searle, nagel, and wide comp

Question 1

what was the sate of mental theories before Searle

Answer 1

so far, every theory of consciousness denies that consciousness is a part of the physical world

Question 2

what is the scandal in seaeles opinion

Answer 2

the truth is that we dont have an adequate neurobiological account for consciousness.

History of phil of mind is filled with false claims about consciousness

in regards to mind/body problem, and nothing has been solved

Question 3

describe how each theory of mind faults in regaurds to consciousness (beh,compt,epip,read,obj/sub,mat)

Answer 3

Behaviourism: consciousness doesn’t exist–all behaviour

Computationalism: consciousness doesn’t exist–all just a program or several programs

Epiphenomenalism: consciousness does exist but its not physical and has no impact on the physical world (they say it exists, but if so it has no evolutionary function)

Readiness Potential: consciousness does exist, but has little importance–research shows that our actions are initiated before our conscious mind is aware of what we are doing

Objective/Subjective: consciousness isn’t even a suitable study for science because it is subjective in nature and science is an objective area of study

Materialism: if consciousness exists it must really be something else (there is no room for the mind in the material world)

Question 4

what are searles first two assertions about consciousness

Answer 4

1. consciousness is real
   2.it is a biological phenomenon

Question 5

what are the two “residual” views that are hurting us according to searle

Answer 5

1. spiritual dualism: a sense that the mind is an aspect of the soul (residual greek phil)
2. materialism: that forces itself into eliminativism
   “the time has come for psychology to discard ___all references to consciousness___…it is neither a definable nor useable concept, it is merely another word for ___the soul___of more ancient times…” (Watson, 1925)

Question 6

what is ontological subjectivity and why is it important to recognize according to searle

Answer 6

the idea that some things that objectively exist are subjective in nature ( these can coexist)

for example “i am in pain” is an objective fact, but “pain” is ontologically subjective.

pain is always pain of a subject, so it is by nature of its objective existence, subjective.

Question 7

what are the five features of consciousness that ANY correct theory of mind must include according to searle

Answer 7

Qualia: for every conscious state there is something that it is like to be in that state (NOT DEBATABLE )

Ontological Subjectivity: qualia are BY nature subjective—they are experienced by a subject

Unity: our conscious states have unity—not mere perception and sensation but we have a single unified conscious field

Intentionality: mental states are often about things in the physical world

Intentional Causation: consciousness causes behaviour, the environment is presented to my consciousness

Question 8

how does searle propose we solve the mind-body problem

Answer 8

searles general account is that all of our conscious states are caused by neurological processes

these conscious states exist only as a high level feature of the brain (they do not exist at the same level as neuro activity)

Question 9

explain higher level existence with an example

Answer 9

consciousness is a FEATURE of the brain in the same way that liquidity of water is a feature of the system of H2o molecules

if you look at an h2o molecule, you do not see the “feature” of liquidity, you merely see h20 becuase the liquidity is a high level feature OF the h20

in the same way–Consciousness is a condition of the underlying structure (the brain)

Question 10

searle believes the right account of the mind must be..

Answer 10

non-reductive

mental states can not be reduced to neuro

Ontological (liquid and h2o) vs causal reduction (demons to grems)

We cannot ontologically reduce mind- but we can casually reduce it.

Question 11

fill in the blanks :

That sounds so simple; but why haven’t we been able to give a causal account of how ______________gives rise to this macro condition __________________?

searle “____________.” However what is true; our methods are way too limited in scope

Answer 11

That sounds so simple; but why haven’t we been able to give a causal account of how ___neurological activity__gives rise to this macro condition _____called conciousness_____________?
Searle:
“_______i dont know___________.” However what is true; our methods are way too limited in scope

Question 12

what is smallism

Answer 12

the idea that the best explanation is the most reductive one

Question 13

what is searles criticism of behaviourism

Answer 13

Behaviourism is an embarrassment of a theory, because it denies the obvious subjectivity of consciousness

Question 14

what is searles criticism of computationalism

Answer 14

Computationalism is wrong because programs are defines purely syntactically.

