Phil unit 2 - Lecture notes Unit 2 PDF

Preview

Summary

Professor Fidel...

Description

Mind body problem ● Problems to address in the 2nd section ○ mind ■ Mind is not just brain...mind refers to immaterial or non physical ■ Open head, see brain but not mind ■ Mind = thoughts, ideas, mental images, feelings ■ Not publicly observable ■ Independent of brain ○ Body is ■ Publicly observable. Mind is not. ● Ex can observe things in brain if look at it with imaging device, but cannot have access to one’s thoughts ● By nature, humans are dualist according to paul blume ○ 2 substances - mind and body ● Problem ○ One view ■ many reject idea that mind as immaterial thing exists ■ Whatever we call mind is nothing but brain ● There is a mind body problem bc there are beliefs/claims that seems to show there is a conflict btwn what common sense tells us and what science tells us about mind/body relationship ○ Ex common sense says body is physical thing. Common sense tells us mind is non physical thing. Common says mind and body causily effect one another, meaning mind causily interacts with brain, brain causily interacts with mind. Body causily interacts with mind, visa versa. Their is something more to humans other than physical bodies. COMMON SENSE BELIEF. ○ But these common sense beliefs contradict some claims we draw from sciences! One is the claim that non physical things cannot causily interact with physical things. ○ If you claim mind causily interacts with body, then 1st law of thermo is violated bc evertime mind causily interacts with body, energy must be being created ■ This is a problem :( ● Others claim you either believe what common sense tells us, but that makes u reject 1st law of thermo. BUT this law is an established law! So some deny existence of mind bc you have to let go of common sensical beliefs. ● Idealists reject idea that body is physical, they say everything that exists is mental reality ● A dualist might reject claim that non physical things cannot causily interact with physical things. Will not necessarily reject 1st law of thermo, but will reject view that you can draw that claim from the 1st law of therm.

Descartes Dualism ● Descartes dualism - their’s a mind and their’s a body and they causily interact with each other

○ ○

●

●

●

●

●

Ex. thoughts of food makes me salivate Can also be the other way around tho!! Drink coffee (physical thing) makes you irritable Materialism ○ No such thing as mind ○ Mind is reducible to brain. Their is a brain, but no mind. Mind = brain. Jackson’s critique on materialism ○ Account for claim that their is a mental state, physical state...but mental state is fully dependent on what is happening in physical state. According to epiphonomenalists, mental state does not have causal powers in relation to physical world Descartes ○ French philosopher, mathmetician ○ Played role in birth of modern science thru modern methodologies Descartes dualism ○ Theres a mind and body, and they are existing independently of each other. ○ Mind and body are causily interacting with each other Descartes Argument for existence of mind ○ Wanted to approve that we can have knowledge that is encourageable ■ His Task in meditation 1, ch 4.1 ○ Introduced a method that is different from method we see in anselm of canterbury. ○ Introduced method of doubt. This says doubt everything you can possibly doubt until you reach the point where you no longer can doubt. ○ For descartes, way to do the method of doubt is survey each belief you have. As you survey your beliefs, you’ll notice you have TONS of beliefs. You’ll notice you have beliefs in the past that you considered true then, but now you believe to be false. (ex belief in tooth fairy) so figure out a way to doubt each belief you have...but you cannot rly do this. LOTS of work. So…...instead look at foundational beliefs (descartes = foundationalist, some beliefs more basic than others) bc if you can demolish these basic beliefs, that should take care of the rest of beliefs that are grounded on those basic beliefs. Instead of doubting EVERY belief, doubt the basic beliefs. ○ Can you doubt the foundational beliefs of religion ■ You have other beleifs that are drawn from these beliefs that you learned in church, for example, and of course you can doubt those ● Possible jesus did not rly resurrect from dead… ■ Can we doubt beliefs we acquired from sciences? ● Yes..science 50 yrs ago is diff than it was today! ■ Can we doubt knowledge we have acquired from senses? ● We don’t have a way of verifying if our senses accurately depict the world outside of us ● Knowledge of things in the world are soley based on senses ● But are my senses deceiving me?

