Papers may be submitted as early as Monday, November 26, 2001, 6:00:00 AM. Papers 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.
On December 7, 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 very beginning of the file that you upload.
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.
Unless hardship or disability based exemption is granted by the instructor, all papers must be submitted via https://submit.ncsu.edu/ .
I have written the paper for readers who are bright, interested, rational people but who have not been enrolled in this course and who disagree with me.
I have not assumed that: the readers have ever seen or read the course materials, have previously heard of Cartesian Dualism or have heard the reasons or arguments for or against it. I have not mentioned:
quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, Gödel's theorems, Superstring Theories, Alternate Dimensions or any other part of science or mathematics that I did not explain fully and clearly in the paper.
At the beginning of my paper, either on the title page or as its first two sentences I have included the following true statement:
"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 the relevant PHI 340 web site material and I have either attended or obtained full notes on the in-class discussion of any relevant material."
I have studied the selection on electronic reserve from Richard Feldman's Reason and Argument. I have not confused the statement of Cartesian Dualism's five tenets with
either Descartes's Argument for the Distinctness of Mind from Body or with the No Interaction Argument.
either
Descartes's Argument for the Distinctness of Mind from Body
or with
the No Interaction Argument.
I presented each and every premise of the No Interaction Argument, as well as the argument's conclusion: First Premise Second Premise Third Premise Conclusion I explained each and every premise of No Interaction Argument: First Premise: I explained why this is supposed to be true Second Premise: I explained why this is supposed to be true. I gave examples of mediated causation and I explained their relevance to this premise. Third Premise: I explained why this is supposed to be true. I presented and explained each of the three replies to No Interaction Argument, making clear the disadvantages of each reply: First Reply Second Reply Third Reply: I explained precisely how purpose-directed explanation is relevant to this reply.
I presented each and every premise of the No Interaction Argument, as well as the argument's conclusion:
First Premise
Second Premise
Third Premise
Conclusion
I explained each and every premise of No Interaction Argument:
First Premise: I explained why this is supposed to be true
Second Premise:
I explained why this is supposed to be true. I gave examples of mediated causation and I explained their relevance to this premise.
Third Premise: I explained why this is supposed to be true.
I presented and explained each of the three replies to No Interaction Argument, making clear the disadvantages of each reply:
First Reply Second Reply Third Reply: I explained precisely how purpose-directed explanation is relevant to this reply.
I presented both premises of the Problem of Other Minds, as well as this argument's conclusion: First Premise: I'm sure that I stated the first premise correctly. I double checked. Second Premise Conclusion I explained both premises of the Problem of Other Minds: First Premise: I explained why this is supposed to be true, making explicit use of the tenets of Cartesian Dualism. Second Premise: I explained why this is supposed to be true, making use of the notion of a foundational, non-classically-self-evident, belief.
I presented both premises of the Problem of Other Minds, as well as this argument's conclusion:
First Premise: I'm sure that I stated the first premise correctly. I double checked.
I explained both premises of the Problem of Other Minds:
First Premise: I explained why this is supposed to be true, making explicit use of the tenets of Cartesian Dualism.
Second Premise: I explained why this is supposed to be true, making use of the notion of a foundational, non-classically-self-evident, belief.
