1. One of the problems somebody arguing for the freedom of the will must face is what is referred to as the regress problem. What is this problem and why is it problematic for the free will theorist?
Regress argument is any problem where a statement must be justified. Any justification requires support, b/c there can no 'It is that way just because'.
This means any proposition can be questioned over and over again like Tai asking 'Why?' forever:)
Free will is basically broken down into two parts: Determinism, where everything is decided for us, and compatibility, where we have free will and nothing is pre-determined in our choices. We make a decision but we could have taken another path.
So, the problem with the two is if I was responsible for cooking chicken cordon bleu for breakfast this morning, then I was responsible for buying it yesterday. And if I bought it yesterday, then I was responsible for thinking of chicken the day before that. And if I thought of chicken 2 days ago, then I was responsible for visiting a chicken farm over the weekend. And so forth and so on, until what, I was in utero and my mom ate a chicken one day? lol
Regression is the opposite of progression. Progression moves forward, regression moves backwards.
2. Why does randomness present a problem for the free will theorist?
These are parts of the diff free will theories:
1. The future is necessatated by past events and the laws of nature. The past shapes the future and it also must take into consideration laws of nature. (you can't get older but grow younger, for example).
2. Everything is either true or false. So what happens in the future is because of a true or false action we make now.
3. God.
4. Our behavior and our will is determined by our genetics and biology.
5. We make a truly free decision only when we willed the act (we made the choice then made it come into reality, like I decide to bail someone out of jail so I pay almost 5 G's, it was a free will choice b/c I willed it) BUT we could have done otherwise. (I could have left them there, but I didn't).
Randomness means a lack of purpose, cause and order
Can you see why it would cause problems?
All of those free will theories are null and void, b/c nothing is determined if random shit flies at us. Nothing has been determined, there is no God, the laws of nature don't always need to apply:)
BTW: In the cosmological hypothesis of Determinism, ( Determinism is the first 4 answers I gave above), there is no such thing as randomness, only unpredicability:)
3. Why does compatibilism seem to collapse into determinism? Does it? Explain.
Compatibilism is number 5, what I said in question 2.
Hume and William James say Compatibilitism is different than determinism.
This is b/c :
Hume: Free will is for everyone who is not in shackles and chains (jail). The murderer's will to kill overrides the victim's will to live. The past did not determine the future, it was a matter of one will being stronger than the other.
James: Even though the world may be shitty, the actions of humans can make it a better place. Determinism undermines meliorism. (Ameliorate means to make better, like putting a band aid on a bo-bo.).
Meliorism says Humans may act in a way that interferes with nature to make the world better. Like building levees to keep hurricane waters out. Determinism says no, b/c God would still cause the levees to break if He wanted it, or the laws of nature says if there is a flood the waters must be let loose.
4. Explain the following terms: dualism, monism, epiphenomenalism, interactionism.
Dualsim: The mind or spirit is a separate thing from the body.
Monism: Like the Highlander, 'There can be only one'
Epiphenomenalism: (that's a LOOONG word lol). Mental events are caused by physical events in your brain. Our behaviour is b/c of muscles, neurons and grey matter. These mental things caused by our brain are dead ends. The feelings, emotions, sensations they cause don't do anything and don't lead to anything.
Interactionism: Mental causes produce material effects. If you want to interact socially, you have a conversation. If the conversation starts to end and you can tell, you change the subject, talk about something else or be more like the person you are talking to (esp if you like the guy lol).
5. Explain and evaluate the Chinese room argument.
If you were to sit in an empty room, and I gave you a Chinese dictionary book, and slid you questions in Chinese under the door, you could use the book to decode the message and write a message in Chinese back. But you would never understand the language, you're just parroting your answers from the dictionary.
So you program a computer to talk to people, as if it were human. But it still would not understand what 'green' was, b/c it only knows what we program it with. We could instruct it that grass is green, so it would understand and answer the question 'What color is grass?', but it doesn't know WTF green really is.
6. Why would qualia not exist if physicalism were true?
Qualia is Latin for 'What kind'.
Qualia is a sensation or feeling. Like, we would say the sun when it sets feels red, or fire feels red. Ice feels blue or white, etc
What does it feel like to have pain? You can describe it, but pain feels different to everyone.
Physicalism:
Everything is physical. Nothing exists that isn't physical, or that you can't experience with your 5 senses.
It is a problem with the 2 b/c how in the hell can you touch, taste, feel (with your hands), hear, smell redness? Blueness? Pain? lol
7. Searle argues that the strong AI supporter is a dualist. Our editors claim that Dennett, in the problem of personal identity, investigates the physicalist option. Why would Searle say Dennet is a dualist? Why would our editors say he is a physicalist? Which is he? You decide, and defend.
Blah.
