"WHY I STILL AM/AM NOT A DUALIST" - RULES AND ADVICE

See the terrifying result when students don't follow the rules or fail to heed advice: Oh, the Horror! Arrgh, the Extreme Unpleasantness!

THE ASSIGNMENT: BRIEF OVERVIEW

I. If you think that 36. is DEFINITELY TRUE, then

A. Present as persuasively as possible the No Interaction Argument against Cartesian Dualism (including, of course, a discussion of the three possible replies and their costs); and
B. present as persuasively as possible the Problem of Other Minds for Dualism; and then
C. explain as persuasively as possible why in light of these objections you think that 36 is definitely true.

A. Present as persuasively as possible the Evidence from Common Usage for dualistic intuitions; and
B. present as persuasively as possible Descartes's Argument for Distinctness of Mind and Body, relying on the concept of a classically self-evident statement; and then
C. explain as persuasively as possible why in light of this evidence (II. A.) and this argument (II. B.), you do not think that 36 is definitely true.

There is no need to mention either Behaviorism or Machine Functionalism, or objections to them. Your focus must be on rational resistance to the arguments against the position you take on dualism.

RULES FOR BOTH I. AND II.

At the beginning of your paper the following statement should appear and it should express a truth:

"I have studied very carefully all of the guidelines and rules provided for the Dualism paper and will do my best to follow all of them. I have studied Dualism and Thinking Things and I have either attended or obtained full notes on the in-class discussion of any relevant material."

The paper is worth 10% of your grade. In order to earn ENHANCED GRADING, you must make a serious effort in doing all three parts of the paper, A., B. AND C,

So, to belabor the obvious, if you don't follow all the rules for part C., you will not earn ENHANCED GRADING in the course. (During some past semesters, when the penalty was an F for the course, seven students acted as if I was just joking about this. I wasn't. Last semester, twenty eight students submitted papers that appeared to ignore the rules. A good time was had by none.)

The paper is not intended as the sort of "research paper" that requires you to consult and report on additional sources from the library or on-line, though there are many thousands of such sources and perhaps as many as 10% of them are actually worth reading! You should not need to go beyond the course materials. But you do need to do what real researchers do: you need to think hard and carefully about what you write, and you need to make sure that it follows all these guidelines and rules. (If, however, you insist on making things harder for yourself, it's most efficient to use the Library's Guide to Research in Philosophy.)

Much of what you need to get started is in Dualism and Thinking Things. For good general advice on how to write philosophy papers, with two very fully developed examples, see the selection from Richard Feldman's Reason and Argument on electronic reserve. (If you wait until the last week of classes to download it, the server may get overloaded and you won't be able to get access to it. Why not download it as soon as possible?)

Please be careful not to confuse the statement of Cartesian Dualism's five tenets with Descartes's argument for distinctness of mind from body or with the No Interaction Argument. The latter two have conclusions that follow from their premises, but the statement of Cartesian Dualism's five tenets has no conclusion even alleged to follow from any other in the set.

QUESTION: I've never had to write anything like this before. What are you expecting in these papers?

ANSWER: It is a terrible shame that our educational system lets students get to college without giving them lots of practice with reason and argument. (I think it's educational malpractice.)

I do understand that the questions posed by the paper are difficult ones, and I don't expect or even hope that any student will provide a definitive answer. I want students to demonstrate that they have understood how difficult the questions are, partly by showing how some apparently promising answers fail.

In assessment of quality of effort, I look for signs that the student really appreciates the difficulty of giving a coherent, persuasive response. [I have in the past given 100s to papers (versions I. and II.) that offered interesting but incorrect answers.] Of course, it doesn't help just to say "this is difficult" and then to proceed as if it weren't.

One disturbingly frequent past sign of lack of appreciation of difficulties was this inference pattern: "I've tried pretty hard on and off for a week or so to do X, and I couldn't. Therefore, X is impossible to do or X will never be done by anyone ever." This is a bad inference, and it makes the person who indulges in it sound incredibly arrogant.

So, in grading papers, I'll use this general scheme (see below for much additional detail):

Part A: 20 points
Part B: 20 points
Part C: 60 points, where one earns

15 points for making a BS-free, serious effort to reply to the ideas in part A;
15 points for making a BS-free, serious effort to reply to the ideas in part B; and
15 points are allotted to my further assessment of the quality of your reply to the ideas in part A;
15 points are allotted to my further assessment of the quality of your reply to the ideas in part B.

This should put of floor of 70 on the paper score. But long past experience makes me virtually certain that some students will nevertheless achieve lower scores, though I very much hope it turns out otherwise. (See the terrifying grade distribution chart for Fall 1999.)

