PHIL Exam 2
Reading: Schick and Vaughn - Mind as Soul
Q1. In your own words, clearly and thoroughly explain the view of Cartesian Dualism (also known as Substance Dualism). Come up with your own concrete examples as part of your explanation.
Cartesian Dualism (Substance Dualism): Mind and body are two different substances: The mind is immaterial (abstract) and for thinking; the body is material (physical) and exists in space and time.
Mind-body interaction is central: Despite their differences, the mind and body can influence and interact with each other.
Mental states= states of an immaterial substance
Example: Deciding to raise your hand (mental) leads to physical movement (body).
Q2. In your own words, clearly and thoroughly explain the Problem of Interaction for Cartesian Dualism. Come up with your own concrete examples as part of your explanation.
Problem of Interaction for Cartesian: How can a material substance (body) interact with an immaterial substance (mind)?
Why is your body the only material substance your mind can interact with?
Why is your mind “stuck” to your body in time and space?
Q3. In your own words, clearly and thoroughly explain Descartes’ two responses to the Problem of Interaction.
Descartes’ Responses to the Problem of Interaction
Pineal Gland Hypothesis: Suggested the pineal gland as the site where mind and body interact.
Critique: The pineal gland itself is a physical object; explaining how the immaterial mind interacts with it remains problematic.
Divine Intervention: Proposed that God ensures the mind-body interaction occurs harmoniously. The mind uses a physical force to interact with your body.
Q4. In your own words, clearly and thoroughly explain how The Causal Closure of the Physical principle supports the Problem of Interaction. Come up with your own concrete examples as part of your explanation.
The Causal Closure of the Physical
The chain of causal explanation never requires an immaterial cause.
Implication: If mental events cause physical events, it challenges the idea that physical events are fully explained by physical causes.
Law of conservation of mass-energy
Example: A mental decision to move a limb must have a physical explanation, conflicting with the causal closure principle.
Q5. In your own words, clearly and thoroughly explain the view of Epiphenomenalism and how it tries to avoid the problem of The Causal Closure of the Physical principle. Come up with your own concrete examples as part of your explanation.
Epiphenomenalism
Definition: Mental events are byproducts of physical processes and do not influence physical events.
Avoids interaction problem: Since mental states don’t affect physical states, the issue of how they interact is sidestepped.
Think of it as the idea that the mind is like a shadow of the brain, mental events are caused by physical brain processes, but they don’t cause anything physical in return.
Example: Feeling pain is a mental event caused by physical processes but doesn’t influence subsequent actions.
Q6. Do you think science could ever confirm that Cartesian Dualism or Epiphenomenalism are true? Why or why not? Be as specific, thorough, and concrete as possible.
Can Science Confirm Cartesian Dualism or Epiphenomenalism?
Cartesian Dualism: Difficult for science to confirm due to the immaterial nature of the mind.
Epiphenomenalism: Challenges arise in demonstrating that mental states have no causal influence on physical processes.
Conclusion: Both theories present challenges for empirical confirmation.
Reading: Schick and Vaughn - Mind as Body
Reading: Okasha – Can science explain everything?
Q1. In your own words, clearly and thoroughly explain the Identity Theory of the mind. Come up with your own concrete examples as part of your explanation.
Definition: Mental states are identical to physical brain states (not just caused by them).
Example: Feeling pain = your C-fibers firing; being happy = certain dopamine patterns in the brain.
Q2. In your own words, clearly and thoroughly explain the rationale for Identity Theory (i.e. what supports the view or why think the view is true?). Come up with your own concrete examples as part of your explanation.
The Conscious Experience Argument
1. If mental states are identical to brain states, then it is possible to know everything about the
mind by knowing everything about the brain.
2. It is not possible to know about subjective conscious experience by knowing everything about
the brain. (Subjective consciousness experience: how conscious experiences FEELS from the perspective of the subject (1st person))
3. So, mental states are not identical to brain states.
Scientific support: Neuroscience shows strong correlations between brain activity and mental states (e.g., damage to visual cortex = loss of vision).
Simplicity: Explains the mind without positing non-physical substances; keeps things natural and physical.
Q3. In your own words, clearly and thoroughly explain the rationale for Premise 1 of The Conscious Experience Argument (i.e. what supports the view or why think the view is true?). Come up with your own concrete examples as part of your explanation.
Logic of identity: If two things are identical, they share all the same properties (if A = B, knowing A gives you everything about B).
Example: “Water = H₂O” — knowing everything about H₂O tells you everything about water. If pain = C-fiber firing, full knowledge of the brain should reveal pain.
Q4. In your own words, clearly and thoroughly explain the rationale for Premise 2 of The Conscious Experience Argument (i.e. what supports the view or why think the view is true?). Come up with your own concrete examples as part of your explanation.
Knowledge gap: Brain scans show firing patterns but don’t reveal what it feels like to experience them.
Example: A neuroscientist could know all about light wavelengths but not know “what it’s like” to see red unless they experience it (Mary the color scientist thought experiment).
