A priori (3.1): Knowledge or justification that is independent of experience or empirical evidence.

• Example: Mathematical truths, such as "2 + 2 = 4," are known a priori because they can be deduced without relying on observation.

A posteriori (3.1): Knowledge or justification that is dependent on experience or empirical evidence.

• Example: The statement "The sky is blue" is known a posteriori because it is based on sensory experience and observation.

Fallible (3.3): Capable of making mistakes or errors; liable to be wrong.

• Example: Human perception and judgment are fallible, as they can sometimes lead to incorrect conclusions or beliefs.

Brain-in-a-vat (3.4): A philosophical scenario that posits the possibility that one's experiences and perceptions could be generated artificially by a brain kept alive in a vat and fed simulated sensory inputs.

• Example: In the brain-in-a-vat scenario, all of a person's experiences of the world could be simulated by a supercomputer, leading them to believe they are living a normal life when, in fact, they are not.

Induction (3.4): A method of reasoning that involves drawing general conclusions based on specific observations or instances.

• Example: Observing a swan and inferring that all swans are white is an example of induction. However, this method is logically invalid because the conclusion may not hold in all cases.

Consensus (3.6): General agreement or harmony among a group of people.

• Example: In scientific communities, consensus often emerges around well-supported theories or hypotheses, indicating widespread agreement among experts in the field.

Liar paradox (3.6): A paradoxical statement that asserts its own falsehood, leading to logical contradictions.

• Example: The statement "This sentence is false" is a classic example of the liar paradox because if the statement is true, then it must be false, but if it is false, then it must be true, leading to a contradiction.

Occam’s razor (4.1): The principle of parsimony or simplicity, which states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be preferred.

• Example: When explaining a phenomenon, Occam's razor suggests that the simplest explanation that fits the evidence should be chosen over more complex explanations.

Supervenience (4.1): The dependence of one set of properties or facts on another, such that changes in the latter necessarily entail changes in the former.

• Example: Mental properties, such as consciousness, may supervene on physical properties, such as brain states, meaning that any change in consciousness requires a corresponding change in brain activity.

Cosmological argument (4.2): An argument for the existence of God that posits the necessity of a first cause or prime mover to explain the existence of the universe.

• Example: The Kalam cosmological argument asserts that everything that begins to exist has a cause; since the universe began to exist, it must have a cause, which proponents argue is God.

Ontological argument (4.2): An argument for the existence of God based on the concept of God as the greatest conceivable being.

• Example: Anselm's ontological argument posits that God, by definition, is the greatest conceivable being, and existence is a necessary attribute of greatness; therefore, God must exist.

Teleological argument (4.2): An argument for the existence of God based on the apparent design or purposefulness of the universe.

• Example: The fine-tuning argument asserts that the precise conditions necessary for life to exist in the universe imply the existence of an intelligent designer, such as God.

Pascal’s wager (4.2): A pragmatic argument for belief in God, which posits that it is rational to believe in God because the potential benefits of belief (eternal salvation) outweigh the potential costs of disbelief.

• Example: Pascal's wager suggests that even if one is uncertain about the existence of God, it is rational to believe in God as a wager for eternal happiness.

Omniscient (4.2): Having complete or unlimited knowledge; knowing all things.

• Example: In theology, God is often described as omniscient, possessing perfect knowledge of past, present, and future events.

Omnipotent (4.2): Having unlimited power or ability; able to do anything.

• Example: Many religious traditions describe God as omnipotent, capable of performing miracles and exerting control over all aspects of existence.

Logical problem of evil (4.3): An argument against the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good God based on the existence of evil and suffering in the world.

• Example: The logical problem of evil asserts that the coexistence of God and evil is logically incompatible; if God is all-powerful and all-good, there should be no evil in the world.

Moral evil (4.3): Evil or suffering that results from human actions or decisions, such as murder, theft, or deception.

