Philosophy 244/244W/444

Philosophy of Mind

Fall 2006


Third Paper Assignment


Write a paper, following all of the instructions below. E-mail it as an attachment to david.braun@rochester.edu. All undergraduate students’ papers are due at 10:00 am, Wednesday, November 29. (All graduate students’ papers are due by e-mail at 10:00 am, Friday, December 8.) Late papers will be strongly penalized. Please keep an electronic copy of your paper, for your own protection. Special Instructions for Upper-Level Writing Students Only: You will rewrite your paper in light of my comments on it. The rewrite will be due by e-mail at 12:00 pm (noon), Friday, December 15. Instructions for the rewrite will follow later.


Format Instructions

Your paper should be about 5-6 pages or about 1,250-1,500 words long (graduate students: 8-10 pages, 2,000-2,500 words). It must be produced in 12-point font, double-spaced, with one-inch margins on all sides. Its pages must be numbered by your word processor. Your e-mail address must appear on the first page. Upper Level Writing students should clearly mark their papers with the phrase “Upper Level Writing”.


Content Instructions

Write your paper on either (a) one of the topics below or (b) a topic of your own choice that I approve in advance. Your paper must provide proper citations (see the Citations handout). See bibliographical information on the next page.



Topics


1. Some philosophers claim that it is possible for there to be philosophical zombies (creatures who are physically just like us but have no conscious experience), and so conclude that materialism is false. Robert Kirk replies to such arguments in his article “Why There Couldn’t Be Zombies” (on electronic reserve). Read this article, paying particular attention to section III. Explain how philosophers use zombies to argue against materialism. Present, explain, and evaluate Kirk’s argument for his conclusion that there couldn’t be zombies. (Comments: the argument with numbered premises and conclusions that appears on p. 6 is not formally valid.)


2. Gilbert Harman, in his article “The Intrinsic Quality of Experience” (on electronic reserve), responds to three arguments against functionalism that have to do with the subjective feel of experience (including versions of the inverted qualia argument and Jackson’s Mary argument). Present and explain one of these arguments, and then present, explain, and evaluate Harman’s response to it. If space permits, do the same for a second argument that Harman considers.


3. Read John Searle’s article “Is the Brain a Digital Computer?” (on electronic reserve). Describe the view that Searle calls “Cognitivism”. Present, explain, and evaluate his argument concerning that view. Pay close attention to the argument on pp. 22-28, and to Searle’s summary in items 1-4 on pp. 35-6. (Two comments: (i) Searle argues that there is no fact of the matter about whether the brain is a digital computer. He thinks that the question in his title is “ill-defined”. But you may, if you wish, treat his argument as an argument that Cognitivism is false, and for the conclusion that the brain is not a digital computer. (ii) Searle’s comments on pp. 35-6 do not constitute a valid argument.)


4. Richard Swinburne argues in favor of substance dualism in chapter 5 of his book Is There a God? (On electronic reserve, under the chapter title “How the Existence of God Explains the Existence of Humans”.) Describe his substance dualist view. Present, explain, and evaluate his argument for his view. Pay particular attention to pp. 73-76, in which he discusses the example of the brain transplant. (Comments: Swinburne’s argument for dualism does not assume that God exists. Instead, he tries first to show that there are immaterial souls; he then tries to use the existence of souls to argue for the existence of God. You should concentrate on his argument for souls and substance dualism, and disregard his arguments concerning the existence of God.)


5. In “Can We Solve the Mind-Body Problem?” (in the Chalmer’s anthology and on electronic reserve), Colin McGinn argues that we cannot. Present, explain, and evaluate his argument for his conclusion. You should pay special attention to pp. 398-99, especially p. 399, column 2 (in the Chalmers anthology; in the electronic version, pp. 11-14, especially p. 13). You should also explain what McGinn means by “solving the mind-body problem”, and explain whether McGinn rejects materialism about mental properties, and why he does or does not.



Bibliography


Kirk, Robert. 1999. “Why There Couldn’t Be Zombies.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume 73, pp. 1-16.


Harman, Gilbert. 1990. “The Intrinsic Quality of Experience.” Philosophical Perspectives 4, pp. 31-52.


McGinn, Colin. 2002. “Can We Solve the Mind-Body Problem?” In David Chalmers (Ed.), Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings, pp. 394-405. Originally appeared in Mind 98 (1989), pp. 349-66. Also reprinted in Colin McGinn Can We Solve the Mind-Body Problem?, Oxford: Blackwell (1991).


Searle, John. 1990. “Is the Brain a Digital Computer?” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 64, pp. 21-37.


Swinburne, Richard. 1996. Is There a God? Oxford: Oxford University Press.