Q5. Do you think science could ever satisfactorily explain consciousness? Why or why not?
Yes argument: As neuroscience advances, it may map subjective experiences to brain processes and close the gap.
No argument: Consciousness involves subjective “what it’s like” experiences (qualia), which may be beyond purely physical explanations.
Reading: Schick and Vaughn - Determinism and Indeterminism
Q1. What is the view of Hard Determinism?
The Argument for Hard Determinism
1. Your actions are causally determined.
2. If your actions are causally determined, then you don’t have free will.
3. So, you don’t have free will.
Hard Determinism says that every event (including our choices) is causally determined, and because of that, we don’t really have free will (you must act as you do, so you can’t choose otherwise).
Argument: You have no free will because everything you do is causally determined. Hard Determinism is the idea that connects the two together.
Some events are not the consequence of past events and the laws of nature
Quantum events - At the smallest level of physics, things like the exact path of an electron or the timing of a radioactive atom’s decay happen randomly and are not fully determined by past events.
Where an electron hits in the double-slit experiment, there is no cause making it hit one place rather than another
Radioactive decay ← If your actions are causally determined, then you don’t have free will. So, you don’t have free will.
Q2. What is the view of Causal Determinism? Explain the view using a concrete example (hint: think of a simple cause and effect example in nature, and then explain what is happening using the definition of “Causal Determinism”).
Causal Determinism is the view that every event is caused by prior events plus laws of nature.
Example: If you push a bowling ball (cause), it rolls and knocks down pins (effect), and given the same push and conditions it must behave that way.
Causal determinism focuses on the mechanism (cause and effect), whereas the Uniformity of Nature focuses on the predictability (unchanging laws and regularities) of the natural world
Its just cause and effect (the laws of nature determine what effects follow what causes)
This is an argument that free will can not exist because causal determinism predicts your every move ever since the big bang
Q3. There are two different kinds of rationales you can give for Premise 1. Explain each of these rationales.
Rationale A: Everything is just atoms colliding with each other, you are just a bunch of atoms (including your brain, its just matter and nothing special)
Rationale B: nature/nurture - every action you take is simply the consequence of your nature and nurture (nurture is just environment)
Reading: Schick and Vaughn - Determinism and Indeterminism
Q1. What is the view of Causal Indeterminism? Explain the view using a concrete example.
Causal Indeterminism says that some events are not fully caused by prior events—they involve randomness or chance in the universe.
Example: The decay of a radioactive atom happens unpredictably (no earlier event fully causes exactly when it decays).
Q2. How could the view of Causal Indeterminism be used to argue that Premise 1 is false?
If some events (including choices) are not determined by prior causes, then not all actions are causally determined, so Premise 1 (“your actions are causally determined”) could be false.
Q3. What is the view of Indeterminism? Explain the view using a concrete example.
Indeterminism is the broader idea that sometimes events are not strictly determined but can have more than one possible outcome (i.e. chance plays a role).
Example: In tossing a fair coin, even if you know all conditions you can’t predict with certainty heads or tails—it’s indeterminate which side will land.
What makes an action free is that it is uncaused, but this still doesn't seem like it is free will because it is still random, and you will always do what each side says, you are not making the choice for yourself, and when an electron hits in the double-slit experiment as an example, there will always be a specific choice or outcome you will have to follow.
Reading: Buccella - Free Will Is Only an Illusion if You Are, Too
Q1. Clearly and thoroughly explain what the “readiness potential” is. Make sure to use a concrete example as part of your explanation.
The readiness potential is a gradual buildup of brain activity that begins before you consciously decide to move, make a choice, or perform an action. It’s as if your brain is “getting ready” ahead of your awareness (for example, seeing that your motor cortex starts activating a little before you decide to lift your finger). This can be an argument against free will.
Q2. Clearly and thoroughly explain how the readiness potential can be used to argue that we do not have free will. Make sure to use a concrete example as part of your explanation.
Because the readiness potential starts before our conscious decision, it suggests our brain already began the action before we “decide,” so maybe our conscious will is just a bystander. Therefore, this prior planning shows that everything is planned and happens for a reason, and not freely. (for example, your finger starts moving before you “choose” to move it).
Assume the readiness potential is the choice being made (how should we interpret what the readiness potential represents)
What is free will? How do you define it?
Q3. According to the Maoz and Mudrik study, the types of decisions being made can affect the presence of the readiness potential. What are these two types of decisions and what did the study say about their relationship to the readiness potential? Make sure to use concrete examples as part of your explanation.
The two types are arbitrary (MEANINGLESS) decisions (no real consequence, like choosing left or right randomly) and deliberate decisions (when the decision matters, like donating $1,000 to one of two charities), and the study found that readiness potentials appear for arbitrary decisions but are absent for deliberate ones.
Q4. Towards the end of the article, the authors make an assumption about the nature of your mind, what is it?
They assume the mind is the brain — that our conscious “agency” and choices happen as neural processes in the brain, not by some separate, nonphysical self. (It’s all one thing)
Assuming Identity Theory is true (mind is the brain, I am just brain)
Outside factors are influencing your decision.