[All of these difficult questions have been known to philosophers and theologians for thousands of years and they have had plenty to say in response to them - but the better answers are not easy or simple. Perhaps some students will be motivated to learn more someday about their own religion's theological traditions! (See the syllabus section on recommended courses if you'd like some help with this.)]

Of course, I'll still be available as usual for questions on this topic after our in-class discussion. But it might be more efficient for you to get as clear as possible as soon as possible, rather than waiting for the last week of classes, when you'll likely be burdened by many other obligations as well. Just a thought.

All papers should be submitted via https://submit.ncsu.edu/ . Papers may be submitted as early as Monday, November 26, 2001, 6:00:00 AM. They must be submitted by Friday, December 7, 2001, 5:00:00 PM.

For help with https://submit.ncsu.edu/, see http://wolfware.ncsu.edu/faq/#subhow

Uploading dualism papers via the Wolfware "Submit" facility is very easy. It is truly obvious what to do once you get to the relevant page. When you've finished uploading, you may wish to save or print the page that records your upload.

The file that you upload should be either a .txt (plain text) or .rtf (rich text) file. .rtf will retain most, if not all, of the formatting provided by most word-processing software, but .txt files are fine, too, and I've had no trouble reading MS WORD files (often with an automatically supplied .doc extension).

However, do not send Word Perfect .wpd files.

Please name the file for your dualism paper with your last name and initials. So, for example, I'd name the file

austindf

UPPERCASE is fine, too. If your word processing software automatically adds an extension (e.g., .txt, .rtf) there's no need to remove the extension from the name.

On November 26, at 5:01:00PM, I will download whatever is in the relevant directory. I'll then grade the papers submitted, put comments on them and return them to their authors via e-mail. Please include the e-mail address to which you want the graded paper sent - unity or not - at the beginning of the file that you upload.

If use of https://submit.ncsu.edu/ poses a significant hardship for you, let me know. (Those with a recognized disability are already entitled to reasonable accommodation.) Once a paper is submitted, no revisions to it will be considered.

Though there is no length limit, what matters primarily is the quality of the response, not the quantity, and the focus should be on the reasons and not on your (or anyone else's) personal history, as important as that history might be to you and your loved ones. Your paper will be evaluated on the quality and clarity of the arguments it offers. A serious effort can't be made in less than 1000 words (about 6K of plain text, equivalent to four double-spaced, typed pages).

But I'm not so concerned with other kinds of formatting. While you must give credit to any sources beyond the course that you may use - and you don't have to use any - I'm certainly not going to take points off for 'improper' format in bibliographical citations. Just make sure the necessary tracking information is there in some form or other. What's necessary is: author(s), title, periodical name (if from a periodical), page numbers, year of publication, publisher (if from a book) and specific URL if from the web.

Unless it imposes a real hardship on you, I also expect you to run a spell-check on your paper and to spell correctly words in the course materials that don't occur in the spellchecker's dictionary. I hope that no one will do what a student in a far away semester did, rendering Descartes's name as "Dick Hart." Don't write: "Descarte's" - the possessive is "Descartes's" (or maybe "Descartes'"). And I will be EXTREMELY ANNOYED if anyone writes

where

is called for. Casual interaction is fine in its place - typically bars, nightclubs and parties - but its place is not in this paper.

While I don't take off points for errors in spelling or grammar, some such errors - especially in grammar - can be so serious that they make it difficult or impossible to understand what you mean to say. That would certainly have a profound effect on the number of points you receive.

A serious effort can't be made in less than 1000 words (about 6K of plain text). Dualism and Thinking Things is over 3000 words long, and it doesn't even undertake part C. of your assignment.

Murder of Standards

As unpleasant as it is to contemplate, I'll also mention that during the last two semesters four students plagiarized material for their papers. Plagiarism is an academic felony, akin to first degree murder of academic standards. It was very easy for me to detect their violations of the Honor Code. And again, a good time was had by none. A Rolling Stone article may be of interest to you: David Plotz, "New Frontiers in Cheating," 10/14/99, p. 107, on detecting plagiarism. Two on-line services that are exceptionally effective in detecting plagiarism from on-line sources are:

http://plagiarism.org/
http://www.canexus.com/eve/index3.shtml

Since plagiarism is, among other very bad things, unfair to honest students, and the vast majority of students are honest, this should be good news to the vast majority of you.

RULES SPECIFIC TO I.

