Class Notes (837,447)
Canada (510,273)
York University (35,409)
Philosophy (680)
PHIL 1000 (69)
all (8)
Lecture

# philosophy notes.docx

37 Pages
75 Views

School
Department
Philosophy
Course
PHIL 1000
Professor
All Professors
Semester
Spring

Description
September 10 2013 Lecture Trolley Case There are 5 people on a track and the train is coming towards them. Peggy can do 1 of 2 things. She can either let the train kill the 5 people by not flipping the switch or she can flip the switch and murder 1 man. What should she do? Fat Boy Case There are 5 people on the track and the train is coming towards them. She can do 1 of 2 things. She can either push the fat boy off the platform, blocking the train from killing the 5 people but she would be killing him. Or she can do nothing and let the 5 people get killed. What should she do? Is there a difference? The difference is that in the trolley case study you are causing a switch to kill someone’s life, however if you didn’t do anything you would simply just let the 5 people die. The other man on the track that is attached to the train track would just carry about his regular day. However in the fat boy case, you are using someone to save the life of others. You are personally pushing the boy off the platform. Therefore this case shows that there is no right and wrong- just simply what is morally correct to you. September 12 th Lecture Argument of Standard form  Draw a line. Write the premises above the line and write the conclusion below it. Number the premises and the conclusion. Ex. (1) Socrates is a man (2) All men are mortal (3) Socrates is mortal Good and Sound Argument A good and sound argument is sound and valid with all true premises and has no questions begging Definitions: Sound: valid and has all true premises Valid: what a conclusion is supposed to follow from the premises of the argument. If the premises were true then the argument is valid – OR- It is impossible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. True or False = premises or conclusion Valid, invalid, sound, unsound = the entire argument Necessary and Sufficient Conditions  X is a necessary condition for y.  X is a sufficient condition for y = if x is true, that’s enough, all by itself for y to be true. Or if x is true, then y is true.  In order for y to be true, x must be true (or vice versa) th September 17 Lecture Descartes -The Meditations Meditation #1 Descartes’Radical Doubt (1) We should try to guarantee that our beliefs are true. (2) The best way to do this is to believe only those things we are certain of (those things we cannot doubt). (3) We should believe only those things we are certain of (those things we cannot doubt). (1) An evil demon might be deceiving me or I might now be dreaming. (2) If an evil demon might be deceiving me or if I might now be dreaming, then I can doubt all or nearly all of the things I thought were true. (3) We should believe only those things we are certain of (those things we cannot doubt). (4) I should not believe all or nearly all of the things I thought were true. Skeptical Hypothesis: dream, matrix, brain in a vat. How do you know that you are not in the matrix? What can you point out that prove otherwise? Meditation #2 The Cogito – “I think, therefore I am.” (1) I am aware of something thinking, doubting, etc... (I am certain of this.) (2) The only thing that could be doing this thinking, doubting, etc. is me. (I am certain of this.) (3) In order to think, doubt, etc. a thing must exist. (I am certain of this.) (4) I am certain I exist as a thinking thing (regardless of whether an evil demon is deceiving me and regardless of whether I am now dreaming). Mind-Body Dualism (1) I am certain I exist. (2) I am not certain my body exists. (3) Leibniz’s Law (Aand B are identical only ifAand B share every characteristic in common). (4) I am not identical with my body. Intrinsic property: property it has all on its own. Relational Property: Property compared to something Thinking= some sort of mental life. The evil demon might make me think that I see a piece of chalk, but the evil demon can’t make me think that I don’t exist, because WHO would he be tricking? ME! Therefore “I think, therefore I am”. To Descartes: thinking = existence (if it thinks it must exist). *it’s not the object of thought (the subject) that exists, it’s the thing that is thinking that exists. Existing= thinking doesn’t make sense. We don’t exist because we think, someone thinks because they exist. We don’t even need to get to the object of thought, right when someone says “I think...” they have already proven that they exist. Meditation #3 God’s Existence (1) I have an idea of a perfect being. (2) This idea must have originated from something at least as real and as perfect as the idea itself. (3) The only thing that is as real and as perfect as the idea of a perfect being is an actual perfect being. (4) An actual perfect being (God) must exist. Meditation #4: Trust of the Senses Regained (1) Aperfect being exists. (2) Aperfect being would not allow me to be deceived on a regular basis (because deception entails imperfection). (3) I am not deceived on a regular basis. (I can trust my senses). The thought of a perfect being must be put in your mind form the most perfect being itself. The devil cannot put that thought in your head because the devil is not perfect. Anything that involve deception = it is imperfect. Therefore the perfect being will never deceive you. *You can find perfection by experiencing. For example smoothness: rough, to semi rough, to smooth, to smoother, to very smooth, to perfectly smooth. (This is bad because it proves that perfection doesn’t have to come from the perfect being). You cannot ramp up a human being as to being perfect without god being there planting the idea of perfection in your head. Tutorial Validity WholeArgument: the relationship between premises and conclusion. If the 2 premises are true then the conclusions is valid. Just because 2 premises are true and the conclusion is valid doesn’t mean the argument is sound. Agood argument cannot be question begging and it has to be sound. Question begging argument: (1) God exists (2) God exists *how do you know?