PHI101 STUDY GUIDE EXAM 2 (1)
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University at Buffalo *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
101
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
Pages
10
Uploaded by ProfSnow22468
1) Eliminative Materialism and the Propositional Attitudes
By: Paul M. Churchland
Summary
: Churchland argues for eliminative materialism, which asserts that folk psychology,
including beliefs and desires, should be eliminated from our scientific understanding. He
proposes a neuroscientific approach to mental states.
Questions:
1)
What are the main arguments supporting eliminative materialism in Churchland's
essay?
a)
Main arguments include the idea that folk psychology is a pre-scientific theory
that will be superseded by neuroscience and that mental states are best
understood in terms of brain states.
2)
How does eliminative materialism challenge traditional views of folk psychology?
a)
Eliminative materialism challenges the validity of common-sense psychological
concepts, suggesting that they are unlikely to accurately describe the underlying
neurological processes.
3)
What implications might eliminative materialism have for our understanding of
consciousness and mental states?
a)
It implies that our current understanding of consciousness and mental states is
likely to be replaced by a more scientifically grounded understanding based on
neuroscience.
4)
How might critics of eliminative materialism respond to Churchland's arguments?
a)
Critics might argue that eliminative materialism oversimplifies the richness of
subjective experience and the complexity of mental states.
Summary In-Depth:
In "Eliminative Materialism and the Propositional Attitudes," Churchland
challenges the traditional framework of folk psychology by advocating for eliminative
materialism. He argues that our everyday understanding of mental states, such as beliefs and
desires, is fundamentally flawed and will be replaced by a more neuroscientific account.
Churchland contends that the propositional attitudes inherent in folk psychology are merely
placeholders for a more accurate description grounded in the physical processes of the brain.
By advocating for a radical shift from folk psychology to neuroscience, Churchland raises
important questions about the nature of consciousness and the limitations of our current
conceptual frameworks.
2) "Descartes’ Myth” Chapter 1 of The Concept of Mind
By: Gilbert Ryle
Summary
: Ryle critiques Descartes' mind-body dualism and introduces the concept of the
"ghost in the machine." He argues against the idea of the mind as a separate entity from the
body.
Questions:
1)
Explain Ryle's criticism of Descartes' mind-body dualism in "Descartes’ Myth."
a)
Ryle criticizes Descartes for committing a category mistake by treating the mind
as a separate substance, arguing that mental processes are inseparable from
bodily actions.
2)
How does Ryle characterize the relationship between mind and body in "The
Concept of Mind"?
a)
Ryle proposes a holistic view where mental processes are interwoven with bodily
actions, rejecting the idea of a distinct, non-physical mind.
3)
What is the significance of the "category mistake" in Ryle's argument?
a)
The category mistake is the misunderstanding of the logical category to which a
concept belongs, and Ryle uses it to highlight the error of treating the mind as a
separate entity from the body.
4)
How might Ryle's perspective impact our understanding of consciousness and
selfhood?
a)
Ryle's perspective challenges the traditional Cartesian view and encourages a
more integrated understanding of consciousness as tied to bodily actions.
Summary In-Depth:
In "Descartes’ Myth," Ryle challenges the Cartesian mind-body dualism
that separates the mind from the body. Ryle introduces the concept of the "ghost in the
machine" to criticize the idea of a non-physical mind distinct from the body. He argues that
mental processes are not separate from bodily actions but are intricately connected. Ryle's
critique extends to what he calls a "category mistake," where the mind is erroneously treated as
a separate entity with its own set of rules. By rejecting the Cartesian dualism, Ryle provides a
holistic view that integrates mental and physical phenomena, significantly impacting our
understanding of consciousness and selfhood.
3) Conjectures and Refutations
By: Karl Popper
Summary
: Popper discusses the philosophy of science and argues against the concept of
verification in favor of falsifiability. He emphasizes the importance of testing and refuting
hypotheses.
Questions:
1)
What is Popper's view on the demarcation problem, and how does falsifiability
address it?
a)
Popper argues that scientific theories should be falsifiable, meaning they must
make predictions that could be proven wrong through empirical testing. This
addresses the demarcation problem by distinguishing science from non-science.
2)
Explain the role of empirical testing in Popper's philosophy of science.
a)
Empirical testing is crucial in Popper's philosophy because it allows for the
falsifiability of scientific theories, ensuring that they are subject to potential
refutation through observation and experimentation.