The following scoring scheme will be used in grading these papers:

I.A. 20 points:

State No Interaction Argument: 5 points:

First Premise: 1 point
Second Premise: 2 points
Third Premise: 2 points

Explain No Interaction Argument, esp. the second premise, including mediated causation: 5 points

State and explain the Three Replies, making clear the nature of the "cost" of each: 10 points:

First Reply: 3 points
Second Reply: 3 points
Third Reply: 4 points

I.B. 20 points:

Present Problem of Other Minds: 10 points:

First Premise: 6 points
Second Premise: 4 points

Explain Problem of Other Minds: 10 points:

First Premise: 7 points
Second Premise: 3 points

I.C. 60 points:

On I.A. - Rational Resistance to the No Interaction Argument: 30 points:

• For a logically coherent effort addressed to specified audience: 15 points
• For assessment of quality of effort: 15 points

Your alternatives are essentially these two: try to defend the first reply (the second premise is false, etc.) or the second reply (the second premise is true, etc.). [The third reply is a non-starter, and the blind-faith reaction is not a reply at all since it's a refusal to reply in a way that engages the argument. One could, however, attempt to give a faith-based reply that is not the blind-faith reaction.]

On I.B. - Rational Resistance to the Problem of Other Minds: 30 points:

• For a logically coherent effort addressed to specified audience: 15 points
• For assessment of quality of effort: 15 points

One traditional approach (though of course not an easy one) would be to argue that certain kinds of behavioral evidence is best explained by supposing that there is a mind in the body producing the behavior. This approach is called the argument from analogy. Very roughly, one finds key similarities between one's own behavior and the behavior of other bodies, and concludes that the similarity is best explained by supposing the patterns of behavior were produced by analogous entities. Since your mind produced your behavior, the supposedly best explanation would then say that the other body's behavior was also produced by a mind.

Arguments by analogy can't be at all persuasive unless one chooses the right sorts of behavioral evidence. (Descartes seemed to think that linguistic ability was of the right sort because it entails being able to produce and understand an unlimited number and variety of meaningful sentences. The problem would then be to figure out why this lack of limitation would support the analogy particularly well, if it does.)

It is perfectly acceptable, for part C, to explore some replies that seem truly promising, and to explain clearly why they do not fulfill their seeming promise: "You might have thought this would help, but here's why it doesn't really ...."

You cannot do I.C. by doing II.A. and/or II.B. You must instead deal directly with the No Interaction Argument and the Problem of Other Minds to explain how to sustain dualism in the face of THOSE two objections.

No acceptable response to the No Interaction Argument simply takes for granted the possibility of soul (=mind) -body interaction. So it is useless to begin I. C. by assuming that, "eventually, science will show the way," just as it is useless to assume that mathematics will one day teach us how to visualize square circles.

This means that you need to be clear on the relevance of different kinds of "(im)possibility" questions, as discussed in class. (Please get the notes if you weren't there.)

So you need to understand the difference between, e.g. "It's just been discovered how to cure cancer" (unlikely but possible), and "It's been discovered how to kill all birds without killing any chickens" (impossible). The former requires advances in science (which are, at least in outline, imaginable); the latter can't possibly be helped by any advance in science.

"It's been discovered how (non-physical) souls interact causally with bodies" is analogous to the latter, not to the former.

[Even the deeply hidden quarks are physical objects with measurable masses, so explaining how they can interact causally with other particles poses no relevant questions about possibility.

Particles moving at light speed (e.g. light particles - photons) have no rest mass, and physicists, using shorthand, will thus say that the particles are "massless," though they don't mean this literally. After all, the particles have measurable energies and hence must have mass. If such particles were to come to rest, they would "have zero mass" - that is, they'd cease to exist, because it's impossible for them to travel below light speed!

Please keep in mind, though, that any fancy math or physics you might use must be explained by you in the paper. So, it's probably better not to use any fancy math or physics. On the other hand, some philosophical investigations into non-fancy math might be useful, if used with care.]

The first premise of the Problem of Other Minds is NOT, "If CD is true, then I am the only person (thinking thing)." NOT

Instead, the proper rendering is:

{OK} "If CD is true, then FOR ALL I KNOW, I am the only person (thinking thing)," {OK}

or, equally serviceable,

{OK} "If CD is true, then I DON"T KNOW that I'm NOT the only person (thinking thing)." {OK}

If you mangle the argument by using , "If CD is true, then I am the only person (thinking thing)," your reply will be without any value, your subsequent discussion will likely be very confused, and you would thus lose 40-60 points.

One previously popular, but very bad, argument (sometimes stated at great length, and accompanied by detailed descriptions of interesting personal experience):

Very Bad Argument:

Emotions [feelings, ideas] are non-physical.
Emotions [feelings, ideas] are in the mind.
Therefore, minds are non-physical.

