PHL471: Philosophy of Mind
Professor: Craig DeLancey
Past Assignments0. Ontology and the basic ontological positions29 January1. RepresentationFrom Aristotle's De Anima, please look at Book II part 1 (this is very short); an online version is this one at MIT.31 JanuaryReading and an assignment.
Review Descartes's Meditations 6. If you somehow lost your personal copy of Meditations, translations on the web can be found at http://www.classicallibrary.org/descartes/meditations/ and http://www.wright.edu/cola/descartes/mede.html and http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/descartes/meditations/meditations.html.
Homework 1. Bring me to hand in your summary of what you think Descartes's arguments are for believing that the mind is not a material thing. He has several arguments to this effect in Meditation 6, and they largely occur in the last third of that Meditation; try to summarize or describe at least one of them. You can do this in one page or a tiny bit more -- typed please. Please write in complete sentences; think of this as a very short paper.
In class, we want to ask: what changed between Aristotle and Descartes?
3 FebruaryReading. Please read parts I and II of Churchland's "Eliminative Materialism and the Propositional Attitudes" Paul M. Churchland, The Journal of Philosophy Vol. 78, No. 2 (Feb., 1981), pp. 67-90.
The stable JStor link is here.
There are logical formulas in the paper. They may be written in a way you've never seen, but that's OK. You can skip them and still understand these two sections.
Do read the rest of the paper when you have time.
While reading, ask yourself:
I might give you a brief opportunity at the beginning of class to write answers to these questions.
- What is a propositional attitude?
- What are propositional attitudes supposed to explain?
- What is folk psychology, according to Churchland?
- What are some of the problems with folk psychology, according to Churchland?
- What does the failure of folk psychology tell us about the things posited in that theory?
5 FebruaryFinishing our discussion of Churchland. Discussion of functionalism and behaviorism.
I will have office hours today 1:45-3:00
7 FebruarySummary of ontological positions.
I won't have office hours today 1:45-3:00
10 February2. ConsciousnessThe basic problem of representation. Read our Fodor selection on the handout. While reading the Fodor selection, ask yourself:
- What is the problem that Fodor is presenting?
- Why is this problem special to representation?
- How might we solve or explain away this problem?
12 FebruaryRead the handout of selected passages from the precis of Knowledge and the Flow of Information by Fred Dretske, and also the passage on the back of the Fodor handout. For us, an important question is, how does Dretske try to solve the normative problem (the disjunction problem)?
14 FebruaryBefore class, read Ruth Millikan's "Biosemantics" (Journal of Philosophy Vol. 86, No. 6 (Jun., 1989), pp. 281-297). (Off campus, you'll have to go to the JSTOR login page and then use the reference information to search.) You can skip section 5, and skim section 1 if it seems unclear. While reading, ask yourself the following possible quiz questions:
Bring your copy to class, if you have a hard copy or other transportable copy.
- What is the difference between consumption and production of a representation?
- What does the magnetosome example show?
17 FebruaryWe'll start with a brief quiz on the ontological positions: interactive substance dualism, type identity theory, behaviorism, functionalism, eliminativism. Then we'll discuss Millikan.
19 FebruaryWe'll ensure that Millikan is clear, and review her version of functionalism. Then we'll turn to Dennett.
Before class, a reading.
Read part I of "Intentional Systems" by Daniel Dennett, on JSTOR. Reference: Journal of Philosophy, February 1971. Part I is short: it's just pages 87-93 of the journal. While reading, ask yourself:
(Off campus, you'll have to go to the JSTOR login page and then use the reference information to search.)
- What is the intentional stance?
- What is the physical stance?
- What is the design stance?
- What is a belief, according to Dennett?
- What is a desire, according to Dennett?
- How does Dennett's stance "solve" the problem of normativity of representation?
21 FebruaryHomework due at the beginning of class.
Homework 2 due at the beginning of class: using Dennett's three ways of looking at something (the intentional stance, the design stance, and the physical stance), describe a thermostat. That is, what is an intentional stance description of the "behavior" of the thermostat? What is a design stance interpretation of the "behavior" of the thermostat? What is the physical stance interpretation of the "behavior" of the thermostat?
24 FebruaryContinuing with Dennett. Then, we'll turn to Searle's thought experiment on the Chinese room. Read at least up to where he says, "Now to the replies" in "Minds, Brains, and Programs" by John Searle.
26 FebruaryReview of representation, and last observations about the Chinese Room thought experiment. Time permitting, we will introduce the problem of phenomenal experience.
28 FebruaryReading: Jackson's Epiphenomenal Qualia. Citation: The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 127. (Apr., 1982), pp. 127-136. The important part is the first sections where he describes his two thought experiments. While reading, ask yourself the following likely quiz questions:
- What does Jackson aim to show?
