This sentence basically sums up philosophy for me. This course has constantly made me challenge and question some assumptions about myself as well as others. It's extremely interesting!

in patients who have undergone split brain surgery, there seems to be two centers of consciousness. Is our brain not essential to us just as our entire body isn't?

I feel this is a pattern among many different religions.

There is no continuing substance (annica) and no continuing self (anatta). I made this connection the Chapter 4.3 in our textbook.

subconscious thought/sensation

Locke puts an extreme emphasis on the necessity of consciousness/thinking to classify a person.

separation from soul?

If we do not yet fully understand souls, how do we know when this desertion happens?

Our textbook stated that it is not possible for two different people to be numerically identical, so psychological continuity is not sufficient for identity.

consciousness/thinking determines personal identity

it is necessary for there to be a sense of consciousness/oneself to be considered a person

I feel as a torn decision is a perfect example to back up the claim that we have free will.

Doesn't the past shape our future though? We then make choices based on this created future, which would be our present in the time of the decision. It's not necessarily predetermined by prior events, but it's impossible for the past to not shape our future.

We know that we have the capability to make choices for little decisions, which implies we do in fact have free will.

free will allows us to make our decisions in more difficult and complex situations by using our conscious thought process.

As I think about the day I had today, I can pinpoint multiple torn decisions I made that I hadn't really realized or thought about before reading this.

consciousness involves conscious thinking, meaning it is a more detailed thought process. It differs from a normal reaction because it takes a longer time, while the reaction is a quick in the moment response.

the decision differs from the action itself

a torn decision is still a thoughtful and precise decision. It is more effective than just randomly choosing an option.

a torn decision means you are "torn" between options that are all equally attractive. The decision made is not easy.

This definitely is unbelievable. These processes are in no way useless, and are actually essential to the way we live.

I never thought about how conscious thinking only comes into effect for certain thought processes and/or actions. It's interesting how we can make simple decisions so easily, but then use our conscious thinking for more advanced situations.

The mentioning of chemical reactions earlier made me question a statement like this. It would in fact be miraculous if the brain did nothing up until the moment of a person being aware of a decision, so why should chemical reactions disprove free will? They are naturally occurring processes that don't just relate to certain actions made.

This reminds me of the movie Minority Report. All of the past events in the movie led to an event occurring in the future, and each individual had a choice to how they would act in the present. This represented our access to free will, and our ability to make choices to shape our future.

Agent versus Event Causation

I'm questioning how it would be possible for these discoveries to "explain it away".

I think this is a great comparison. I personally feel as if the claim that there is no free will shares the same level of extremity as this statement.

I don't see this as being a result of potential lack of free will. Whether or not free will exists, there must be a source of order to keep the world functioning properly. An unlawful act must still deserve a consequence.

I don't think humans find it impossible to accept such conclusions. Accepting the fact that a criminal may have factors that caused them to do what they did, whether it be their upbringing and/or mental issues, is not always enough. If this criminal killed the father/brother/etc of another family, and is let off because of these said factors, how should that be acceptable? Such incidences should be an indicator that we must start looking for early signs of impairment before it leads to such a level of extremity.

There has to be a limit where issues (such as mental health) come into play. If a person with such issues commits a minor crime, yes, then that must be taken into account and help should be provided to that individual. However, if a criminal "malfunctions", and kills or rapes an innocent being, it can't factor in all that much! What's done was done, and multiple people's lives were negatively affected. Providing help to that persons mental help may be necessary, but overlooking a sever punishment is unacceptable.

If this same sense were applied to a situation where a criminal murdered an innocent individual, I don't see it as being equivalent. Yes, there may be issues with the criminal that certainly do need to be addressed and/or fixed, but that shouldn't deny them a sort of punishment.

I hope to be able to experience this happen if it were to eventually occur! I'm interested in seeing the theory created, who creates it, as well as how individuals react to it.

Every time I start to think a plausible theory could be made, it is quickly refuted!

This reminds me of the Eva situation. She most certainly had a brain and mind, but did that make her conscious? Her brain/mind was not human like, but rather man made. I feel as if it failed to create true thoughts and emotions, but rather made her replicate what a conscious human would do. She would never experience it however. This makes me think that replacing neurons with silicon chips would also fail to carry over true consciousness.

But what if we do not physically act on something we are conscious about. I know I am conscious about my emotions, but may not necessarily show any actions to prove so. For example, if something upsets me and my internal thought process is addressing it, but I do not show any physical attributes that would imply I'm upset because I am in a public setting, would that deem me to me unconscious? I am still having the correct mental processes, just not acting upon them.

