Philosophy Review

Philosophy Review - Philosophy Review General remarks The...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Philosophy Review General remarks The general structure of the exam Questions will be very specific, gain nothing by teling other things that I know, no bullshit, answers should be specific. Ex. Sketch an argument, should we accept conclusion What is x, does y accept it, why or why not Is F plausible What is Ts obj to Ys argument 11 questions…4 has following form: either/or leading to a grand total of 8 questions! 3-4 paragraphs per question Content: All questions will be related to material covered at some length in the lectures, anything in reading not covered in lecture NOT IN EXAM Materials covered in handouts will be on exam (highly likely, go over handouts) How to do extremely well: Don’t do assigned readings, waste of time (unless need help understanding for something from lecture) Go over your notes No thought questions, purely read and repeat General Terrain Map Cartesian Dualism: One of two kinds of answers to question of mind body problem What are we talking about when we talk about mental states? One kind of answer: things with minds are just more complex physical things Second kind of answer (dualist): Things with minds are composed of both a physical body and Cartesian mind, Cartesian mind required for thought 4 kinds of answers to in non-cartesian 1. certain features of observable behavior (logical behaviorism) looking for patterns of physical systems (this is proposed by Ryle)
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
logical behaviorist says mental discourse is talk about patterns in peoples behavior, based on peoples multi track dispositions to behave For three other views, it is abot inner causes of observable behavior (specifically not Cartesian minds) 2. Identity theory suggests talk about mind is talk about the brain, mental discourse is talk about types of neurophysiological states types of mental states are identical to types of brain states (Smart’s point of view) physical states have to be particular mental states 3. Functionalism, like IT see mental discourse talk about inner causes of behavior, but characterizes mechanisms at a more abstract level, programs for behaving that are realized in different ways, characterize systems at the level of their functional organization. A funtionalist suggests that different things with different neurophysiology can lead to the same feeling and sensations (ie pain) (Putnam) What smart says is: If x is in pain, the x is in the state that plays like causal functional role in x Which could be brain process 222 in people, and 324 in dolphins, Any non-physical realizations of pain? If you so say no then you are a token physicalist Functionalism-Fodor,Putnam 4. Eliminative matieralists, Churchland, discourse purports to be about inner causes about behavior, but is actually a false theory about what those causes are Specific Questions: Logical Behaviorism and Ryle Ryles criticism of Descartes: 1. Whats a category mistake: a category mistake arises if we mistake the logical type of thing to which a particular linguistic expression occurs, we think that the expression
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 7

Philosophy Review - Philosophy Review General remarks The...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online