○

○

○

○ ○

Dreaming argument by descartes ■ Their are times we fail to distinguish reality from a dream ■ Times we were dreaming that we were dreaming ■ How do i know im not dreaming rn ● Some say..i can pinch myself and see if i am in state of dream. But you can be DREAMING that you are listening to fidel’s lecture, and you look at screen and tell yourself youre going to pinch yourself, but you can still be dreaming that you are doing that..! ■ So senses can be deceitful. What about math? Beliefs that are mathemetical in nature? ■ Descartes introduces evil genius argument ● You cannot rule out possibility that their is an evil genius who is deceiving you the whole time ● It is possible im the only who exists and i am actually put in a jar by mad scientist who is programming my brain! ● Possible i began to exist 6 mins ago with programmed memories of decades of existence ● But we have no way of knowing that we live in this world bc we cannot exist outside of it Is their anything in this world we cannot doubt? ■ We can doubt knowledge we have in senses, math, religion….but what can we not doubt? ● This doubt is encourageable ● The existence of MYSeLF. I cannot doubt myself. Only thing i cannot doubt. ● “I think therefore I am” ● “As long as I am thinking, i must exist” - descartes ■ Why can we not doubt our existence? ● Bc the very moment i doubt my existence i must be the one who is doubting… ● If i am dreaming rn, and i am aware I am dreaming then i must exist as the one who is actually dreaming. Doubting is a form of thinking so as long as i am thinking i must exist What is they eye ■ The eye is the thinking thing ● Many things to say about the eye (self moment, has body, natural appetites…..) ● Descartes said you can doubt you’re a being with a body bc maybe you’re programmed to think you are a being with a body ● What can you not doubt about the eye ○ That you are a being with thought ● The eye distinguishes humans from all other things ● Matter cannot think, so the eye must be the thing doing the thinking

● ●

●

●

If eye exists, the mind must exist We are not a purely material thing bc we are beings who think. Must be something beyong our physical body that is doing the thinking and that is the mind Descartes Argument for the existence of body ○ Body is External and extended thing ■ Some may say that reality is just a construct of the mind. DESCARTES does not believe this...but some ppl do. ○ For descartes, their are objects/bodies that are external to mind and extended in space ○ In sensical perception of any object/event, 2 things are involved ■ Passive faculty of sensing ■ Active faculty of bringing about ideas ○ Perceiver and perceived ■ Perceiver - passively perceives object; ideas coming to you, you receive it and mind processes it ■ Perceived ○ where are the ideas for perceiving coming from??? ○ If active faculty resides in me, i must be the one bringing about these ideas. No object out their...i am just producing the ideas that I myself perceive ■ Descartes says this cannot be bc if active facultry resides in me, i must VOLUNTARILY perceive objects. Decide on my own what i want to perceive. ■ But we do not voluntarily produce what we perceive! We open eyes and see what is in front of us. ■ So active faculty must not reside in me. ○ So if active faculty is not coming from me, it comes from somewhere else. What is that somewhere else if it is not me? ■ body ! object producing these ideas ■ Or God? Everything that exists is under control of God. God is making me perceive things. ■ OR some other creature...evil genius or demon. They are controlling my mnd ○ If the ideas are coming from God or evil genius, God is then a deceiver. ○ If evil genius gives us the ideas, then God created a world where he intended for us to be deceived :( x ○ But God is not a deceiver! If God is most perfect of all beings, he cannot be deceiver bc deceiver is imperfection!!! ○ So must come from a body!! Descartes Argument for interaction btwn two ○ Pineal gland seems to be one that connects hemispheres of brain ■ Descartes said pineal gland is location where mind and body interact. ■ Step on nail, triggers pineal gland, have sensation of pain ■ Causal interaction btwn mind and body

■ Seems commonsensical! 1st law of thermo, energy cannot be created/destroyed If mind is not part of physical reality, then mind is causily interacting with brain and must produce energy! -- how some ppl think about it ■ Creation of energy when mind interacts with brain ○ Conflict btwn descartes dualism and 1st law of thermo ○ 1st law of thermo is est law in sciences tho so some say we need to let go of descartes dualism. Accept one or the other...cannot accept both Why is this all important ○ It has something to do with human nature ○ Attempt to explain realities about us. ■ Composed of 2 things, or only a material being? ■ Can science explain everything about who we are as ppl? Are we simply mere machines? ○ ○

●

I.

