If this is power, then we cannot achieve power because we cannot have this, says the skeptic.

We are made up of this number of substances, says the mind/body dualist.

All "mental states" can be explained in terms of these, says the behaviorist.

Free will seems inextricably linked to this concept on which society (especially our penal institutions) depend. That is why hard determinism is so scary!

This branch of philosophy deals with questions about what is real.

Stop hating and start participating! Unlike modern skepticism, ancient skepticism says we must also do this in our lives.

Sorry Plato! This early modern philosopher was the first thinker to give expression to substance mind/body dualism as it is known today.

Mr. Ryle, you must admit that if some mental states fail to manifest themselves outwardly, it raises questions about this 20th century theory.

Behold our trilemma! To address the "problem of free will", we can deny free will, deny determinism, or this option.

The term "tabula rasa" is Latin for this. Give me some crayons!

Some people smoke weed, others meditate. For the ancient skeptic, their path to this state of mind can found in their philosophical writings.

True or False - according the Rene Descartes, the sensation of pain can be explained solely in terms of the entities and processes that occur in the person's central nervous system.

The fact that severe damage to the prefrontal cortex causes permanent change in personality is strong evidence for this theory. (Be specific please!)

The view that human beings are "self-moving beings" is a mysterious metaphysical notion. But it seems that this theory depends on it.

Empiricists reject the possibility of this type of knowledge.

"I do not maintain that the Skeptic is completely undisturbed," says Sextus Empiricus. "I confess that sometimes he is cold and thirsty, and that he suffers in these ways." However, in similar circumstances, the non-skeptic suffers even more because he possesses this about his current state."

Physical things can't affect nonphysical things! That's silly! At least, so says this problem in philosophy - also a major worry about interactive mind/body dualism.

These actually exist independent of outward behaviors, says the mind-brain identity theorist. So behaviorists, you're wrong!

"To be or not to be?" is the wrong question, because you can still act freely even if you do not have this, according to compatibilists.

This man once wrote: "I think, it will be granted easily, that if a child were kept in a place where he never saw any other but black and white till he were a man, he would have no more ideas of scarlet or green [...]"

I entertain pro-choice arguments. I then entertain pro-life arguments. I then internalize the force of each side. According to the ancient skeptic, I am doing this - a necessary step before suspending judgment.

According to Descartes' different properties argument, the mind and the body cannot be identical to each other for this reason.

In his 1982 paper "What Mary Didn't Know", Frank Jackson argues having a full understanding of the physical account of a person's sensation (say of a person's sensation of red) does not amount to having this of the sensation.

Hard determinism and libertarianism are drastically different theories. But they are strange bedfellows when it comes to asserting this.

A compatibilist believes that a person can still act freely, even if her actions are determined. This is due to the fact that even though her actions are determined, she can still act in accord to these.