Exam 3 Questions Intro Phil 1
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of California, San Diego *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
1
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
Pages
3
Uploaded by EarlButterflyPerson965
1.
a) State Descartes’ view about the nature of mind and body (what are they and how
they are different or similar?)
-
Descartes' view about the nature of mind and body is that the mind and body are distinct
and separate entities.
-
He argues that the mind is a non-extended thinking substance, while differently the body
is an extended non-thinking substance, leading to the concept of mind-body dualism.
(b) Explain his argument for mind-body dualism
-
Descartes' argument for mind-body dualism is based on the certainty of his own
existence as a thinking thing (cogito, ergo sum).
-
He concludes that the mind and body have distinct natures, as the mind is indivisible,
thinking, and lacks extension, while the body is divisible, extended, and lacks
consciousness.
-
Since he can clearly and distinctly perceive the mind and body as separate entities, he
posits that they are distinct substances.
-
This establishes mind-body dualism, where the mind (or soul) is an immaterial, thinking
substance, and the body is a physical, extended substance, existing independently of
each other.
(c) What is Elisabeth of Bohemia’s objection to Descartes’ dualism?
-
Elisabeth of Bohemia had a concern about Descartes' idea of the mind and body being
separate.
-
She couldn't understand how an immaterial mind (soul) could actually control a physical
body to make it move or take actions.
-
In the physical world, we see movement and actions happen through direct physical
contact or forces, which doesn't seem possible with an immaterial mind.
-
She wanted a clearer explanation of how the mind and body interacted to solve this
puzzle in Descartes' theory.
(d) Is there a convincing response on behalf of Descartes available? Why/why not?
-
Descartes' response to Elisabeth's objection is not entirely convincing.
-
While he proposed that the mind and body interact through the pineal gland, his
explanation remained somewhat speculative and lacked empirical evidence.
-
The problem of how an immaterial mind can causally influence a material body remains
a challenging issue in his dualistic framework, and no definitive resolution was provided
by Descartes.
4.
a) Why does Smart believe that dualism has to be rejected?
-
J.C. Smart believes that dualism has to be rejected because it fails to provide a coherent
and satisfactory explanation of the mind-body relationship.
-
Smart argues that dualism cannot account for the interactions between mental states
and brain processes.
-
Smart advocates for a materialist and more scientific approach, where mental states are
identified with brain processes, allowing for a more comprehensive understanding of
consciousness and its connection to the physical world.
(b) What is smart’s view of the nature of sensations?
-
J.C. Smart's view of the nature of sensations is that they are not separate, non-physical
entities but rather identical to specific brain processes.
-
He subscribes to the identity theory of mind, which posits that mental states, such as
sensations, are identical to certain neural processes occurring in the brain.
-
According to Smart, there is a one-to-one correspondence between mental states and
brain states, eliminating the need for dualism or any non-physical aspects to explain
sensations.
(c) Does Smart’s view entail that if one knows about a sensation then one in fact knows about a
brain process? Explain.
-
Yes, according to Smart's view, if one knows about a sensation, then one does, in fact,
know about a brain process.
-
This is because Smart's identity theory asserts that sensations are identical to specific
brain processes.
-
Therefore, any knowledge or understanding of a sensation must ultimately pertain to the
corresponding brain process, as there is a direct one-to-one relationship between the
two.
(d) Consider this objection to Smart’s view: if a is b (i.e., ‘a’ and ‘b’ are two names for the same
thing), then every property that a has, b must have that property too and vice versa. But brain
processes and sensations have different properties. Therefore, sensations could not be
brain processes. Is this a successful objection? Explain.
-
This objection to Smart's view is not successful because it misunderstands the nature of
identity theory and its claim that sensations are identical to brain processes.
-
In the identity theory, when it is stated that sensations are identical to brain processes, it
means that they are the same thing, not just two different names for the same thing.
-
The objection mistakenly assumes that if two things are identical, they must have
precisely the same properties, which is not the case in identity theory.
1a:
-
Descartes view
-
Descartes argues
1b:
-
Descartes’s argument bases on existence
-
He concluded (distinct natures)
-
Since he can perceive
-
This establishes dualism immaterial
1c:
-
Elizabeth's Concern
-
She couldn't understand
-
In the physical world
-
She wanted a clearer exclamation
1d:
-
Descartes’s response (not very convincing)
-
While he proposed
-
The problem
4a) Why does Smart believe that dualism has to be rejected?
-
Smart believes that dualism has to be rejected because it does not provide a satisfactory
explanation for the relationship between mind and body
-
Smart argues that dualism cannot account for the interaction between mental state and
brian processes.
-
Smart advocates for a materialist and scientific approach, where mental states are
identified with brain processes
4b) What is smart’s view of the nature of sensations?
-
Smart believes that the nature of sensations are not separate but identical to brain
processes.
-
Smart view on sensations is known as the identity theory of mind, which portrays the
state of mind like sensations are identical to certain processes occurring in the brain.
-
According to Smart, subjective experiences are the exact same as the neurons firing in
your brain that tell your body how to react to these things in specific ways
4 (c) Does Smart’s view entail that if one knows about a sensation then one in fact knows about
a brain process? Explain.
-
Yes, according to Smart's view, if one knows about a sensation, then one does, in fact,
know about a brain process.
-
This is because Smart's identity theory asserts that sensations are identical to specific
brain processes.
-
Therefore, any knowledge or understanding of a sensation must ultimately pertain to the
corresponding brain process, as there is a direct one-to-one relationship between the
two.
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