PHL Final

Rene Descartes

william lane craig

Richard Swinburne

Al-Ghazali

George Berkeley

Anselm of Canterbury

John Locke

Socrates

Aristotle's definition of metaphysics as the study of being insofar as it is being. 

Truths that hold for all things, not just things of a certain kind or aspect, first principles.  

Fundamental Principles of Metaphysics: Principle of Non-Contradiction

A thing cannot both be and not be. I.e, you can’t be 6ft tall and not 6ft tall

Fundamental Principles of Metaphysics: Principle of Identity

A thing is numerically identical to itself and nothing else

Qualitative Identity

X is qualitatively identical to Y when X and Y are exactly alike; every quality or feature of X is also a quality or feature of Y, Vice versa

• Marky kate and Ashely

Numerical Identity

X is numerically identical to Y (X=Y) when X and Y are one and the same thing X and Y are the very same entity

• Bruce Wayne is numerically identical to batman

Ship of Thesus Problem

• A thought experiment that raises the question of whether an object that has had all of its components replaces remains fundamentally the same object  

• The ship was rid of the old planks that decayed, some philosophers argued that the ship remained the same, while others disagreed  

What does the Problem of Personal Identity Involve?

• How one is able to identify a single person over a time interval

• “What makes it true that a person at one time is the same thing as a person at another time”

The soul theory of personal identity

• the key to personal identity is having the same soul

• separate from one’s physical body or mind

The body theory of personal identity

• Person X = Person Y if, and only if X’s body is numerically identical to Y’s body

• Arises shop of thesus issue

  • same parts, same ship

  • persisting object must trace a continuous path through space and time

  • your body undergoes the process of cell renewal, under its own power = self caused process

REVISED body theory of personal identity

Person X = Person Y if, and only if, X’s body is spatio-temporally continuous with Y’s body

Body Theory Argument

1. If the body theory is true, then after the brain-transplant surgery the person with body 1 is Jennifer and the person with body 2 is Mike

2. but after the brain transplant surger, the person with body 1 is mike, not jennifer, vice versa

3. therefore, the body theory is not true

The brain theory of personal identity

• Person X= Person Y if, and only if, X’s brain is numerically identical to Y’s brain

• one of the most popular views when it comes to giving a theory of personal identity

• Brain B is numerically identical to Mike’s brain, because it was in Mike’s body before the surgery

The memory theory of personal identity

• John Locke

• I am identical to a person who existed in the past as long as I can remember at least some events that were experienced by that person

Soul Theory Issues

• cannot offer a principled reason to think that a soul persists through time and cannot explain why a particular soul might relate one body to another

• souls either change like physical bodies over time, which would complicate soul identity, or don’t change, which does not align with body changes

Body theory issues

some body changes resulting from external causes must be consistent with personal identity.

• brain transplant example

Brain theory issues

the memories of a person are linked to that person’s brain, the brain harbors the memories that responsible for the psychological qualities that define one’s personal identity

Memory theory issues

one may not have any recollection of their life as a young person, so it is not identical to themselves

Mind-Brain Identity Theory (Materialism)

Conscious mental states just are physical states of the brain

• brain state = mental state

• brain = mind

• the state of mind is the same as brain processes; that mental state is the same as the physical state of the brain

Materialism

everything that truly exists is matter; everything is material, thus all phenomena we see are a result of material interactions

Substance Dualism

• states that your brain (physical) is separate from mind (nonphysical)

• conscious mental states are states of a distinct, immaterial substance (the soul) which casually interacts with the brain

• friendly to idea of afterlife

Property Dualism

• Agrees with substance dualism by seeing mental states as separate from brain states

• conscious mental states are properties of the brain, albeit non physical sources - but are properties of the brain instead

  • when I imagine an apple, you won’t find an apple in my brain

Substance Dualism Afterlife

our conscious mental lives are features of a non-physical entity —> the soul

• afterlife friendly

Mind Brain Theory Afterlife

Afterlife is impossible because both the mind and brain are the same

Property Dualism - Afterlife

brain states cause mental states = no afterlife

Mental States

• knowledge

• beliefs

• feelings

• intentions

• desires

• memories

Brain States

The chemical and neurological organization of our brains

Lebiniz’s Law

• X has a feature, F —> X is F

• Y does not have a feature F —> Y is not F

• Therefore, X must be a distinct thing from Y —> X does not equal Y

  • my physical body has a feature, I can doubt that I have it. My mind doesn’t have that feature, I cannot doubt that I have it