You cant explain consciousness by computation because it is observer relative (Either a concuss agent is carrying out the computation or a conscious agent is using a machine and that agent
interprets it relative)

Question 15

what is searles criticism of Epiphenomenalism

Answer 15

it seems as obvious as anything That my intention to raise my arm is what raises my arm, so i experience this causal relationship

we know that without chemicals we cant do these things, so there is clearly a causal story to tell even if we haven’t figured it out yet

Question 16

what is searles criticism of Readiness Potential:

Answer 16

people make too much of Readiness Potential experiments and didnt show what people claimed them to show,

you get the same readiness potential even when someone decides not to act

People are so desperate to solve the mind body problem that they want to discredit consciousness altogther and that is an embarrassment to scientific studies

Question 17

what is searles criticism of objective/ subjective

Answer 17

there is no reason to think we cant study the mind because it is subjective

Question 18

what is searles criticism of materialism

Answer 18

problem come with all of the conceptual baggage and terms that have been carried over from theory to theory
these terms and concepts carve up Body and mind as exclusive categories that cause the mental and physical to be incompatible.

Question 19

what does searle suggest we prioritize, get awat from and reject

Answer 19

prioritize cognitive neuroscience

get away from computationalism

Reject ANY view that denies the undeniable subjective consciousness state

Question 20

why is Nagel easy to misunderstand

Answer 20

he is mostly critical of theories of mind
he gives rough descriptions
easy to assume he hold to a particular view but he is careful not to endorse a theory of mind

Question 21

how does Nagel define consciousness

Answer 21

an organism has consciousness if and only if there is something that it is like to be that organism

if there is nothing that it is like to be X then it X is not conscious

He treats the phenomenological by how things are presented to the mind subjectively speaking.

Question 22

what does Nagel say about reductive accounts

Answer 22

like searle. he thinks they fail.

We have so many different reductive accounts that have the same problem the story will always be incomplete without the qualia

Question 23

what does Nagel think about physicalism

Answer 23

alot of philosophers of mind desire to get to a physical account.

but if we are physicalists, phenomenological perceptual experiences must be given a physical account

But we have no idea how to explain perceptual experiences–and we are no closer to explaining it physically

Question 24

every subjective phenomenon is essentially (by definition) connected to a….?

Answer 24

point of view

Question 25

why are we no closer to explaining phenomenological stuff on a physical level?

Answer 25

SUBJECTVIVITY because every subjective phenomenon is essentially (by definition) connected to a point of view objective descriptions seem to abandon subjectivity how are we able to explain the subjective from an objective point of view ?

Question 26

provide an example for the complications that explains the issue that arises when trying to objectively explain something subjective

Answer 26

Bats: 1.we are biologically similar 2. they have experiences and consciousness 3. Perceive the world by sonar 4. very different experiences than we have 5. even if i have all of these physical facts i cant KNOW what it is like to be a bat. At most i can imagine what it is like FOR ME to be a bat, but i can not fully know.

Question 27

If Nagel is right about the body and mind then...

Answer 27

the mind body problem is far worse off than the problem is deeply troubled

Question 28

why is the mind/ body problem deeply troubled according to Nagel

Answer 28

If facts of experience are only accessible from one point of view It is a genuine mystery how the true character of experiences could be revealed in the physical operation of the organism WHY; Physical operations are objective It is not a matter of doing more work in neuro science (it is not a matter of completleing the “full story”) If explained in purely physical terms it misses the fundamentally subjective content. What its like to be an organism is only accessible from the point of view from the organism itself. I cant capture all there is to capture. Applies to Any conscious organism

Question 29

what is something we talk about both subjectivly and objectively

Answer 29

lightning can be spoken about in both Objective and subjective ways there is the Pov; how we perceive lightning and there is the objetive scientific explanation of whats "really going on"

Question 30

what is something that introtheoretic reduction/ science does well

Answer 30

remove personal experience and give a neutral objective description. remove the unneeded to get to what is really going on, unneeded here is the subjective experience

Question 31

explain the quote from Nagel " the physicalists want to do with the mind what is done lightning" and why is that problematic

Answer 31

The problem is that the mental is the phenomena we are trying to explain, it IS the appearance that is the object of study not what is behind the experience. Can we really capture all of the perceptual things objectively? like with lighting ?

