God partakes in everything around us.
Capacity for sensitivity in that little thing you’re designing (to model mind)
Know whether thing has a mind or not if thing can interact with the world.
Single cell organism
IF receptor has no way of receiving, no value. Has to have something that translate
signals so that the organism can do something. make surface to receive and reacts.
EX: radiation received by receptor, it moves, organism move away/toward light.
evolution: if what it does is useful, it will stay.
Processor/nucleus of cell building block of mind
Not only look at little things, also needs to look at the collective.
What is the relationship between the brain and the mind?
The emergence of the mind
Who/what else has a mind the organic world/the artifacts?
Neuroscientist named Mary, the super color vision scientist. Raised in black and white,
never saw in color. Complete knowledge of color vision. For the first time, in presence of
colors. Will there be a new piece of information she can learn? Jackson first argued yes.
Complete knowledge in the brain does not give complete knowledge in the mind.
Brain and mind related.
Mind distinct existence from body?
Soul vs mind: for religious people, the same thing.
Mind’s Place in Nature
C1: mind= brain (identical)
Central thesis to the identity theory
C2: mind survives death of body
C3: brain doesn’t survive death of body C4: mind != brain (distinct)
[1-3] inconsistent, [2,3,4] consistent
If the mind and brain are not the same thing: 1 logical consequence: there has to be at
least 1 property where one has that property, but the other one doesn’t.
M != B Ǝ a [ (Ma and >Ba) or (>Ma and Ba)]
Identity of Indiscernables
Indiscriminiability = share all features
Identical = be one and the same thing
Looking form god’s pt of view
1. Indiscriminability of identicals
a. If 2 things are identical, there’s no discriminating feature where we can
recognize such as one of them has it, but the other one doesn’t.
b. Identity logically implies indiscriminability
c. Counter example? Doutable?
2. Identity of indiscriminables
a. Indiscriminability logically implies identity.
Graham proposed mind != brain ‘cause
A: Property to survive bodily death
Recreatability/Duplicatibility of the brain but not mind.
M | doesn’t guarantee ! M’
IF we duplicate the physical base, do we get the essence?
Let’s say brain = whole nervous system + hormones
At one moment in time, make a duplicate of you, is the mind duplicated?
Can we transfer memories/experience to a physical representation?
Actually not going through the experience = not the same mind?
Teleportation: disassembling & assembling: similar to duplication, but most
people think they’re the same person What makes us the same person as we are not the same question as duplication’s mind
We may lose the sameness within a millisecond, but what about the moment of
duplication? The same?
At the moment of duplication, if you’re healthy, would the duplication still be healthy. If
you have a disease, the duplicated would have the disease? If you’re a great athlete,
will the duplicated be the great athlete?
Why some features have duplicability? But why not brain?
Great athlete? Can we even quantify that? Athlete has to have the mentality too, but
there are physical aspects of it.
We don’t want to think about us as brain chemicals, we want to think us as abstract,
complex beings, capable of being original. A spiritual question.
Are we nothing but a bunch of chemicals put together in a certain way? The result of it
working in a complex way?
Mind-body problem philosopher, Descartes (renaissance: a philosopher, mathematician,
Cartesian coordinate, physicist)
His solution to the mind-body problem: look at all the things existed in the world
Res extensa: we extended things (extended)
Escaping a place in space
Everything that occupies space, could not possibly do anything
Res cognitas (thinking)
Could not be occupied in space.
-These categories are mutually exclusive.
-Together all inclusive
Consequences: You cannot annihilate the body.
Concern: how are we going to explain how this particular mind is related to
this particular body?
Any mental processes you have are in physical space. (Things that happen to
the brain affect the thoughts. Things in the thoughts affect the body.)
The nature of the Mind-Body Relation
1. Descartes 2. Substance vs Property
3. Frege’s Solution
Graham also argues about the metaphysical property of after life, life of the mind
without accompany of a body.
Structure of course
1. Ontological questions (MB problem) (1/3 of class)
2. Eprotemological questions of other minds, robots
a. Presentation teamwork
3. Self, will, rationality
4. Term paper
Reflection pieces: comments, paste into thread.
