Philosophy midterm (NO DECARTES, PARFIT, OR HUME)

words are

symbols

names

stand for objects (subject)

Verbs

stand for some sort of process in time or a descriptor (predicate)

both _____ are needed to form simple statements

names and verbs

sentences that cannot be true

questions, expressive phrases, commands

statements

basic kinds of sentences that can be true or false

syllogisms

arguments with two presmises and a conclusion

barbara

all A’s are B’s

all X’s are A’s

therefore all X’s are B’s

celarent

No A’s are B’s

All X’s are A’s

Therefore no X’s are B’s

Ferio

No A’s are B’s

Some X’s are A’s

Therefore some X’s are not B’s

a syllogism is valid if

its logical structure guarantees a conclusion follows from the premises

a syllogism is sound if

it is valid and all of its premises are actually true

contradictions

explicit denial of each other (if one true other is false)

contraries

cant both be true but can both be false

subcontraries

cant both be flase but can both be true

subalterns

another implied by the other but not vice versa

left top corner of square of opposition

universal affirmative

(all X’s are Y’s)

right top corner of square of opposition

universal negative

(No X’s are Y’s)

left bottom corner of square of opposition

particular affirmative

(Some X’s are Y’s)

right bottom corner of square of opposition

particular negative

(Some X’s are not Y’s)

Corner to corner in square of opposition

contradictions

top to top in square of opposition

contraries

bottom to bottom in square of opposition

subcontraries

top to bottom in square of opposition

subalterns

first limitation of natural language

ambiguity

ambiguity

word can take on multiple meanings (Bank, Horse)

second limitation of natural language

gapped reasoning

gapped reasoning

no clearly specified way to reason in natural language

cant see reasoning steps

if we did say everything it would be bad

predicates in modern logical language

capital letters out front

subjects in modern logical language

small letter in parentheses

how to say bella is green in modern logical language

G(b)

logical constant and

^

logical constant or

v

logical constant if…then

—>

logical constant not

~

how to say if lover is a frog she is green in modern logical language

F(l) —> G(l)

universal quantifier in modern logical language

upside down “A”

existential quantifier in modern logical notation

backwards “E”

how to say something is green in modern logical notation

(backwards E) x G(x)

how to say all frogs are green in modern logical notation

(upside down A) x (F(x) —> G(x))

Turing test

Human judge interrogates a human and machine (Blindly) and if the machine can convice the interrogator that it is a human then the machine has passed the turing test

advantages of turing test

• definite experiment that could be carried out in practice

• isolates intellectual aspects of a person

• seems we may be able to test all intellectual abilities in this way

criticisms of turing test

• test stacked against machine (we would fail to act like a machine)

• a machine could fail test and still be thinking and vice versa (different type of thinking?)

digital computer

machine intended to carry out what can be done by a human computer

human computer

fixed rule book and unlimited supply of paper

programming according to turing

put appropriate instruction into machine so it will do a specific thing

theological objection to turing

God didnt give machines souls

turings response to the theological objection

whos to say God wont give machines souls

could be gods will that humans created machines

heads in sands objection to turing

lets not think about this

turings response to heads in sand objection

everyone has this worry

can refute this refusal

mathematical objection to turing

some statements cannot be proven true

for any digital computer there will always be some unanswerable questions

turings response to the mathematical objection

how do we know we can answer everything

we are wrong all the time

consciousness objection to turing

machines cannot compose sonnets or concertos based off of emotions

machines cannot feel or be concious

turings response to the consciousness objection

in order to really know what the machine thinks you would have to be the machine itself

Chinese room thought experiment

• person is in a closed room where papers can be passed in and out

• person not Chinese but they can successfully identify different characters

• an enormous books of rules is inside room, for any possible combo of characters the rules state what characters should be written and passed out

• so someone can imitate being able to read and respond to chinese characters

searles argument

• person is made into human computer (in turings sense)

• example of cognition

• no actual understanding is happening only seems like understanding

• same fro computers with computer programs

systems objection to searle

individual does not understand story but the whole system of the room understands what is happening

searles response to the systems objection

even if someone took on every part of the system by memorizing the characters he would still not understand chinese

the robot objection to searle

what if we put a robot that can percieve understand drink and see and would be controlled by a computer brain, would the robot have genuine undertsanding

searles response to the robot obejction

even with perception from robot and being able to control robot’s motor apparatus, still no understanding is added to the system

the brain simulator objection to searle

program simulates the actual sequence of neurons firing synapses when a native chinese speaker understands stories, machine takes in chinese, fires synapses, and gives outputs in chinese

searles reply to the brain simulator objection

not sufficient to produce understanding

imagine water running through pipes to imitate brain and chinese answers produced, person and the water pipe system doesn’t understand chinese

for native laguage speakers words are ____ (syntax vs semantics)

intentional (meaning behind words)

according to searle intentionality is a ______

biological phenomenon

argument in favor of AI being able to think

• LLMs based off of artificial neural networks

• now machines have provided insight into how the brain works

• neocortex takes in senses to make predictions and capture regularities to form a compressed model of world (AI does same thing —> info put in vs download size)

arguments against AI being able to think

• stochastic parrot (AI very good at predicting the next word)

• LLM’s less efficient compared to human infants (need whole data centers)

• Once an AI has been trained it is set and doesn’t continually change like a human (tell a model something and it jots it down instead of rewiring neural networks)

what is knowledge Decartes believes in undoubtable?

the self exists and is a thinking thing, as soon as you think you exist you do, because we can doubt we exist, cogito ergo sum

What is knowledge Decartes believes is doubtable

empircal and non-empirical knowledge (demon and dreams)

accidental properties according to decartes

properties that can be observed with the senses

essential rpoperties according to decartes

everything that can be grasped with the mind alone

when something changes we ____

invent an underlying thing that remains the same

self according to Hume

a bundle of different perceptions which succeed each other rapidly and are connected by causation

theseus’s ship

every part of the ship is changed, is it still the same ship?

hume compares people to

nations

teletransporter scenario relates to what philosopher

Parfit

Physical criterion of identity

X is the same as Y if enough of Y’s brain continues to exist and becomes X’s brain and this physical continuity has not taken a branching form

psychological criterion of identity

There is psychological continuity if and only if there are overlapping chains of strong connectedness.

X today is one and the same person as Y at some past time if and only if X is psychologically continuous with Y, this continuity has the right kind of cause, and it has not taken a ‘branching’ form.”

Reductionist views on personal identity

everything there is to say about something can be explained in terms of something else with no remainder

Non reductive account of personal identity

it is not possible to explain identity of a person in terms of something else always something about self that cannot be explained

Decartes vs Hume

reductionist vs non-reductionist