Question 32

experience is intimately related to

Answer 32

pov

Question 32

FIll in the blank and explain : there is not an _________ ________ to experience

Answer 32

there is not an objective character to experience There is nothing objective beyond the subjective nature of experience and If that is true then there is not a way for a physiologist to observe mental states

Question 33

why does reduction fail

Answer 33

We move from descriptions that depend on impressions we have to more general properties We ainclude properties that are unrecognizable/ inaccessible to human species The less it relies on human view point the more objective it it The process of reduction is an attempt to move from subjectivity toward objectivity But objectivity does not = accuracy in the account

Question 34

The process of reduction is a move to _______________

Answer 34

The process of reduction is a move to ____the more objective___ the "more accurate things"

Question 35

Science/Philosophy are in the business of giving a ___ _____________________

Answer 35

Science/Philosophy are in the business of giving a description of reality and not mere appearance Trying to avoid specific view points (we have historical success in doing this)

Question 36

But__________does not appear to fit this pattern The idea of moving ________________makes no sense whatsoever “If the subjective character of experience is fully comprehensible only from one point of view, then any shift to _____________—that is, less attachment to _____________—does not take us nearer to the real nature of the phenomenon: it takes us further away from it.” -Nagel

Answer 36

But__experience________does not appear to fit this pattern The idea of moving ___from appearance to reality_______makes no sense whatsoever “If the subjective character of experience is fully comprehensible only from one point of view, then any shift to ___greater objectivity___—that is, less attachment to ______a specific view point_______—does not take us nearer to the real nature of the phenomenon: it takes us further away from it.” -Nagel

Question 37

what does nagel say about subjectivity and objectivity

Answer 37

they are not simply different ways of talking about/explaining something, They are actually COMPETING ways that are sometimes incompatible with one another

Question 38

why cant we move from appearance to reality in Phil of mind according to Nagel

Answer 38

because the appearance IS the reality. Study of mind is the study of experience 
WHAT IS experience

Question 39

explain reductive failures in phil of mind

Answer 39

In cases like sickness we carve off the experience from the reality "what is really going on" You can not do this with conciseness, once you carve off the experience you carve off the very thing that you are trying to explain. all these theories that try to reduce consciousness fail because of this

Question 40

“If we acknowledge that a physical theory of mind must account for ___________, we must admit that __________gives us a clue how this could be done.”

Answer 40

“If we acknowledge that a physical theory of mind must account for ____the subjective character of experience _______, we must admit that ____no presently available conception____gives us a clue how this could be done.” Objectivity is insufficient

Question 40

does nagel claim that physicalism is false

Answer 40

NO It might still be true that mental states are physical states even if we don't know how or which physical states

Question 41

provide an example for how You might have evidence for something and but not know exactly what it proves

Answer 41

the butterfly example Suppose a man who does not understand metamorphasis Puts caterpillar in safe opens the case he sees a butterly - May not udneestnad what just happened but can have reasonable evidence that the butterfly used to be the catipliiar Perhaps that is the situation we are currently in with the mind and physicality Or maybe were not but it is tough to say

Question 42

maybe we dont yet have ________________ to explain why mental states are physical

Answer 42

adequate conceptual tools

Question 43

explain some issues with the physical descriptions of the mind

Answer 43

Maybe mental states are physical but they are irreducible Maybe we dont yet have adequate conceptual tools to explain how they are physical maybe they are physical but we dont have the tools to explain HOW they could even BE physical.

Question 44

according to nagel are we close to solving the mind/ body problem?

