Final exam study guide
Final exam study guide PY 101 - Intro to Psychology
PY 101 - Intro to Psychology
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Department
This 6 page Study Guide was uploaded by Sally Immel on Wednesday February 25, 2015. The Study Guide belongs to PY 101 - Intro to Psychology at University of Alabama - Tuscaloosa taught by Torin Alter in Fall2014. Since its upload, it has received 253 views.
Reviews for Final exam study guide
If you want to pass this class, use these notes. Period. I for sure will!
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 02/25/15
PHL 100 Fall 2014 Review for Exam 4 revised 121 Disclaimers and advice see Review for Exam 1 Cartesian Dualism Cartesian dualism Says about the mind mind is immaterial not made of matter 0 Does not think the mind is made of matter says the mind is immaterial 0 Relationship between the mind and the material body there s a 2way causal interaction 0 This means that mental states like decisions and emotions cause behaviors while effects on the body like stabbings cause mental states like pain 0 Mental states like decisions and emotions cause behaviors o The mind is DISTRIBUTED throughout the body you feel pain in your hand but the body and mind only INTERACT with the brain 0 Since the mind and the body only interact at the brain the mind is not identi ed with anything in the body so it is possible that once the body dies the mind can live on Materialismphysicalism o Materialism the only thing that exists is matter that all things are composed of materialand all phenomena including consciousness are the result of material interactions Matter is the only substance 0 Physicalism everything that exists is no more extensive than its physical properties there are no kinds of things other than physical things Not just matter but energy space time physical forces etc Descartes conceivability argument 0 He reasons that something that is conceivable is logically possible and something that is inconceivable is logically impossible It is conceivable and therefore logically possible that someone can exist without a body If so then having a body is not an essential feature of that person On the other hand it is inconceivable and therefore logically impossible that someone could exist without a mind If so then having a mind is an essential feature of that person and that means that the person is an immaterial thinking thing 0 Since the mind and body can be imagined as two separate entities then they are distinct objects 0 Physical facts explore weight age height Etc 0 Mental facts describe the ideas beliefs desires motives Etc that a person may have Physical possibility and metaphysical possibility Arnauld s righttriangle example and his objection to Descartes argument 0 Arnauld argues that the mere fact that Descartes can conceive of a situation in which he exists but has no body does not show that such a situation is really possible MWWMW Perhaps Descartes is ignorant of certain facts about his nature Perhaps it really is part of his nature to have a body it39s just that he doesn39t know this and that39s c why he can conceive of himself existing without any body a 0 Compare a man who imagines there to be a right triangle where the squares of b the sides do not add up to the square of the hypotenuse If the man did not know b that the Pythagorean theorem is true or if he wrongly believed the Pythagorean Theorem to be false then he would be able to think of a right triangle with those bizarre properties But this would not show that such a right triangle really would be possible Descartes interactionism c There is twoway mentalphysical causal interaction mind after body body after mind Objection to Cartesian Dualism The problem of Causal interaction 0 1 Mindbody causal interaction is impossible o 2 If mindbody causal interaction is impossible then Cartesian Dualism is false 0 3 Therefore Cartesian Dualism is false Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia s objection to Descartes interactionist dualism o It is inconceivable that a nonphysical mind could interact with a physical body A should as de ned by Descartes could only be de ned in terms of negatives with no description as to what it actually is Descartes pinealgland reply Descartes said it was the locus of moralphysical interactions the place in which all our thought are formed Computation and thought The arguments that computers lack thought because they 0 Are inorganic lack emotions lack creativity are preprogrammed 0 Preprogrammed operate by set of instructions The shortcomings of those arguments 0 For example emotionless thought seems possible and computers may one day have emotions Alan Turing and the Turing Test 0 An operational test of intelligence as a replacement for the philosophical question Can machines think Strong AI and Weak AI Artificial Intelligence 0 Weak AI appropriately programmed computers simulate thoughtunderstanding 0 Strong AI appropriately programmed computers can thinkunderstand Searle s Chinese Room case 0 Searle sets out to refute strong AI with his classic thought experiment known as the Chinese Room The idea is that if strong AI is true then a person should be able to acquire a cognitive capacity thinking perception understanding etc simply by implementing an appropriate computer program But Searle thinks his thought experiment shows that