Sam bribes examiner scandal!!

Results are coming in thick and fast: Sam & Georgie appear to have confirmed their status as rival intellectual giants of the MHS philosophy department! Nicola has struck a blow (small) for girl power, but the real interest now surrounds the rump of the remaining 'students' (I use the term loosely) ... it's all gone very quiet over there ... Will ... Luke ... Connor ... Victoria ... Rebecca .... where are you? Let's be having you!

It's all Ultimately Meaningless Anyway

Don't worry / get over excited about your results, after all, who's keeping score? (Apart from UCAS and potential employers that is.)

Hurrah for Summer Homework!

1. Research and explain the difference between substance and property dualism. (Use Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy and others, do not simply copy and paste).

2. Summarise Ryle’s notion of ‘The Ghost in the Machine’ you could try this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdlh8ACEHxk

3. Explain why materialism and physicalism can be regarded as ‘reductive’.

4. Investigate the claim that Descartes’ substance dualism leads to solipsism.

5. Work out what P.F Strawson means when he claims that ‘the concept of a person is logically prior to that of an individual consciousness’.

6. Buy and read Daniel C Dennett’s ‘Consciousness Evolves’

Qualia & Bat for me please!

The HOMEWORK was to Define 'qualia' and summarise Thomas Nagel's 'bat argument' (in your own words) for Tuesday's lesson. Don't just copy and paste there will be a TEST!

Searle: Minds, Brains & Programs

This is a fairly difficult text and represents a plunge into the middle of the various arguments around contemporary philosophy of mind. I'll attempt to summarise shortly. But bear in mind that reading this kind of text with care and concentration is like aerobic training for the brain/mind: it makes it fitter.

PHILOSOPHY OF MIND

Today we embarked on a voyage to the centre of the mind!

In particular we read the opening of Searle's 'Minds, Brains & Programs' which seeks to throw some light on the nature of consciousness, understanding and to some extent intentionality by attacking the claims of the proponents of AI (artificial intelligence).

The main thrust of Searle’s argument stems from his description of a thought experiment, ‘The Chinese Room’ in which a non Chinese speaker is apparently able to produce answers to questions about a story written in Chinese by following a code of formal symbols, along the lines of 'if you see this squiggle then produce this sqoggle.'

Searle's point is that although someone following such a code could produce the same answers as a Chinese speaker they would have no 'understanding' of the story themselves. This is, he claims, all AI ever does. And that to claim AI demonstrates understanding is wrong.

A2 A2 A2A2 A2 A2 A2 A2 A2 A2 A2 A2

A2A2 starts A2 here PHILOSOPHYA2 STARTS HERE A2A2 STARTS HERE A2A2 STARTSHERE A2A2 PHILOSOPHYSTARTSPHILOSOPHYHERE A2 A2A2 PHILOSOPHY STARTS HEREA2A2PHILOSOPHYA2 STARTSHERE A2A2 STARTS HEREA2A2 STARTS HERE A2

Last Words

Remember:

KNOWLEDGE OF THE EXTERNAL WORLD is all about trying to understand the way human beings are in the world:

• what is the relationship between our thoughts and the things we think about?
• How do the things that seem to go on inside our heads connect with the things that seem to go on outside our heads?
• What is this division between the internal (our minds) and the external (the rest of the world) really all about? Is there even a division at all?

Don't be afraid to make these kind of points. They show you know what the point of all this stuff is.

FREE WILL & DETERMINISM is also absolutely fundamental to understanding what it is to be a human being living a life. Are we really in charge of ourselves in the way everybody assumes we are? Are we really autonomous beings?

If we're not, and it's hard to see how we are completely in control, then the important question is how much are we in control? and that's when things get really complicated - compatibilism etc.

FINALLY: If you've run out of things to say it's nearly always relevant to mention Wittgenstein and the idea that all meaning is socially constructed through language and therefore no meaning is ever fixed and certain. The meanings of words and ideas are constantly shifting and changing. It is quite possible that the meaning of 'internal' and 'external' will become changed or blurred together so that all the ideas discussed in KNOWLEDGE OF THE EXTERNAL WORLD become outdated. Remember, some languages have no word for 'me', does that mean that individuals don't exist in the same way in those cultures?