• Example: Acts of moral evil include deliberate actions that cause harm to others or violate moral principles, often motivated by selfishness or malice.

Natural evil (4.3): Evil or suffering that is not caused by human beings but arises from natural phenomena, such as earthquakes, hurricanes, or diseases.

• Example: Natural disasters like earthquakes and tsunamis result in widespread destruction and suffering, often causing harm to innocent individuals without human intervention.

Qualitative identity (4.5): The sameness of qualities or properties between two entities, indicating that they share identical attributes or characteristics.

• Example: Two objects with identical color, shape, and size possess qualitative identity, as they share the same qualities.

Numerical identity (4.5): The identity of an entity as itself, indicating that it is one and the same thing over time or in different contexts.

• Example: The numerical identity of an individual persists despite changes in appearance or location, as long as it remains the same individual entity.

Determinism (4.6): The philosophical position that all events, including human actions and choices, are determined by prior causes or conditions, leaving no room for genuine free will.

• Example: According to determinism, every decision a person makes is the inevitable result of preceding causes, such as genetics, upbringing, or environmental factors.

Turing test (4.7): A test of a machine's intelligence, proposed by Alan Turing, in which a human evaluator interacts with a computer and a human via a text interface and attempts to distinguish between them based on their responses.

• Example: If a computer can successfully convince a human evaluator that it is also a human during a Turing test, it is said to have passed the test and demonstrated human-like intelligence.

Singularity (4.7): A hypothetical future event or period during which artificial intelligence surpasses human intelligence, leading to profound changes in civilization and technology.

• Example:

Philosophical Positions:

Foundationalism (3.1): The philosophical view that knowledge is based on basic beliefs that we don’t justify based on other beliefs.

• Example: Foundationalists argue that beliefs about the external world, such as the existence of the physical world, are self-evident and do not require further justification.

Coherentism (3.2): The philosophical view that the justification of beliefs relies on their coherence with other beliefs within a system.

• Example: Coherentists argue that beliefs are justified if they cohere or fit together in a consistent and mutually supportive way within a broader network of beliefs.

Pragmatism (3.3): A philosophical approach that evaluates beliefs or theories based on their practical consequences or usefulness rather than their truthfulness.

• Example: According to pragmatism, a belief is justified if it proves useful or effective in guiding action or solving problems, regardless of its objective truth.

Skepticism about the external world (3.4): The philosophical position that doubts or denies our ability to have knowledge about the external world beyond our own minds.

• Example: Philosophical skeptics argue that we cannot know with certainty whether the external world exists independently of our perceptions, as our senses may be deceiving us.

Dogmatism (3.5): The philosophical attitude of asserting beliefs with unwavering confidence and without willingness to entertain doubt or skepticism.

• Example: Dogmatists hold rigidly to their beliefs and are resistant to considering alternative viewpoints or evidence that contradicts their convictions.

Correspondence theory of truth (3.6): A theory of truth that asserts that a statement is true if it accurately corresponds to or describes facts or reality.

• Example: According to the correspondence theory of truth, a statement such as "The cat is on the mat" is true if, in fact, there is a cat on the mat.

Naturalism (4.1): The philosophical view that the natural world, governed by natural laws, is all that exists, and there are no supernatural or divine entities.

• Example: Naturalists reject the existence of gods, spirits, or other supernatural beings, attributing all phenomena to natural causes and processes.

Theism (4.2): The belief in the existence of a personal god or gods who created and govern the universe and interact with human beings.

• Example: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are religions that espouse theism, affirming the existence of a single, all-powerful God who created the world.

Atheism (4.2): The lack of belief in the existence of gods or deities.

• Example: Atheists reject theistic claims and maintain that there is insufficient evidence or reason to believe in the existence of gods.

Agnosticism (4.2): The philosophical position that neither affirms nor denies the existence of gods or deities, often due to the belief that such questions are inherently unknowable.

• Example: Agnostics neither believe in nor deny the existence of gods, taking the position that the existence of deities cannot be proven or disproven definitively.

