Studied by 1 person
The basic idea of physicalism
All mental phenomena are ultimate or necessitated by physical phenomena: There is no mental without physical
Main belief in philosophy
Qualia and their privacy
The Phenomenal Character of existence: what it is Like during the experience
comparing your first cheeseburger to your 100th cheeseburger
it is private and no one else can see/experience it
The “hard problem” of consciousness
What separates your 1st person perspective from your 3rd person perspective
David Chalmers, how do they exist?
explaining how qualia the phenomenal characteristics come into play
Physicalism
Phenomenal consciousness and its main features
Functional: Physical being able to have a thought process
Phenomenal: Quila, what is it like to be conscious? having awareness of yourself
Private - no one can see it/experience it
Certain - knowing for certain
Intentional - perception about a particular thing, brain → to one direction
Unified: All sensory inputs are put together for one experience, connected
Physicalism
The problem of other minds
Solipsism: Only one to exist
Phenomenal solipsism: only one to be conscious and exist
Cannot know if anyone has a mind/conscious
Philosophical zombies: an exact copy of a human being that does NOT have any conscious experiences
Physicalism
The arguments for physicalism
Mind brain correlations
The mind supervenes the brain, mind is not non-physical. Consciousness is needed for the brain to function; you can have the mental cannot change without their being change to the physical
Physical causal closure
Every physical effect has a complete physical cause (desire)
Previous explanations success
just because other things have been discovered before (success)
Physicalism
The arguments against physicalism
Knowledge Argument
just because it is not an accurate/valid argument, no physical does not mean phenomena
Conceivability argument
we cannot conceive of the mind without a body
Explanation argument
never where it comes from, hence consciousness is not physical ex: you can point out where pain is but cannot say that is pain
Epistemic gap
the gap between what we know about the brain and the mind there has to be an actual gap
Intentionally and meaning
is in your head
Unity of the mind
the brain in half has to exist, the body is constantly changing, and the mind is not composed of physical
Dualism
The basic idea of dualism
Descartes is the philosopher who discovered the concept of “dualism”
The mind and the brain are two different things, they are distinct but interact. equally fundamental
Psychophysical law: stand in causal relations
Dualism
The difference between substance dualism and property dualism
Substance: The mind and body are two separate things, cartesian dualism is =
Property: The mind and body are separate things that attach to a substance (mind-brain correlation) sticking to the same thing so that’s why they interact
Dualism
The interaction problem
How can things interact w/ one another if they are not made of the same thing
Dualism
Parallelism and occasionalism
Occasionalism: Malebranche (1638-1715):
Occasionalism
This is occasioned by God. There is no correlation between the pain state and the desired state
Tack → God → Pain
Tack → God → Desire (jumping back)
God desires each mental state to cause you to have certain mental states and physical states. God intervenes in all things
Parallelism: Leibniz (1646-1716) Psychophysical parallelism
The mind and body are on two different levels
Pain → Desire
Track → Jump
Dualist view because the mind and body are separate things, but DO NOT interact
God is arranging the world which is known as (pre-established harmony) so that mental cause and effects can correlate with physical cause and effects // Occasioned by God (the mental)
Does not cause a correlation
Dualism
Epiphenomenalism, overdetermination dualism, and interactionist dualism
Epiphenomenalism: The dualist view, one-way causation but not back. byproducts that mental states are the effects of physical states.
Overdetermination: Two-way causation, the view for any physical and mental cause and effect, both physical. Not needed to cause the physical, doing too much
Interactionist: The physical and mental jointly cause physical
Dualism
Phenomenology, verificationism, and behaviorism as departures from dualism
Phenomenology: Being able to look at it from yourself. Being embodied, and having a body for interaction = consciousness. cannot have one without the other
The idea that the only meaningful scientific statement can be verified scientifically: we do not experience mental causation not physical
Verificationism: Criteria of meaning all meaningful statements in testable ways
Behaviorism: The only statement of behavior, “i am in pain” without displaying behaviors of pain. You can look at how peoples mental through their behavior
Idealism
Berkeleyan idealism
Berkeley (1685-1753):
Idealism
Everything is mental, the mind exists. Your mind perceives things no physical without perception. God exists is the ultimate perceiver, we perceive what he does
Mind = mental
Everything is mental, he is the ultimate mind. There is no physical
Idealism
Phenomenalism
Phenomenalism is a form of idealism that goes even further, claiming that objects only exist as collections of sensory experiences (or phenomena). If no one can perceive an object through senses (like seeing or touching), we can't say it exists.