Although it may seem silly, how are we to know a person is telling the truth about their experiences? We can't directly experience whats inside their mind, meaning we can never truly know if they are conscious or not. How am I to know I am not the only conscious individual on earth and everyone else are philosophical zombies!

Once again easy and hard components

I'm having a hard time figuring out what this additional fundamental component would be.

The easy questions concern the cognitive/behavioral functions being performed, and the hard questions involve wondering why these things occur.

I remember reading about this thought experiment in the text book and thinking the same thing. Although Mary may know all the physical facts about color, she still lacks the experience of seeing color itself. If she hasn't yet experienced it, she doesn't quite know everything about it. Hard facts may be able to explain what the experience will consist of, but simply reading about it will not suffice to the experience itself. It's like someone explaining the plot of a movie to you. You may understand the plot and what will happen, but when you go to watch it yourself you then get to experience the thrill and emotions the movie is meant to cause you to have. Then you truly understand the movie and the experience involved.

example of how there must be mental processes for consciousness to exist

I remember there being a question in the textbook asking if we can be sure that everyone, excluding ourselves, is conscious. We can be sure that our own individual self is conscious, but not that others are since we can't experience their mental processes.

I think this is a very accurate and acceptable way to describe consciousness.

I think we can be conscious without exhibiting certain behavior. Our mind may be running wild with thoughts, but that isn't to say we will necessarily act on those thoughts. If there aren't actions being performed, who is to say that person isn't conscious? Consciousness should more refer to the ability to form mental processes, rather than adding behavior into the equation.

This self-awareness can then be transferred over to other individuals actions that we witness. If we can identify that our individual selves are aware of more than just behavior, that type of outlook should be applied to the others around us as well, meaning we understand they all are also aware of more than just mere behavior.

Central point of the following paragraphs.

Defining mind by behavior is irrational. I like the statement made here suggesting that instead the mind brings about our complex behavior. Although the mind can be responsible for behavior, that shouldn't always be a defining component.

I fully agree with this statement.

If a person were to accidentally drop a glass and it broke, that would be an example of manifestation of brittleness? Wouldn't breaking and shattering ultimately be considered defining traits of brittleness? The glass will always be considered brittle even if it were to never break.

This is a good argument for the point I was trying to get across in my last annotation. Another example is that some individuals are very good at hiding their thoughts/emotions and don't show any physical response to them. This doesn't deny the fact that they have ongoing mental processes.

This to me seems very backwards. Mental processes can't always be identified by physical behavior. What if no physical behavior derives from a persons thoughts at that specific moment?

Connection to the previous annotation assignment, and the mind body problem.

This connects to the argument that the soul is not immortal. Since perception is an attribute of the soul, and perception cannot exist without the body, it is concluded that the soul cannot exist without the body.

Although the body and its senses can sometimes be misleading, I still believe these elements can also have times where they are reliant as well as possibly life saving.

This happened to remind me of a video I watched in my AP Psychology class in high school. It consisted of individuals watching a set up robbery scene, and they were then later asked to summarize the event and identify the robber out of a series of pictures of individuals. All of the participants failed to accurately describe the situation, and even chose the wrong image of the robber. They were all very confident in their answers. This was meant to show how deceiving our own eyes/brain can be, and how false beliefs can easily arise. It was interesting to see how this could potentially affect legal situations, and testifying/identifying those that are guilty. This causes me to strongly agree with this statement in the article.

This reminds me of our class discussion board, Does Morality Depend on God? "Is an action right because God wills it to be done, or does God will it to be done because it's right?" I feel like this question could be applied to memories as this article states. Do we create our own thoughts, or is there a higher being that is responsible for that, therefore making our own thoughts not so much our own?

Personally I do not agree with this. I think people should take interest in what makes them happy, even if the interests are materialistic. Advancing ones self is always good, but I don't feel as if these types of interests necessarily hold a person back.

What would be defined as "the whole outer world"? Our interest are our interests, why does it matter where they specify to?

This is a good example of what I meant by "negatively affected" in my last annotation. Close-mindedness keeps one from understanding/acknowledging the immense possibilities that may possibly exist.

This is a very important point of this essay. It's basically stating that we must always be open to knowledge and learning new things. This enables us to grow as individuals but also as a society. If we have too closed of a mindset, it will only harm us and hold us back.

Relating back to the other essay provided, this shows how philosophy is the building blocks/foundation for science.

Although philosophy may not always provide a definite answer, I feel like it already succeeds enough by encouraging individuals to expand their mindset and think in different ways. If there isn't a definite answer from one situation, but someones mind is influenced, that could possibly create an answer to either the same situation or a different one!