Physicalism (4.4): The philosophical view that everything that exists is ultimately physical or reducible to physical entities and processes.

• Example: Physicalists assert that mental phenomena, such as thoughts and consciousness, ultimately arise from and are dependent on physical brain states and processes.

Dualism (4.4): The philosophical view that reality consists of two fundamentally distinct substances or realms, typically mind and matter, which exist independently of each other.

• Example: Cartesian dualism posits that the mind (or soul) and body are separate substances with different natures, yet they interact causally.

Functionalism (4.4): A theory of mind that defines mental states in terms of their functional roles or relationships within a system, rather than their underlying physical properties.

• Example: According to functionalism, mental states like beliefs or desires are defined by their causal roles in producing behavior and responses to stimuli, rather than their specific physical instantiation.

Hard determinism (4.6): The philosophical position that determinism is true and incompatible with the existence of free will.

• Example: Hard determinists argue that if every event, including human actions, is causally determined by prior events and conditions, then there is no room for genuine freedom of choice or agency.

Soft determinism (4.6): The philosophical position that determinism is true but compatible with the existence of free will, typically by defining free will in terms of the absence of external constraints or coercion.

• Example: Soft determinists argue that even if human actions are determined by prior causes, individuals can still be said to have free will if they act in accordance with their desires and intentions.

Metaphysical libertarianism (4.6): The philosophical position that determinism is false and that human beings possess genuine free will or agency that is not wholly determined by prior causes.

• Example: Metaphysical libertarians maintain that human beings have the ability to make choices that are not entirely determined by external factors, allowing for true moral responsibility and autonomy.

Philosophers:

Descartes (3.1, 4.4): René Descartes is known for his foundationalist approach to epistemology and his dualistic theory of mind and body. He famously said, "I think, therefore I am," highlighting the primacy of consciousness as the foundation of knowledge.

Quine (3.2): Willard Van Orman Quine was a prominent figure in 20th-century philosophy known for his work in logic, philosophy of language, and epistemology. He advocated for a holistic approach to understanding knowledge and language, challenging traditional analytic-synthetic distinctions.

Peirce (3.3): Charles Sanders Peirce was a pragmatist philosopher and a founder of American pragmatism. He emphasized the practical consequences of beliefs and the importance of experimentation and inquiry in the pursuit of knowledge.

James (3.3): William James was another key figure in American pragmatism. He emphasized the pragmatic value of beliefs and the importance of individual experience in shaping reality. James also contributed to psychology and philosophy of religion.

Locke (3.5): John Locke was an empiricist philosopher known for his contributions to political theory and epistemology. He argued that all knowledge comes from experience and advocated for the idea of tabula rasa, or the mind as a blank slate.

Reid (3.5): Thomas Reid was a Scottish philosopher who critiqued skepticism and defended common sense realism. He argued against philosophical skepticism and emphasized the reliability of common sense perceptions.

Moore (3.5): G.E. Moore was a British philosopher known for his defense of common sense and his contributions to ethical theory. He famously argued against skepticism by holding up his hands and asserting the existence of an external world.

Hume (4.1): David Hume was a Scottish philosopher known for his empiricist approach to philosophy and his skepticism about the possibility of certain knowledge. He is famous for his critiques of causality, induction, and religious belief.

Anselm (4.2): St. Anselm of Canterbury was a medieval philosopher and theologian known for his ontological argument for the existence of God. He argued that God, as the greatest conceivable being, must necessarily exist in reality.

Pascal (4.2): Blaise Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist, and religious philosopher. He is known for Pascal's wager, which suggests that it is rational to believe in God because the potential benefits of belief outweigh the potential costs of disbelief.

Searle (4.7): John Searle is a contemporary philosopher known for his work in philosophy of mind and language. He is famous for the Chinese Room thought experiment, which challenges the idea of strong artificial intelligence and computationalism in understanding consciousness.