Time, Self and Mind (ATS1835) Introduc;on to Philosophy B Semester 2, 2016 Dr Ron Gallagher ron.gallagher@monash.edu Week 5: Can Machines Think?
Last week s tutorial discussions on mind Singer s distinction between creatures with interests and persons who have a sense of their own self and their history. Evolutionary advantage of big brains and sophisticated mind, and it relation to how human being can had on culture from generation to generation. Role of language in the human mental activities that philosophers are interested in (eg consciousness, creativity, learning) The difficulty of distinguishing instinctual behavior (nest building, beaver dams) from the kind of intelligent behaviour we associate with human beings. The only mind we can be sure exists is our own. This is the solipsism argument. Can we really doubt that other people have minds? The exemplar of a mind that we have is our own. Do we know what exactly what we are referring to when we refer to our own mind? How can we know that it is anything like the mind of other animals? (Kinds of Minds, Behaviourism) Machine intelligence. Is machine intelligence just simulated intelligence? How can a machine be conscious or have feelings?
Week Beginning Topic Assessment Readings Readings 1.1 & W1 25-Jul-16 Time - Introduction and Time Travel 1.2 W2 Time Travel; Freedom, Determinism, 01-Aug-16 and Indeterminism Readings 1.5 & 1.6 (sections 1-2 & 6-10) W3 8-Aug-16 Logic Primer AT1.1 Mon August 8, 10am Readings 2.1-2.2 W4 Mind- Dualism versus Materialism 15-Aug-16 about the Mind Readings 3.1-3.2 W5 Mind - Can Machines Think? 22-Aug-16 Computationalism and the Turing Test Readings 3.3 Mind - Can Machines Think? W6 29-Aug-16 Objections to Computationalism AT1.2 Mon Aug 29, 10am Reading 3.4 W7 Self - Lockean Psychological Theory 05-Sep-16 and Identity Readings 4.1-4.3 W8 Self - Identity, the Body & Person 12-Sep-16 Stages Readings 4.4-4.5 W9 Knowledge What is Knowledge and 19-Sep-16 Gettier's Account AT1.3 Mon Sep 19, 10am Readings 5.1-5.2 W10 26-Sep-16 Mid-semester Break Knowledge - Nozick's Account and 03-Oct-16 Scepticism Readings 5.3-5.4 W11 10-Oct-16 Knowledge - The Moorean Response AT2 Essay Mon Oct 10th Readings 5.5 W12 17-Oct-16 Revision (no lectures, no tutorials)
Assessment Due Date Assessment Task Value Mondays 10am Reading Quizzes (10) 5% (bonus) Mon Aug 8th AT1.1 (@600 words) 10% Mon Aug 29th AT1.2 (@600 words) 10% Mon Sep 19th AT1.3 (@600 words) 10% Mon Oct 10th AT2 Essay (@1250 words) 30% TBA Exam 40% Hurdle Requirements to Pass this Unit Your overall grade for the unit must be at least 50% You must achieve a grade of 40% or more on the final exam You must submit all assessment tasks (not including Reading Quizzes) You must not fail more than one assessment task (not including Reading Quizzes) You cannot miss more than 3 tutorials
5 Lectures and Tutorials
AT1.2: Logic & Mind Due Monday 29 th Aug (1) In your own words, explain what a good argument is, as defined in this class. Using an example of your own, break down entirely the idea of a good argument, along the following lines. What is an argument? What are the main components of arguments? In saying that an argument is good, which two virtues are we primarily concerned with? How can these virtues come apart? (Thoroughly explain your answer in your own words, and be sure to define any key terms and positions. 300 words max.) (2) In the Meditations, Descartes concludes that he is in essence an immaterial thing. How does he reach this conclusion exactly? Make sure you describe the two different stages of the argument, as discussed in the lecture! (Thoroughly explain your answer in your own words, and be sure to define any key terms and positions. 300 words max.)
AT2: Logic & Mind In your own words, explain what a good argument is, as defined in this class. Using an example of your own, break down entirely the idea of a good argument, along the following lines. What is an argument? What are the main components of arguments? In saying that an argument is good, which two virtues are we primarily concerned with? How can these virtues come apart? (Thoroughly explain your answer in your own words, and be sure to define any key terms and positions. 300 words max.)
What is a good argument? From the TSM Reader page 69 a) Good form (premises support the conclusion) b) All true premises Two essential criteria (the two virtues!) for a sound argument: 1. The premises should all be true 2. The conclusion should follow from the premises.
Deductively Valid and Inductively Strong (from TSM Reader p100) The primary goal in argumentation is for the conclusion to follow from its basic premises either with certainty or with high probability. Technically, this means the arguer desires the argument to be deductively valid or to be inductively strong.