Descartes: Two ontological categories of beings: extending or thinking thing (exclusive,
The world is inhabited by bodies: they’re not thinking. Human = different category of
being that somehow interacts with the body. Different (two) components of metaphysical
When this component of our union dies, the other might go on living: possibility of after
Descartes – Cartesian framework, dualism: things have 2 substances. People think it’s
not scientific. Alternative version of dualism: propertilism.
Substance vs property
Properlism says: it’s not there are 2 different categories of metaphysical things. There
are bodies of various sources, some are complex enough that they have physical
properties, they also have mental properties, both depend on 1 substance: the body. If
body decays, lost both physical and mental properties.
This view is more easier to defend
One way to look at the MB if you don’t want to be dualist is to perhaps say they’re the
same thing, but that’s too superficial. Add: but they’re conceptualized “accessed” come
to be known in 2 different ways. One of the most important philosophers of the 21 century wrote a short paper, making
a dissection about reference (things you point to with your thoughts). There may be
more than 1 way of conceptualizing one thing, more than one sense of one thing.
He did not intend to talk about the MB problem.
Are simpler minds connected to simpler souls? Descartes says there’s a chiasm
between a minded and unminded thing.
The knowledge argument
1. Pessimistic science explanation
a. Pessimistic position is designed to undermine some form of physicalism,
arguing that Mary the super color scientist, even though she has all
physical facts, she has learned one more fact: what it’s like to see in color.
2. Optimistic science explanation
a. Two responses: 2a. No surprise 2b. So what?
Argument about Mary supercolor scientist, in response to 1: no surprise, no new fact.
The other response is make that a new knowledge, but so what, but that has nothing to
do with the truth about dualism.
Ontological Problem; dualism (life after death)
-Dualism (Substance vs property)
Group presentation about animal mind. Check whether a machine has intelligence.
Identity Theory: some say states of mind are one of the same as the brain. Imagine in the future, you know everything about your brain, complete knowledge, some
answered we still wouldn’t know everything about the mind therefore not the same
A present time question: you’re alive, you’re wondering about yourself, formulate about
your mind or your subject’s mind: If you have all the facts about that person’s brain. Can
mind access the brain’s memories? I might not remember everything there is, if I scan
my brain, then there I can find it dormant.
People make irrational decisions sometimes. If we trace logical path of decisions, we
can’t trace everything if we know everything about the brain.
Supervenence: the brain supervene on the mind. There is something that happens in
the mind, something changes in the brain: there will be some trace of it in the brain. If
we can track the brain in real time, you might be able to find out from the mind.
Is the brain a closed system?
Since the mind is distinct from the mind, this assembly starts spiking not because of its
own operation but because of something outside affecting it.
For any causal affect, there is always a link?
When look at philosophy literature, so controversial but can write a dissertation on what
a property is. We’ll have to steer clear of a lot of complications.
a. Things: objects.
b. Properties: features that distinguish one object from another. Features that may
be intrinsic, like mass. Features that may be extrinsic. Properties are features that
you use to say one object from another.
i. Difference: Fundamental vs emergent properties, intrinsic vs extrinsic.
ii. Fundamental: doesn’t change, doesn’t depend on anything else being the
case. So if you have some body of water, that water’s mass is fundamental,
as long as it’s the same body of water, the mass is the same. Almost always
come out something from intrinsic.
iii. Emergent: depends on smaller elements being interactions with another in
a particular way. Solidity emerges, it can also disappear. Water doesn’t stay
solid or liquid.
iv. Intrinsic: Material institution v. Extrinsic (relational): Value. Money’s value. If there is no US, a bill has no
value. The value it has depends other kinds of properties being in place: has
to be printed by one institution.
“being an uncle” has nothing to do with intrinsic properties: what makes
me an uncle is the fact that my brother has a child. I was not one at one point
in life. But the state of mind has change: went from non-uncle to uncle.
“being known as the midnight DJ” you knowing that doesn’t change
anything about me. You didn’t know about it until now. But it’s still can
attributed to me. Has to do with knowledge or lack of knowledge.
Intrinsic vs extrinsic important to understand functionalism.