no such capacities of mind are achieved just by running a program He imagines himself locked in a room with boxes of Chinese symbols and a rulebook that allows him to answer questions put to him in Chinese He is in effect implementing a computer program But he says no matter how well I handle inputs and outputs I do not understand a word of Chinese And if I do not understand Chinese on the basis of implementing the right computer program then neither does any other computer just on the basis of implementing the program because no computer has anything that I do not have The argument is that if strong AI is correct then Searle should understand Chinese because he is manipulating symbols just as a computer does he is running a program But he remains clueless about Chinese Therefore computers cannot understand Chinese or acquire any other cognitive capacity just by running the right software Strong AI is false Searle s argument based on that case against strong AI 0 1 If strong AI is true then the guy in the room understands Chinese 0 2 The guy in the room does NOT understand Chinese 0 3 Strong AI is false Searle s conclusion that formal symbol manipulation alone no matter how sophisticated is not suf cient for understanding thoughts no matter how far and complex The systems reply 0 The Systems Reply which Searle says was originally associated with Yale concedes that the man in the room does not understand Chinese But the reply continues the man is but a part a central processing unit CPU in a larger system The larger system includes the huge database the memory scratchpads containing intermediate states and the instructions the complete system that is required for answering the Chinese questions So the Systems Reply is that while the man running the program does not understand Chinese the system as a whole does Searle s counterreply involving having the guy memorize the instructions 0 In principle the man can internalize the entire system memorizing all the instructions and the database and doing all the calculations in his head He could then leave the room and wander outdoors perhaps even conversing in Chinese But he still would have no way to attach any meaning to the formal symbols The man would now be the entire system yet he still would not understand Chinese For example he would not know the meaning of the Chinese word for hamburger He still cannot get semantics from syntax Pinker s thinking meat story 0 A science fiction story in which Aliens anatomically quite unlike humans cannot believe that humans think when they discover that our heads are filled with meat The Aliens39 intuitions are unreliable presumably ours may be so as well Why that story does not undermine Searle s argument Pinker s claim that the Searle s argument is really about the word understanding 0 Searle is merely exploring facts about the English word understand People are reluctant to use the word unless certain stereotypical conditions apply But Pinker claims nothing scientifically speaking is at stake Pinker objects to Searle39s appeal to the causal powers of the brain by noting that the apparent locus of the causal powers is the patterns of interconnectivity that carry out the right information processing Pinker sChurchland s objection based on the electromagnetic radiationlight analogy that Searle s argument is based on a questionable intuition 0 Pinker endorses the Churchlands39 1990 counterexample of an analogous thought experiment of waving a magnet and not generating light noting that this outcome would not disprove Maxwell39s theory that light consists of electromagnetic waves Pinker holds that the key issue is speed The thought experiment slows down the waves to a range to which we humans no longer see them as light By trusting our intuitions in the thought experiment we falsely conclude that rapid waves cannot be light either Searle s analogy to photosynthesis 0 We understand how chlorophyll catalyzes the production of carbohydrates at the biomolecular level so we have an adequate explanation of the biochemical basis of photosynthesis 0 Intentionality unlike photosynthesis is a slippery philosophical concept about which there is very little agreement 0 The claim that biochemistry produces intentionality is mysterious even though it is strictly speaking true That is we know that biochemistry produces intentionality but unlike photosynthesis we have no idea how it happens The causal argument for materialism Substance dualism vs property dualism Substance Dualism minds are not physical o Minds and bodies must be different substances because they have different properties bodies can be divided up into parts and minds cannot Descartes o Searle argues that substance dualism must be false because it con icts with a fundamental law of science the law of conservation of massenergy Moreover the substance dualist s tack of embracing epiphenomenalism will not save his theory because epiphenomenalism seems to defy common sense 0 Property Dualism mental properties events are not physical Papineau s example of the feeling of thirst causing him to walk to the fridge 0 His example to illustrate his argument explains that he would move to the fridge for a beer if he consciously felt thirsty and that their must be a physical process that accompanies this thirst The causal argument for materialism Papineau Only one way plausible is to