Philosophy 244/244W/444

Philosophy of Mind

Fall 2005

Study Guide for the Midterm Examination

In what follows, you must distinguish between theories (for instance, Interactive Substance Dualism) and arguments (for instance, the Argument from Violations of Physical Law). Arguments have premises and conclusions, and the conclusion of a valid argument follows from its premises. Theories are simply unordered sets of claims. Theories do not have premises and conclusions, and a theory’s claims usually do not follow from one another.

1.         Define ‘Argument A is valid’ and ‘Argument A is sound’. Present an example of an argument that is valid but not sound (at least one of its premises should be obviously false). Present an argument that is invalid but has all obviously true premises.

When I ask you to present a theory, I want you to state its main claims, and explain any technical terms that appear in your statement.

2.         Explain the term ‘substance’. Present the following theories: dualism, substance dualism, interactive substance dualism, epiphenomenal substance dualism, property dualism, interactive property dualism, epiphenomenal property dualism.

When I ask you to Present, Explain, and Evaluate (PEE) an argument, I want you do to the following:

(i)        State (present) the argument: write it down in numbered premise and conclusion form.

(ii)       Explain the argument line by line: Define any technical terms that appear in the argument. (These definitions may be given before presenting the argument.) Give reasons for the premises. Point out which lines are subconclusions. (Do not give reasons for the main conclusion.)

(iii)      Evaluate the argument. First, state whether the argument is valid, and say why it is valid (give the name of its form or forms). Then present and discuss some reasonable objection to one of the argument’s premises, even if you think the argument is sound. Be sure to say which premise you are criticizing.

3.         State Leibniz’s Law. PEE Descartes’s Argument from Certainty. Use Leibniz’s Law in your explanation. In your evaluation, present a valid argument that has the same form as Descartes’s argument, but which has a false conclusion. Explain how this argument might justify a critic in thinking that Descartes’s argument is unsound.

4.         PEE Descartes’s Conceivability Argument. In your evaluation, state Arnauld’s objection to Descartes’s argument. Be sure to say which premise Arnauld is criticizing. How does Descartes reply? Does Descartes’s reply suggest another criticism of Descartes’s argument? Explain that further criticism.

5.         PEE the “Interaction is Inconceivable Argument” against interactive substance dualism.

6.         Define ‘S is the set of physical laws’ and ‘e violates the physical laws’. PEE the Argument from Violations of Physical Law against interactive substance dualism. Explain how this argument might motivate some dualists to adopt epiphenomenal substance dualism.

7.         Define ‘subjunctive conditional’ and ‘behavioral subjunctive conditional’. Present Logical Behaviorism. Be sure to present both its Metaphysical Claim and its Semantic Claim.

8.         PEE the No Analysis Argument against Logical Behaviorism. In your explanation, you should mention and explain how a person can have a certain mental property (e.g., wanting to drink a Coke) and yet fail to satisfy a typical behavioral subjunctive conditional sentence of a behaviorist analysis. When you do this, explain how attempts to reformulate the subjunctive conditionals seem to fail, or lead to a regress for the behaviorist.

9.         PEE the Argument from the Non-necessity of Behavioral Dispositions against Logical Behaviorism. (An argument of this type gives a counterexample in which a person has a mental property, but is disposed to behave as if she did not. One example given in class was the Super Athenian.) Use an example to explain the argument.

10.       PEE the Argument from the Non-Sufficiency of Behavioral Dispositions against Logical Behaviorism. (An argument of this type gives a counterexample in which a person does not have a mental property, but is disposed to behave as if she did. One example given in class was Fred the Faker.) Use an example to explain the argument.

11.       Present Type Materialism (TM). Explain the terms ‘type’ and ‘token’.

12.       PEE the Argument from Mental/Physical Correlations for Type Materialism.

13.       PEE the Introspection Objection against TM.

14.       PEE Location Objections against TM involving (a) a belief , (b) a pain, and (c) an afterimage.

15.       PEE two Phenomenal Properties Objection against TM involving (a) an afterimage’s or sensation’s color and (b) some quality of a pain.

16.       PEE the Incorrigibility Objection against TM.

17.       PEE the Argument from Multiple Realizability against TM.