Philosophy 101 Midterm Ramsey UNLV

premise

in an argument, a statement meant to support a conclusion

modus ponens

the rule of logic stating that if a conditional statement (if p then q) is accepted, and the antecedent (p) holds, then the consequent (q) may be inferred

Premise 1: If P, then Q

• Premise 2: P

• Conclusion: Therefore, Q

modus tollens

the rules of logic stating that if a conditional statement (if p then q) is accepted, and the consequent does not hold (not-q), then the negation of the antecedent (not-p) can be inferred

Logical Structure: If P, then Q

• Premise 2: Not Q

• Conclusion: Therefore, not P

syllogism

an instance of a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn (whether validly or not) from two given or assumed propositions (premises), each of which shares a term with the conclusion, and share a common or middle term not present in the conclusion

deductive argument

an argument meant to give logically conclusive support to its conclusion

deductive inference

method of reasoning where you start with general premises and draw a specific conclusion that must be true if the premises are true.

inductive argument

an argument meant to provide probable support to its conclusion

inductive reasoning

a way to describe something that leads to something else, so when applied to reasoning it just means you collect information and draw conclusions from what you observe

soundness

the state of being in good condition; the quality of being based on valid reason or good judgment

fallacy of equivocation

a word has multiple meanings (being ambiguous) and uses those words to create a fallacy

equivocation

the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication

validity

the quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency.

fallacy of begging the question

a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it

begging the question

A fallacy in which a claim is based on evidence or support that is in doubt.

perfections

a condition, state, or quality, of being free or as free as possible from all flaws or defects

ontological argument

an argument that tries to demonstrate God's existence by logical analysis of the concept of God

impossible things

something that cannot be done or that is very difficult

a priori vs a posteriori

existing vs. non-existing things

possible vs. impossible things

reductio ad absurdum

assumes negation of conclusion to establish conclusion; show negation of thesis leads to a contradiction; try to negate what you are establishing

Gaunilo's island

The perfect island, this argument goes, is the island than which no greater can be conceived. A fully perfect island is not possible

principle of sufficient reason

The principle that everything must have a reason to explain it

cosmological argument

an argument that tries to show that from the fact that the universe exists, God exists

fallacy of composition

You assume that because the parts of something have a certain feature, than the entire object has that same feature

fallacy of composition example

One brick weighs 10 pounds, therefore, the entire wall weighs 10 pounds

unmoved mover

whatever is in motion has had to be set into motion and God is that something

teleological argument

An argument that tries to show that God must exist because features of the universe show signs of purpose or design.

watch analogy

The complex inner workings of a watch necessitate an intelligent designer. Can't design a watch by just throwing a bunch of pieces together

garden analogy

If you enter a very dark covered forest and see a wild garden laid out perfectly in uniform, it can be argued that there must have been a designer (God) and would support the argument.

Could also serve as an objection though. You could object and say that they grow like that because of the veins in the ground. It has a scientific explanation.

inference-to-best-explanation

a form of inductive reasoning in which we reason from premises about a states of affairs to an explanation for that state of affairs

theodicy

a defense of the traditional conception of God in light of the existence of evil

moral evil

Actions done by humans that cause suffering

counterpart theory

as tallness can't exist without shortness, so happiness can't exist without suffering; God allows suffering to permit the experience of happiness

natural evil

Things which cause suffering but have nothing to do with humans

free will defense

the claim that God could not create creatures (such as us) who have freedom of the will but who are incapable of doing evil

virtue defense

virtues like compassion can't exist without suffering; God wants us to have the great benefit of being virtuous; thus God allows suffering

parent analogy

Your parents look out for you and sometimes let you make bad choices so that you can learn from them so we can become better people. God does this as well.

Doesn't explain suffering; suggests how suffering may be consistent with God's existence

morally significant freedom

Freedom we exercise when we choose between good and evil

freedom's value vs. its cost

free will defense as a response to the problem with evil. Questions if freedom is worth the amount of suffering we endure

"soul-making" theodicy

God allows evil because it is necessary for us to develop virtue.

inconsistent tetrad

Four statements, the truth of any three of which entails the falsity of the fourth

1. Mind is non-material (spiritual)

2. Body is material (physical)

3. Mind and body interact

4. Material and non-material do not interact

mind-body problem

the issue of how the mind is related to the brain and body

substance dualism

the notion that mind and body consist of two fundamentally different kinds of stuff or substances

property dualism

the view that mental properties are nonphysical properties arising from, but not reducible to, physical properties

interactionism

the idea that situations and personality interact to determine behavior

parallelism

similarity of structure in a pair or series of related words, phrases, or clauses

irreducible properties

cannot be simplified any more

propositional attitudes

Propositional attitudes are often assumed to be the fundamental units of thought and their contents, being propositions, are true or false. An agent can have different propositional attitudes toward the same proposition

intentionality

the quality of being directed toward an object

qualia

private conscious experiences of sensation and perception

epiphenomenalism

The form of emergentism that states that mental events emerge from brain activity but that mental events are subsequently behaviorally irrelevant.