Idealism
How each of these relate to the arguments for and against physicalism
Dual-Aspect Monism
The basic idea of dual-aspect monism
Dual/Double aspect monism (DAM):
It has both mental and physical aspects → Everything is both and both are real. Is the view that Panpsychism or panprotopsychism is real
Dual-Aspect Monism
The distinction between panpsychism, panprotopsychism, and cosmopsychism
Panpsychism: Everything is conscious on its own It is a view that every particle in the universe is conscious
Panprotopsychism:
Everything is proto-conscious is the idea that the human brain is the building blocks to make something conscious (what comes before) if you put enough together it will become consciousness but it needs to be arranged in the “right way”
Cosmopsychism: The universe is conscious, we humans have consciousness because we are in/part of the universe → Variant of Panpsychism
Dual-Aspect Monism
The combination problem as an argument against dual-aspect monism
Combination problem:
Putting conscious things to put them together to make one bigger conscious thing?
The more particles put together the more conscious something becomes (protocon)
Functionalism
The basic idea of functionalism
Mental states are defined by the functions that they serve. Having certain purposes and can exist in our brains, computers and realizable
Higher: “what am I doing?” communication of pain
Lower: the actual process, c-fibers firing
what matters to the mind is what things do, not what they are made of. It’s less about the physical stuff (like brain cells) and more about the function or role that mental states (like thoughts, emotions, or beliefs) play in our behavior and experiences
Functionalism
Multiple realizability and abstraction as they relate to functional systems
Multiple realizability: same material getting formed into distinct forms
$100 in several ways (1-$100. 5- $20’s, 100-$1’s)
Functional systems: to serve things themselves that can exist in the system that they are laid
Looking at the whole system
Functionalism
Belief, thought, and desire in functionalism
Belief: is a functional state representing another functional state (considering then accepting)
Thought: An intentional state and is considered BUT they are not accepted or rejected (considered)
Desire: Is considering a potential experience, but you reflect on it and experience happiness/satisfaction experience (wish/considered)
These are called intentional states
Functionalism
Objections to functionalism
Holism: cannot describe one part of your mind, it has to be the whole system
Causation: physical states can cause their physical states. = redundant
Knowledge: This is missing qualia
Representational theory of the mind: when you create another mind
The basic idea of the Representational Theory and the Language of Thought
Representational theory: States that the mind works by creating mental representations of the world around us. These are like mental images, symbols, or models that stand for real things, allowing us to think and understand. Minds are software, brain is hardware
LoT theory says that thinking is like having a mental language in our heads, with symbols and sentences that help us understand the world, reason, and make decisions. Our thoughts are about propositions. The sentence expresses the proposition. It is the software of runs on the brain hardware
Representational Theory
Semantic engines and the definition of understanding
syntax- the structure, semantics- vocabulary, meaning. The idea behind semantic engines is to move beyond surface-level processing (matching symbols) to a deeper understanding of meaning like humans do when they think or communicate.
The mind does not understand, just interpreters symbols and puts inti something. True understanding involves deeper understanding of meaning, not just recognizing patterns or following instructions.
Representational Theory
The Turing test
Test that determines if a computer can have a syntax manipulates, AI passes the test = sounding human. A way to measure a machine's ability to show intelligent behavior that's indistinguishable from a human.
ChatGBT passes
Claude - saying one was in pain
Can a machine act human enough to convince someone it’s actually human?
Chinese Room
The distinction between Strong AI and Weak AI
Argument: that computers do not understand, there is more than symbol manipulation// You can have understanding without knowledge and utilize resources (systems reply) John Searle (1980)
Strong AI: Computers = Minds, they can understand
Weak AI: Computers simulate the mind, and do not understand
Chinese Room
Searle’s Chinese Room argument and the thinking ability of computers
Searle argues that running a program (processing information) isn't enough for real understanding or consciousness. Therefore, even though computers can simulate human behavior, they don’t really "think" in the way humans do.
From the outside, it looks like you understand Chinese because you're giving the right answers. But inside the room, you’re just following rules without any understanding.
Chinese Room
At least two responses to Searle’s Chinese Room argument
Searles (1980) is arguing against strong AI, saying computers are NOT = mind
Other minds reply: having to deny understanding to everyone if he is = to computer, how do we know to understand
Combination reply: Putting together does NOT = understanding
Brain stimulation reply: Light bulb being stimulated to imitate neurons, good simulation does NOT = understanding
Robot reply: Putting the brain inside a robot and they’ll be able to interact with the world
Chinese room scenario
Imagine you're in a room where you don’t understand Chinese at all.
You're given a set of Chinese symbols (questions written in Chinese).
You also have a rulebook in English that tells you how to match these Chinese symbols with other Chinese symbols (without understanding their meaning).
When you follow the rulebook, you pass out Chinese answers that seem correct to someone outside the room who speaks Chinese.
Note 
Flashcard (105)