Since the primary reason for thinking that mental states are non-physical is dualism itself, this argument is blatantly question begging (in addition to being logically invalid as stated). One would need to give the first premise a persuasive, non-question-begging defense (and to restate the argument so that it is logically valid in form).

QUESTION: In writing this paper as a defense of dualism, can it be effective to invoke faith?

ANSWER: You are not "preaching to the converted." So, among ineffective responses to I. C for such an audience are, "It's simply a matter of (blind) faith with me," and "My religion tells me so, and that's the end of it." Whether or not it can be effective to invoke faith therefore depends heavily on what kind of faith is invoked. To explain:

Accepting some statements on faith is, as we found in our discussion of Separation by Foundation, necessary for rationality itself. So every rational person "invokes faith" all the time, even if s/he is a stalwart atheist. However, not just any belief deserves to be accepted on faith, i.e., accorded foundational status. Rather, great caution and high standards are called for (and, as Plantinga suggests, some simple religious beliefs may well qualify as foundational). But these beliefs, like any other candidate for foundational status, must qualify. It's not: "anything goes, foundationally."

Please re-read the story of Mr. Renee, which emphasizes this key point. That story details the blind faith response that, for the purposes of this paper, can't be invoked.

QUESTION: Is the Bible (or any other religious scripture) considered a reliable source for the paper?

ANSWER: It is perfectly alright to use the Bible (or any other religious scripture) as a source if the two conditions specified in the chapter, "Dualism and Thinking Things," are met.

QUESTION: There are many reports from apparently quite sincere people about "near death" experiences. Among these people are physicians undergoing surgery; they claim that their souls temporarily leave their bodies, to observe the surgical scene from a distance. Are such examples helpful in defending dualism?

ANSWER: There are at least a couple of serious problems with such examples, which are detailed in the chapter, "Dualism and Thinking Things." Of course, if you can overcome all of these problems, you are welcome to present the relevant supporting evidence.

QUESTION: Does it help to distinguish minds from souls?

ANSWER: The suggestion seems to be that minds are physical - perhaps the memories, beliefs, desires, sensations, etc. are a product of brain functioning, and hence minds are mortal - but souls are non-physical (and hence can survive even brain death). The point of the suggestion would presumably be to explain 'life after death' (in Heaven, Hell, Elsewhere or through reincarnation, or ...).

This suggestion runs into very serious difficulties, as explained in the chapter, "Dualism and Thinking Things."

RULES SPECIFIC TO II.

The following scoring scheme will be used in grading these papers:

II.A. 20 points:

Present Evidence from Common Usage:

Examples of simultaneous opposites: 10 points
'straightforward and systematic': 10 points

II.B. 20 points:

State Descartes's Argument for Distinctness of Mind and Body: 10 points:

line (1): 2 points
line (2): 2 points

line (3) : 1 point [intermediate conclusion]

line (4): 3 points
line (5): 2 points [Conclusion]

Explain Descartes's Argument for Distinctness: 10 points:

Define CSE and explain its role in the argument: 5 points
Explain connection between fallibility and physicality: 5 points

II.C. 60 points:

On II.A. - Rational Resistance to the Evidence from Common Usage: 30 points:

• For a logically coherent effort addressed to specified audience: 15 points
• For assessment of quality of effort: 15 points

On II.B. - Rational Resistance to Descartes's Argument: 30 points:

• For a logically coherent effort addressed to specified audience: 15 points
• For assessment of quality of effort: 15 points

Any resistance to the argument must of course be based on objections to at least one of the three logically independent premises it contains. (There are no good objections to Leibniz's Law; it is a logically necessary truth.) So, one could attempt to argue that

• minds are never infallible about any of their states; or that
• human bodies (or nervous systems) are sometimes infallible about some of their information-carrying states; or that
• it is logically possible for there to be an infallible, complex, physical information-processing system; or that
• minds are non-complex, simple physical objects that are infallible about some of their states.

You cannot do II. C. by doing I.A. and/or I.B.

Among ineffective responses to II. C. are the simple, unsupported assertions: "I disbelieve in 'life after death'," and "I don't think there are any non-physical things."

Even if it's true that you have had a "direct experience" of the physical nature of your mind, your report of that experience is irrelevant unless there's something about it that will give other people secure reason for accepting your experience as settling the matter. (It's not entirely clear what "direct experience" means here - but I have often heard people talk this way, and I would not want you to write so very obscurely.)

