What I am looking for on folio answers: The folios are intended to assess how well you understand the material, not just how well you can memorize information or look it up in the texts. A typical folio question might have the following format: “Explain what Philosopher X would say about Philosopher Y’s argument on the issue of blah blah blah.” To answer this question, you would first need to lay out Philosopher Y’s argument (not just his position on the issue, but also the reasons he gives for holding his position). Next, you would need to lay out Philosopher X’s argument (again focusing on his premises that lead to his conclusion or position). Finally, you would need to be able to go beyond what you have read and tell me what Philosopher X would say (and why) about Philosopher Y’s argument. I really like to see the line of reasoning laid out very clearly, step by step. Treat these folios like a paper for a class in that cutting and pasting material or copying things from other sources counts as plagiarism and will get you what that gets you. I want you to explain what you think and why. You will have all the folio questions for the four weeks of that section so I encourage you to spend as much time as possible preparing responses. Warning–if you wait till the end of the section to try and hammer out all 6, you will more than likely fail. Try to do one or two each week. Work on your answers on your computer, and paste your answers in the Folio assignment on Canvas once you have 6 answers you are comfortable with. Folio Questions Section 3 Directions: During the next four weeks, work on writing up responses to each of the following questions. Each answer or “folio” should be around 500 words. Please check the syllabus for directions about what I am look for in each folio. At the end of this section there is a place to post each folio. Please post each folio to the correct question and submit. While you are required to do all 6, I will grade two of the six. VIDEO LIST LINK FOR SECTION 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLz9nQf-jCY&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UK_LJvgfAf8 (movie) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBSYCM1oTNg (movie) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbP4Is2w4oA (movie) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLz9nQf-jCY&feature=youtu.be (mind body) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znKPHUi03L0&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSIId0adFqQ&feature=youtu.be J ohn Searle “Minds Brains, and Programs”: The argument and thought-experiment now generally known as the Chinese Room Argument was first published in a paper in 1980 by American philosopher John Searle (1932- ). It has become one of the best-known arguments in recent philosophy. Searle imagines himself alone in a room following a computer program for responding to Chinese characters slipped under the door. Searle understands nothing of Chinese, and yet, by following the program for manipulating symbols and numerals just as a computer does, he produces appropriate strings of Chinese characters that fool those outside into thinking there is a Chinese speaker in the room. The narrow conclusion of the argument is that programming a digital computer may make it appear to understand language but does not produce real understanding. Hence the “Turing Test” is inadequate. Searle argues that the thought experiment underscores the fact that computers merely use syntactic rules to manipulate symbol strings, but have no understanding of meaning or semantics. The broader conclusion of the argument is that the theory that human minds are computer-like computational or information processing systems is refuted. Instead minds must result from biological processes; computers can at best simulate these biological processes. Thus the argument has large implications for semantics, philosophy of language and mind, theories of consciousness, computer science and cognitive science generally. As a result, there have been many critical replies to the argument. 1. From the video lecture, lay out my version of the mind/body problem. I claim there are 3 traditional responses or positions on the problem: the materialism, the idealism, and the dualism. Explain what each position is and how each group would respond to the mind/body problem. I claim there is strong evidence to support materialism, evidence that dualism (by for the most common position) would have a very difficult time explaining. Give this evidence and explain why it appears to support materialism and why it poses difficulties for dualists. 2. In the PDF, Paul Churchland lays out a theory called Reductive Materialism or Type-Type Identity. Explain this theory. Be careful to explain what numeric identity is, what inter theoretic reductions are and what bridge laws do. 3. According to Prof Ball (me), reductive materialism has been disproven by neuro science. Explain why. Many theorists who favored Type-Type Identity (Reductive Materialism) now favor Type-Token Identity (or functionalism). Explain the difference between these two identity theories. You can find information about this in both the video lecture and the Churchland PDF. 4. In the essay by Turing, he lays out the “imitation game” or what we now call the turning test. What is this test and what does “passing” the test mean? What does it show and why? In the movie Ex Machina, Caleb is coaxed into putting Ava through a “Turing test”. In the context of the movie, do you think she passes? Defend you answer combing information from both the movie and the essay by Turing. Does it show what Turning wants it to show—do you think Ava is conscious? Explain. 