PHLA10H3 Lecture Notes - Lecture 13: Intelligent Designer, Mind Control, Type Physicalism
Distant causation argument: you would not be responsible for pushing someone off an
airplane
Puzzle case: suppose you’re a careful driver and take good care of your car. But one
day as you drive, your brakes fail. A mechanical problem. Your car runs over a child. Are
you responsible for the death? You could say no; the failing of the brake is not under
your control. If you knew you had brake problems, you were taking a risk driving. Then
you could be responsible, you had an idea. Or, what if you never took care of your car?
Then you could be responsible for being careless and also reckless driving.
!Second argument: Could have done otherwise
Whether you could have done otherwise and had a choice of what to do. If you dont
have a choice, youre not free. If youre not free, youre not responsible. Because your
actions are caused, you dont have a choice.
Unsual situations considered to undermine freedom: brainwashing, mental illness,
sleepwalking, drugs. These may destroy freedom! How and why?
Causal determination: the total state of the world at a given time causally and fully
determines the total state of the world at all later times
!example: rolling a pair of dice (check slides)
Tutorial:
!Rule of Parsimony - prefers the more simpler theory, so mind (one entity) rather
than identity theory (two entities); imagine two theories, one simple, one complicated.
We dont know if they can both explain things. So if we find that the simpler one cant
explain, and the complex can; rule of parsimony wont accept simpler one. Accept
simpler one if it is adequate in explaining stuff. When both simpler and complex can
explain theories, then we should prefer the simpler one. Parisimony-abductive
arguments
!Second Law of Thermodynamics -order does not arrive from disorder; when does
it come up? used for Creationism; there must be a supernatural entity that created order
!Argument from analogy - bad argument: vase holds water, swimming pool holds
water, vase made of ceramic, swimming pool made of ceramic. They only hold one
similarity. Paley’s Watch. Watches are complex things that have a function. That implies
that they have an intelligent designer. We are also complex. Look at the human eye, or
any part of an organism. That makes it relevently similar to the watch. By inductive
inference, the eye probably also has in intelligent designer. Sober gave an abductive
argument in response to Paley; however that is not from analogy. Inductive: We know
the watch has a designer, so we should extend this idea to ideas like the human eye,
organisms and universe. Analogy: two things are similar so the property of one should
be extended to the other.
!
!“Know how knowledge” is having certain abilities with which one knows how to do
something
