Learning Goal: I’m working on a philosophy writing question and need a sample dr

Learning Goal: I’m working on a philosophy writing question and need a sample draft to help me learn.Please also refer to attachments provided.Answer each with 6-8 sentences. At the bare minimum, any physicalist theory that is realist about mental states (i.e., except for eliminativism and instrumentalism/stances), must accept supervenience. What does it mean to say that mental states (or properties) supervene on physical states (or properties)?
Briefly describe at least one of Kim’s arguments that physicalist accounts have no room for real mental causation. Assuming his conclusion is correct, how would this alter the way we think about our mental lives and the human condition?
Outline at least one attempt to save the notion of mental causation. Do you believe that the attempt you have chosen is successful? Explain.
Why does Block believe that consciousness is not a well-defined concept. Do you believe he is correct? What does this mean about attempting to give a philosophical answer to the Hard Problem. Explain.
A number of different accounts of the difference between conscious and non-conscious thought have been looked at. Pick the one you think is most plausible. Outline the view and explain why you think it does a better job than some of its competitors.
We have looked at a number of arguments that attempt to show that physicalism cannot account for consciousness or subjective states—and, thus, cannot be the complete, correct account of the mind. Describe one of these. Do you think it is a strong objection? How can it be responded to? Explain.
In 1.5 pages double spaced times new roman (please also refer to attached pdfs): 7. What is the most important or most interesting (philosophical) question with regard to the mind (thinking, …)? Explain why you find it important or interesting. Do you think it is a question pertinent only to the human mind? Or, is it more general? Do you think it is answerable? What methods do you think are going to be most fruitful in answering it? Why? Your answers should demonstrate a familiarity with the powerpoints provided.8. First, why there is a problem explaining mind-body causation if we accept either substance or property dualism. Having done that, make clear why the problem seems to reappear for physicalism. You might do this by thinking through the tension Davidson identifies in our talk of mental causes or through explaining Kim’s supervenience argument or in whatever way you wish. Finally, do you think the problem can be effectively addressed? In other words, can we make sense of the importance of mental causes as mental causes or is all the causal work done at the level of the physical?
Requirements: 6-8 sentences and a couple 1.5 pages double spaced times new roman.   |   .doc file

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *