Study Guides (238,586)
Canada (115,230)
Philosophy (249)
PHL240H1 (7)
Jim John (4)

Final Examination Study Sheet (short answers only).docx

5 Pages
Unlock Document

University of Toronto St. George
Jim John

Final Examination Study Sheet Your exam will be in two parts. The first part will feature five short answer questions. Each will be worth 10 points. The second part will feature three essay questions. You will have to choose two of the three, and each short essay you write will be worth 25 points. Short Answer Preparation Five of these eight short answer questions will be on your exam. 1. What is the circularity objection to Locke’s theory of personal identity over time (either L1 or L2)? L1 of Locke‟s theory of personal identity over time states that a person existing at one time is the same person at a later time if and only if the later person is able to remember the same events experienced by the earlier person (continuous memory). The circularity objection to Locke‟s theory of personal identity over time criticizes that Locke‟s memory criterion for personal identity presupposes personal identity because it takes first person memories into account. For example “I” remember eating ice cream yesterday, presupposes you as an “I”, someone with identity and it is this very first person memory that is supposed to act as a criterion for personal identity under L1 and L2. 2. What, according to Nagel, are the five possibilities compatible with the brain bisection data? What does Nagel think is wrong with each of these possibilities? First possibility: The patients have a mind associated with the left hemisphere and neither a mind nor any mental activity associated with the (nonverbal) right hemisphere Second possibility: The patients have a mind associated with the left hemisphere. Associated with the (nonverbal) right hemisphere are episodes of mental activity not associated with any distinct mind PROBLEM WITH 1 AND 2: Suppose the left hemisphere failed. We would have no difficulty in ascribing both a nonverbal mind and a nonverbal mental activity to the right hemispheres activities. If the left went bad the right would still be there (rational behavior could still exist, just not with verbal behavior) Third possibility: The patients have 2 minds, one associated with the left hemisphere (which can speak and write) and another associated with the right hemisphere (which can neither speak nor write) PROBLEM WITH 3: How can there be 2 minds when the two hemispheres are so well integrated in everyday contexts? Fourth possibility: The patients have a single mind whose contents derive from both hemispheres in a disassociated way PROBLEM WITH 4: It is extremely difficult to conceive of what it is like to be a being with such a disassociated mind Fifth possibility: The patients have a single normal mind outside of experimental contexts which splits into 2 minds as per option 3 in experimental settings PROBLEM WITH 5: For such a drastic change to occur the experiment would have to bring up some kind of internal change in the patient, and it does not 3. Explain the duplication problem as it arises for the psychological continuity theory of personal identity. What are some possible responses to the problem? What are some difficulties for these responses? The psychological continuity theory locates personal identity in the existence of chains of psychological continuity. In the case of the duplication problem, what if there is more than one future body or brain with a claim to being your future body/brain? P1 at t1 is split into P2 and P3 at t2, these can be interpreted in three ways, P1 is neither identical to P2 or P3, just one, or both. Possible responses: i) P1 = P2 ii) P1 = P3 PROBLEM WITH FIRST 2 OPTIONS: arbitrary to pick between the 2, no grounds to say one but not the other being equivalent to P1 iii) P1 is not equal to P2 or P3 (does not exist at t2) PROBLEM: How could a double success be a failure? iv) P1 = P2&P3 as a composite PROBLEM: That‟s absurd, we cannot understand how this would work v) P1 is identical to each one individually (P1 = P2 and P1 = P3) PROBLEM: Violates the transitivity of identity vi) 2 people extended through time, 2 people involved in P1 from the beginning t1, the fission just separates them at t2 PROBLEM: There didn‟t seem to be more than one person where you were at t2 4. What is the difference between substance dualism and property dualism? Explain Princess Elizabeth’s objection to Descartes’s interactionist substance dualism. Substance Dualism: Minds are wholly mental, immaterial substances (material vs. mental substances) Property Dualism: You have a body and brain with a central nervous system, and in addition there are various immaterial non-physical properties (material vs. immaterial properties). Property non-identity: mental properties are not identical with material properties. Descartes interactionist substance dualism: He believed that (material) bodies could act causally on (immaterial) minds and vice versa. Princess Elizabeth’s objection to Descartes: How can minds, which Descartes thinks are essentially non-extended, causally interact with bodies, which are essentially extended? 5. Explain the thesis of logical behaviourism. Explain Putnam’s Super-Spartans objection to it. Thesis of logical behaviorism: Statements involving mental vocabulary are translatable into statements involving only physical behavior vocabulary, specifically vocabulary concerning occurrent physical behavior and/or physical behavioral dispositions (seek to understand having a mind in terms of physical behavior and dispositions) Putnam’s Super-Spartans objection to logical behaviorism: Logical behaviorism implausibly treats minds as behavior itself, rather than the inner cause of behavior. Putnam is trying to tease out the difference between the cause of certain symptoms and the actual effect. “Let us now engage in a little science fiction. Let us try to describe some worlds in which pains are related to responses (and also to causes) in quite a different way than they are in our world. ... Imagine a community of “super-spartans‟— a community in which the adults have the ability to successfully suppress all voluntary pain behavior. They may, on occasion, admit that they feel pain, but always in pleasant well-modulated voices ...They do not wince, scream, flinch, sob, grit their teeth, clench their fists, exhibit beads of sweat, or otherwise act like people in pai
More Less

Related notes for PHL240H1

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

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

Sign up

Join to view


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.