September 10 2013
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
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
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
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)
Descartes -The Meditations
(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
(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?
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).
(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.
(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
(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
(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 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.
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?*
Conditions to an argument usually begin with “if y then x”
(X being the consequence).
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
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
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
(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
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
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.
- 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
- 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.
(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
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
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.
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
“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
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).
(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)
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
October 15 th
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?
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
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
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?
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
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
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
Being perfect= first cause
First cause= being perfect
*these are both 2 different things
TRUE= INCONSISTANT – WORNG
FALSE= CONSISTANT- CORRECT
The Existence of God –ArgumentsAgainst AnAtheistic/AgnosticArgument for Withholding Belief – TheArgument from Adequate
(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
(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
(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
October 24 2013
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
The Moral Arguments
(1)It appears to human beings that morality exists
(2)The best explanation of morality is that it is grounded in God.
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
(4)The existence of moral facts provides good grounds for thinking theism is true.
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
Euthyphro Dilemma It is what is morally good commanded by God because 1) it is morally good, or 2) it is
commanded by God.
November 5 2013
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
(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
(4) If the mind is non-physical, and the body is physical, then they cannot interact.
November 7 2013
~Atheist God stuff
~nature of faith
~what is atheism?
3 positions defined in terms of category mistake
Fill in the missing premise.
November 12 2013
Mental states/ events are non-physical
Mental state= mind
“I want to raise my arm”
Body/ bodly movements
“My arm is moving”
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
4. If the mind is non-physical and the body is physical then they cannot interact.
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.