3)
How does Popper's approach differ from verificationism in understanding
scientific theories?
a)
Popper rejects verificationism, which holds that scientific theories must be proven
true, and instead emphasizes falsifiability, arguing that scientific progress comes
from eliminating false theories.
4)
Critically evaluate Popper's concept of falsifiability and its application to scientific
progress.
a)
Falsifiability is praised for its clarity but criticized for being too stringent. Some
argue that not all scientific theories can be easily subjected to falsification,
especially in fields like theoretical physics.
Summary In-Depth:
In "Conjectures and Refutations," Karl Popper engages with the
philosophy of science, focusing on the demarcation problem—distinguishing science from
non-science. Popper introduces the concept of falsifiability as a criterion for scientific theories.
According to Popper, scientific theories should make predictions that are testable and potentially
falsifiable through empirical evidence. He criticizes verificationism, arguing that scientific
progress comes not from confirming theories but from eliminating false ones. Popper's
philosophy emphasizes the importance of rigorous testing and falsifiability in distinguishing
genuine scientific endeavors from pseudoscience, contributing significantly to the philosophy of
science.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
4) The Knobe Effect: A Brief Overview
By: Adam Feltz
Summary
: Feltz explores the Knobe effect, a phenomenon where moral considerations
influence attributions of intentionality. The essay discusses the implications for philosophy and
psychology.
Questions:
1)
What is the Knobe effect, and how does it challenge traditional views of
intentionality?
a)
The Knobe effect is the phenomenon where moral considerations influence
attributions of intentionality. It challenges the traditional view that intentions are
morally neutral.
2)
How might the Knobe effect impact our understanding of moral judgment and
decision-making?
a)
The Knobe effect suggests that moral considerations can subtly shape how we
attribute intentions, highlighting the interconnectedness of moral judgment and
cognitive processes.
3)
Discuss the potential ethical implications of the Knobe effect in various contexts.
a)
The Knobe effect raises ethical concerns about the potential biases in attributing
intentions, which can have real-world consequences in legal and social contexts.
4)
Can the Knobe effect be reconciled with other theories of intentionality?
a)
The reconciliation depends on the specific theory of intentionality. Some argue
that the Knobe effect highlights the complexity of intentionality and the need for a
nuanced understanding.
Summary In-Depth:
"The Knobe Effect" explores a psychological phenomenon named after
Joshua Knobe. This effect describes how moral considerations influence attributions of
intentionality. Feltz delves into experiments where individuals attribute intentionality differently
based on the moral valence of the action. For instance, a morally positive action might lead to
the attribution of intentionality, while a morally negative action might not. Feltz discusses the
potential implications of the Knobe effect for moral psychology, highlighting the intricate
relationship between moral judgment and our perception of intentionality in others' actions.
5) Can Neuroscience Resolve Issues about Free Will?
By: Adina L. Roskies
Summary
: Roskies examines the relationship between neuroscience and the philosophical
debate on free will, exploring whether neuroscientific findings can contribute to resolving issues
surrounding free will.
Questions:
1)
What role does neuroscience play in Roskies' analysis of free will?
a)
Neuroscience is considered a source of information to inform the philosophical
debate on free will, with an emphasis on understanding the neural processes
underlying decision-making.
2)
How does Roskies address the challenges and limitations of using neuroscience
to understand free will?
a)
Roskies acknowledges the limitations, emphasizing that neuroscience alone
cannot provide a definitive answer to the complex philosophical questions
surrounding free will.
3)
Discuss the implications of neuroscientific findings on our moral responsibility.
a)
Neuroscientific findings may challenge traditional notions of moral responsibility
by suggesting that decisions are influenced by neurological factors beyond an
individual's control.
4)
Can neuroscience provide a conclusive answer to the debate on free will,
according to Roskies?
a)
No, Roskies argues that while neuroscience can contribute valuable insights, a
conclusive answer to the free will debate requires a broader consideration of
philosophical, ethical, and psychological perspectives.
Summary In-Depth:
Adina Roskies explores the intersection of neuroscience and the
philosophical debate on free will in "Can Neuroscience Resolve Issues about Free Will?" She
investigates whether neuroscientific findings can provide insights into the nature of free will.
Roskies acknowledges the limitations of neuroscience in fully resolving the complex
philosophical questions surrounding free will but argues that neuroscientific research can
contribute valuable perspectives. She discusses the implications of findings related to
decision-making processes, brain activity, and the potential challenges these pose to traditional
notions of moral responsibility and free will.
6) Fearing Fictions
By: Kendall L. Walton
Summary
: Walton explores the nature of emotional responses to fictional scenarios and argues
that such responses are genuine emotions, even though they involve beliefs in fictional entities.
