Summary Of What Is It Like To Be A Bat
1. Are you a dreamer?
The meditator determines that there is not a reliable test to determine if you are dreaming or not (EP 88). The meditator comes to this conclusion by first noting that all of his knowledge has been derived from or through his senses (EP 88 middle). The mediator then realizes that sometimes his senses give him wrong information, so he cannot trust them on the grounds that his senses could be feeding him more false information (EP 88 middle). To further his idea that his senses cannot be trusted, the meditator notes that he perceives similar scenarios when he is sleeping to those he has when he is awake, so how can he determine if he is awake and experiencing something real or if he is dreaming? (EP 88-9).
However, the …show more content…
meditator believes that some aspect of what we experience, whether true or imagined, must be based off of true information (EP 89 top). The meditator explains that painters, who “create sirens and satyrs with the most extraordinary bodies,” create the fictional creatures with parts of real animals (EP 89 top). Although, if we cannot trust our senses, and we cannot determine if we are imagining things or not, how do we know that the ‘real’ animals are not imagined as well? The meditator says we don’t, but at the very least, the colors in the paintings are real (EP 89 top). The meditator makes this analogy relate to the dreams versus reality idea to point out that what is imagined is based off of true things, even if just the colors, or numbers, or simple shapes are real. But are they? Or is everything we perceive to be true imagined? (EP 89) The meditator notes that there could be a higher being causing us to imagine untrue aspects (EP90 top). So even if we think something is based off of truth, it is possible that we are being given false information by this higher being (EP 90).
The meditator’s goal in Descartes’ first meditation is to analyze every single belief of the meditator’s and determine if there is anything that the meditator can know for certain is true. The meditator’s conclusion that we cannot trust our senses and we cannot determine if we are dreaming helps him achieve his goal because he determines that nothing can be trusted. If the meditator is right, then we cannot trust our senses, and we cannot trust that anything is true. For all we know, we could have dreamt everything that happened in our lives. We have no way of confirming if any events of our lives have actually happened, or if we’ve simply imagined them all. And if we are imagining everything, nothing could be believed to be true. I could be dreaming but it is also very plausible that I am a comatose patient who has dreamt the life of Dana Hackel, a completely fictional character. There is no way of knowing what is true.
However, in Descartes’ second meditation, he determines that I think therefore I am. But does he really exist? Or is that an imagined thing too? Comatose patient imagining life of someone else 2. The mind-body problem Substance dualism is the theory that the mind and the body are two separate things. As discussed in class lectures, the mind and the body are known in two different ways (Class lecture 10/21/14). The body, since it is a physical and tangible object, is known and learned about through observations and not introspection (Class lecture 10/21/14). The mind, which is not tangible, is known and learned about through introspection and not observations (Class lecture 10/21/14). Since, the mind and body are learned about in different ways, they cannot be the same thing (Class lecture 10/21/14). Richard Taylor provides a good example which can help illustrate this argument. A man has a deep cut in his toe, and the doctor is able to examine the toe and its condition (EP 137 middle). However, the patient is also feeling pain, but the doctor is unable to examine the pain the patient is feeling or the conditions of his mind (EP 137 middle). Only the patient can examine his pain, the current state of his mind, through introspection. Because the doctor cannot examine both, the mind and the body are different things (EP 137 middle). The opposite theory is materialism, or the mind-brain identity theory, which states that the mind and body are one.
Thomas Nagel starts to make an argument for this theory in his essay. What Is It Like to Be a Bat? In his essay, Nagel tries to imagine what it would be like to be a bat. He determines it is impossible to accurately imagine the scenario because what our brains are able to imagine is limited (EP 139 bottom). Our imagination is limited by what our minds know and experience (EP 139 middle). The experiences of our mind are “accessible only from one point of view,” (EP 141 middle). On a more related note, a person, who has decent hearing capabilities is not able to imagine what it would be like to be deaf because he never experienced it. His mind has only experienced being able to hear and therefore it cannot imagine being unable to hear. The point of view, or the experiences known, comes from the body which the mind resides in. Thus, for a mind have experiences, it must be a part of the body it is …show more content…
in. The stronger theory is the dualism theory. Dualists use the idea of qualia to argue against arguments like Nagel’s (EP 142 middle). Qualia is the idea that people will experience the same things in different ways (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/). Two people could have the same capabilities to experience the same thing (i.e. the same cones and rods in their eyes) but there is no way to determine if both people experience color in the same way because determining experiences are based on introspection. There is no way to observe how the colors are experienced to different people. And, since their bodies are not the cause of the different experience, something else must cause it. That something is the mind which means the mind and the body are separate.