reduction

the action or fact of making a specified thing smaller or less in amount, degree, or size.

neural dependency argument

If the brain and mind are separate, then physical changes to the brain should not affect the mind. i.e. alcohol or drugs

miracles in the brain

Because brain events are caused by purely spiritual things, they appear as miracles rather than having a cause.

dualism's explanatory weakness

Dualism is in no better position than materialism with respect to explaining aspects of the mind like intentionality and consciousness.

problem of the other hand

It is a central tenet of the philosophical idea known as solipsism; the notion that for any person only one's own mind is known to exist. Solipsism maintains that no matter how sophisticated someone's behavior is, behavior on its own does not guarantee the presence of mentality.

Lebniz's law

A and B are identical if and only if they share all the same properties.

Knowledge Argument

The argument that someone who knows all the objective neurological facts about the brain still does not know what it is like to see red, or have stereoptic vision, until they have those subjective experiences.

type identity theory

every type of mental state is identical with some type of brain state

neuroscientist Mary

-Supports the knowledge argument and opposes physicalism (all things can be realized just from learning about the physical world)

-Mary is an expert on everything red (knows all), but is colorblind and cannot physically experience the color red. One day, she wakes up and is able to see the color red. Does Mary learn something new about red now that she, herself, has physically experienced it?

functionalism

A school of psychology that focused on how our mental and behavioral processes function - how they enable us to adapt, survive, and flourish.

neural transplant example

suppose there someone need some nerve cell removed because of a tumor and they get replaced with fake neurons but the person still feels and acts the same

hard determinism

the belief that crime results from forces beyond the control of the individual

multiple realizability

the property by which something can be realized, embodied, instantiated in multiple ways and in different media

mind as brain's program

The brain is a computer, and the mind is simply something that runs on said computer.

Carefully explain the ontological argument for the existence of God. What is a common objection to this argument? Do you think this objection works? Explain.

The ontological argument for the existence of God states that God is the greatest being imagined. God exists in idea and that a being that exists in both reality and idea is greater than a being that only exists in idea. But if God only exists in idea, that means there exists a being greater than God. This is a contradiction because God is the greatest being that can be imagined. Therefore, God exists in reality. A common objection to this argument is Gaunilo's island where Gaunilo used a "perfect island" instead of God in the same format as the ontological argument. Using the ontological argument, Gaunilo proved that the "perfect island" exists and that in fact anything could be perfect like a perfect husband or the perfect basketball player. This is obviously absurd so Gaunilo said that proving there was a perfect God through this argument was also absurd. I think this objection does work because it shows that the ontological argument is open to parody and that it can be used to show how anything can be "perfect" just because it exists as an idea.

What is the 'principle of sufficient reason', and how does it operate in the cosmological argument for the existence of God? Do you find this principle plausible? Why or why not?

The principle of sufficient reason is the idea that every event needs an explanation or reason. You cannot say that something happened because of nothing, there has to be a reason why something happened. It operates in the cosmological argument by stating that the beginning of the universe needs an explanation or reason. The universe's beginning is then explained by the existence of God. This principle is plausible because everything needs a reason to happen or it did not happen at all. For example, a car that does not start does not choose not to start on its own. There is a reason that a car does not start whether it be the car is broken or the engine is not working properly. If there is no reason that the car won't start then it is impossible that the car does not start!

Present the Kalam version of the cosmological argument. What is the mathematical defense of the claim the universe had a beginning? Do you find this defense compelling? Why or why not.

The Kalam version of the cosmological argument is: 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began. Therefore the universe has a cause. That cause is God. The mathematical defense is that there are alleged problems with infinity sets. There are paradoxes such as infinity minus infinity which equals infinity still. I find this defense compelling because it is true that infinity does have problems like stated previously. These problems make one think that there is a cause to why the universe began because it did not take infinity or something of that nature. This defense made me think about the complexities of infinity and the mathematics behind it and with those complexities I found this to be very compelling. Infinity cannot be manifested in reality.

Please explain Paley's argument for the existence of God. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this argument? Do you think the argument ultimately succeeds? Explain.

Paley's argument is the teological argument for the existence of God. This argument states: 1. Aspects of the world are like detailed machines. 2. Detailed machines have intelligent designers. 3. The world was designed by God. The advantange of this argument is the focus on functionalism and the connection between functionality and intelligent design. The disdvantages include what about the world is like a machine and there are some aspects of the world that are not "detailed" which points toward an imperfect God. I think the argument ultimately does not succeed because the disadvantages ruin the plausibility of it. Also, evolution dispells this argument since things have learned to adapt and whatnot.

