PHL Exam
Part 1: Readings & Original Arguments
(Format: Thesis Statement, Major Arguments, and Basic Idea in Layperson's Terms)
1. Zera Yaqob, The Hatata
Thesis Statement: Human reason ('äql/lebawi) is the divine and infallible criterion for distinguishing truth from falsehood, whereas man-made religious dogmas and sectarian laws frequently violate God's natural order.
Major Arguments:
Critique of Sectarian Exclusivism: All religious factions claim exclusive truth, but no human can judge impartially. People blindly accept religion due to inherited traditions and intellectual laziness.
First-Cause & Reason: God's existence is proven because non-existent entities cannot create themselves. Because humans possess reason and speech, the Creator who fashioned them must possess infinite reason.
Critique of Religious Law: Yaqob argues against monastic celibacy, fasting, and polygamy, stating they violate the natural biological order established by God to ensure human reproduction and health.
Basic Idea: God gave humans intelligence to figure out what is true and right. Instead of blindly following the strict, man-made rules of different religions (which often go against human nature and common sense), we should use our own God-given logic to live a good life.
2. Naomi Oreskes, "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change..."
Thesis Statement: There is unanimous scientific consensus that anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change is real, and the scientific methodologies used to establish this are reliable, despite media portrayals of scientific division.
Major Arguments:
The Abstract Study: An analysis of 928 peer-reviewed scientific abstracts showed that 0% presented evidence refuting the consensus that human activities cause global warming.
Media False Equivalence: The media gives disproportionate airtime to a tiny group of contrarians (often non-experts who produce no new empirical research), creating a false "balance as bias."
Consilience of Evidence: Multiple independent data sets (tree rings, ice cores, instrumental records) all converge on the same conclusion, making anthropogenic warming the "Inference to the Best Explanation."
Basic Idea: Every real climate scientist agrees that humans are causing climate change. The "debate" you see on TV is a media illusion created by giving a megaphone to a few non-experts, whereas actual scientific research independently proves the warming trend over and over again.
3. C. Thi Nguyen, "Echo Chambers and Epistemic Bubbles"
Thesis Statement: Epistemic bubbles and echo chambers are fundamentally different social structures that trap people in bad beliefs: bubbles exclude outside voices by omission, while echo chambers exclude them by actively manipulating trust and discrediting outsiders.
Major Arguments:
Epistemic Bubbles: Formed by selective exposure and algorithms. They are fragile and can be shattered simply by exposing members to the missing information.
Echo Chambers: Function like cults. They establish a "trust disparity" by assigning high trust to insiders and epistemic demerits to outsiders.
Evidential Preemption: Insiders predict outsider dissent; when outsiders inevitably disagree, it acts as proof of the insider's prediction, trapping members in a feedback loop (e.g., the Pizzagate conspiracy).
Basic Idea: An epistemic bubble is just not hearing the other side (like a filtered social media feed), which is easy to fix by showing someone new facts. An echo chamber is much worse—it brainwashes you into believing everyone on the outside is a liar, meaning you won't trust new facts even if they are put right in front of you.
4. Eric Schwitzgebel, "What is It Like to Be a Garden Snail?"
Thesis Statement: Determining whether a garden snail has conscious experience exposes the conceptual gaps in our current theories of consciousness, forcing us to question whether consciousness is abundant or sparse in the universe.
Major Arguments:
Option 1 (Yes): Snails have 60,000 neurons, navigate via smell and touch, and react to injuries, suggesting basic phenomenological experience.
Option 2 (No): Lacking higher-order metacognition and self-representation, snails might just be complex, reactive biological machines with no subjective "luminosity."
Option 3 (Indeterminate/Gong): Consciousness might not be a strict yes/no binary. Forcing human-centric data onto snails relies on unverified assumptions.
Basic Idea: We don't actually know how to measure if an animal like a snail "feels" anything. Because humans only know what human consciousness is like, trying to put a strict "yes or no" label on a snail shows that our scientific definitions of consciousness are fundamentally incomplete.