- What is the Mary thought experiment?
- What does Jackson claim the Mary thought experiment shows?
- What is "epiphenomenalism"? Why does his argument, he claims, lead to such a view? Does it?
3 MarchHomework and a reading.
Read and study the handout on Kripke's argument.
Homework: a brief report due at the beginning of class. Consider the representational state of belief. For example, consider the claim: "Kathleen believes that fire is dangerous." Assume this is something she really believes at the moment, actively and with awareness (I mean, let's not worry about the idea that some beliefs can be implicit but not actively felt). Accurately, but in your own words, explain how the following scholars will explain the normative nature of this mental state (by normative, remember that we mean that it can be right or wrong):
One of those is a trick question, obviously. In each case, cite (quote) the text to defend your account. This should only take a few pages.
7 MarchRead the Chalmers selection: "The Two-Dimensional Argument".
You are only required to read part 1 of the paper.
(FYI: this is not formally related to our class, but anyone with an interest in philosophy is invited to join us this Friday, March 7, in the philosophy department suite (Campus Center 212), at 4:00 p.m. We'll just talk for an hour or so about a paper, "Refusing the Devil's Bargain," by Kyle Stanford. It is about science and the pessimistic induction. This paper is short (10 pages!) and is here.
As background: over the summer, faculty and students read and discussed a few papers together, over pizza. The goal was to get together informally and think like philosophers do. Students led the discussion or just listened to other students -- whatever they preferred. Philosophy club has asked if we could do this again, at least once this Spring, so that's why we're meeting this Friday.
RSVPs are appreciated, since we like to order pizza and RSVPs give us a way to estimate how much pizza we'll need. So if you might come let us know by emailing me.)
10 MarchThe superfunctionality claim. The representational theory of consciousness.
14 MarchThe midterm. Questions will be on themes including:
- Basic ontological positions, including type identity theory, behaviorism, functionalism, and substance dualism.
- What is Fodor's disjunction problem? What does it illustrate about the naive causal theory of representation?
- What does the Chinese room thought experiment aim to illustrate about the relation of syntax and semantics?
- The normative nature of representation. Theories of Dretske or Millikan or Dennett as explanations of normativity.
- What is eliminative materialism? What reasons might there be to adopt eliminative materialism about some purported mental phenomena?
- The Knowledge argument against physicalism about consciousness. What is it? Is it valid? Is it sound?
- The zombie argument against physicalism about consciousness. What is it? Is it valid? Is it sound?
24 MarchReview of exam (we might spread this out over two days, to break it up some). Then: the physicalist responses.
3. Emotion28 March4. Personal identity (over time, at a moment)Let's start our discussion of emotion with a classic paper by Williams James. Read at least the first 12 pages -- it's a quick read. Bring the paper to class so we can look at it together. It's on JSTOR, "What is an Emotion?" (Mind, Vol. 9, No. 34 -- April 1884 -- pages 188-205). If you can read it all, of course, but we're only going to discuss the first 12 pages. It's really very straightfoward, I'm pleased to say. While reading, ask yourself the following possible quiz questions:
A resource: you may find it useful to sometimes look at the emotion entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy by Ronnie de Sousa. (Note that de Sousa uses the term "feeling theories" differently than I will in class -- I will use it for a mythical view attacked by some philosophers that emotions are "just feelings"; de Sousa uses it for the James view. The two are not the same because there is content involved in James theory -- the feelings are caused by a specific kind of perception and are appropriate to it.
- What is an emotion, according to James? Be careful: a sloppy reading leads people to say, an emotion is a body state. But what specifically does James say it is?
- What arguments does he offer for his view? (E.g., on pages 193-194, and also on the first page.) Be ready to answer questions about these.
31 MarchRead Nash's Cognitive Theories of Emotion (Nous, Vol. 23, No. 4. (Sep., 1989), pp. 481-504). While reading, ask yourself the following possible quiz questions:
(Another famous cognitivist paper, which we don't have time for but which you could read if you are interested, is Donald Davidson's Hume's Cognitive Theory of Pride. Citation: The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 73, No. 19, Seventy-Third Annual Meeting Eastern Division, American Philosophical Association. (Nov. 4, 1976), pp. 744-757.)
- What is cognitivism about emotions?
- Why doubt cognitivism? Why believe it?
- What alternative to good old fashioned cognitivism does Nash offer?
- Describe his thought experiment, why it seems a problem for cognitivism, and how he solves this.
We'll also discuss the affect program theory.
2, 4 AprilFor a defense of the affect program theory, you can read the preprint of my book, available here. Not required reading.