5. What is strong A.I.? What is Searle’s Chinese Room argument and why is it an attack on Strong AI? Explain how Searle uses The Chinese Room Argument to undermine the intuitions behind the Turing Test. Since Searle is attacking Strong AI, does this mean he is a dualist? Explain why 6. In I, Robot let’s assume what the movie is hinting at: that an android like Sonny indeed achieves consciousness. How would this be further evidence against both dualism and reductive materialism? Explain why for each. Why would it seem to support functionalism? Intro to Section 4 Lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDohtxdsnDo&feature=youtu.be The reading for this section: Arguments For God’s Existence: A. The Ontological Argument: Anselm of Canterbury, “The Ontological Argument” Pages 30-31 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDohtxdsnDo B. The Cosmological Argument: Thomas Aquinas, “The Five Ways” The Cosmological Argument Read Thomas Aquinas, “The Five Ways” pages 45-46 The cosmological argument is less a particular argument than an argument type. It uses a general pattern of argumentation (logos) that makes an inference from particular alleged facts about the universe (cosmos) to the existence of a unique being, generally identified with or referred to as God. Among these initial facts are that particular beings or events in the universe are causally dependent or contingent, that the universe (as the totality of contingent things) is contingent in that it could have been other than it is, that the Big Conjunctive Contingent Fact possibly has an explanation, or that the universe came into being. From these facts philosophers infer deductively, inductively, or abductively by inference to the best explanation that a first or sustaining cause, a necessary being, an unmoved mover, or a personal being (God) exists that caused and/or sustains the universe. The cosmological argument is part of classical natural theology, whose goal is to provide evidence for the claim that God exists. On the one hand, the argument arises from human curiosity as to why there is something rather than nothing or than something else. It invokes a concern for some full, complete, ultimate, or best explanation of what exists contingently. On the other hand, it raises intrinsically important philosophical questions about contingency and necessity, causation and explanation, part/whole relationships (mereology), infinity, sets, the nature of time, and the nature and origin of the universe. In what follows we will first sketch out a very brief history of the argument, note the two basic types of deductive cosmological arguments, and then provide a careful analysis of examples of each: first, two arguments from contingency, one based on a relatively strong version of the principle of sufficient reason and one based on a weak version of that principle; and second, an argument from the alleged fact that the universe had a beginning and the impossibility of an infinite temporal regress of causes. In the end we will consider an inductive version of the cosmological argument and what it is to be a necessary belief. C. The Teleological Argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8L9H3BjT2A Some phenomena within nature exhibit such exquisiteness of structure, function or interconnectedness that many people have found it natural—if not inescapable—to see a deliberative and directive mind behind those phenomena. The mind in question, being prior to nature itself, is typically taken to be supernatural. Philosophically inclined thinkers have both historically and at present labored to shape the relevant intuition into a more formal, logically rigorous inference. The resultant theistic arguments, in their various logical forms, share a focus on plan, purpose, intention and design, and are thus classified as teleological arguments (or, frequently, as arguments from or to design). Although enjoying some prominent defenders over the centuries, such arguments have also attracted serious criticisms from a number of major historical and contemporary thinkers. Both critics and advocates are found not only among philosophers, but come from scientific and other disciplines as well. Arguments against God’s Existence: A. The Problem of Evil: David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part X, Pages 84-89 B. Freud’s Challenge: http://www.bartleby.com/281/3.html MOVIE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT8g-fB13pU , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htRrhPOMkQ0 , and The Cosmos (Episodes 1-3 at the very least) 1. Two common arguments for god’s existence are the ontological argument and the cosmological argument. Briefly lay out both arguments. A common criticism of both arguments is that even if we accept that they are good arguments: 1) neither actually proves “god’s” existence (i.e. an invisible conscious humanoid father who is deeply concerned with humans) and 2) neither helps us choose between the various religions. Explain this criticism. 2. Lay out the teleological argument for god’s existence. What sorts of things would advocates of this argument use as evidence of “design” in our world? One common criticism of the teleological argument is that while it may, at best, be an argument for a designer, the argument does not seem to help support any particular religion. Why not? Indeed, the argument seems to point away from some of the more common religions like Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. Explain why. 3. How does Darwin respond to the teleological argument? Lay out his theory of evolution (use information from the series “The Cosmos”) and explain how his theory attempts to explain away the appearance of design. What sorts of things could we look at as evidence to help us decide between the two theories? 4. Freud believes that the development from animism to religion to scientific thought parallels both the psychological development of a human being as well as a human’s libidinal development. Explain both these parallels. What, if anything, does this comparison prompt him to say about the respectability of religious belief in the modern era? 5. One argument against God’s existence is the Problem of Evil. Lay out this argument and explain why the 3 claims in the triad are inconsistent. A common theodicy is that God uses evil (or human suffering) as a way to make us better or to test us. Lay out this theodicy and show why it (according to the video episode) fails to get us out of the problem of evil. 6. Two films you watched—The Invention of Lying and Kumare seem to suggest that religion may not be about what it appears to be about—that perhaps religion serves some very important psychological and social functions. Giving examples from both these movies, what might some of these functions be?