* Conditional Argument Conditions to an argument usually begin with “if y then x” (X being the consequence). th September 24 Tutorial Descartes wants to make sure that everything he knows is 100% true. Skepticism= demon= brain in a vat Radical Doubt= I believe (true) that apples are vegetables (false). I think therefore I am (1) I am aware of something thinking (2) The only thing that can be doing the thinking is me (3) In order to think, a thing must exist. (4) I am certain I exist as a thinking thing God’s existence argument (1) I have an idea of the perfect being (2) The idea must have oriented from something as perfect then the idea itself (3) The only thing that is perfect must come from the perfect being himself. (4) Therefore god exists Cause and Effect 1. Something cannot come from nothing 2. What is more perfect cannot come from something less perfect Lecture Free Will and Determinism - Determinism – every event has a cause, and because every event has a cause, every event must be the way it is and could be no other way. Determinism has nothing to do with free will. Every event has a cause because of this a situation could not have been any other way. Argument for Hard Determinism (An Anti-Free Will Argument) (1) Every event has a cause. (2) If an event has a cause, it could not have been other than it is. (3) Every event must be the way it is; it could be no other way. (Determinism is true.) (1) Every event must the way it is; it could be no other way. (2) All of our decisions/actions are events. (3) Our decisions/actions must be the way they are; they could be no other way. (1) Our decisions/actions must be the way they are; they could be no other way. (2) We have free will only if our decisions/actions could have been other than the way they are (i.e., only if we could have decided/done otherwise). (3) We do not have free will. Three Main Positions on the Free Will Issue The line of reasoning used above is associated with the view called hard determinism. There are two other prominent positions on this issue: - Hard determinism – determinism is true and for this reason humans do not have free will. - Soft determinism/compatibilist – determinism is true but nonetheless humans have free will. - libertarianism/interventionism – humans have free will and for this reason determinism is false. Do humans have free will? Is determinism true? Are determinism and free will incompatible? hd- no hd- yes hd- yes sd- yes sd- yes sd- no lib- yes lib- no lib- yes Argument for Soft Determinism (1) Even if all events are caused and even if all decisions are events, my actions are free if they are caused by my decisions. (2) Some of my actions are caused by my decisions. (3) Some of my acts are free (yet determined). Note that the soft determinist changes the definition of free will so that it is compatible with determinism. Hence soft determinism is sometimes called compatibilist. The soft determinist does not say that some events are determined and others are not. She says that all events, including all decisions and all actions, must be the way they are and could be no other way. But, she says, humans can act freely in a purely determined world. There are several possible definitions of free will that the soft determinist might use; the definition used in the above argument is just one of many. All that is required of a soft determinist definition is that it make free will compatible with determinism. Argument against Soft Determinism Some philosophers don’t think much of soft determinism. Kant, for example, called it a “wretched subterfuge.” Consider a case where Penelope’s brain is controlled by an evil scientist. The evil scientist can force her to make certain decisions. For example, the evil scientist might force Penelope to decide to shoot a passerby with a gun. It’s pretty clear that Penelope would not be acting freely in this case, but according to the soft determinist definition of free will outlined above, Penelope’s act of shooting the passerby would count as free. This suggests that soft determinism is mistaken. Consider: (1) If soft determinism is true, then if Penelope’s act of shooting the passerby is caused by a decision made by Penelope, then the act is free. (2) Penelope’s act of shooting the passerby is caused by a decision made by Penelope. (3) Penelope’s act of shooting the passerby is not free. (4) Soft determinism is not true. The challenge to the soft determinist is to come up with a definition of free will that meets all of the following criteria: (1) The definition is compatible with determinism. (2) The definition entails