Trustworthy Truths
Plato/Socrates distinguish Knowledge from these.
Correct Opinions
Among Eddington's two tables, this one was composed of gaps and held together entirely by invisible forces.
Scientific Table
This malevolent being straight out of a Hollywood film is the source of much doubt in Descartes's Meditations.
Evil Demon
We leave the really difficult problems about consciousness to the big brains in the philosophy department, the Easy Problems are easy because the easy problems are this.
Quantifiable / Measurable
Natural Kind.
This three part formula is often said to be a sufficient condition for knowledge.
Justified, True, Belief
This is the immediate object of our sensory experiences.
Sense Data
While it seems like the sense cannot prove object permanence, Hume acknowledges they can prove this about objects.
This type of being is an atom for atom replica of a human being, but apparently it's not conscious. Has someone checked to make sure it's had it's first cup of coffee before we check for consciousness?
Philosophical Zombies
One of the defining features of functionalism is that it defines the by not by what its made out of, but by these.
Role or Function - whatever can perform the job of a mind = a mind.
Two of these can result in not having knowledge, even if you've taken all the right steps along the way. (Gettier)
No fault errors.
While ordinary people will say that objects are coloured in reality, a philosopher might say this.
(Appearance of) Colour depends on a three part relationship between subject / object / environment
Descartes suggests that while many people may be skeptical of these truths, no such doubt exists concerning simple truths such as 2+3=5.
Composite Truths
DOUBLE JEOPARY
Watch you step because even after you've explained the functional side of things, we still don't know why you also have a conscious experience, which leads to this.
Searle believes that digital computers will never be able to think because while they have a mastery of rules and syntax, they lack this.
If something is based on one of these, it doesn't really count as real knowledge, if you ask Plato/Socrates.
Luck / Hunches
Eddington's argument about his two tables leads to a seemingly paradoxical result because it posits this view (about science v. ordinary experience)
Scientific findings incongruent with ordinary lived experiences.
Resemblance
They may not sound easy, but unlike the hard problem, the easy problems are tractable because they attempt to provide these kinds of explanations, such as how vision or memory work.
Functional Explanation
Seemingly dashing our hopes for Strong AI, Searle insists that minds are essentially this, which seems to rule out robo-butlers in my lifetime.
Biological.
Among his many metaphors, Plato/Socrates tells us about shackling the statue, which is used for this purpose
Conditions for Truth / Correctness / Certainty (of beliefs)
While Russell argued that we cannot know about REAL tables through our immediate experience, we can know about the REAL table through this.
Inference from our immediate experiences.
By pointing out that objects are remarkably constant and coherent, Hume says people are trying to rely on this faculty to establish object permanence.
Reason
Ironically, the hard problem of consciousness doesn't apply to rocks because it is actually about this.
How/why physical process --> subjective conscious experience
A functionalist would argue that you don't need a squishy (human) brain to experience pain because mental states are these.
Multi-realizable