Works Cited
Tye, Michael. "Qualia." Stanford University. Stanford University, 20 Aug. 1997. Web. 09 Nov.
2014. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/>.
3. The Free Will Debate
Which position is the strongest? Support your answer by presenting the best argument you know for your chosen position. Then reply to at least one strong objection from the other side.
Determinism is the belief that all actions and events that occur are forced to happen by laws and previous conditions (EP 170 top).
A previous chain of events, which one has no control over, has led to the occurrence of a specific event. Determinists believe that there is no free will, instead, every single action made is fixed. Within determinism, there are two sets of ideas: soft determinism and hard determinism. Both types believe the idea that all actions must occur based on previous events. Hard determinism is the belief that there is never any free will (EP 171 middle). Hard determinists believe in incompatibilism, which is the idea that freedom and determinism cannot exist at the same time (EP 171 middle). On the other hand, soft determinists believe in compatibilism, the idea that freedom and determinism can exist at the same time (EP 167 top). So, soft determinists believe in determinism, but they also believe that people have freedom (EP 173 top). As defined in class, freedom is a person’s moral responsibility, not to be confused with the ability to choose your actions, which would be free will (Class lecture 10/24/14). Soft determinists believe that people’s actions are predetermined, but people are still morally responsible for those
actions.
Libertarianism is the one belief that does not agree with determinism (EP 178 top). Instead, libertarians believe that people are free to choose their actions. They believe in a concept of metaphysical freedom – for every action, there is some other action that could have been chosen (Class lecture 10/24/14). Like the hard determinists, libertarians also believe in the idea of incompatibilism (Class lecture 10/24/14).
The strongest position is for hard determinism.
Nagel, as well as other determinists, all note that many things are predetermined, including hereditary factors (EP 163 middle). Our genetic make-up, our DNA, was something that came together and occurred before our brains were even developed. Therefore, we did not have the thinking capabilities to make the choice of what our DNA would entail. It is something that is a composite of our parents’ DNA, which was made from our grandparents’ DNA and so on. Our DNA was predetermined by the previous actions of our parents being conceived. We did not have free will to make our own choice of DNA, let alone the choice to even be born. And if the very beginning of our lives are based off of a predetermined chain of actions, then it is most likely that so is every action in the entirety of our lives.
The meditator determines that there is not a reliable test to determine if you are dreaming or not (EP 88). The meditator comes to this conclusion by first noting that all of his knowledge has been derived from or through his senses (EP 88 middle). The mediator then realizes that sometimes his senses give him wrong information, so he cannot trust them on the grounds that his senses could be feeding him more false information (EP 88 middle). To further his idea that his senses cannot be trusted, the meditator notes that he perceives similar scenarios when he is sleeping to those he has when he is awake, so how can he determine if he is awake and experiencing something real or if he is dreaming? (EP 88-9).
However, the …show more content…
meditator believes that some aspect of what we experience, whether true or imagined, must be based off of true information (EP 89 top). The meditator explains that painters, who “create sirens and satyrs with the most extraordinary bodies,” create the fictional creatures with parts of real animals (EP 89 top). Although, if we cannot trust our senses, and we cannot determine if we are imagining things or not, how do we know that the ‘real’ animals are not imagined as well? The meditator says we don’t, but at the very least, the colors in the paintings are real (EP 89 top). The meditator makes this analogy relate to the dreams versus reality idea to point out that what is imagined is based off of true things, even if just the colors, or numbers, or simple shapes are real. But are they? Or is everything we perceive to be true imagined? (EP 89) The meditator notes that there could be a higher being causing us to imagine untrue aspects (EP90 top). So even if we think something is based off of truth, it is possible that we are being given false information by this higher being (EP 90).
The meditator’s goal in Descartes’ first meditation is to analyze every single belief of the meditator’s and determine if there is anything that the meditator can know for certain is true. The meditator’s conclusion that we cannot trust our senses and we cannot determine if we are dreaming helps him achieve his goal because he determines that nothing can be trusted. If the meditator is right, then we cannot trust our senses, and we cannot trust that anything is true. For all we know, we could have dreamt everything that happened in our lives. We have no way of confirming if any events of our lives have actually happened, or if we’ve simply imagined them all. And if we are imagining everything, nothing could be believed to be true. I could be dreaming but it is also very plausible that I am a comatose patient who has dreamt the life of Dana Hackel, a completely fictional character. There is no way of knowing what is true.