that some of our acts are free. (3) The definition does not entail that unfree acts are free. Argument for Libertarianism (1) We have free will only if our decisions/actions could have been other than the way they are (i.e., only if we could have decided/done otherwise). (2) We do have free will. (3) Our decisions/actions could have been other than the way they are. (1) Our decisions/actions could have been other than the way they are. (2) Our decisions/actions are events (3) Some events could have been other than the way they are. (Determinism is false.) Argument against Libertarianism Many philosophers think libertarianism is untenable. If our actions are not determined at all, then they aren’t free. If I act randomly, if my actions are not determined by my own decisions, then it’s hard to understand the claim that I act freely. So too if my decisions are not determined by anything, then it is hard to see how they are free. Consider: (1) If libertarianism is true, then if my arm movements are not determined, those movements are free. (2) If my arm movements are not determined, then those movements are completely random. (3) If my arm movements are completely random, then I cannot predict what my arm will do. (4) If I cannot predict what my arm will do, then I am not in control of my arm movements. (5) If I am not in control of my arm movements, then my arm movements are not free. _____________________________________________________________________________ (6) Libertarianism is not true. In short, something (e.g., a human) that is not determined to act – is not caused to act – is not an agent. An agent is something that does things for reasons. If you give up the idea of determinism, then you also seem to give up the idea that you do things for reasons. And if you don’t do things for reasons, then isn’t it very odd to say that you are free? It seems that you are about as free as a random number generator, and a random number generator obviously does not have free will. How can anyone be accountable if no one has free will? September 26 th Lecture In order for the cause to be different the event must change and vice versa. Argument for libertarianism believes that it is total opposite then the arguments fir hard determinism. FRANKFURT: if there is no possibility of j doing anything other than m (action or decision) then j can’t be held morally responsible for doing m. (Frankfurt says no to this idea) he says we still live in a predetermined world but we are still held accountable for what we do. Frankfurt - The Principle ofAlternate Possibilities (PAP): If a person S could not have done anything other than x (could not have done otherwise), then S cannot be morally responsible for doing x. S cannot do otherwise  S is not responsible - PAP seems right to a lot of people. - If PAP is true, then moral responsibility is incompatible with determinism - NOTE: is incompatible with just plain old’determinism, which says nothing about free will. - But Frankfurt thinks PAP is false: (1) If person S had no alternative to doing action x, and did x, but not because S was unable to do otherwise, then S would have done x even if S could have done otherwise. (2) If S would have done x even if S could have done otherwise, then S can be morally responsible for doing x. (3) If S did x, but not because S was unable to do otherwise, then S can be morally responsible for doing x even if S had no alternative to doing x. - understanding premise (1) is key: Question: how can a person do x and have no alternative to doing x and yet not do x because she was unable to do otherwise? Answer: the Jones an4 Black case: suppose Black is controlling Jones’s brain in such a way that if Jones does not decide to kill Penelope on his own, Black will make him kill Penelope by flipping a switch. Further suppose that Black never has to flip the switch because Jones decides to kill Penelope all on his own. Here, it seems to make sense to hold Jones morally responsible for killing Penelope even though he could not have done otherwise (because if he had decided not to kill Penelope, Black would have made him do it). Why did Jones kill Penelope? Because he decided to kill her (because he’s morally depraved, maybe?). The lesson, according to Frankfurt How philosophers have traditionally thought about the issue: If S is coerced to do x, then S cannot do other than x, and if S cannot do other than x, then S cannot be responsible for doing x. S is coerced  S cannot do otherwise  S is not responsible. Frankfurt’s take: (a) If S is coerced to do x, then S cannot do other than x and S cannot be responsible for doing x. S is coerced  [(S cannot do otherwise) & (S is not responsible)] (b) It is not true that just because S cannot do other than x, S cannot be responsible for doing x. S cannot do otherwise  S is not responsible - note that (b) here is just the denial of PAP. So, if Frankfurt is right, then PAP is false and we have no obvious reason to think that moral responsibility is in rd Oct 3 2013 ? ? Lecture Moral Resp. T/F? Determinism T/F? Free Will T/F? ? Take the 3 concepts and ask yourself what you feel is right. Second order of wants: 1. I want (one want) 2. I want to want x Ex. Do you want drugs OR do you want to want drugs? If she loves that she loves her drugs that means that she has free will. But if she wants it because she is addicted then her free will is gone. However her desires and addictions are determined proving that free will and determination are true. th October 8 Lecture S (person) knows that P(proposition) is true, if and only if: a) Pis true b) S believes that Pis true c) S is justified in being that Pis true. Getter The conditions are not significant (sufficient)  Smith believes that the man who has 10 coins in his pocket will get the job.  