Answer 44

we DO NOT know how far odd we are

Question 45

how is it different to ask how a car works vs how the mind works

Answer 45

It makes sense to ask how a car really works or what an illness really is but does not make any sense what so ever to ask what my experiences are really like as opposed to how they appear to me. It makes no sense to ask what my experienced are really like MIND/ experience IS what it is really like

Question 46

what is Nagels proposal in regard to physical descriptions of the mind

Answer 46

We need to try and get an objective decription of phenomenological events, experiences, perceptions by expanding our concepts

Question 47

what dies nagel mean by expanding our concepts and why do we need to do this

Answer 47

come up with concepts that are completely alien to us. reconsider what it means for something to be physical capture subjectivity in an objective way we need to do this because we cant even articulate the problem properly, and so we cant come up with a solution

Question 48

what does the correct theory of mind need to overcome according to nagel

Answer 48

the subjective objective gap

Question 49

what did Nagel conclude about explaining the mind physically (physicalism)

Answer 49

Physicalism is problematic unless we greatly widen our concepts (even the definition of physicality) long way to go to solve mind body Might have to accept that we cant explain or prove some things Dualists: isnt that what we said...

Question 50

what is (new) mysterianiam

Answer 50

the view that the mind body problem can not be solved

Question 51

what is the distinction between weak and strong mysterianism

Answer 51

Weak: humans are not smart enough to solve this problem Strong: the problem is in principle unsolvable (nothing to do with intelligence) most mysterians will accept either form

Question 52

what is one argument for mysterianism

Answer 52

for humans, as intelligent as we are, the mind body problem is just too much to solve

Question 53

what is a bundled problem

Answer 53

not a singular problem but a problem that COMEs with a whole host of problems

Question 54

as a bundled problem what other problems does the mind/body problem come with

Answer 54

mental causation, subjectivity, Quaila, consciousness

Question 55

what is the paradoxical problem that comes with the mind/body problem

Answer 55

for humans to even have the ability to solve the mind body problem we would need to be vastly more intelligent and for this to be possible we would have more complex minds that would in turn be more difficult to explain creating the same issue

Question 56

what does it mean that the mind is a "genuine mystery"

Answer 56

Either there is no answer or has no answer available to humans (hard problem) not an argument from a lack of knowledge but an argument FROM knowledge Everything we KNOW about the mind leads to dead ends The more we know the more confused we are The solution always produces more problems.

Question 57

what is the one reason the mind could be a mystery

Answer 57

Consciousness cannot understand consciousness NOthing to do with intelligence of humans but the very nature of the mind IN PRINCIPLE the mind has no capacity to understand itself Nature of the mind to not not know the mind

Question 58

what is cognative closure

Answer 58

according to mysterians, humans are cognatively closed to the mind body problem the idea that there are some things humans are closed to understanding just as elephants are cognitively closed to particle physics--humans are cognitively closed to the mind body problem

Question 59

what did Clark and Chalmers call into question

Answer 59

the boundry of the mind

Question 60

what are the three views about the boundary of the mind

Answer 60

1. Traditional view: The skin and the skull 2. Some mental content and some meaning actually extends into the world (externalists) 3. The mind literally extends beyond the skin and skull into the environment (extended mind thesis) (wide computationalism, active externalism)

Question 61

what brand of mental theory does the boundary of the mind fall under

Answer 61

functionalism

Question 62

what is wide computationalism

Answer 62

the idea that the mind LITERALLY extends beyond the skin and skull into the environment also called active externalism

Question 63

what is externalism

Answer 63

SOME mental content and some meaning actually extends into the world

Question 64

what is the goal of the "extended mind" and who wrote it

Answer 64

Clark and Chalmers argue that the mind extends beyond the skin and skull The environment plays an active role in mind —a CENTRAL and active role Literally not a metaphor they also argue that the common view of the mind is only held by tradition

Question 65

what are the three cases of human problem solving

Answer 65

.1 Person sitting in front of a screen, asked to fit shapes into sockets- do so mentally 2. Person sitting in front of a screen, asked to fit shapes into sockets- they have the option to mentally move it or press a button to move it physically 3. Person with an neuro implant sitting in front of a screen, asked to fit shapes into sockets-they can perform the rotation as fast either way neuro implant or mentally

Question 66

what is the difference between epistemic and pragmatic action

Answer 66

Epistemic Actions alter the world in order to aid or augment cognition (requires a distribution of epistemic __??__) Pragmatic Actions alter the world because some physical change is desirable

Question 67

fill in the blank “If, as we confront some task, a part of the world functions as a process which, were it done in the head, we would have no hesitation in recognizing as part of the cognitive process, then that part of the world __________________.”

