class: center, middle, inverse, title-slide .title[ # Literally Everything Else We Haven’t Talked About Yet ] .date[ ### MSA 2025 ] --- # Everything Else We Haven't Talked About It Yet 1. Reasoning Processes 2. Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Metaethics 3. Machine Intelligence 4. The Mind Body Problem --- class: center, middle # The Psychology of Reasoning --- # Bat and ball A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? a. 10 cents b. 5 cents c. 1 cent d. 11 cents --- class: middle, center # Availability heuristic Tendency to use information that comes to mind quickly and easily when making decisions or answering questions. --- class: medium-font # Linda the bank teller Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations. Which is more probable? a. Linda is a bank teller. b. Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement. -- > Correct answer: It's much more probable that <mark>a. Linda is a bank teller</mark>. -- - There are more _bank tellers_ than _bank tellers who are also active in the feminist movement_. - Imagine a random positive whole number. What is more probable? - The number is lower than 100 - The number is lower than 90 - Since the first alternative _includes the second alternative_, it's more probable. --- class: middle, center # Representativeness heuristic Tendency to judge that an object pertains to some category based on how similar the object is to the _prototypical_ example of that category. --- class: medium-font # Mary and her positive test result Among people with no symptoms, one person has disease X for every thousand people who don't. There is a test for this disease that **always** gives a positive result when someone has the disease, but also does so 5% of the time when someone does not have the disease. A random person (let’s call her Mary) with no symptoms is tested and gets a positive result. What is the probability that Mary has the disease? a. Less than 2% b. Between 2% and 10% c. Between 10% and 50% d. More than 50%, but less than 90% e. More than 90% -- Answer: 1.96%, so the right answer is <mark>a. Less than 2%</mark>. --- # Mary and her positive test result Why the probability that Mary has the disease so low, given that she tested positive? -- - Suppose Mary is one of 1001 individuals who get tested, 1000 of them don't have the disease, 1 has it. - How many of them will get a positive test result? - The one person who has the disease will definitely get a positive result. - Since the test gives a positive result 5% of the time when there's no disease present, out of the 1000 people who don't have the disease, 50 people (5%) will get a positive test result. - So, given that Mary tested positive, she is one of 51 people who tested positive. 1 / 51 = 0.0196, or 1.96%. --- class: middle, center # Base rate fallacy Tendency to ignore the base rate of a feature or event and focus exclusively on the strength of the evidence. Base rate: the statistical rate of occurrence of a feature or event in general. --- - Presence of the disease in the population: 1 to 1000 - Probability of positive test result when person does have disease: 1 - Probability of positive test result when person doesn't have disease: 0.05 .center[ <img src="assets/tree-sick.png" alt="" height="200"/> ] If you had to randomly pick one person who tested positive, what's the probability that such a person is sick (from which branch such a person is most likely to come from)? `$$P(\text{sick|positive}) = \frac{1}{51} = 0.0196$$` `$$P(\text{not sick|positive}) = \frac{50}{51} = 0.98$$` Despite that the test is very good, it's still more likely that a random person who tests positive is not sick. This is so because of the very low base rate of the disease. --- # Mary and her positive test result Does this mean that tests are unreliable? -- - The problem is that **Mary doesn't have symptoms**, and that the presence of the disease is very low among those individuals (1 out of 1000). - The presence of the disease should be much higher among people _with_ symptoms. - 1 in 20? 1 in 10? - If the prevalence of the disease is 1 in 10, with a positive test result, the probability of having the disease is 66.67% - This is why doctors recommend to get tested again if you don't have symptoms. - Suppose Mary gets tested again, and once more, the test comes back positive. Then she has a 29% chance of having the disease. - If Mary gets a third positive result, then she would have a 88.89% chance of having the disease. --- class: center Which tabletop is longer than the other? <img src="assets/turningthetables.gif" width="600"/> --- class: center Which tabletop is longer than the other? <img src="assets/turningthetables-annie.gif" width="600"/> Both have the same size! --- class: center, middle # Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Metaethics --- # Free Will Free will refers to our ability to control our actions and be morally responsible for them. Determinism is the idea that the universe unfolds according to unchanging laws of nature, which have predetermined the course of events from the beginning to the end. If