Read Walton, Fearing Fictions. Citation: The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 75, No. 1. (Jan., 1978), pp. 5-27. While reading, ask yourself the following questions that are possible quiz questions:
- What is Walton's thought experiment?
- Why does apparently fearing a fiction make a problem for the cognitivist theory of emotion?
- What is Walton's solution to this problem?
7 April5. Free willPlease read the section by Locke in Perry's Personal Identity, pages 33-52. You must identify:
- Locke's theory of what makes one plant the same plant over time, what makes one animal the same animal over time, and what makes one human the same human over time.
- Locke's definition of a person
- Locke's explanation of what makes a person the same person over time.
11 AprilRead Hume selection, pages 161-176 in John Perry's Personal Identity.14 April
A short homework! You should be able to do this in a page. What is Locke's definition of a person? Which aspect of Locke's definition does Hume reject? And: do you agree with Hume's claim? Try your own reflection upon your experience(s), as Hume does on page 162, and ask yourself if there is something you can identify other than your particular sense experiences.Read Nagel's paper, "Brain Bisection and the Unity of Consciousness," which is collected in John Perry's Personal Identity.16, 21 AprilWe'll review self-identity, and then review the basics of the free will problem.
Read: Read "Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain," Chun Siong Soon; Brass,Marcel; Heinze, Hans-Jochen; Haynes, John-Dylan. Nature Neuroscience, May2008, Vol. 11 Issue 5, p543-545. DOI: 10.1038/nn.2112
This is available to us through the Academic Search Complete service on the Penfield web site, but I've not figured out how to link to it yet. So, go here, click on the "Academic Search Complete" link, and search for the title above. Or, here.
23 AprilI'll be in Tucson. Please meet and have a roundtable discussion of this paper by Wegner. During the discussion, determine whether you think Wegner is making a strong case against free will. What are the weakest parts of his argument?
25 AprilI'll be in Tucson. I recommend you continue your discussion of Wegner, but I'll leave that up to you.
Also, this would be a good time to seek advice of your peers on the final paper. You should consider getting together and brainstorming paper outlines together. The final paper will be due at the time of the final exam. Here are some tentative paper topics:
- Does the Knowledge Argument work? A number of recent arguments have held that there is something different about phenomenal information but that this is consistent with physicalist type identity theory about phenomenal experience. Evaluate one of these arguments.
- Does the conceivability argument work? Why or why not? Ask me for some of the recent criticisms so I can point you to some views you should respond to.
- Does Nash's new cognitive theory solve all the problems that cognitivism about emotions have? How, for example, could it handle emoting for fictions? Or other difficult cases?
- Are the emotions we have for fictions the same kinds that we have for real events?
- Is strong cognitivism a viable theory of emotions like fear and anger? If so, answer some of the criticisms of DeLancey, Griffiths, or others.
- Defend or criticize the memory theory of personal identity.
- Which of Nagel's five options for explaining self-identity of the split-brain patients do you think is correct? Why? Can you offer some reasons of your own?
- Are Clark and Chalmers right about externalism? Consider at least one of the published criticisms.
- Can we have a form of compatibilism or libertarianism about free will consistent with the neural science results we have discussed?
28 AprilDiscussion of this paper by Wegner.
6. Externalism30 AprilBefore reading, play tetris. There's a free version here and in other places. After playing a while, notice how you move the figures in order to determine if they are going to fit.
Read Clark and Chalmers on externalism. Read "The Extended Mind".
While reading, ask yourself:
The stuff about semantic externalism (where they mention Putnum, Burge, water, twin Earth, and xyz) is probably confusing to you. Don't worry about it. Putnum and Burge have a theory that the meaning of words can be outside the head. This is a different theory than Clark and Chalmers are proposing (C&C are arguing instead that thinking and beliefs can be outside the head); for this reason, C&C spend some of the paper explaining how their view is different than the semantic externalism.
- What is "active externalism"?
- What thought experiments do they offer to illustrate this? There is one for activity (tetris), and one for belief (Otto). Can you describe what they are meant to show?
- What are the four criteria they offer for extended belief?
- What necessary criteria of externalism do they propose?
2 MayCriticisms of Clark and Chalmers on externalism: read Adams and Aizawa, parts 1 and 2. While reading, ask yourself:5, 7 May
- What is their task in this paper?
- What are their two "marks of the cognitive"?
- What is non-derived content?Criticisms of Clark and Chalmers on externalism: read Adams and Aizawa, parts 3, 4, and 5. While reading, ask yourself:
- What are their primary criticisms of Clark and Chalmers? What do they claim the Tetris case 2, and Otto's notebook, lack?
- What do they mean by "intercranial" and "transcranial"?