This proposition is true, Smith believes it, and Smith has good reason to believe it  Yet Smith doesn’t know the proposition  Hence we have a counter example to the traditional account of knowledge. Consider the broken clock example: you have a clock that dies at 12:00 am and when you happen to look at the clock its 12:00 pm (lunch time) - it is true, however, your knowledge is not. This does not constitute knowledge. th  How should we fix the account of knowledge? Add a 4 condition? Make the justification condition more specific? Faith and Knowledge To believe without reason: can you know something based on faith?  Not on the traditional definition because the justification conditions are not met  Not on the reliable person’s definition because faith in general is not very reliable  Faith is belief without reason. Believing in someone is different than belief without reason because you believe for a good reason that someone will do better because you have justifications and you know how they are. Therefore I believe and have faith that Nick will do well. *DON’T THINK TOO MUCH BECAUSE YOUARE BETTER OFF BELIEVING Relativism “Is it true that you can prove anything in philosophy”? NO! You can give an argument for anything but it doesn’t mean your argument is right. You might prove your point but it might be incorrect. There are different opinions but both sides have good reasoning. So does it make it subjective. October 15 2013 Tutorial Knowledge and Belief It is not possible to know something false and to know false knowledge but it is possible to have false belief. (Ex. Santa Claus). CASE 1: (p) Jones owns a ford (q) Either Jones owns are ford or Brown is in Boston (s) Either Jones owns a ford of Brown is in Italy (t) Either Jones owns a ford or Brown is in France OR= disjunction (Aor B) Exclusive “OR” Aor B is true. It is impossible for both to be true. For example “My name is Michelle or my name is Sophia”. Getters View on Knowledge (1) S is true (2) Smith believes that S is true (3) Smith has justified to believe that S is true. (** false because it is not a sufficient condition). October 15 th Lecture Gaunilo refusesAnselm’s argument. Gaunilo- refutation by LogicalAnalogy (1) The lost island is perfect (2) If the lost island doesn’t exist that it cannot be perfect (3) Therefore the lost island doesn’t exist The Existence of God –Arguments For The questions: Does God exist? If so, what are God’s characteristics? Is it possible to prove or disprove a particular god’s existence? Various positions: Hard theism – I believe there is a/are particular god(s) with particular characteristics. Soft theism – I believe there is something we might want to call God, but I do not know what its characteristics are. Agnosticism – I don’t know whether any gods exist or not. Soft atheism – I leave open the possibility that something we might want to call God exists, but I do not believe that such a being exists. (I do not believe any gods exist.) Hard atheism – I believe that nothing we would want to call God exists. (I believe no gods exist.) ASimple Version of the OntologicalArgument (Anselm) (1) God is, by definition, perfect. (2) In order to be perfect, a being must exist. (3) God exists (and is perfect). (1) Aperfect being is something for which you cannot think of anything better. (2) Abeing that does not exist is something for which you can think of something better. (3) In order to be perfect, a being must exist. Possible problem: could the perfect anything be “proven” usingAnselm’s reasoning? Aquinas’Five Ways: The Second Way – The First Cause Argument (also called the Cosmological Argument) (1) There is a causal chain. (2) Such a chain cannot go back to infinity. (3) The only alternative to an infinite causal chain is one with a beginning. (4) The causal chain has a beginning – an unmoved mover. (We call the unmoved mover God.) Possible problem: what is the reason for thinking premise (2) is true? (See Russell.) The Fourth Way – The Argument from Degrees of Perfection (1) Some things are better than others. (2) The only way for some things to be better than others is for there to be some perfectly good thing to use for comparison. (3) Aperfectly good thing exists. (This perfectly good thing is God.) Possible problem: what is the reason for thinking premise (2) is true? The Fifth Way – The Argument from Design (1) Nature exhibits design. (2) Things that exhibit design have a designer. (3) Nature has a designer. (We call this designer God.) The order we see in nature = design or the way something could be because of a designer. Therefore the premises are false. If you remove design and replace it with order then it is a valid argument. Do these designs mean the same thing? If you show that an argument is unsound. It doesn’t mean you proved the argument wrong. You just proved that the argument is not correct. Possible problem: depending on how one understands ‘design’, either premise (1) or premise (2) might be plausibly denied. (See Russell.) In other