For form II. of the dualism paper, you MUST present and evaluate Descartes's Argument for the Distinctness of Mind and Body. You are welcome, but not required, to consider other ways of arguing for the conclusion, (5), that minds are not physical. You ARE required to critique (1) - (3) and to critique SOME way of arguing for the conclusion in (5).

It is perfectly acceptable, for part C, to explore some replies that seem truly promising, and to explain clearly why they do not fulfill their seeming promise: "You might have thought this would help, but here's why it doesn't really ...."

SOME CONCLUDING REMARKS ON MISINTERPRETATIONS AND FEELINGS

After receiving the graded paper, a Fall 1999 PHI 340 student wrote to me:

"I now find the assignment misleading. Now, that I read back over the syllabus I see how you wanted us to respond .... I talked to two other students in our class prior to turning in my paper and they thought the same thing I did .... I understand that I am at fault."

(I'm not making this up. I have proof.)

I replied:

It really does seem inconsistent to call the assignment "misleading" and yet say that you (and others) misinterpreted it and are at fault.

The student continued:

"... I had every intention and purpose of turning in a quality paper. I am just terribly frustrated about [my very low score] because I mis-interpreted the assignment. ... I don't think I am alone in my mis-interpretation. I don't feel like I earned a [very low score]."

I replied at length:

Perhaps you are not alone in your misinterpretation, not that it's relevant if other students also misinterpreted what was clearly stated in the plainest English. In fact, however, most students did not misinterpret as you did. They lost points for one or more of the many other reasons I listed. In most ways, this is sadder. But that's what happened.

I can of course understand the psychology behind the misinterpretation - it involves a kind of wishful thinking (because it makes the paper easier to do). We all do that at least occasionally. But it remains a misinterpretation.

No matter how clear instructions are, some will misinterpret, ignore or forget them. For example, every semester, despite clear instructions, several students fail to hand in the paper because they are satisfied with the course grade that would result if it were based on the hour exams scores alone. Their explanation is that they misread the syllabus; or didn't attend class and missed the oral and blackboard reminders; or simply forgot about the requirement in the syllabus and in e-mail because of other pressures. This semester is no exception. (In some cases, of course, the students turn out to have valid medical excuses or were facing disasters well beyond their ability to control or even influence. And they are given extensions.)

[I'm sometimes amazed at how much students think I expect them to suffer in their own lives before they ask for help or 'reasonable accommodation'. The most extreme example in my experience - many years ago - was a student who hesitantly asked permission to make up the second hour exam because her chemotherapy had made her too nauseous to leave the bathroom that day. She looked very ill, and had lost all of her hair but offered a doctor's note nevertheless. She also reported that some of her instructors were giving her a hard time about making up work. (Were they hoping she'd die first, and then they'd not have to be bothered?!!) Less extreme, but still serious, cases are more common than they should be.]

I've often heard from students statements of the sort "I feel I deserve (or earned) more." They mean different things by this, and sometimes several things at once.

One thing they almost always mean is "I don't like this." I can empathize.

Another thing they can mean is "The grade is unjust because I tried hard." While I can understand this reaction, it's not something a college student should ever assert since college students should know that it is the quality of the work that is assessed, not the effort that may have gone into producing it.

[A closely related meaning is, "I feel very, very strongly that this work deserves more, so this work does deserve more." This is analogous to a mistake often made in papers, where students express strong feelings for or against dualism, and offer this as if it were evidence for the truth of their beliefs!!]

A third thing that some unhappy perfectionists mean by it is, "This grade is a moral judgment about me and I can't live with the guilt," or, more bluntly, "You're saying I'm a bad, stupid person." I empathize here, too - perhaps there is sometimes too much feeling from the parent/child relationship that gets secretly transferred to teacher/student interactions - but the statement makes a serious error: the grade is an assessment of some verbal behavior and not a moral judgment about overall character.

Of course, human beings are rarely pure and simple in their reactions, so what students actually mean is usually some sort of mixture of these reactions, with some other ingredients added to the mix.

The terrifying grade distribution from PHI 340 Fall 1999 is extremely strong evidence - hardly unique to PHI 340 - that many student's reading skills are seriously deficient, more so now than in the past. Remedies are urgently needed. I hope to persuade relevant faculty and administrators at the university that such remedies should be offered to students, lest they be deprived of a fully adequate education. I hope and trust that no one will be foolish enough to suggest lowering standards to match deficiencies in skills! That really would be educational malpractice.

For a very important supplement to the preceding, be sure to study closely PHI 340 Spring 2000 - Overview of Dualism Paper Results, with its accompanying, marginally less terrifying grade distribution.

[After you have read this entire document, including the update on Spring 2000, you are welcome to send any comments or questions to: david_austin@ncsu.edu]