assume that materialism is true 0 l Conscience mental occurrences have physical effects 0 2 All physical effects are fully caused by purely physical histories 3 The physical effects of conscious causes are NOT always overdetermined Causal overdetermination o The idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature An example of overdetermination Getting simultaneously shot and hit by lightning The causal closure of the physical All physical effects are fully caused by purely physical prior histories Parallelism and preestablished harmony Leibniz o Preestablished harmony which is roughly by the thesis that there is no mindbody interaction strictly speaking but only a noncausal relationship of harmony parallelism or correspondence between mind and body 0 Parallelism Leibniz states that although they are of the same substance the distinction between mind and body is a useful one for the purposes of understanding and explanation He held that they are not causally related but that they follow the same path that has been previously arranged by God Leibniz39s theory is known as preestablished harmony Epiphenomenalism o A mind body philosophy marked by the belief that basic physical events sense organs neural impulses and muscle contractions are causal with respect to mental events thought consciousness and cognition Papineau s view about epiphenomenalism o It is perfectly coherent but based on Occam39s razor probably false Why proponents of parallelism or epiphenomenalism would deny the premise that conscious mental occurrences have physical effects Why Cartesian dualists would reject the causal closure premise How Papineau uses Occam s razor to defend the causal argument Arguments against physicalism Naturalistic dualism o The view that mental states are nonphysical Types and tokens o Token physicalism is the view that every particular thing in the world is a physical particular Here is one formulation of this idea 0 Token physicalism For every actual particular object event or process x there is some physical particular y such that x y o TVbe bhvsicalism holds that that every property or at least every property that is or could be instantiated in the actual world is identical with some physical property Here is a statement of this sort of idea 0 Type physicalism For every actually instantiated mental property F there is some physical property G such that FG The type identity thesis and the token identity thesis 0 Identity theory the mind is the brain 0 Pain is but doesn t mean Cfiber ring or brain state 71325 or whatever we discover it to be 0 Like 39water is H20 or 39Iightning is electrical discharge a scienti c discovery not a fact about meaning 0 The identity thesis according to which every type of mental state is identical to some type of physical state Correlation causation and identity how those differ 0 Correlation is a relationship between two or more things which change variables that can be described mathematically how closely two sets of information or data are related Causation is quotthe act or process of causing the act or agency which produces and effectquot This is often referred to as quotcause and effectquot Gertler s disembodiment argument 0 1 I can conceive of experiencing this pain while disembodied 2 What is conceivable is possible 3 It s possible that this pain exists in immaterial being 12 4 If this pain were a physical state or event it couldn39t exist in immaterial being 0 5 So this pain is not identical to any physical state 3 4 o 6 So physicalism is false 5 How Gertler replies to Arnauld s objection Sufficienty comprehensive concepts bachelorunmarried male example Gertler s view that the concept of the physical and the concept of pain are sufficiently comprehensive 0 Pain is either necessarily physical or not physical at all The Cartesian view that to be physical material is to be extended Gertler s view that to be physical is to be fundamentally nonmental Since mental events are not necessarily physical they aren t physical So we are not entirely physical The physicalist s analogy between the concept of water and the concept of pain 0 Concept of water whatever stuff feels like oceans lakes it is clear tasteless Vs H20 0 Concept of pain is a feeling How it appears to the pain feelers what pain is Gertler s rejection of that analogy o The concept of water allows for a hidden essence the concept of pain does not The related idea that there is an appearancereality distinction for water but not for pain 0 Anything that appears to be subjectively like pain is really pain There is no more to what pain really is than how is subjectively feels The claim that dualism should be rejected because it is spooky Gertler s reply 0 Modern physics quantum indeterminacy etc shows that the physical world is spooky Qualia Whyjackson describes himself as a qualia freak Jackson s de nition of physicalism o All correct information is physical information 0 Jackson says that this is false The Mary case 0 Mary studies colors but only has seen black and white Does she know everything about color The knowledge argument based on that case against physicalism o 1 If physicalism were true then Mary leaves the black and white room she learns nothing 0 2 However when she leaves she learns something What it s like to see color 0 3 Physicalism is false
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'