But you can still override those influences, allowing your free will to make decisions that are abnormal to your daily schedule.
Reading: Okasha – What are biological species?
Q1. In your own words, clearly and thoroughly explain what the main purpose of classification is according to the reading. Come up with your own concrete example as part of your explanation (your example doesn’t have to be from biology, geology, etc., it can be any sort of classification).
Main Idea: Classification/categorization helps organize and understand the natural world by grouping things based on similarities.
It allows scientists to predict, communicate, and study relationships between organisms.
Example: Classifying music into genres (pop, rock, jazz) helps people find what they like and compare styles — similar to how biology groups organisms to study traits and evolution.
Q2. In your own words, clearly and thoroughly explain what a “natural kind” is. In your explanation, come up with your own concrete example of a natural kind and compare/contrast it with your own concrete example of a non-natural kind.
Definition: A natural kind is a group that exists naturally in the world, not just because humans made it up.
Its members share real, underlying similarities or causes.
Example (Natural kind): Gold — every sample has the same atomic structure (Au). Even furniture or things that are made out of natural materials. Periodic Table and genres too.
Example (Non-natural kind): Shoes sorted by price, Foods sorted by popularity, star ratings on ratemyprofessors, geographic territories — dependent on human interests; it’s not based on nature.
Contrast: Natural kinds are discovered; non-natural kinds are invented.
Think about this thing philosophers call “essence” - properties that are essential to being that kind of thing. Natural kinds are categorized based on essence, and non natural is not.
Q3. In your own words, clearly and thoroughly explain the biological species concept (BSC). Also make sure to explain/discuss what BSC has to do with “natural kinds”. Make sure to use concrete examples as part of your explanation.
Definition: For two organisms to be members of the same species, they have to be able to produce viable, (able to live on its own) fertile offspring
Species, if they are a natural kind category, identifying the essence of each species (what it means to be a “house mouse” as opposed to some other species of mouse)
So BSC as the criteria for species membership is saying that your essence (what makes you one species as opposed to another species) is based on who you can reproduce with
Example: Horses and donkeys can mate but produce sterile mules → different species.
Connection to natural kinds: If species are natural kinds, then reproductive isolation reflects a real division in nature — not just human labeling.
Q4. There are 3 problems with BSC. Choose one of them. In your own words, clearly and thoroughly explain one of these problems. Make sure to use concrete examples as part of your explanation.
Chosen Problem: It doesn’t work well for asexual organisms (like bacteria and plants).
Since they don’t reproduce sexually, “interbreeding” can’t define their species.
Example: Two bacteria that never exchange genes could still be genetically identical — BSC fails to classify them properly.
Other two:
Hybridization: there are some hybrid species that sometimes but not always produce fertile offspring.
Ring Species
Q5. In your own words, clearly and thoroughly explain why evolution is at odds with the BSC view of species. Make sure to use concrete examples as part of your explanation.
Issue: Evolution is continuous, but BSC treats species as fixed boundaries.
Species are always gradually changing, splitting, or merging over time.
High Individual Variation: there can be a lot of genetic differences between members of what we consider the same species.
Example: When one bird population gradually evolves into two new ones, there’s no clear point where “one species” ends and “two” begin.
Q6. Do you think species are a natural kind or just a useful conceptual tool for scientists? Make sure to justify your answer and use concrete examples.
Argument: Species are probably useful conceptual tools, not perfect natural kinds.
Boundaries often depend on human judgment (especially in cases like ring species or asexual organisms).
Example: Wolves, dogs, and coyotes can interbreed — showing fuzzy borders that challenge the idea of fixed natural kinds.
Still, the concept helps organize biology and study evolution effectively.
Reading: There’s No Scientific Basis for Race
Reading: Race as a Social Construction
Answer these questions before doing the readings, if possible.
Q1. Why do you think people have classified human beings into different races?
To explain visible differences like skin color and hair type.
To create social hierarchies and justify power or inequality.
To group people for identity or “us vs. them” purposes.
Q2. How (what criteria) do people use to determine which racial group a person is a member of?
Physical traits (skin, hair, facial features).
Ancestry or family background.
Social perception — how others see or label someone.
Answer the following questions after doing the readings.
Q3. In your own words, clearly and thoroughly explain why race is not a natural kind.
Make sure to include concrete examples (come up with your own when appropriate) as part of your explanation.
Genetic differences don’t match racial categories — humans are 99% alike.
More variation exists within races than between them.
Racial boundaries change over time and are not biologically fixed.
There is no racial “gene” or set of “genes” that are essential to being a certain race
Q4. In your own words, clearly and thoroughly explain what it means for race to be socially constructed. Come up with your own concrete examples as part of your explanation.
Race is created and defined by societies, not by nature/biology.
Socially constructed does not mean fake or not real
The meaning of “race” changes across history and cultures.
Though invented, race has real effects (like discrimination and inequality).