However, in Descartes’ second meditation, he determines that I think therefore I am. But does he really exist? Or is that an imagined thing too? Comatose patient imagining life of someone else 2. The mind-body problem Substance dualism is the theory that the mind and the body are two separate things. As discussed in class lectures, the mind and the body are known in two different ways (Class lecture 10/21/14). The body, since it is a physical and tangible object, is known and learned about through observations and not introspection (Class lecture 10/21/14). The mind, which is not tangible, is known and learned about through introspection and not observations (Class lecture 10/21/14). Since, the mind and body are learned about in different ways, they cannot be the same thing (Class lecture 10/21/14). Richard Taylor provides a good example which can help illustrate this argument. A man has a deep cut in his toe, and the doctor is able to examine the toe and its condition (EP 137 middle). However, the patient is also feeling pain, but the doctor is unable to examine the pain the patient is feeling or the conditions of his mind (EP 137 middle). Only the patient can examine his pain, the current state of his mind, through introspection. Because the doctor cannot examine both, the mind and the body are different things (EP 137 middle). The opposite theory is materialism, or the mind-brain identity theory, which states that the mind and body are one.
Thomas Nagel starts to make an argument for this theory in his essay. What Is It Like to Be a Bat? In his essay, Nagel tries to imagine what it would be like to be a bat. He determines it is impossible to accurately imagine the scenario because what our brains are able to imagine is limited (EP 139 bottom). Our imagination is limited by what our minds know and experience (EP 139 middle). The experiences of our mind are “accessible only from one point of view,” (EP 141 middle). On a more related note, a person, who has decent hearing capabilities is not able to imagine what it would be like to be deaf because he never experienced it. His mind has only experienced being able to hear and therefore it cannot imagine being unable to hear. The point of view, or the experiences known, comes from the body which the mind resides in. Thus, for a mind have experiences, it must be a part of the body it is …show more content…
in. The stronger theory is the dualism theory. Dualists use the idea of qualia to argue against arguments like Nagel’s (EP 142 middle). Qualia is the idea that people will experience the same things in different ways (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/). Two people could have the same capabilities to experience the same thing (i.e. the same cones and rods in their eyes) but there is no way to determine if both people experience color in the same way because determining experiences are based on introspection. There is no way to observe how the colors are experienced to different people. And, since their bodies are not the cause of the different experience, something else must cause it. That something is the mind which means the mind and the body are separate.
Works Cited
Tye, Michael. "Qualia." Stanford University. Stanford University, 20 Aug. 1997. Web. 09 Nov.
2014. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/>.
3. The Free Will Debate
Which position is the strongest? Support your answer by presenting the best argument you know for your chosen position. Then reply to at least one strong objection from the other side.
Determinism is the belief that all actions and events that occur are forced to happen by laws and previous conditions (EP 170 top).
A previous chain of events, which one has no control over, has led to the occurrence of a specific event. Determinists believe that there is no free will, instead, every single action made is fixed. Within determinism, there are two sets of ideas: soft determinism and hard determinism. Both types believe the idea that all actions must occur based on previous events. Hard determinism is the belief that there is never any free will (EP 171 middle). Hard determinists believe in incompatibilism, which is the idea that freedom and determinism cannot exist at the same time (EP 171 middle). On the other hand, soft determinists believe in compatibilism, the idea that freedom and determinism can exist at the same time (EP 167 top). So, soft determinists believe in determinism, but they also believe that people have freedom (EP 173 top). As defined in class, freedom is a person’s moral responsibility, not to be confused with the ability to choose your actions, which would be free will (Class lecture 10/24/14). Soft determinists believe that people’s actions are predetermined, but people are still morally responsible for those
actions.
Libertarianism is the one belief that does not agree with determinism (EP 178 top). Instead, libertarians believe that people are free to choose their actions. They believe in a concept of metaphysical freedom – for every action, there is some other action that could have been chosen (Class lecture 10/24/14). Like the hard determinists, libertarians also believe in the idea of incompatibilism (Class lecture 10/24/14).
The strongest position is for hard determinism.
Nagel, as well as other determinists, all note that many things are predetermined, including hereditary factors (EP 163 middle). Our genetic make-up, our DNA, was something that came together and occurred before our brains were even developed. Therefore, we did not have the thinking capabilities to make the choice of what our DNA would entail. It is something that is a composite of our parents’ DNA, which was made from our grandparents’ DNA and so on. Our DNA was predetermined by the previous actions of our parents being conceived. We did not have free will to make our own choice of DNA, let alone the choice to even be born. And if the very beginning of our lives are based off of a predetermined chain of actions, then it is most likely that so is every action in the entirety of our lives.