"It is good that pain and suffering exist because without them people couldn't develop a number of important virtues." After explaining exactly what such a claim is a response to, carefully evaluate its merits and shortcomings.

-claim is a response to an argument against theism

-tries to defend the above, called virtue defense

-merits: God wants virtues; people do learn virtues such as compassion and forgiving

-shortcomings: virtues aren't necessarily good, only good because we suffered; wrong to allow people to suffer so that we can show compassion; also, virtues are countered by vices

Carefully explain the "free-will" defense? What are two of its alleged problems? Do you think a theodicist could respond to these difficulties? Explain.

The "free-will defense" is: 1. It's not possible for humans to be free and be incapable of moral evil. 2. A Free World is better than a Restricted World. 3. God creates the best possible world. 4. God therefore created a world where sometimes people do moral evil

problems:

1. we are already restricted yet we believe we are free?

2. why not sacrifice some freedom for less suffering?

could respond to difficulties:

1. what freedom matters? (freedom of choice rather than physical restrictions such as flying is what matters)

2. many reject presentative restriction (people reject sacrificing any freedom)

Carefully explain the neural dependency argument against substance dualism. Why does this argument challenge substance dualism but not property dualism? Do you think the argument works? Why or why not?

The neural dependency argument states that brain damage, drugs, and/or disease alters/destroys our thoughts, including memories, and personality. This argument challenges substance dualism because if our mind were separate from our soul brain damage will only block the body’s output, NOT destroy the soul’s inner thought. It does not challenge property dualism because property dualism states that the brain is a physical base, therefore physical brain activity generates non-physical feelings (pain). I think this argument works because it proves that the mind relies on the physical brain, making an independent soul unneccessary.

Carefully explain the view known as epiphenomenalism. What are its advantages and disadvantages? Do you think epiphenomenalism can be made to work? Explain.

Epiphenomenalism is the view that states the body affects the mind but the mind doesn't matter. Mental states have no affect on physical actions or behavior. The advantages of it are very few and mental causation is one of them. The disadvantages far outweigh the advantages of epiphenomenalism as it is a last resort for those who defend it. The disadvantages include introspection and the fact that it states our minds don't matter. If our minds do not matter than the body does the things it does, basically by it self which is a crazy thought. I do not think epiphenomenalism can be made to work because there are just so many more disadvantages compared to advantages. It is crazy to think that the reason my eye brow moves is not because my mind told it to but because my body did. It just is not rational and doesn't make sense to me. It's an amazing concept but I don't think it can be made to work because it's too absurd!

Carefully explain the central tenets of reductive materialism (the identity theory). What are some of its strengths and weakness? Do you believe this position is correct? Why or why not?

The central tenets of reductive materialism is that the brain is the same as the mind. The mental states are the same as our brain states is what the identity theory states. Mental states are defined by the virtue of their underlying neurological make-up. The strengths of reductive materialism include no interaction problem and no other worries about other minds. Some weaknesses include functionalism materialism and the fact that minds and brains seem to have different properties. I believe this position is incorrect because of the weakness that minds and brains seem to have different properties. Where the mind seems to operate on it's own and has it's own consciousness, the brain does not and is there mainly as the computer or the hardware to keep the mind in.

Describe a thought-experiment that is used to support the functionalist theory over the identity theory. How does the thought experiment support functionalism. Do you think it succeeds? Explain

The martian thought-experiment is used to support the functionalist theory over the identity theory. The martian thought-experiment is the experiment that if a Martian came over to Earth that our DNAs could be similar and that they too would have mental states that function. It supports functionalism by showing mental states for their function rather than their relation to other mental states and multiple realizability. A good example of this is the door stop. Functionalists don't think about the door stop's material, they think about what it does, it's core function. The martian's mental state functions just like a human's rather than having the same mental state as a brain state indicated by the identity theory. This supports the core of functionalism in that it's not what the thing is that matters it's what the thing does. I think the thought experiment does succeed because it shows that brain state and mental state are not the same. The martian's mental state functions just like a human's and that function is what supports the functionalist theory over the identity theory.

fine-tuning argument

universe’s physical laws and constants are set to such precise values that if they were even slightly different, complex life could not exist

unmoved mover

concept introduced by Aristotle to describe the ultimate cause of all motion and change in the universe

Dualism’s explanatory weakness

inability to explain how a non-physical mind and a physical body can interact

irreducible complexity

certain biological systems are made of multiple interdependent parts, meaning that if you remove even one part, the entire system stops working

Kalam argument

argument is a set of statements where one or more premises are given to provide reason or evidence to support a conclusion

Hilbert’s Hotel

thought experiment about a fully booked hotel with an infinite number of rooms that can still fit an infinite number of new guests just by shifting every current guest to a higher room number (infininity)

problem of other minds

philosophical question of how you can know for sure that other people actually have conscious minds and feelings (you only observe external feelings, not inner feelings)