Mind body problem - 3rd part A. Does mind exist at all? B. Many ppl think we are just mind and body 1. Humans = dualist??? a) This view is questioned C. Many philosophers today think their is no such thing as mind; only something that is physical D. If no such thing as mind… 1. No such thing as free will 2. To have motor accountability, must be some sort of free will or freedom E. Common sense view is at stake if no such thing as mind F. Whats at stake 1. No such thing as mind, then humans are just machins a) Soon we will have machines/robots that will behave just like humans 2. Meaningfulness of life a) No mind, we are machines, thisis dangerous G. We will look at 3 views 1. Cartesian dualism a) de carte argued their has to be a mind bc i am capable of thinking! Their has to be something about me that is doing the thinking (1) Matter cannot think. If my body is just material, then it cannot be doing the thinking b) De carte said humans = 2 things: mind and body 2. Materialism and physicalism a) Materialists claim their is not such thing as non physical things; no such thing as mind

3. Frank jackson a) Critique of materialism Papineau’s materialism (causal argument) ● David papineau ○ Cotemporary british philosopher ● Argument for materialism (easy to follow) ○ Premise 1 ■ Mental conscious occurrences have physical effects ● Mental causes have physical effects ● Thirst causes me to grab something to drink (USE DIFF EX ON TEST) ○ Premise 2 ■ All physical effects are fully caused by fully physical prior histories ● Everytime u see a physical effect, you can trace it back to a series of physical cause that must have actually caused that effect. When you trace the physical cause of the physical effect, that physical cause also had a physical cause! ● On and on … trace a series of physical causes that causes this physical effects ○ Premise 3 ■ Physical effects of conscious causes are not always over determined by distinct causes ● Over determined ○ Someone got hit by lightning on chest, at same time they got hit by a bullet. But what caused the death of this person ■ Both are sufficient to explain the cause of death ■ To say by person died from lightning is an over determination bc what about the bullet ○ Conclusion ■ Mental causes must be identical to physical causes ● Whatever we call the mind is nothing but the brain ○ Not directly claiming their is no such thing as mind! But he argued that if we can explain everything that is happening in the natural world then why do we need to suppose their are mental causes ■ Why do i need to suppose their is such thing as pain when i can just explain why i am saying ouch by looking at whats happening in my brain ■ Why do i need to explain their is a mind by just appealing to natural world ○ Pap needs to presuppose that everything that exists must be reduceable to physical thing ■ Abstract claim ■ Abstract bc not concrete! If you say ALL it would be hard to explain ■ But we still have good reason for it to be true

●

●

Bc science presuppose it to be true. Science does not look for a mental cause...they look for physical causes. I think of my husband, activity in my brain! Pain, fibers fire!

● Objection to pap! ○ But if you reject any of his premises, you end up with a theory that is less compelling than materialism ■ Ex according to pap, if you reject his first premise, you have to claim that an itch does not make you scratch...etc...but this is counterintuitive ■ If you reject premise 2, you will have to reject the completeness of physics. You will have to claim their must be something else that needs to be explained that is beyond physical things. This is problematic tho bc you’d have to reject physics! ■ If you reject premise 3, you will have to claim that when you are scratching, you are caused to do that by the itch. At the same time, you are caused to do that same act by something in your brain. If you can explain why you are scratching, why do you have to suppose their is anything else to be explained. ■ So materialism is the best theory out there

Frank jackson epiphenomenal qualia ● For jackson, claim of materialism is false bc there are some things we cannot reduce to physical things ○ Ex. qualia. What is qualia? ■ Plural form of quail ■ Peculiarly Subjective felt qualities of experience ■ Ex. think about fiery image of sunset, taste of horse radish, this experience is considered to be qualia ● Jackson said qualia cannot be reduced to something that is physical ○ Quail of thirst, you’ve been thirsty before, but if i define my type of thirst, you cannot understand bc it is only accessible to me, not to you. You won’t have the experience that I am experiencing! ○ Quail of pain. ● we cannot use science to figure out if qualia really does exist, so jackson used THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS ○ Thought experiments ■ Come up with scenario to probe intuition of audience, there is something intuitively true about conclusions of whatever scenario you have made. ■ Powerful bc can be very appealing to intuition ■ Ex. to account for existence of qualia ● Suppose their is a guy named jim. Before jim entered room, we place 50 tomatoes on top of the table. All the tomatoes look the exact same to all of us. jim entered the room, looked at the tomatoes, and said oh you have two kinds of tomatoes here and two diff colors, and fred is able to distinguish the tomatoes. If we