5. William Lycan, "Qualitative Experience in Machines"
Thesis Statement: The "Goose-Gander Principle": There is no philosophical objection to artificial machine consciousness that does not apply with equal force to human consciousness; denying experience to machines is mere human chauvinism.
Major Arguments:
The Harry Simulator: If an android (Harry) exhibits the exact same complex behavioral repertoire as an adult human, the behavioral evidence for ascribing consciousness to him is identical to the evidence we use for other humans.
The Henrietta Thought Experiment: If a human's biological brain is gradually replaced piece-by-piece with synthetic parts, she wouldn't lose her subjective experience, proving biological composition (protein/metabolism) is not necessary for consciousness.
Basic Idea: If a robot acts exactly like a human, there is no logical reason to assume it doesn't have a conscious mind just because it is made of silicon instead of meat. If we judge humans to be conscious based on how they act, we must apply the same standard to machines.
6. Anil Seth, "The Mythology of Conscious AI" (Analyzed via notes on AI/Biological Naturalism)
Thesis Statement: Computational functionalism is false; intelligence is about functional performance ("doing"), while consciousness is tied inherently to biological survival ("being").
Major Arguments:
Brains aren't computers: Unlike digital algorithms, biological neurons undergo continuous self-maintenance (autopoiesis) and operate in continuous physical time to resist entropic decay.
Simulation is not Instantiation: Simulating a physical process (like digestion or a rainstorm) doesn't make it real. Simulating a brain just makes an algorithmic model, not a conscious mind.
Life Matters: Conscious experience (feeling good or bad) is tied directly to a biological organism's interoceptive drive to maintain homeostasis and stay alive.
Basic Idea: Running a highly advanced computer program that acts smart does not create a mind. Consciousness comes from being a living, breathing biological organism trying to survive, meaning AI software will never actually "feel" anything.
Part 2: Concepts & Historical Philosophy
The Vienna Circle
What did they believe? They championed Logical Positivism, promoting Enlightenment values of reason and logic while entirely rejecting traditional metaphysics, theology, and post-Kantian German Idealism (like Hegel) as obscure and meaningless.
In what sense were they "empiricists" (analytic/synthetic/a priori/a posteriori)? They were "language-based empiricists" who believed the meaning of a sentence is its method of verification. They divided statements into two types:
Analytic (a priori): True simply by definition (like pure math or logic), but empty of factual content about the world.
Synthetic (a posteriori): Factual claims about the world that must be testable through sensory, empirical observation. They completely rejected Kant's idea that one could have synthetic a priori knowledge.
The Problem of Induction
This evaluates the reliability of generalizing from specific empirical observations to universal claims or future predictions (associated with David Hume). Inductive logic involves premises that provide probabilistic support for conclusions without deductive certainty. For example, climate science relies heavily on induction—taking 150 years of instrument data to establish a general global warming trend.
Avicenna's Flying Man Argument
A thought experiment where God creates a fully mature man instantly in mid-air, with veiled sight, limbs touching nothing, and zero memories or sensory experiences. Avicenna argues the man would still be fully aware of his own existence despite total sensory deprivation. This challenges Aristotle's materialist views by demonstrating that pre-reflective self-awareness (the soul/mind) does not rely on physical sensory perception or the physical body.
Descartes' Arguments for Dualism
Descartes argued for Substance Dualism: the view that humans are a composite of two fundamentally distinct substances—the immaterial mind (essence is thinking) and the material body (essence is physical extension). His epistemological arguments include:
Indubitability: I cannot doubt my existence (Cogito ergo sum), but I can doubt my body. Therefore, my mind ≠ my body.
Transparency & Privileged Access: My mind is transparent and accessible uniquely to me, whereas my physical body is not.
Princess Elizabeth's Argument
She critiqued Descartes' dualism by pointing out the "causal interaction" problem. She challenged how an immaterial, unextended mind could exert physical force on a material body to cause movement. Physical movement requires contact, mass, and spatial location, which an immaterial soul lacks entirely.