Answer 67

“If, as we confront some task, a part of the world functions as a process which, were it done in the head, we would have no hesitation in recognizing as part of the cognitive process, then that part of the world _is part of the cognitive process_.”

Question 68

what is extended cognition

Answer 68

the idea that the mind extends beyond the skull and skin.

Question 69

what is a coupled system

Answer 69

the organism linked with some external entity

Question 70

provide an example of a coupled system in terms of the extended mind

Answer 70

math with pencil and paper: If you remove the pen and paper, this changes the behaviour of the cognitive system. They are playing a key role in cognition They are a PART of the cognitive system

Question 71

what is a good reason to accept active externalism (extended mind)

Answer 71

more explaination for a variety of our actions

Question 72

what is objection one to the extended mind and the reply to the objection

Answer 72

Its not plausible that consciousness extends outside my head in these cases especially reply: not EVERY cognitive process is an extended cognitive process

Question 73

what is objection two to the extended mind and the reply to the objection

Answer 73

Extended coupled systems are not portable and are too easily separated. they are just add ons to the mind reply: the fact that something is contingent doesn’t rule out its cognitive status. In the future might have modules in our Brian to help us, we might want to call them a part of our cognition—these things wont disqualify something like counting on your fingers Portability is really not an issue—mayne they are concerned about reliability

Question 74

explain extended cognition to mind

Answer 74

it is not just cognition that extends into the world--the mind itself does this is because some of our beliefs are in the world.

Question 75

explain the Inga vs Otto argument for the extended mind

Answer 75

inga has imbeded memory hears about an art show thinks the MOMA is on 53rd goes to MOMA Inga believed and consulted her memory, the belief was there waiting to be accessed. Otto has Alztiemers desise he uses a notebook to write down and consult memories His notebook plays the role that is usually played by biological memory He hears about the MOMA, he consults the notebook sees its on 5rd and goes BOTH have to retrieve the information, one is stored externally and one is internal-- they play the same role NO less reliable-- near eachother precisely

Question 76

explain the case of twin otto

Answer 76

proof that beilefs actually EXTEND into the world Otto wrote 53rd Twin wrote 51st Twin Otto is going to go to 51st street—his belief will govern his action and create his reality

Question 77

what is the lesson from otto

Answer 77

What makes some information count as a belief is ______the role it plays ____ it is a Functionalist view

Question 78

what are the hesitations from critics reguarding the otto

Answer 78

ottos memory can be easily taken away (shower) Memory is accompanied by some phenomenological experience/ aspect

Question 79

what c and c replies to the hesitations from critics reguarding otto

Answer 79

Ingas memory isn’t always there either (drunk) C and c think this is just question begging—they already treat the notebook as not mental otto retrieved info and he has some persecptual states —that is not all that different from how we retrieve memory

Question 80

what are the four reasons to extent ottos mind

Answer 80

1. Notebook is constantly in his life, he would rarely take action without consulting the book 2 reason is directly available to him 3 upon retrieving info he auto endorsed 4 info has been consciously endorsed at some point in the past--by him

Question 81

what is a consequence of the extended mind view

Answer 81

A consequence of this view is that _____mental states____ can be partly constituted, in principle, by other thinkers. Our minds can someones extend to other minds Elderly couple- at a restrurant Waiter asks what they want Husband cant remember wife says order waffles you always want those They are a coupled system—she is acting as his notebook HIS belief is stored In HER Language is a tool to extend our cognition Talking and brain storming is offloading our system

Question 82

what does evolution have to do with extended mind

Answer 82

We have evolved to be able to _____extened our mind_______ we can now offload computational processes into our environment Our minds take advantage of and create tools out of our environment

Question 83

if you are still hesitant about extended minds after all the replies you are probably

Answer 83

a dualist. you have probably made a irreconcilable gap between us and the enviromrent