●

wanted to test if jim was telling the truth, we ask fred to separate the tomatoes based on the two colors he claims they are (red 1 and red 2). We blindfold jim, and put mark on red 1 tomatoes that is not noticeable to him. Then we mix up tomatoes, and tell him to separate them again. He separated them exactly how he had separated them before. Did the same thing a few more times and fred made the same outcome. So jim is seeing something that is not accessible to us. ● What if we observed jim’s brain when he is looking at red 1 tomatoes and red 2 tomatoes. But does not matter how much we study his brain. Their is something about hwat he is seeing that is unknown to us. That is something that is only accessible to him ● KNOWLEDGE ARGUMENT!!! ■ Jackson says that this seems to show their must be qualia!! Another thought experiment used by frank jackson to prove qualia ○ Ex. story of jane ■ Jane is brilliant scientiest and knows everything their is to know about physics of colors. What if jane was born in a black and white room and has never left that room ever, she only knows black and white. But she knows everything there is to know about the physics of color, but she has never actually experienced color. Now, for first time, we let her out of the room. On front of door, we place a red rose. If mary saw that red rose for the first time...first time she has seen color...do you think she acquired to knowledge of redness after she actually experienced the color red? Logical answer is yes! Bc before this, she did not know what red looked like. Point: she can know everything their is to know about physics of color (could reduce them to physical things) but the experience of seeing the color was left out. So there must be qualia. ○ Epiphenomenalism is.. ■ The view that their are mental states and physical states, and mental states are dependent on physical states ● In descartes dualism, he was talking about their is a mind and body..2 diff substances..mind and body are independent of each other. They just caulily interact ■ So when body dies, no more mind bc mind is dependent on body ○ Epiphenomenal qualia ■ Qualia cannot be independent of brain, they are biproducts of what is happening in the brain ○ Objections ■ Some ppl say...isn’t it the case that one avoids pain after having had that experience in the past? Ex. one time i touched a hot stove, so now i am avoiding to touch it. Isn’t it the case that you scratch bc you have an itch? ● But jackson says that same activity in brain is the one causing the quail, and that is the once causing the behavioral output

○

■

Ex. activity in brain causes me to have itch, but same brain activity causes me to scratch...the itch is not what causes me to scratch Some say Isn’t it the case that if you say ouch i can infer you are in pain? ● Jackson says you can say when you hear someone say ouch, must have been caused by brain and that thing that caused them to say ouch caused them to have the pain

For Aquinas, the foundation of morality has to do with how we act, and discerning good from bad: we should do good things and not do bad things. He said there are natural laws, which involves doing good and not doing bad, and these natural laws originated from the eternal law from God. This eternal law is how God had originally intended fort the world to be ordered. Because of the first original sin of Adam, it is now in a human's nature to sin so we must need God's help to keep orderly. God created order, and He also is the cause of the universe. Aquinas said that we can argue for God's existence based on reason. Logic and experience give us reason, and then reason leads us to the belief in God. Additionally, anyone can gain access to God through logic and experience. Because of reason and our belief in God, we know what is right and what is wrong. For Hobbes, the foundation of morality has to do a lot with politics. He said we naturally are not a people of peace so, with our moral understandings, we must create a good place. Additionally, Hobbes expands on humans wanting more and more - never being satisfied, and especially wanting more than those around them. Because of this greedy and selfish nature, we are naturally always at war with one another. This is our natural state to be, so we must work our way out of it with our morals. The social contract is essentially an agreement among all people to stop fighting with each other and to desire and live in peace. It protects people's rights, and helps people still get what they want, in a sense, while not constantly at war. Its function is also to bring about a peaceful way of getting what people want.

It was more difficult for me to fully understand Kant's account of the theory of human cognition, but this is what I got out of it. In Kant's theory of cognition, he emphasizes relating the mind to objects. The way Kant perceives the mind is that it has certain abilities and it also has different ways to portray those abilities. Therefore, everything we humans do is based on either the mind receiving ...