides to steal rather than not. - If our choices are arbitrary, how can we be morally responsible for them? OBJECTION: PHYSICAL CASUAL COMPLETENESS - Physical causal completeness says every action is completely necessitated by background physical causes, but Reid says background causes (physical and mental) influence us, but do not necessitate us to act in a certain way. ROBERT KANE ON FREE WILL KANE'S MODEL - a business woman sees an assault on her walk to an important meeting! She is torn: she wants to go to the important meeting, but she wants to help the victim. It is undetermined what will happen. She chooses to help the victim! - Her choice is not arbitrary, it was caused by her efforts and reasons to help the victim. - Quantum physics is indeterministic, so an undetermined result is consistent with current science COMPATIBILISM (FRANKFURT & AYER) - Free Will and Determinism are compatible. We can embrace both free will and determinism. - Determinism = given C, E must occur. - Free will ≠ given C, E or F may occur. - Free will = an agent is free when the agent can do what they want, they are not constrained or coerced - Free will + Determinism: an agent is determined to X, but the agent wants to X and is not constrained from doing X, so the agent is free - "For it is not, I think, causality that freedom is to be contrasted with, but constraint \... If I am constrained, I do not act freely." -- Ayer - Constraint: I want to do X, but am blocked from doing X. I want to walk outside, but I am in jail. - Compulsion: I do not want to do X, but I am forced to do X. I do not want to spill the secrets, but I am held at gunpoint. - "I got up and walked across the room \... if I did so because somebody else compelled me, then I should not be acting freely. But if I do it now, I shall be acting freely, just because these conditions do not obtain; and the fact that my action may nevertheless have a cause is, from this point of view, irrelevant.-- Ayer - e.g. Jasmin is determined by upbringing/genetics to play soccer, but she wants to play, so she is free AYER'S COMPATIBILISM ON BURIDAN'S DONKEY - The donkey waits until determined by an overriding urge to go to one bale of hay. But, the donkey will want to go eat that hay and will not be constrained, so he freely eats the hay. - OBJECTION: FREE WILL FAILS - Wanting to do what you are determined to do ≠ Free Will - In Brave New World (1932), low-caste citizens are genetically engineered and culturally conditioned to not only be labourers but enjoy being labourers. They satisfy compatibilist free will but are still not free. A puppet does not become free as soon as it starts to love its strings - OBJECTION: CONSEQUENCE ARGUMENT - "If determinism is true, then our acts are the consequences of the laws of nature and events in the remote past. But, it is not up to us what went on before we were born, and neither is it up to us what the laws of nature are. Therefore, the consequences of these things (including our present acts) are not up to us" -- Peter van Inwagen, 1983 HARRY FRANKFURT ON FREE WILL - First-order desires: desires about actions. The desire to do X - Second-order desires: Desires about desires. The desire to resist the desire for X. - Deangelo desires cake (first-order). Deangelo desires to resist the desire for cake (second-order), he also desires to have his desire for cake (second-order). - When Deangelo identifies with his desire for cake (i.e., he desires to desire cake), he is free, even if he is determined to desire cake