To get over propertilism faces, this can be traced to the sense of a thing as
opposed to their references, the thing that we’re talking about.
c. States: time-stamped instance of an object having the properties that it does.
d. Events/Processes: one state evolving into another is a process/event. Something
that takes over a period of time.
1. Monism vs Dualism
a. Monism: one kind of stuff. Monisce camp. Doesn’t make you automatically
a materialist (world is made of material).
i. People who are materialists like to call them physicalist, the kinds
of stuff that physicists study.
ii.Naturalists: more positive pinch, emphasize everything being a part
of everything in nature. We don't have features that go beyond
everything else in nature. Certain modesty. Less human centric
iii.You can think that there’s nothing material: everything is our
perception, all mental.
iv. Something that maintains the illusion to support that human is the
v. You can be a substance monist
b. Two fundamental categories of being
“Life after Death”
2. Non-interactionist [parallel temporal harmony]
Can matter stuff and mind stuff interact with one another? Matter-stuff: physical, nature, res extensa
Mind-stuff: thoughts, feelings, perceptions “feeling of hunger” “desire to eat chicken
Realm of non-physical, non-spatial, Res cognitans, mental
Non-causal systematic correlation,
Initial set-up by God.
Reconciliation when mind can absorb stimuli: mind doesn’t sense the stimuli. But if it
does response (two clocks running in parallel), make sure at the right time in your mind,
certain thoughts feelings occur.
Leibniz: claim to have discovered calculus with Newton.
God did it in human, but not animals? Leibniz didn’t explain a lot in animals
Mind-body correlation (God)
Every time you desire water, god makes your body move to the water.
the body attracts you to bodily/physical affairs. Hunger, go to the bathroom, libido.
When body is no longer there, you’re liberated.
Need union of the mind and the body.
If there is no body, still have our thoughts feelings, can you still have the same mental
capacity, things that happen in the mind still be the same without the body?
Can’t give somebody a hug without body. Vision: we look at the world from a vantage
point, certain perspective. Without space, body, look at the world from which vantage
point? Think about the knowledge argument. You might remember things when you
have the body, you can’t experience new things. Can we experience pain the same
Can God really understand humans when he doesn’t have human body?
Re-embodied into what? A better body? At the height of your youth? Doesn’t give family
union (22-yr old grandma) Dualism (Property)
3. Elemental property
5. Interactive dualism
Identity claim: superman and Clark Kent are one person. Those sensations and those
molecules moving are one and the same thing.
Neural activity causes the sensation? NO. The neural activity IS the sensation.
Maybe they’re linked the way that you can never find one without the other.
Nonetheless, 2 things there.
M Mental sensation
N Neural activity
Claim aout the causal relation that this mental state enters into. Punch in stomach --?
PN, causes pain. In response to that pain:
B (behavior) I engage in to response to that.
N has to place some causal role in the behavior. N B? So there are 2 causes for B =
over-determined. Undesirable situation.
(over determined = If neural activity doesn’t occur, mental state is good enough to
occur. I still would have double over.) Problem for the dualist. Problem for dualist:
causation. This is one of the way it comes up.
Phenomenal dualist: doesn’t want to give up these 2 things as being the same thing.
Doesn’t want to give up the dualist claim, but doesn’t want to endorse the over
determination Mental state doesn’t cause behavior. They are caused by neural state,
but doesn’t cause anything. More desirable position.
Want to claim as little to make it more defendable.
What’s wrong with this view? Why people don’t agree with this view more?
Why did we come here to this room? You have believe section is in sever
112. Can’t do that for a phenomist because I believe the belief as a causal thing. Can’t say a simple thing such as I go to section because I believe
section is here. People are unsatisfy. Epiphenominoism.
Pan-psychism: a property dualist view of the mind. History back to ancient Greece. Han
psychism: ultimately our brain is atoms (physicists view = placeholder). Collection of
atoms: take one atom, that atom doesn’t substantiate any mental property. Take another
atom to take together with the other one. Pair doesn’t have mental property. Bring 3 , 4rd th
= panpsych argue at some point it’s magic: there are thoughts. At what point, we start
put together the atoms and we hav