Questions:
1)
How does Walton defend the view that emotional responses to fiction are genuine
emotions?
a)
Walton argues that emotional responses to fiction are genuine because they
involve real emotional experiences, even though they are directed toward
imagined or fictional entities.
2)
What role do beliefs about fiction play in shaping emotional responses, according
to Walton?
a)
Beliefs about fiction, such as accepting the premise of a story, influence the
emotional responses by providing a framework for engaging with the narrative
and characters.
3)
Discuss the implications of Walton's argument for our understanding of the
relationship between fiction and reality.
a)
Walton's argument blurs the line between fiction and reality, suggesting that
emotional engagement with fiction can be as genuine and impactful as real-world
emotions.
4)
How might Walton respond to critics who argue that fictional emotions are not
genuine?
a)
Walton might respond by emphasizing the experiential nature of emotions and
the psychological reality of the emotional responses, regardless of the fictional
context.
Summary In-Depth:
Kendall Walton's "Fearing Fictions" delves into the philosophy of fiction,
particularly focusing on the emotional responses evoked by fictional scenarios. Walton
challenges the notion that emotions felt in response to fiction are somehow less genuine than
those in real-life situations. He argues that, despite the fictional nature of the stimuli, the
emotional experiences are authentic. Walton explores the role of beliefs in fiction, emphasizing
their role in shaping emotional responses. This analysis has broader implications for our
understanding of the relationship between fiction and reality, highlighting the psychological
impact of engaging with imagined scenarios.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
7) The Puzzle of Imaginative Resistance
By: Tamar Szabó Gendler
Summary
: Gendler explores the concept of imaginative resistance, where individuals may resist
accepting certain propositions within fictional contexts despite being willing to accept them in a
non-fictional context.
Questions:
1)
Define and explain the puzzle of imaginative resistance as presented by Gendler.
a)
The puzzle involves individuals being resistant to accepting certain propositions
within fictional contexts, even if they would accept the same propositions in
non-fictional contexts.
2)
What factors contribute to the phenomenon of imaginative resistance, according
to Gendler?
a)
Factors include moral considerations, cultural
3)
Discuss the implications of imaginative resistance for our understanding of the
relationship between imagination and belief.
a)
Imaginative resistance challenges the idea that imagination and belief are
seamlessly connected. It suggests that there are limits to our willingness to
accept propositions within the realm of imagination, even when we might accept
them in real-life scenarios. This raises questions about the nature of belief and its
relationship to the imaginative process.
4)
Can Gendler's analysis of imaginative resistance be applied beyond the realm of
fiction?
a)
Gendler's analysis could potentially extend beyond fiction to other domains
where imagination and belief interact, such as thought experiments in philosophy
or hypothetical scenarios in various disciplines. Exploring the boundaries and
factors influencing imaginative resistance may contribute to a broader
understanding of how we navigate between imagination and belief in different
contexts.
Summary In-Depth:
Tamar Gendler investigates the "Puzzle of Imaginative Resistance,"
exploring the phenomenon where individuals exhibit resistance to accepting certain propositions
within fictional contexts. Gendler identifies moral considerations as a significant factor
influencing this resistance. The essay delves into the complexities of imagination and belief,
questioning why individuals may be willing to accept certain fictional scenarios while resisting
others. Gendler's analysis prompts reflections on the nature of belief, the role of morality in
imagination, and the boundaries between fiction and reality. The exploration of imaginative
resistance extends beyond fiction, offering insights into broader philosophical and psychological
domains.
READING REVIEW 3
1)
How does eliminative materialism challenge the normative aspects of folk
psychology (FP) as discussed in the Churchland reading? (1 to 2 sentences)
a)
Eliminative Materialism challenges the normative aspects of FP by explaining
that the brain does not operate in the same way as FP and its expectations. It is
said that the FP framework is flawed and as new advancements are made we
need to revise our psychological concepts.
(8.5/10 pts)
2)
This question has two parts: (10/10 pts)
i)
What is a category mistake?
ii)
What is the category mistake discussed in the Ryle reading?
a)
A category mistake described by Ryle is treating mental is physical the same
way. He explains how the mind and body are two different categories and should
not be treated the same.
b)
The category mistake discussed in the reading is the dualist way of thinking
which connects the mind and body (physical and mental) to one entity. I believe
Ryle tries to explain that mental and physical concepts should be different and
not thought of as one concept together.