  • Therefore, my mind must be a distinct thing from my physical body (Substance Dualism)

Richard Swinburne, Direct Privileged Access, Refuting Mind-Brain Identity Theory

• Refers to the sense in which an experience is directly available in consciousness and not mediated by some other mental process, such as thinking or memory

• Contrasts with indirect, mediated access

• Brain states don’t have this feature

How Richard Swinburne uses Leibniz’s Law to establish Property Dualism

Brain states and mental states don’t have the same qualities —> materialism is false

1. We have direct, privileged access to our mental states

2. we do not have direct, privileged access to our brain states

3. therefore, mental states do not = brain states

Split Brain Though experiment and Swinburne proof of souls

However much we know about what has happened to a person’s brain, and to every other part of that person, we don’t know what has happened to that person

—> there must be more to it than the body and brain are made, a further immaterial that connects a person’s body and brain —> soul

Why does the Split Brain Thought Experiment raise a problem for Memory and Brain theory of personal identity ?

The person who’s brain is being transferred is not going to that other body, including death.

• While brain theory of personal identity shows that this person can’t be the other because the one person giving the brain to the other has no brain

What Materialism (Mind-brain identity theory) says about the mind-brain relationship

both mind and brain are one in the same —> same function and provide thoughts, feelings, and knowledge

Scott Sehon against Substance Dualism, Simplicity Principle

1. Given two theories, it is unreasonable to accept one. That leaves significantly more unexplained mysteries than the other. (Simplicity Principle)

2. Substance Dualism leaves significantly more unexplained mysteries than Materialism concerning observed facts about the mind

3. Therefore, it is unreasonable to adopt Substance Dualism. Materialism is the more reasonable theory of the nature of the human mind.

Free will as involving “alternative possibilities”

something caused you to choose something

“Ought implies can” or why moral responsibility requires free will

It is the only thing you could have done, while you are being held morally responsible for that action

Determinism

Every event has a cause. IF something happens, it can be explained by it happens (at least in principle)

• things don’t happen for no reason whatsoever

Hard Determinist Beliefs

1. Every event has a cause

2. our actions are events

3. therefore, our actions have causes

4. if our actions have causes, than we do not have free will

5. therefore, we do not have freewill

Compatibilism

• determinism is true, we have free will

• therefore, the two are compatible

Incompatiblism

• Free will can only exist if determinism is false, we have to choose between excepting determinism or free will

• determinism is incompatible with free will

The Incompatibilists view of free will, and why Compatiblists (WT Stace) think it’s wrong

they don’t understand the meaning of free will

• they believe (INC) , the existence of free will is incompatible with the truth of determinism (everything has a cause)

WT Stace (COMP) definition of Free Will

**key “ingredients” —> the action is caused by the will of the agent + the action is performed without constraints

• an act done freely is caused by desire/wants/motives

• once could have done something differently

• external circumstance is not free will

• Example of Ghandi and Nigel

According to Stace, why is free will not compatible with determinism, but rather requires it

• there was a cause for the action, Ghandi is using both free will and determinism together to protests, showing they are compatible

• free actions have causes

Counterexample to Stace’s definition of free will

The behavior of animals vs. behavior of the insane

• an event that is caused by the mental states of the agent is a free action

• acting without constraints. If this definition is correct, animals have free will

• animals don’t have free will, his definition is correct

Why does the nature of cause and effect raise a problem for compatiblism ?

• The caused comes before the effect

• the cause is in the past relative to the effect

• the past determines the future

• we have no control of the past, therefore we have no control of the future

Libertarianism

• we have free will, but determinism is incompatible with free will

• therefore, determinism is false

• actions are uncaused

How does quantum mechanics play into the view of Libertarians?

The argument of hard determinism is false; Not every event has a cause, some events, like in quantum mechanics specifically, are uncaused

Why does Indeterminism (embraced by Libertarians), raise a problem for moral responsibility

• the future is not fixed by the past

• indeterminists challenge the idea that all events are casually necessitated by events in the past and consider the possibility that the same past can lead to different future states

• there is no place that indeterminism can be introduced that would result in actions for which agents can be held responsible