words, does the argument equivocate on the word ‘design’? The Argument from Miracles (1) If there are miracles, then God exists. (2) There are miracles. (3) God exists. Possible problem: what is a miracle in the first place? This argument is valid only if it does not equivocate on the word ‘miracle’. Pascal’s Wager – this is not an argument for the claim that God does in fact exist. Rather, it is an argument for the claim that you should believe in God. Note that these are two very different things. You will be happier in this world if you believe. Because you either end up in heaven or nothing. If you don’t you either end up in hell or nothing. (Lose- lose situation). Options God Exists God does not exist I do believe Heaven Nothing I do not believe Hell Nothing Nice God Mean God No God Believe in mean Heaven Heaven Nothing God Believe in no God Hell Hell Nothing Believe in Nice Heaven Hell Nothing Possible problem: is this really a good reason to believe in God? October 22 2013 Tutorial Being perfect= first cause First cause= being perfect *these are both 2 different things TRUE= INCONSISTANT – WORNG FALSE= CONSISTANT- CORRECT Lecture The Existence of God –ArgumentsAgainst AnAtheistic/AgnosticArgument for Withholding Belief – TheArgument from Adequate Evidence (1) You should believe only that which you have good evidence for or that which you cannot help but believe. (2) You do not have good evidence for the existence of God. (3) It is not the case that you cannot help but believe God exists. (4) You should not believe that God (any god) exists. The Problem of Evil (1) If God exists, then God is omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing) and omnibenevolent (perfectly good). (2) Such a being would not allow for evil to exist. (3) Evil does exist. (4) God does not exist. (1) An omnipotent being is capable of preventing evil. (2) An omniscient being knows when evil things are happening or will happen. (3) An omnibenevolent being wants to prevent evil. (4) If a being can prevent x, knows that x is happening or will happen, and wants to prevent x, then it prevents x. (5) An omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being would not allow for evil to exist. - Possible replies to the Problem from Evil: (1) God is not omnipotent (or God is not omniscient or omnibenevolent). - This reply certainly works, but anyone who uses it should not then attribute the denied characteristic to God. (2) The free will defense – God gave us free will and that is why there is evil in the world. - This reply faces serious problems: (1) It depends on a controversial notion of free will (which may be incompatible with God’s Omni-properties). (2) It seems to ignore the fact that a lot of evils are not due to free choice. (3) Even if we have this odd kind of free will, it seems a good god would restrain people in some circumstances. (4) Even if we have this odd kind of free will, it seems a good god would give us only good choices. (3) You cannot have good without bad. - This reply consists of a very questionable claim. Consider: Could the whole world be different shades of red? If so, then why couldn’t the whole world be different degrees or kinds of good? (“God might have made everything good, though we should not have noticed if he had.”- J.L. Mackie) (4) Evil is just the absence of good. - It is hard to see how this is a reply to the argument. What premise is being denied? Even if evil is just the absence of good, couldn’t the world be better than it is, and couldn’t God make it better? The Paradox of Omnipotence Can an omnipotent being create a rock that it cannot move? If so, then it’s not omnipotent. If not, then it’s not omnipotent. So the very idea of omnipotence is nonsensical. There can be no such thing as an omnipotent being. Reply: God’s omnipotence does not mean that God can do the logically impossible, and creating a rock that an omnipotent being cannot move is logically impossible. TheArgument from Perfection (I) (1) Aperfect being cannot create an imperfect world. (2) This world is imperfect. (3) There is no such thing as a perfect creator of this world. TheArgument from Perfection (II) (1) Aperfect being would not create anything. (2) There is no such thing as a perfect creat.r th October 24 2013 Lecture God Argument #2: The argument is that if God is perfect, then he shouldn’t have caused anything that was evil. If God was perfect then God would have gave us everything and there wouldn’t be anything bad; no murder, drugs, abortion, bullying, aids, disabilities, disease, sins etc.  Theists- would say maybe these bad things can benefit in the long run. We are put to the test to see if we can be ultimately faithful to God. God gives us our free will so that we can decide on our own behalf if we choose good or evil.  Atheists- but why would God make his people go through pain and suffering?And a perfect being such as God would not put us through the test. He would want us to be one with him forever. He would never let him turn his back on people. God would never allow EVIL. No matter what, GOD should never put us in a world where we are surrounded by bad.Aperfect being shouldn’t want anything, therefore it shouldn’t want to make the world, let alone flawed people. The Argument from Perfection (1) (1)Aperfect being cannot create an imperfect world. (2)This world is imperfect (3)There is no such thing as a perfect creator of this world. The Argument from Perfection (2) (1)Aperfect being would not create anything (including the world) (2)There is no such thing as a perfect creator.  