IF all meaning is constructed and constantly re-negotiated and changed then what we understand by idea of 'free-will' will change into something different. Hume said way back that the argument was all about the meaning of the words. And Dennett trying to change the way we understand free will.

Say these things: you need the technical jargon to say them, just sound fascinated by the ideas and you'll score marks. Although if you can remember the proper terms that's even better.

Good luck and remember the stones.

The exam, the 'a priori' & a bit of a rant!

I thought the questions were on the toughish side of my expectations, although the 'sense experience' one was ok.

You probably don't care, but I am very annoyed that they used a command term 'critically discuss' that was not in the list of command terms they published: I will be having words!

Also the first question 'Explain two ways in which it is possible to have a priori knowledge' is, to be blunt, cobblers! It suggests what I feared, that the kind of people setting the questions were taught philosophy by people who learned their philosophy in about 1930 from people who learned theirs in about 1880!

The notion of 'a priori knowledge' is regarded as highly contentious: an awful lot of the best philosophers think it's a nonsense. After Wittgenstein and the so called 'linguistic turn' any kind of knowledge is seen as depending on the language that 'forms' that 'knowledge', therefore even 'analytic' truths depend on 'experience' of the language that expresses the concepts, unless we think we can 'know' that the angles of a triangle add up to 180º before we have language.

So to write a question that suggests its existence is a fact is pathetic. And makes me angry! GrrrHHH!! Wait 'til I'm in charge!!

Pink & the Animals

You must read the blog on Pink below and the article Thomas Pink on The ethics of humanity and its enemies – the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill before you read this.

The main point of Pink's article (certainly the one we might talk about in the exam) is that; 'given the almost universal academic scepticism about our possession of an actual ability or freedom to determine for ourselves' there is a danger that the ideas promoted by science and many philosophers, about what a human being is and the rights they have, will be redefined in a way that, for Pink, is threatening and dangerous.

His point is that if we come to see human beings as not having free will, as not being autonomous, not having any control over the course of their lives, then their worth, their 'value' seems to be less. Pink fears that this will mean that the vulnerable, the less able, the less skilled, the less productive, will be treated badly.

He also fears that this view of humanity as just another 'animal', just another lump of physical stuff, will encourage what he sees as dangerous genetic experiments.

This is another example of how philosophy and science have huge political implications.

You must read the article to get this. There is a link to it in the Pink blog below.

Sartre & the Nazis

It is important to understand that ideas around free will and determinism have enormous political implications. If human beings are not autonomous - in charge of their own lives - then it becomes difficult to talk about morality or any conception of praise or blameworthy behaviour. It also becomes very difficult to say why human beings should have human rights as the whole notion of what a human being is seems to be in doubt. (See Pink & the Animals)

Sartre had a largely deterministic or materialistic (materialism is very similar to determinism, but is associated with Marx which is why I use it here) view of humanity: his politics were based on Marxism, but he rejected Marx’s idea that ‘life determines consciousness’ believing instead that we choose our lives through the power of our free will: ‘consciousness determines life.’

The context of Sartre’s philosophy is key to understanding his position. Sartre lived through the second world war and fought the Nazi invasion of France. For someone who was aware of the horrors of the holocaust etc. a view that allowed a human being to excuse their behaviour on the grounds that it was determined - caused by prior events and outside their control, was unnaceptable. (Many Nazis attempted to excuse their crimes by claiming they were only following orders.)

Sartre’s comment that anyone who claimed their actions were determined was ‘scum’ is best understood in light of this historical context.

Hume & Compatibilsm

This should be read in conjunction with the handout Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding Section 8: Liberty and necessity Part 1.

Hume takes a compatibilist position on the free will and determinism question. He believes that although human behaviour is utterly regular and predictable, but because Hume denies the absolute necessity of cause & effect (as a law) but claims all we see is constant conjunction, he seems to open up the possibility of some kind of human agency: some kind of 'autonomy' over our lives.

However, Hume does believe that are actions and choices are the effects of prior causes. He says that although some behaviour may be hard to explain, if we knew all the details of a person's life we would be able to work out why they did what they did. He gives the example of how a 'peasant' could not explain why a watch had stopped but a clockmaker could.