Why does philosophy not belong to the lives of everyone? I sort of understand what is being said, but at the same time it feels like gatekeeping. It could be used to help people develop their critical thinking and make better decisions. I feel as if one doesn't have to be devoted to studying philosophy in order to use some of its concepts, but I could be misunderstanding.

Would this not technically be a choice then since it had to be done and there was no other option? I personally feel the wording of this paragraph conveyed a somewhat confusing message.

This is an interesting comparison. It really conveys the point that theology is almost like a game of chance, and if achieved it is extraordinary.

I have always been interested in the sciences, but have never really thought of philosophy being incorporated into it, let alone providing the foundation stones. As I take future science courses, I will definitely have a different outlook and a more open mind.

This is interesting to think about, considering a large portion of science revolves around nonsensible existence. What would life have been like if it was universally agreed that Hume and Carnap were correct?

"The philosophical study of being in general, or of what applies neutrally to everything that is real. It was called “first philosophy” by Aristotle in Book IV of his Metaphysics." https://www.britannica.com/topic/ontology-metaphysics

"Ancient and Medieval philosophers might have said that metaphysics was, like chemistry or astrology, to be defined by its subject-matter: metaphysics was the “science” that studied “being as such” or “the first causes of things” or “things that do not change”. It is no longer possible to define metaphysics that way, for two reasons. First, a philosopher who denied the existence of those things that had once been seen as constituting the subject-matter of metaphysics—first causes or unchanging things—would now be considered to be making thereby a metaphysical assertion. Second, there are many philosophical problems that are now considered to be metaphysical problems (or at least partly metaphysical problems) that are in no way related to first causes or unchanging things—the problem of free will, for example, or the problem of the mental and the physical." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

"The logical implication P -> Q is defined to true except when P is true and Q is false. There is no mention of cause and effect in this definition, and so the logical implication has nothing to do with cause and effect." https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-causation-and-logical-implication

This is a good example of common human nature. We tend to be curious individuals and always need an answer to explain something we deem to be unfamiliar. Identifying the unknown is a way to relieve anxiety and relax our minds.

This is a crucial point when it comes to a pro-life argument, and actually makes it a somewhat harder side to argue and/or justify.

This is a great point when it comes to abortion. If the pregnancy is at risk of negatively affecting the health of the mother, she should never be forced to carry through with the pregnancy. If the U.S. courts have been unwilling to force people to donate bone marrow, what's the difference when it comes to pregnancy? It's still a matter of life or death.

This further supports the argument that fetuses are not considered persons.

This is very conflicting to me and I find it hard to choose a side to be on. However, I suppose I lean more towards the side of no, they don't have the moral right. I think it inflicts on a persons own rights/the rights to their own body too much.

"The “Dead Donor Rule” (DDR) lies at the heart of current organ procurement policy. ... On those grounds, an organ donor must already be dead before vital organs are removed. The DDR is therefore an ethical norm: vital organs may be removed only after the organ donor is dead." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4100619/

Doesn't the section earlier on in this article about bringing individuals "back to life" contradict this? If individuals who aren't "there" can be revived or brought back to a conscious state, wouldn't that mean the life-sustaining medical treatment could potentially be beneficial? Although it's not always guaranteed, the treatment could definitely be a huge turning point for a persons life.

"The most important function of the cardiopulmonary system is with respect to the flow and regulation of blood between the heart and the lungs, a process that centers upon the connection between the heart and the lungs made through the pulmonary artery." https://www.encyclopedia.com/sports/sports-fitness-recreation-and-leisure-magazines/cardiopulmonary-function#:~:text=The%20most%20important%20function%20of,made%20through%20the%20pulmonary%20artery.

How would this be? If the criteria, as stated by Warren, that an individual must have consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, the capacity to communicate, and self-consciousness, then in no way would a person be fully present from conception.

It's seems inhumane to me that Warrens list of criteria for person-hood could essentially exclude individuals with certain disabilities. I don't feel as if this is in any way correct, and a person shouldn't be seen/classified as something less due to impairments.

This statement would then suggest that we may have to grant certain rights to sufficiently intelligent animals or machines (ones that meet most of the attributes but not all), due to them being classified as persons.

If we use this criteria to classify personhood, does that also define some non-humans as persons? For example, dolphins have many of these characteristics (consciousness, self-consciousness, reasoning, communication), does that classify them as persons? Must all the criteria be met or just some?

As our class textbook states, "Being a biological human being is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for being a person."

This then makes us question different aspects of religion. For example, what does this imply about souls that enter perhaps Heaven within the Christian religion? If souls are immaterial and can no longer be connected to our self-identity, how would one essentially proceed to live in God's kingdom? Is there a new identity created?