determinism is true, it seems that we do not have free will. However, if we truly possess free will, determinism would be false. Which option best represents your view on free will? a) Determinism is true, so we do not have free will. b) We have free will, so determinism must be false. c) We can still have free will even if determinism is true. --- # Free Will .shadow[ .emphasis[ __Free will__: The capacity of agents to choose their course of action. ] ] When an agent exercises free will over their choices and actions, their choices and actions are _up to them_. - They are able to _choose otherwise_. - They are the _source_ of their action. --- # Free will and moral responsibility .shadow[ .emphasis[ If an agent is morally responsible for their actions, then that agent performs those actions freely. ] ] Free will seems _necessary_ for moral responsibility. Questions: - Do we have free will? Always, sometimes, never? - Is free will necessary for moral responsibility? If we don't have free will, can we still be morally responsible for our actions? --- # Positions on free will - __Determinism__: Determinism is true, therefore there's no free will. - __Libertarianism__: We have free will, therefore determinism is false. - __Compatibilism__: We have (morally significant) free will despite the fact that determinism is true. --- ## Causal determinism .shadow[ .emphasis[ **Causal determinism**: The course of the future is entirely determined by the conjunction of its past states and the laws of nature. ] ] > We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes. <br> — Pierre Simon Laplace, _A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities_ --- # Compatibilism Moral responsibility might be compatible with determinism. Harry Frankfurt's case: > Alice is an assassin hired by the mob to murder an important political figure, Beatrice. The mob boss who hired Alice, Carlo, finds it very important that the assassination is carried out and does not entirely trust Alice. To ensure the job is completed, Carlo has a device secretly implanted in Alice's head while she is unconscious and without her knowledge. The purpose of the device is to make Alice to undertake the assassination if she decides to back out. However, Alice carries out the assassination as planned. She independently decides to murder Beatrice, and the murder takes place without the secret device needing to interfere. Is Alice's action _free_? --- # Objection to hard determinist argument How we can employ Frankfurt's case to object to this argument? 1. Causal determinism is true. 2. If causal determinism is true, then humans do not have the ability to do otherwise. 3. If humans do not have the ability to do otherwise, then humans do not have free will. 4. If humans do not have free will, then they are not morally responsible for their actions. 5. Therefore, humans are not morally responsible for their actions. --- # Compatibilism What matters for free will is not the ability to do otherwise, but that our actions come from us and our _desires_, and are not constrained or forced by other factors. Frankfurt: distinction between first-order and second-order desires. - Kleptomaniac: first-order desire to steal but second-order desire not to. - Normal thief: first-order _and_ second-order desire to steal. Free will, according to Frankfurt, is when your **second-order desires align with your first-order desires**—when you want to act on the desires you want to have. So, for Frankfurt, compatibilism holds: Free will and moral responsibility are compatible with determinism, because **what matters is acting in accordance with your higher-order values**, not whether you could have chosen differently. --- # Moral Relativism Do you believe that moral truths are relative to cultures or individuals, rather than universally true for everyone? A. Yes — what's right or wrong depends on cultural or personal beliefs. B. No — some moral principles are objectively true, regardless of what people think. C. I'm not sure — I see valid points on both sides. --- # In Favor of Moral Relativism Why Relativism Might Be Right: ✅ Cultural Diversity: Different cultures have very different moral codes (e.g., views on marriage, gender roles, punishment). This suggests no single "true" morality. ✅ Tolerance and Humility: Relativism encourages open-mindedness and respect for different moral perspectives. ✅ Avoids Arrogance: Claiming moral objectivity can lead to ethnocentrism or moral imperialism. Relativism avoids that. ✅ Descriptive Accuracy: Anthropological evidence shows that people sincerely disagree about basic moral norms. --- # Argument Against Moral Relativism Why Relativism Might Be Wrong: ❌ No Moral Progress: If morality is relative, we can’t say societies improve morally (e.g., ending slavery). ❌ Moral Disagreement Becomes Impossible: If everyone’s right "in their own view," we lose the grounds for genuine moral disagreement. ❌ Can't Condemn Horrific Acts: If relativism is true, we can't objectively say genocide or torture is wrong in any culture. ❌ Contradicts Moral Intuition: Most people believe at least some things are wrong no matter what anyone thinks. --- # A third alternative: Moral Nihilism What If Morality Isn't Real at All? 