8. How do Sacks and Damasio call into question Locke?s theory of identity?
Ewww...
9. Why and how does the ?bundle theory? call into question the very idea of personal identity?
Bundle theory:
An object is a collection of properties and nothing else. My computer is what it is b/c it is only the things that make up a computer. There is no great computer-form out there (like Aristotle and his forms). It is what it is b/c it has a monitor, hard drive, video card, etc etc.
There is no such thing as 'you'. You have no personal identity. You are the collection of a set of properties. You are blonde curly hair. You are green eyes and a nice smile. You have a heart that weighs such and such ounces, a liver that processes 1 oz of alcohol an hour. And that's all you are.
10. Why and how does Russell?s solution to the appearance/reality distinction call into question Shermer?s account of science?
Shermer is a skepticist. Don't believe in anything unless it can be proved.
And I can't find anything on this, so it's up to you.
11. In arguing against Clifford, James defends not only that believing something without adequate evidence is acceptable, but also that it is sometimes necessary. What is the argument, and how and why does it work, if it does?
Sometimes we want to believe in things that lack evidence.
James says belief is good for us, and he uses FAITH, like to have faith in God. Or to sail in a boat that has a history of sinking: we have faith.
No matter how much I believe in something, it doesn't influence my actions. Just b/c I truly believe I can kill someone and get away with it, doesn't mean I am going to walk outside and do it.
Clifford says to put faith in things that can't be proven are silly. Clifford says if a guy who owns a ship in need of repairs lets it go out to sea b/c he has faith the ship won't sink, is wrong for holding on to that belief. even if the ship didn't sink, he would still be wrong b/c the ship needed repairs. If I hold a belief (the ship won't sink even tho it's fucked up) without evidence it wouldn't sink, the belief has clouded my judgement. He says what we believe influences our actions and we must be held responsible for them.
12. Descartes, Locke and Berkeley all rely on the fact that what we know by way of the senses can be deceptive. Nevertheless, they differ in their solutions to the problem this presents. What are their different solutions, and what are their reasons for them?µ
Descartes: What we see with our eyes is understood by our mind. I hold a candle in my hand and can see the wax. It has a certain shape, color and texture. When I light the candle and it melts, it doesn't look the same but yet it is still wax. Therefore I can't rely on my senses but only on my mind to tell me it is still wax.
Locke: Our sense organs produce reality. Without ears to hear, the world would be silent. Without eyes to see, the world would have no color, shape or form. Without a nose to smell with, the world would have no smell. The world is there, but our sense make it into the world we know.
Both those guys:
(perceiver (you)----ideas (what is a computer?)-----material objects (this is a computer))
Berkely: perceiver-----ideas. Everything we perceive (the computer) exists in our minds. The computer exists, but everything we can perceive about the computer is all in our heads. Only our minds know what a white monitor is. Or a fast hard disk. The monitor and hard disk exist in reality, but whatever we can look, touch, taste, smell, hear about the comp is not what it really is.
Essay: There are 3 questions; answer any 2. Each answer is worth 25 points.
1. The mind/body problem presents us with the possibility of dualism. This possibility is an issue in the other 3 problems we have considered, namely, the free will problem, the problem of personal identity, and epistemology. Why and how is the possibility of dualism an issue in these areas of philosophy?
1. Free will: Dualism is the seperation of mind and body. The mind is not physical therefore it need not obey the laws of nature. Free will says we are free to do what we want. Our mind is what gives us free will. Our mind is not bound to any laws or rules we can know, and so is our free will. It also is not bound to God, nature or biology.
2. Personal Identity: Locke says personal identity is founded on consciousness (the mind) and not in our physical selves. You are you not b/c of your blonde hair and green eyes, but b/c of the non-physical part of you that makes you unique: your mind (not to be confused with brain: brain is physical, mind is not).
3. Epistemology: The theory of knowledge. Externalists say all really-really true knowledge comes from what we know of the outside world, or that which is physical. Something we believe in must be caused by external facts. Internalists say that which we know (knowledge) comes from inside of us, or our minds. Something we believe in must be caused by the internal workings of our minds.
2. Supposing knowledge is justified true belief, on what grounds can we call the existence of knowledge into question? Use at least 3 of our writers on epistemology to answer.
3. What are the implications for free will theory, personal identity theory, philosophy of mind and epistemology if reincarnation is true?
1. Free will: If we get reincarnated, then we really don't heve true free will b/c our actions in every life determine who we will be and what will become of us in our next lives.
2. Personal Identity: You are not uniquely you anymore. The you today reading this behind your computer is the result of an infinate number of Other-you's in lives before this. You have no special unique you-ness identity b/c you were other people/cows/whatever in past lives. You are everything and not something unique.
3. Epistemology: Rationality and the search for true knowledge. And I can't find the rest, as to how it mixes with reincarnation