Below is a series of notes that I haven't worked into sentences yet, but I'm posting them anyway and I'll sort them out soon.

We think we have free will because we do not feel as if our choices are determined in the same way as the events that occur with inanimate objects.

choices must be connected to motives / circumstances. If not what would they arise from?

choices form part of ‘causal chain’

We are determined by prior events but our choices form part of those prior events.

Because Hume denies the absolute necessity of cause & effect (as a law) he seems to open up the possibility of some kind of human agency.

Thomas Pink: Compatibilism & Libertarianism and me.

Thomas Pink says some very enlightening things about free will in his podcast with the lovely Nigel at http://cdn1.libsyn.com/philosophybites/PinkMixSes.mp3?nvb=20090516103152&nva=20090517104152&t=05fb3f41be06ea130b9b1

He explains how for compatibilists actions need a 'goal' or purpose to make sense as actions rather than meaningless events. (The difference between a muscle twitching a leg that moves a foot that impacts your leg and me kicking you because you are idle). He suggests that goals or purposes only make sense if they have a prior cause. This view is very similar Hume's.

For me, compatibilism makes sense if you see actions and choices and decisions as events on a timeline:

> CAUSE empty belly (physiological)> EFFECT hunger > Should I have a chocolate biscuit or a carrot? (social conditioning etc. influences / determines? my CHOICE > my GOAL or purpose is either to stay slim and gorgeous or enjoy the chocolate biscuit and I imagine those possible futures as I decide > ACTION I eat a biscuit. My biscuit eating is a result of my choice, my choice gives it a goal and purpose and makes my ACTION intelligible (understandable) as an act of free will which forms part of a 'causal chain.'

So, for compatibilists, free will: choices and decisions, only make sense as part of this chain. Without the causes, the prior events that inform my choices and my goals, free will would seem meaningless and randum, as if it had nothing to with my life.

However, Thomas Pink thinks that we 'can have uncaused intelligible actions' (my emphasis). He says that 'action involves a self direction at a goal' and that 'the goal is provided by the very content of the mental event of choosing.' and in that sense it is 'internally generated'.

For Pink, choosing is about putting options and choices before 'the mind's eye' and then directing your yourself at the option or goal you choose.

Although he claims to be a compatibilist, he admits that he is closer to a libertarian position. I think he is a libertarian really.

Talk of a 'mind's eye' worries me (homunculous alert!), and I don't think Pink's position is all that convincing philosophically, but I want to believe him because I think politically I ought to be a libertarian.

(see this: http://cornerstonegroup.wordpress.com/2008/10/22/a-gross-assault-on-human-nature-–-by-thomas-pink-reader-in-philosophy-kings-college-london/ )

What I am really (not that you'd care) is a philosophical pragmatist and 'non-reductive physicalist', that means that I think we are entirely physical, but I don't want to reduce us to lumps of matter. I think the idea of 'free will' is a much more useful way of describing how we behave than a 'scientific' description. I think the problems we have when we discuss free will and determinism are probably the result of misconceptions about the way human beings are in the world. They are the result of problems with our language. I am, of course, indebted to Richard Rorty for this view, although I need to do a lot more work on it to explain it more fully.

Please leave a comment if you've read this.

Determinism

HARD DETERMINISTS (obviously not as hard as Sam)

Hard determinists think that free will is an illusion. They think that all the choices, decisions and actions of human beings are determined by prior physical causes. Just like the atoms that form the rest of the physical world we are subject to the forces of cause and effect, we cannot do other than what we do do: we are subject to causal necessity. We are no more in control of our lives than an autumn leaf tumbling on the wind. (Ooh, lovely image!) As Baron d’Holbach put it

“Man’s life is a line that nature commands him to describe upon the surface of the earth, without his ever being able to swerve from it, even for an instant ... he is unceasingly modified by causes, whether visible or concealed, over which he has no control, which necessarily regulate his mode of existence, give the hue to his way of thinking, and determine his manner of acting. . . . Nevertheless, in despite of the shackles by which he is bound, it is pretended he is a free agent, or that independent of the causes by which he is moved, he determines his own will, and regulates his own condition.”

