1.* Descartes develops and defends a mind/body dualism. What is this dualism? What arguments does Descartes employ to defend the idea that mind and body are distinct substances? Are there any problems with such a dualism? [Remember: this is an essay on Descartes dualism so keep the focus there e.g., dont write about Meditation I, the procedure of methodological doubt or the evil genius hypothesis.]
2. In “What is it like to be a bat?” Nagel presents us with intriguing arguments for why the mind cannot be reduced to the brain. How does what is it like to be type arguments pose a problem for materialism? For reductionism? What ultimate conclusions does Nagel draw from such arguments? Are you convinced?
3. Jackson presents various “qualia” arguments to support his thesis that the mind cannot be the brain. This mind is, for Jackson, “epiphenomenal.” What are Jackson=s arguments? What is meant by qualia? What is meant by “epiphenomenal”? Do you agree with Jackson’s arguments? His epiphenomenal conclusion?
4. Searle presents us with an engaging argument for why artificial intelligence cannot be successful as a theory of mind. What is this argument? What can we conclude from it – i.e., if a person were to state that computers are intelligent, just not conscious, would that person be mistaken? How so?
5. Hume presents us with a remarkable claim; namely, that those Aphilosophers who imagine we are every moment intimately conscious of what we call our self@ are radically mistaken. Such an identity of the self that is suppose to continue invariably and uninterrupted throughout the course of our lives simply does not exist: it is fictitious. Yet philosophers and humanity in general seem to have been bedazzled by this fiction. What is the source of the fiction? How is it that we come to believe that we are possessors of a self according to Hume? And finally, if I am not such a self, then what am I?
6.** Charles Taylor in AThe Concept of a Person@ elucidates two metaphysical models of a person that he believes to be ingrained – often times clashing – in the Western philosophical tradition. What are these two models? What are the ramifications of these models in the social sciences and ethical discourse? Under what model would you put Hume?
