Critical thinking Assignment | Get Homework Help

1)Provide an argument for the following claim, drawing on our discussion”: We cannot know anything about the external world – whether there are really tables, chairs, other people, or even whether there’s a world at all.” (Hint: you are arguing for agnosticism about the external world, not atheism). 2)In your own words, explain the difference between a statement that is contingent and one that is necessary. Then give an example of each. Note: This is a short answer, not an essay, so your explanation of the difference between contingent and necessary statements should only be 1-3 sentences (not including the examples). 3) Provide an argument for the following claim, and discussion: “There is no way to know whether other people besides you are conscious”Skepticism
Skepticism is the view that we cannot know anything about the world around us.
It is based on the following idea: our evidence that the world is a particular way (e.g. visual, auditory, tactile, etc. experiences that the world is this particular way) could be in place whether or not the world really is that way. For example, you may be dreaming. Or you may be in the Matrix. Or a scientist may be stimulating your brain to have just those experiences. As the skeptic understands it, you are in the following position vis-à-vis the world:
YOU —— Experiences (visual / auditory / tactile etc.) —— THE WORLD
Note that our only access to the world comes via our experiences. Crucially, there is no way to check whether those experiences accurately represent what the world is like. To do that – to check whether our experiences accurately represent the world – we’d have to have some way of accessing the world other than through our experiences. And that, of course, is impossible. And so, for all we know, the world is nothing like our experiences present it as being. It could be like the Matrix, where we are curled up in a pod, with aliens sucking out our energy. Indeed, there may be no world beyond our experiences. That is, your experiences may be the only things that exist, floating alone in the vast, dark universe.
Importantly, the skeptic does not claim that we are in the Matrix, or that there is no world beyond our experiences. Rather, she claims that we cannot know whether there is or not. Indeed, if you think about it, we have no reason at all to believe anything about the what the world on the “other side” of our experiences is really like.
Responses to Skepticism
Response #1 – Descartes
Descartes points out that even if I am dreaming or am a brain in a vat, some of my beliefs would still come out true. And these beliefs – the ones that would still be true even if I were dreaming, were a brain in a vat, etc. – are the beliefs that I can know. What kinds of beliefs are these? Well, they include at the very least the belief that I’m thinking. This would be true whether or not I’m dreaming. If it seems like I’m thinking, I must be thinking – even if I’m in a dream. And if I am thinking, I must exist. This too must be true even if I’m dreaming or a brain in a vat. Thus, it seems like at the very least I can know that I’m thinking and that I exist.
Moreover, even if I were dreaming or were a brain in a vat, I my beliefs about how things seem to me would still be true. For example, my belief that it seems to me that I have a body, that there are other bodies besides mine, that there is light and colors, etc. would still be true even if I were dreaming. So even if I cannot know
about what the world is really like, I can know (Descartes claims) about what the world seems to me to be like. This is echoed at the beginning of the Nagel reading, where he says that the only thing you can be certain of is the contents of your own experiences – that it seems to me that there is a desk, with a laptop, etc.
Note: Descartes develops a long, complicated argument that an all-powerful, all-good God exists; that such a God would never deceive him; and that therefore he can trust that the world really is roughly as it appears to him. While I won’t go into this argument, I encourage anyone who is interested to take a look at it. You can find it, starting on page 12, at the following site: http://selfpace.uconn.edu/class/percep/DescartesMeditations.pdf
Response #2 – Appearances are all that matter (Kant)
Another, very different, response to skepticism is to argue that since the only things we ever directly encounter are our experiences – visual, auditory, tactile, etc. – then those are our reality. They are what we’re talking about and thinking about when we talk and think about the world. If we live in the matrix, so be it. Then the matrix is reality for us; that is our world. On this view, I can know that there is a desk in front of me. Since all I mean by ‘desk’ is the set of experiences I’ve come to associate with the term ‘desk.’
Note that this view is agnostic when it comes to whether there really is a world beyond our experiences, and what that world is like. The idea is, rather, who cares? If we are only in direct contact with our experiences, then they are what we should care about. They are the world – they are what is ‘real’ – for us.
Response #3 – A proof that there is no external world (Berkeley)
Berkeley distinguishes between two categories: (i) mind-dependent stuff and (ii) mind-independent stuff.
• Mind-dependent stuff includes beliefs, desires, dreams, etc. That is, things that exist only as part of a mind.
• Mind-independent stuff includes principally physical objects like tables, chairs, bodies, etc. That is, things that exist independently of anyone’s mind.
Berkeley is not agnostic about whether there is no mind-independent, external world. He’s an atheist. He thinks there is no external world. Indeed, he goes even further. Berkeley argues that we actually cannot even conceive of mind-independent objects, like tables and chairs. We literally cannot form a thought about them. Thus, we cannot form the belief that there are mind-independent, physical things.
His argument is as follows: Suppose you conceive of a tree. What exactly is it that you’ve conceived of? If you think about it, the tree you’ve conceived of is – it literally is – just a thought. It’s not an actual, physical object. Indeed, no matter how hard you try, anything you conceive of, is – like the tree – just a thought. It’s not an actual physical thing. Thus, it’s impossible to have a thought about an actual physical thing. And if you cannot have a thought about a physical thing, you cannot form the belief that there physical things.

Name: Esther Dassas

Prof: Josh

Course: PHI2010

Date: 06/24/2020

Other Minds

Human beings possess minds for perception and interpretation of the environment and stimuli. Similarly, they react differently to stimuli. Due to this, it is impossible to tell the taste of vanilla ice cream to another person. The only thing that human minds can assume is that the other person tastes the same sweetness. However, no one can be certain of the sweetness experience the other person undergoes. The perception of color and flavor is non-uniform among humans, which would make it hard to determine others’ experiences. Nagel argues that there is no evidence to show the commonality of taste among humans. The experience and stimulus correlation may not be the same between two people; this causes a slight difference in the taste of vanilla ice cream. This phenomenon can also be supported by the physical difference between people.

The video from “The Great Everything” argues that it is hard to establish the existence of mind in other people. People cannot be certain about the existence of mind among other people and hence hard to understand their perceptions. However, the difference in taste cannot be enormous; for instance, the taste of vanilla ice cream to a friend cannot be my taste of lemon juice. Under this assumption, one can partially tell the taste of the ice cream according to the bodily reactions. If the vanilla tastes sour or bitter, the other person would probably pucker their mouth; however, if it is sweet, they would show a happy face. The complication happens when the reason for puckering is different from one person to another. There are numerous complications involved in the determination of vanilla ice cream’s taste to other people, and hence no one can exactly tell another person’s taste.

Works Cited

The Great Everything. “The problem of other minds. Youtube, 2017. Retrieved from             https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn-HlXpuF-8