Problem set 2

In a long essay, explain how Ryle's Logical Behaviorism responds to the problems of Cartesian Dualism, making sure to distinguish Logical Behaviorism from Methodological Behaviorism. Explain why we rejected Logical Behaviorism and how Type Physicalism responds to the rejection of Logical Behaviorism. Finally, explain how Multiple Realizability simultaneously refutes Type Physicalism and points the way to Machine Functionalism. (25)


Ryle’s Logical behaviorism is a theory of mind that mental concepts can be explained in terms of behavioral concepts. While Cartesian Dualism a theory or system of thought that regards a domain of reality in terms of two independent principles, especially mind and matter. Ryle thinks Cartesian Dualism an origin of the category mistake. What makes it a issue is that it represents the facts of mental life as if they belonged to one logical type or category when they actually belong to another The primary reason logical behaviorisms declined was the rejection of the verifications theory of meaning that supported it Multiple reliability, in the philosophy of mind, is the thesis that the same mental property, state, or event can be implemented by different physical properties, states or events.

Type physicalism is a physicalize theory, in the philosophy of mind. It asserts that mental events can be grouped into types, and can then be correlated with types of physical events in the brain

The mind is a substance and the body is distant substance says dualism. There is only one substance, mind while bodies are not real; they are just perceptions of the mind says idealism. There is only one substance, body while minds are ether s special byproduct of complex physical systems or illusions as materialism/physicalism.

Machine functionalism, or, the computational theory of mind, states that the inner workings of the brain are akin to the information processing of a computer To be honest I wrote this one second cause I don’t know how most of theses topics string together. I read all the stuff you wrote on the school cite and I took really good notes in class but I can’t give you the answers you want. The second problem set question was easy…regurgitating some knowledge and there you go.





In a long essay, explain the Turing Test for machine intelligence. Is the perfect simulation of intelligence intelligence? Why or why not? (25)


The Turing Test is a process for deciding whether or not a computer is capable of thought process like a human. The test is named after Alan Turing, an English mathematician who made great strides towards artificial intelligence during the 1940ish and 1950ish, and who is responsible with coming up with the test. According to this kind of test, a computer that has proven to have artificial intelligence if it can mimic human responses under the tests conditions. In Turing's test, if the human running the test is unable to above average determine whether an answer has been given by a computer or by another human being, then the computer is considered to have "passed" the test. In the basic Turing Test, there are three computer terminals. Two of the computer terminals are operated by humans, and then just the computer terminal. Each terminal is physically separated from the other two. One human is the interviewer. The other human and the computer are the respondents. The interviewer interrogates both the human and the computer according to a specified format, within a certain topic area and context, and for a preset length of time. After the specified time, the interviewer tries to decide which terminal is operated by the human and which terminal is the computer. The test is repeated a lot of times and If the interviewer makes the wrong determination in half of the test runs or less, the computer is said to have artificial intelligence, because the interviewer regards it as "just as human" as the human respondent. I do not believe the test is the perfect simulation. The Turing Test has been assessed, in particular because the nature of the questioning must be limited in order for a computer to exhibit human-like intelligence. And an example, a computer might score high when the interviewer makes the questions "Yes" or "No" answers a from a narrow field of knowledge. If the need of a response to questions of a broad-based, conversational nature, a computer would not be expected to perform like a human being. This would especially be true if the questions where emotionally charged or socially sensitive.



Problem set 01

1. The Platonic Soul

 The platonic soul by explanation by Plato is a

 tripartite division. Plato uses the description of

two horses drawing a charioteer; I like to use the

cartoon Ed, Edd and Eddy. The passionate soul

(Ed), the rational soul (Edd) and the appetitive

 soul (Eddy). So the reason you cant take Plato’s

 division of the mind which much more than a

 grain of salt is being able to accept an explanation

 of the mind, which uses minds in the explanation.


2. Cartesian Dualism

 The mind-body problem is from one of the “deepest and most lasting legacies” of Descartes.

People question how can the mind cause some of our bodily limbs to move and how can the body’s sense organs cause sensations in the mind when their natures are completely different?

In this passage I am going to give some examples to explain Descartes solutions to the mind-body problem, Cartesian Dualism.

First I will start off with a hard definition.

The mindbody problem is the problem of explaining how our mental states, events and processes—like beliefs, actions and thinking—are related to the physical states, events and processes in our bodies, given that the human body is a physical entity and the mind is non-physical.

I will begin with I dream. 

I often have perceptions very much like the ones I usually have in sensation while I am dreaming.

There are no definite signs to distinguish dream experience from waking experience therefore, it is possible that I am dreaming right now and that all of my perceptions are not real

Second I believe that there is an all-powerful God who has created us and who is all-powerful.

It has the capability in his power to make me be deceived even about matters of mathematical knowledge which i seem to see clearly therefore, It is possible that I am deceived even in my mathematical knowledge of the basic structure of the world.

So in the end the only thing that I can believe in is that I can be certain of is that I am have doubt, leading to me to agree with his famous phrase "Cogito ergo sum," (I think, therefore I am).



Philosophy Club

Because of banking complications, there will not be pizza at today's meeting.

The Philosophy Club is Starting back up, and we have a meeting this Thursday 2/19/15 at 5:00 pm, CI building room 107.

We will be having a presentation on the Philosophy of Love and Sex.

Philosophy Club

 The Philosophy Club has had a rocky start this semester, but I think we can recover.  I know that everybody has many time conflicts and whatnot, so if anyone has a suggestion of what day and time we should have the meetings, then please comment below. I'd like to get us into full swing this semester as quickly as possible, so I will be holding a coffee talk next week following everybody's suggestions. Thursdays are bad for me but any other day of the week after 6:45 works for me.


Today Elizabeth Grant came and we discussed the things we would like to get strarted this semester including: T-Shirts, Public Discussions, and Reading Discussions.

If you are unable to make it to a meeting but you have a good idea, I will be opening a public Forum on this website for the Philosophy Club and I'll make a link to it.


A deadline for the technological singularity?
"To me, this is the physical limit of Moore's Law," Klimeck says. "We can't make it smaller than this."
Although definitions can vary, simply stated Moore's Law holds that the number of transistors that can be placed on a processor will double approximately every 18 months. The latest Intel chip, the "Sandy Bridge," uses a manufacturing process to place 2.3 billion transistors 32 nanometers apart. A single phosphorus atom, by comparison, is just 0.1 nanometers across, which would significantly reduce the size of processors made using this technique, although it may be many years before single-atom processors actually are manufactured."

A question regarding blame

Am I the first entry? S.S. Hill

more videos

73rd Annual Meeting of the Southwestern Philosophical Society

Members of the Philosophy Club and Individuals for Free-thought will travel to Austin on Friday, November 18 to attend the Southwestern Philosophical Society conference. You do not need to be a club member to attend. It is open for any student interested in attending this conference.

November 18-20, 2011

Radisson Hotel & Suites Austin-Town Lake
111 Cesar Chavez at Congress
Austin, TX


The latest SWPS 2011 Program can be downloaded here.

If you are interested in attending this event and would like more details please contact:

Megan Crawford-Grime,



Syndicate content