3) Below are three theories of mind. Carefully read each one. (10/10 pts)
Dualism
: This theory posits that the mind and the body are distinct and separate entities. It
emphasizes the existence of two kinds of substances: the mental (or immaterial) and the
physical (or material). Descartes defended this perspective, asserting that while our physical
body exists in space and has tangible properties, our mind or consciousness does not possess
these spatial attributes.
Materialism (Physicalism)
: Materialism asserts that everything that exists is material or
physical. All things, including mental events and consciousness, can be reduced to or are the
product of physical processes. It's the idea that the mind is the brain, and all mental processes
can be explained through physical processes.
Idealism
: This theory posits that reality is fundamentally mental. It suggests that everything
exists as ideas in the mind, and there isn't a physical reality independent of these ideas. Rather
than thinking of the external world as independent and tangible, idealists view it as a construct
of our consciousness or perception.
Your assignment is as follows:
Explain why these theories are exclusive options, that is: explain why any one of them
being true means the other ones can't be true. This answer should be a few sentences.
Rank them in order of which you think are most likely to be true to least likely to be true.
This answer should be a numbered list of the three names. For example: 1. Idealism. 2.
Materialism. 3. Dualism.
Justify your ranking. Why did you rank them in the way that you did? This answer should
consist of 5-7 sentences.
a)These three theories are exclusive because they have contradicting ideas about
mental and physical and how they are viewed and connected. Dualism and materialism
contradict because materialism suggests that mind and brain processes are explained
through the physical. Dualism suggests the mind and body are separate entities.
Idealism cannot be true if dualism or materialism is true because it suggests there is no
physical reality (contradicting materialism) and that everything exists in the mind only
(contradicting dualism).
Ranking for most likely true:
1. Materialism
2. Dualism
3. Idealism
My ranking of the theories comes from scientific backing and logical thinking about each idea.
Materialism was my first choice because science has told us that everything is made up of
atoms and is considered mass. This means that everything that exists is physical including
everything that happens in our mind, it is just made up of atoms and physical particles moving in
a way that triggers us to have thoughts in the mind. Dualism comes next which suggests mind
and body are different entities. This pertains to materialism in the body portion which leads me
to believe it is partially true or has the potential to be true. As for the mind portion, it suggests
our consciousness is made of nothing and does not possess spatial attributes which goes
against materialism which leads me to believe it has the potential to be false. After dualism, I
have Idealism which suggests everything exists in the mind and there is no physical reality
which goes against what science tells us which leads me to believe it is the least likely to be
true.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
READING REVIEW 4
1)
In your own words, state the problem of induction and explain the potential
problem it presents for the discovery of scientific laws. (7.5/10 pts)
a)
Induction has to do with coming up with generalizations. The potential problem it
presents is the lack of logical reasoning behind it. This is suggesting the past will
continue to happen in the future but for science, this will cause uncertainty.
2)
In your own words, explain the Knobe Effect. (2-3 sentences) (7.5/10 pts)
a)
The Knobe Effect surrounds the ideas of being morally good or bad intentionally.
I believe the Knob Effect is the idea that the reason someone does something is
not related to the side effects or other outcomes whether good or bad. It has to
do with the bias of other people on the outcome or side effects of an action.
3)
Consider the transition from Newtonian physics to Einstein's theory of relativity in
the early 20th century. Newtonian physics was widely accepted as true until the
advent of relativity, which provided a more accurate description of gravitational
phenomena, among other things. Answer the following two prompts: (10/10 pts)
a)
a.
Was Newtonian physics true until it was 'replaced' by the theory of relativity
or was it false all along, awaiting correction?
b)
b.
What does this historical transition suggest about the status of our currently
accepted scientific theories? Are our current accepted scientific theories
provisional truths awaiting refinement or replacement as we uncover more about
the natural world?
i)
a) Newtonian physics was widely accepted in science and known to be
true. These physics were eventually replaced by the theory of relativity.
Until they were replaced they were known as ture and were used as a
guideline for other science allowing for very close prediction and
assumptions. Newtonian Physics was not true or false because it allowed
for very close estimates and predictions in science.
ii)
b) The historical transition suggests our current accepted scientific
theories may not 100% be true but they offer very close predictions on
what the truth is even if it is declared "false" in the future. I put "false" in
quotations because it is not right or wrong it is only what gives us a better
prediction of the thing we are trying to figure out. To our current accepted
scientific theories, I believe they are guidelines and guidelines can always
be refined. I don't think it is true or false but how close can we get to
something that makes sense?