The problem that this brings about is that if we are without free will, then we cannot be held responsible for our behaviour. How can we justify praising or blaming anyone for anything if they could not have done anything else. Clearly this view has profound implications for our notions of morality and justice.

OUGHT IMPLIES CAN

The whole point of morality is that it implies a choice: we can choose to do 'the right thing'. We know that we ought to do the right thing. But it make no sense to say we 'ought' to do something if we have no free will? The word 'ought' implies that we can, but we can't! See?

Free the animals.

Please leave a comment if you've read this.

Jean-Paul Sartre: Existentialism & Libertarianism

Sartre was an existentialist. He believed that 'existence comes before essence'; this means that we are not born with a particular 'nature' but must 'create' ourselves as we go along. We respond to our experiences of the world, but we are not determined by them, we are free to choose who we are and how we live. Sartre claims that 'man' isn't simply 'what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills.' (my emphasis).

Roughly speaking Sartre believes that the very nature of consciousness is what enables human beings to have free will. He thinks that being conscious of (imagining) the different possible futures that might come about from different actions enables us to choose our path.

THE GAP: For Sartre, being conscious of the world seems to allow us to stand back from our lives and interpret them in different ways. This seems to open up a distance between our consciousness and the rest of the 'physical' world. This is what Sartre call 'the gap' and it is the gap that allows us to have free will. Easy.

Although sympathetic to Marx's political philosophy, Sartre reverses Marx's belief that 'life determines consciousness', claiming instead that 'consciousness determines life.'

Whereas Marx believed that the way we think about the world and how we act is determined by our experience of the world, Sartre believed that we choose our experience of the world by the way we think about our place and role in the world.

For Marx the world makes us who we are. For Sartre we make ourselves who we are, and by doing so we make the world. Because he thinks that human beings have free will Sartre can be described as a libertarian, but we should be clear that he is a libertarian for different reasons to Descartes and Thomas Pink.

COWARDS & SCUM

Sartre is rather hard on determinists, he says,

Those who hide from this total freedom ... with deterministic excuses, I shall call cowards. Others, who try to show that their existence is necessary ... I shall call scum.

He claims that there two kinds of 'beings': humans are 'beings for themselves', everything else, rocks, trees are 'beings in themselves.' (He doesn't mention animals!). More of this next year possibly, for now the fact that he thinks consciousness gives us free will is enough.

Please leave a comment if you've read this.

Free Will

'Free will' is being able to exercise control over your actions, choices and decisions. We all 'feel' like we have free will, but the extent to which we really do is disputed (as usual) by different philosophers and for different reasons.

choices and decisions. We all 'feel' like we have free will, but the extent to which we really do is disputed (as usual) by different philosophers and for different reasons.

For libertarians (incompatibilists) the term suggests a complete freedom from the causal necessity that determines all other physical things. They believe that human beings are able to somehow 'stand' outside the causal chain of events and thereby make free and undetermined choices.

It's easy to see how someone like Descartes, who believed that the mind was metaphysical, could believe in free will - a metaphysical (non-physical) mind clearly won't be determined (controlled) by physical processes. Descartes was a dualist, he believed that human beings were made of two different 'substances': the 'physical' and the 'mental'. You can think of the 'mental' as being something like the 'soul'.

Please feed the animals.

Homeworks you may have forgotten.

Finish the diagram for Libertarianism: this article will help you if you if you are stuck and a proper A-Level philosophy student http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Compatibilism_and_incompatibilism&printable=yes#Compatibilism

Also read to at least p.322. Read carefully and think about it. Make notes/highlight underline etc.

Below is the Easter Homework Which is also below under 'Free Easter Eggs":

1. (Some of you have done this one)

Explain and illustrate how Locke’s ideas about primary and secondary qualities use a distinction betweenontology and epistemology?

2.

(a) Explain and illustrate two strengths & two weaknesses of Idealism.

(b) ‘How things appear to me is only my representation of the way the world is.’ Discuss.

Read handouts: innate ideas; beyond empiricism & Rationalism on Sensory experience.

4.

RECEIVE AND READ POWERPOINTS FOR REVISION