Is it possible to be an imperfect God that is still the creator and is still powerful? God might have been perfect before but he has fallen short. Only 2 characteristics that make up the argument of evil, are Omnipotent, and omniscient October 29 2013 Tutorial The Moral Arguments General: (1)It appears to human beings that morality exists (2)The best explanation of morality is that it is grounded in God. (3)God exists Specific: Argument #2 (1)Moral facts exist (2)Moral facts have the properties of being objective and non-natural (3)The best explanation of there being objective and non-natural moral facts is provided by theism (4)The existence of moral facts provides good grounds for thinking theism is true. Facts: Mind- independent Mind- dependent (money, and government) Argument #2: Moral Facts= moral truth (Moral Realism) Moral facts are both:  objective (apply to everyone because facts are mind independent)  Non-natural (non-reductionism about facts. Not possible to reduce facts into moral or natural) Euthyphro Dilemma It is what is morally good commanded by God because 1) it is morally good, or 2) it is commanded by God. th November 5 2013 Lecture Philosophy of mind The questions: what is the mind? What are its characteristics? How does the mind work? What kinds of minds are there? Can we know about other minds? Do you have a soul? The Mind-Body Problem and the Inconsistent Tetrad Consider these four claims: (1) The body is a physical thing. (2) The mind is a non-physical thing. (3) Mind and body interact. (4) Physical things cannot interact with non-physical things. In considering each of these claims individually, many people seem to think that each is true. But they can’t all be true. They’re inconsistent with each other. This is the problem. The various positions on the mind-body problem can be identified by which claim they reject. The dualist denies (4). The physicalist denies (2). The idealist denies (1). Ryle against Descartes Acategory mistake – committed when one thinks that something has or lacks properties that cannot possibly apply to it. Examples: the foreigner at Oxford looking for the university, looking for Mr.Average Taxpayer, saying that the number 3 is blue, that a premise is valid, that a chair is true. (1) Views based on category mistakes are wrong. (2) Descartes’ dualism is based on a category mistake. (3) Descartes’dualism is wrong. Backup for (2): (1) Descartes’dualism is based on the assumption that the mind must be something in addition to physical mechanisms. (2) The mind is not something in addition to physical mechanisms. (3) Descartes’dualism is based on a category mistake. The ghost in the machine: (1) If the mind is non-physical, then it does not exist in space. (2) If the body is physical, then it does exist in space. (3) Something that does not exist in space cannot interact with something that does exist in space. (4) If the mind is non-physical, and the body is physical, then they cannot interact. th November 7 2013 Lecture Quiz Tomorrow ~Atheist God stuff ~nature of faith ~what is atheism? Mind  Category mistake  Inconsistent tetrad  3 positions defined in terms of category mistake  Fill in the missing premise. November 12 2013 Tutorial Mind Mental states/ events are non-physical  Thoughts  Beliefs  Desires  Wants Mental state= mind “I want to raise my arm” Body/ bodly movements “My arm is moving” Casual Closure No physical event has a cause outside the physical domain ~Philosopher Y X Z (part of the physical domain) The mind-body problem 1. The body is a physical thing 2. The mind is a non-physical thing 3. Mind and body interact 4. Physical things cannot interact with non-physical things 3 Main Positions 1. Idealist- Denies claim 1 2. Dualist- Denies claim 4 3. Physicalist- Denies claim 2 (mind = brain) Non- physical Substance = mind Physical Substance = Body Dualism of properties. The mind is not something different from the brain. For someone to accept dualism we would have to believe that the mind and body do not interact. The example of the Ghost in the machine. 1. If the mind is non-physical then it does not exist in space 2. If the body is physical then it does exist in space 3. Something that does not exist in space it cannot interact with something that does exist in space 4. If the mind is non-physical and the body is physical then they cannot interact. Lecture Philosophy of mind - continued The Problem of Consciousness – Qualia Qualia – the what-it-is-like feelings associated with consciousness. Qualia are the reason that many people are uncomfortable with physicalism. It just doesn’t seem like the redness of red, for example, can be accounted for by purely physical processes. Jackson’s Knowledge Argument – The Case of Mary Notes: For this argument the Dualist will say “she learns all the physical facts in the room”. This argument shows that this is not the case. So which premise is wrong? If she knew all the physical facts so therefore physicalsim is true. If she didn’t know all the physical facts then physicalism would not be true. (1)Som
More Less

Related notes for PHIL 1000
Me

Log In

OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view

OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.

Request Course
Submit