🌀 No Objective Values Exist: Just as unicorns don’t exist, maybe moral properties like “wrongness” or “oughtness” don’t either. 🌀 Disagreement Points to Fiction: Deep and persistent moral disagreements may show we’re just projecting feelings, not discovering truths. 🌀 Parsimony (Simplicity): Moral nihilism offers a simpler worldview: no need to posit invisible moral facts. 🌀 Morality as Social Tool: Morality might just be a useful fiction, helping groups survive—but not "real" in any deeper sense. --- class: center, middle # Machine Intelligence --- # The Chinese Room Imagine a person who speaks only English sitting alone in a locked room. Inside the room is a large book written in English that contains detailed instructions for manipulating Chinese characters. Pieces of paper with Chinese writing are passed into the room through a slot. The person uses the book to match the characters on the paper and determine what characters to write in response, which they then pass back through the slot. Over time, this person becomes so good at following the rules that, to someone outside the room, it seems like they're having a fluent conversation in Chinese. However, the person inside doesn’t understand a single word of Chinese—they're just following symbol-manipulation rules from the book. --- # Discussion - Does the person in the room understand Chinese? Why or why not? - What does it mean to "understand" a language? - If the person can respond perfectly in Chinese, does it matter whether they "understand" it? -- - Suppose someone outside the room thinks they're talking to a fluent Chinese speaker. Is that illusion significant? -- - Is the room itself (person + book + process) doing the understanding, or is no understanding happening at all? - If we replaced the person with a robot that follows the same rules automatically, would the robot understand Chinese? --- class: center, middle # The Mind-Body Problem --- # Mind and Consciousness The mind enables us to think and be aware of the world. It also allows us to experience sensations, have desires, and feel emotions. Is the mind a _physical_ entity? a) The mind is entirely physical, such as the brain. b) The mind is non-physical, existing as something additional to the brain. --- # Question 5 Is the mind physical? - If you think it is, you are probably a **PHYSICALIST**. - If you think it isn't, you are probably an **NON-PHYSICALIST**. --- # Physicalism What Is Physicalism? - All that exists is physical. Everything about the mind can be explained in physical terms (neurons, brain chemistry, etc.). - Mental states = physical brain states. - Science can, in principle, explain everything about consciousness. Why People Support It: ✅ Success of neuroscience and biology. ✅ No need for “extra” non-physical stuff. ✅ Consistent with a naturalistic worldview --- # Non-physicalism What Is Non-Physicalism? - Something about the mind can’t be explained just by physical processes. - There are qualia — the subjective, first-person experiences (like what red “feels” like). - Consciousness involves non-physical properties or realities. Why People Support It: ✅ Our inner experience feels real and different from brain activity. ✅ Some thought experiments (below) suggest physicalism leaves something out. --- # Philosophical Zombies Imagine **philosophical zombies**: Creatures that are exactly like us in _all physical respects_ but _without conscious experiences_. By definition there _is nothing it is like_ to be a zombie. > Imagine a being exactly like you in every physical way. It has the same brain structure, the same behavior, and reacts to the world just like you do. It talks about emotions, describes colors, laughs at jokes, and says it feels pain. But internally, this being has no conscious experiences at all—there’s nothing it’s like to be it. It functions perfectly on the outside, but everything that would be part of its inner, subjective experience is missing. 1. If physicalism is true, then it is logically impossible for philosophical zombies to exist. 2. It is logically possible for philosophical zombies to exist. 3. Therefore, physicalism is false. What do you think about this argument? Are philosophical zombies conceivable? Does their conceivability show that physicalism is false? --- # Mary The Color Scientist > Mary is a scientist who has spent her entire life in a black-and-white room. Despite this, she becomes the world’s leading expert on color vision. She knows every physical fact about how humans perceive color—wavelengths, eye biology, brain processing, and more. However, she has never actually seen any colors herself. One day, she leaves the room and sees a red apple for the first time in her life. 1. If physicalism is true, then all knowlege is knowledge about physical facts. 2. Mary knows every physical fact. 3. Upon leaving the room and seeing colors, Mary learns something new: the experience of seeing red. 4. Therefore, not all knowledge is knowledge about physical facts. 5. Therefore, physicalism is false.