Introduction to Philosophy

Paper #2 Topics
** Due Date: April 15, 2015 **
Write on one of the following topics. Papers should be 3-4 pages. Please use MLA formatting in your paper. If you have any
questions, or want me to look at a draft, don't hesitate to ask.
-- Be sure to address all parts of the topic you choose. -1.

Ryle rejects the idea that the mind is an inner cause of behavior. Ryle maintains that this idea leads to skepticism about other
minds. Why does he think this? Is he right? Ryle gives an account of the mind in terms of dispositions towards behavior.
Explain this account in detailmake sure to say what Ryle means by "disposition". It is common to think that acts of will are
inner causes of behavior. Ryle argues, however, the will cannot be an inner cause of behavior. Explain this argument. How
does Armstrong object to this argument? Is Armstrong's objection any good?

2.

If you are a physicalist, why should you accept Jacksons claim that having a complete physical understanding of the world will
not yield knowledge of what it is like for Mary to emerge from the black/white room? This version of the Knowledge
Argument has proven a real pain for physicalist philosophers (eventually including Jackson) since it first appeared in the early
1980s. There are several different points at which the argument can be disputed and philosophers have dutifully fallen into the
different camps, each offering their own version of the principal objections and showing why their version should be
preferred to all the others. Provide your own argument for whether or not the thought experiment defeats physicalism or not.

3.

Churchland argues that common-sense psychological concepts will be eliminated with scientific knowledge. How much
explanatory power do common-sense psychological concepts have? We often explain peoples behavior by pointing to such
concepts (e.g., he screamed because he was angry), but on the other hand we acknowledge that strong emotion render people
unpredictable. Is it likely that underlying psychological concepts will be good at both explaining and predicting behavior?
Why or why not?

4.

One response that is sometimes given to Searles Chinese Room argument is that, while the person in the room who performs
computations of over formal symbols does not understand Chinese, the system as a whole understands Chinese. Is this a
satisfactory objection? Searle ultimately rejects this sort of reply. Can you think of any reasons he might have for doing so.

5.

In the last section of the essay Turing makes a number of strategic suggestions for creating a machine that could pass his test.
Among them is to attempt to replicate childrens brains, which he describes as being like blank notebooks. Is that analogy apt?
More importantly, are the sorts of physiological inputs that children have (especially those that create incentives for certain
behaviors) replicable by a digital computer?