The concept of deductive validity can be given alternative definitions to help you grasp the concept. Below are five definitions. It is common to drop the word deductive from the term deductively valid: An argument is valid if the truth of its basic premises force the conclusion to be true. An argument is valid if it would be inconsistent for its basic premises to be true and its conclusion to be false. An argument is valid if its conclusion follows with certainty from its basic premises. An argument is valid if the conclusion would be true whenever the basic premises were true. An argument is valid if it has no counterexample, that is, a possible situation that makes the premises true and the conclusion false.
P1. If it is raining, the party is cancelled. P2. The party is cancelled Therefore: C. It is raining Good form: no True premises: yes Good argument: no This is a common invalid (fallacious) form called Affirming the consequent P1. If A then B P2. B Therefore: C. A
P1. All cats have four legs P2. My dog has four legs Therefore: C. My dog is a cat Good form: no True premises: yes Good argument: no
P1. All birds lay eggs P2. A platypus lays eggs Therefore: C. A platypus is a bird Good form: True premises: Good argument:
P1. All birds can fly P2. Pigs are birds Therefore: C. Pigs can fly Good form: yes True premises: no Good argument: no
P1. All roses are flowers. P2. Some flowers are red. Therefore: C. Some roses are red. Good form: no True premises: yes Good argument: no Note that premises AND conclusion are true yet this is a invalid argument.
P1. Ron tutors students at Monash University P2. Jack is tutored by Ron Therefore: C. Jack is a student at Monash University Good form: yes (inductively strong) True premises: yes Good argument: yes
P1. Ron only tutors students at Monash University P2. Jack is tutored by Ron Therefore: C. Jack is a student at Monash University Good form: yes (deductively valid) True premises: yes Good argument: yes
P1. There are grey clouds in the sky above Melbourne today P2. The weather forecast says it will rain in Melbourne today Therefore: C. It is going to rain in Melbourne today Good form:? True premises:? Good argument:? Deductive or inductive?
P1. There are grey clouds in the sky above Melbourne today P2. The weather forecast says it will rain in Melbourne today Therefore: C. It is going to rain in Melbourne today Good form: Yes (inductively strong) True premises: Yes Good argument: Yes
P1. All birds lay eggs P2. A platypus lays eggs Therefore: C. A platypus is a bird Good form: True premises: Good argument:
AT1.2: Logic & Mind Due Monday 29 th Aug (2) In the Meditations, Descartes concludes that he is in essence an immaterial thing. How does he reach this conclusion exactly? Make sure you describe the two different stages of the argument, as discussed in the lecture! (Thoroughly explain your answer in your own words, and be sure to define any key terms and positions. 300 words max.) Ron s tip: Define key terms such as dualism, thinking, conceivability, essential etc. (so we know you understand the words you are using).
MULTIPLE- CHOICE Why does Descartes hold that he is essentially a thinking thing? Because: a. He can conceive of himself as existing without being extended. b. He cannot conceive of himself as existing without thinking. c. He can conceive of his body as existing without thinking. d. He cannot conceive of his body as existing without being extended. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhihkrwisbe
Descartes analysis of mind and matter Descartes is interested in the essential properties of things: the properties that cannot be stripped off a thing without stopping the thing from being what it is. He finds, via the cogito, that the essence of the mental is to be thinking it s a res cogitans. The essence of the material is to have extension it s res extensa. The key tool is to ask whether there is any contradiction involved in conceiving of the thing without a given property if there is, then that property is essential for that thing. On the other hand, if it is possible to split the thing apart from the property without making the thing cease to be what it is if for example god could do it (see Med 6) then they are distinct.
From Descartes Discourse on Method (1637) I then considered attentively what I was; and I saw that while I could feign that I had no body, that there was no world, and no place existed for me to be in, I could not feign that I was not; on the contrary, from the mere fact that I thought of doubting about other truths it evidently and certainly followed that I existed. On the other hand, if I had merely ceased to be conscious, even if everything else that I had ever imagined had been true, I had no reason to believe that I should still have existed. From this I recognized that I was a substance whose whole essence and nature is to be conscious and whose being requires no place and depends on no material thing. Thus this self, that is to say the soul, by which I am what I am, is entirely distinct from the body, and is even more easily known; and even if the body were not there at all the soul would be just what it is. Descartes: Philosophical Writings, translated and edited by E. Anscombe and P. T. Geach (1971)
Mind versus matter in Descartes universe MATTER MIND The essence of matter is extension (taking up space) The essence of mind is thinking (consciousness) Matter has no mental properties at all; only shape, size and motion Matter is divisible; physical things have parts Matter can be destroyed Minds have no mass, shape or size. They no location in space Minds are not divisible; they do not literally have parts Minds are indestructible
Interactionism Mind 35 35
Parallelism Mind 36
Epiphenomenalism X Mind 37