This famous quote by Descartes expresses the first certainty he arrives at after employing his method of doubt.

John Locke championed this theory of personal identity. Don't forget the answer to this one!

Materialism is the view that human beings are merely this type of substance.

According to causal determinism, all events (including human action) are the inevitable consequence of these two things.

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with questions about this.

Descartes' method that he used to locate a belief about which he cannot doubt is also known by this label.

"Tattoos! Piercings! Died hair! Voila, I am a different person! Wait... that's absurd" expresses an objection to this theory of personal identity.

The subjective pleasure I experience whenever I taste a spoonful of almond gelato is simply this - at least, according to the mind-brain identity theorist.

I choose to eat a burger today. Okay! But tell me - true or false... causal determinism says I could have done otherwise (like eaten a sandwich instead).

This philosophical view (some call it an "ability") puts into serious question our ability to have knowledge of the external world.

These are the two arguments Descartes employs to raise doubt about the beliefs from his senses and reason.

The same body theory and the same soul theory belong to this category of theories because they claim that there exists something "beneath" a thing's properties.

I smile, I laugh! But according to behaviorism, my behavior is determined by this - just like for Pavlov's dog. (Don't get mental on me!)

From the standpoint of chemistry and physics, there is good reason to think that human actions are causally determined because human beings are simply this - just like stars, planets, and atoms.

If you think that 1+1=2 can be known only after deriving ideas of '1' and '+' from sense experience, you probably fall into this camp in the debate of how we get knowledge.

When I see a chair, I see the chair as it really is. Or do I? Descartes work gives rise to this "problem" that puzzled many thinkers after him.

If I said that "Phineas Gage post-accident was not the same person pre-accident", I most likely referring to personal identity in this sense (because of course he is the same person literally!)

If I describe Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata in terms of strings of different length vibrating at different rates at a certain succession, I have given you this type of explanation of a subjective phenomenon.

Simon-Pierre La Place said that if determinism is true, and a Being had knowledge of scientific laws and locations of all matter, this Being would be able to do this.

This view suggests that even at birth, we possess certain "innate" ideas, even though these ideas may require sense experience to awaken them.

Descartes tries to show that we can trust our senses and our reason by proving the existence of this.

"“When I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I can never catch myself at nay time without perception..." was written by

I am a behaviorist! And I most likely reject this theory in the free will debate. (But I still like Ron Paul.)

Baron D'Holbach and Robert Sapolsky say that the widespread, popular belief that determinism is false is due to our ignorance of what?

Let's connect the dots, folks! Rene Descartes probably falls into this camp in the debate of how we get knowledge.