Smart's Argument for Physicalism
Smart advocated for the Psychoneural Identity Theory (Mind = Brain) using Occam's Razor (the Argument from Simplicity). He argued that positing sensations as something "over and above" physical brain processes creates unnecessary entities. Identifying mental states (like pain) exactly with physical states (like C-fiber stimulation) simplifies ontology, makes language physically universal, and eliminates "nomological danglers" (unexplained correlation laws).
Identity Theory vs. Functionalism
Identity Theory (Type Physicalism) claims that a mental state is identical to a specific neurobiological property (e.g., Pain = C-fiber excitation).
Functionalism defeated Identity Theory using "multiple realizability." It argues that psychological concepts are like artifact concepts (e.g., an engine). A mental state is defined by its functional job description (causal inputs and outputs), not its physical hardware. Therefore, pain can be realized by C-fibers in a human, different biology in an octopus, or silicon in an android.
Part 3: Personal Identity, Death & Logic
Theories of Personal Identity
Soul Theory: A person is an immaterial soul. Objection: Souls cannot be observed. Just like guessing a chocolate's filling without biting into it, assuming "one body, one soul" is an entirely groundless generalization that provides no operational criteria for identity.
Memory Theory (Locke): Identity is a stream of "person-stages" connected by memory. Objection: Butler's Circularity Problem states that "real memory" already presupposes personal identity. Furthermore, the Duplication Argument proves that if God duplicated a person's memories into two new Heavenly bodies, they couldn't both be the original person.
Body Theory: Identity is tied strictly to the physical body. Objection: We intuitively judge our identity when we wake up without physically inspecting our bodies. Furthermore, thought experiments (like Kafka's Metamorphosis or the Julia North brain transplant) demonstrate that it is conceivable for identity to follow the mind/brain rather than the original physical body.
The Buddhist Concept of No-Self
Rejects the existence of an enduring, independent "Self" (Atman) standing behind the mind and body.
Chariot Analogy: A chariot is just a convenient label for a functional arrangement of parts (wheels, axle), not a separate entity that "owns" the parts. A person is just a conventional label for psychophysical processes.
Flame Analogy: Diachronic identity is an illusion. Like a lamp's flame burning from dusk to dawn, we are not strictly identical from moment to moment, but are linked in an unbroken causal continuum.
Epicurus' Argument that Death is Not a Harm
Epicurus argues that death lacks non-comparative intrinsic badness. For something to be intrinsically bad, it requires an inherently negative state or experience (like pain). Since non-existence is a total absence of sensation, death cannot be intrinsically bad. He highlights a temporal asymmetry: we do not fear our pre-natal non-existence, so it is irrational to fear post-mortem non-existence.
Deductive vs. Inductive Arguments (Based on text definitions)
Deductive Logic: Explores valid arguments where true premises strictly guarantee a true conclusion.
Inductive Logic: A formal theory of arguments where premises provide only probabilistic support for conclusions without deductive certainty.
2 Valid Deductive Argument Types
Modus Ponens (Affirming the Antecedent): If P, then Q. P is true. Therefore, Q is true.
Example: If it rains, the ground gets wet. It rains. Therefore, the ground gets wet.
Modus Tollens (Denying the Consequent): If P, then Q. Q is false. Therefore, P is false.
Example: If someone is a dog, they are an animal. They are not an animal. Therefore, they are not a dog.
Strength vs. Cogency vs. Validity vs. Soundness
Strength (Inductive): The premises make the conclusion likely to be true, but do not guarantee the conclusion.
Cogency (Inductive): An argument is strong and all its premises are true.
Validity (Deductive): If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. The premises do not need to be true in reality.
Soundness (Deductive): An argument is valid AND all its premises are true.
Metaphysics: The study of reality, existence, and the fundamental nature of the universe.
Epistemology: The study of knowledge, including how people acquire information and determine what is true.
Axiology: The study of values, including morality, ethics, beauty, and what people consider good or important.