Rational Resistance to the No Interaction Argument: I gave a logically coherent response to the No Interaction Argument addressed to bright, interested, rational people who have not been enrolled in this course, who disagree with me and have never seen or read the course materials, previously heard of Cartesian Dualism or the reasons or arguments for or against it. I did not mention the evidence of common usage for Cartesian Dualism. I did not mention Descartes's Argument for the Distinctness of Mind and Body. I did not take it for granted that mind-body causal interaction is possible. I did not take it for granted that someday, science will show us how mind-body interaction occurs. I did not even mention any part of science or mathematics that I did not explain fully and clearly. I did not rely on "blind faith" nor did I "preach to the converted." I did not use the Bible (or any other religious scriptures) without justifying my interpretation of the quoted passages. If I relied on a literal interpretation of any passages in the Bible (or any other religious scriptures), then I also argued that these particular passages are best interpreted in this specific way. I did not use the Bible (or any other religious scripture) without arguing that those in my audience ought to accept it as reliable and authoritative on these questions about dualism. I always keep it in mind that my audience does not consist only of those who already take what the Bible (or any other religious scripture) says as reliable or authoritative. I did not rely on highly questionable reports about "near death" experiences. I did not rely on an unhelpful distinction between minds and souls. I did not rely on any version of the blatantly question-begging argument Emotions [feelings, ideas] are non-physical. Emotions [feelings, ideas] are in the mind. Therefore, minds are non-physical. Rational Resistance to the Problem of Other Minds: I gave a logically coherent response to the Problem of Other Minds addressed to bright, interested, rational people who have not been enrolled in this course, who disagree with me and have never seen or read the course materials, previously heard of Cartesian Dualism or the reasons or arguments for or against it.. I did not waste my time by responding to the ridiculous claim, "If Cartesian Dualism is true, then there are no other minds besides mine." I did not attempt to refute the second premise by misinterpreting it as, "I am absolutely certain [= have the classically self-evident belief] that there are other people." I did not mention the evidence of common usage for Cartesian Dualism. I did not mention Descartes's Argument for the Distinctness of Mind and Body. I did not rely on highly questionable reports about "near death" experiences. I did not rely on an unhelpful distinction between minds and souls. I did not rely on "blind faith" nor did I "preach to the converted." I did not use the Bible (or any other religious scripture) without justifying my interpretation of the quoted passages. If I relied on a literal interpretation of any passages in the Bible (or any other religious scriptures), then I also argued that these particular passages are best interpreted in the specific way presented. I did not use the Bible (or any other religious scripture) without arguing that those in my audience ought to accept it as reliable and authoritative on these questions about dualism. I always keep it in mind that my audience does not consist only of those who already take what the Bible (or any other religious scripture) says as reliable or authoritative.
Rational Resistance to the No Interaction Argument:
I gave a logically coherent response to the No Interaction Argument addressed to bright, interested, rational people who have not been enrolled in this course, who disagree with me and have never seen or read the course materials, previously heard of Cartesian Dualism or the reasons or arguments for or against it.
I did not mention the evidence of common usage for Cartesian Dualism.
I did not mention Descartes's Argument for the Distinctness of Mind and Body.
I did not take it for granted that mind-body causal interaction is possible.
I did not take it for granted that someday, science will show us how mind-body interaction occurs.
I did not even mention any part of science or mathematics that I did not explain fully and clearly.
I did not rely on "blind faith" nor did I "preach to the converted."
I did not use the Bible (or any other religious scriptures) without justifying my interpretation of the quoted passages.
If I relied on a literal interpretation of any passages in the Bible (or any other religious scriptures), then I also argued that these particular passages are best interpreted in this specific way. I did not use the Bible (or any other religious scripture) without arguing that those in my audience ought to accept it as reliable and authoritative on these questions about dualism. I always keep it in mind that my audience does not consist only of those who already take what the Bible (or any other religious scripture) says as reliable or authoritative.
I did not rely on highly questionable reports about "near death" experiences.
I did not rely on an unhelpful distinction between minds and souls.
I did not rely on any version of the blatantly question-begging argument
Emotions [feelings, ideas] are non-physical. Emotions [feelings, ideas] are in the mind. Therefore, minds are non-physical.
Rational Resistance to the Problem of Other Minds:
I gave a logically coherent response to the Problem of Other Minds addressed to bright, interested, rational people who have not been enrolled in this course, who disagree with me and have never seen or read the course materials, previously heard of Cartesian Dualism or the reasons or arguments for or against it..
I did not waste my time by responding to the ridiculous claim, "If Cartesian Dualism is true, then there are no other minds besides mine."
I did not attempt to refute the second premise by misinterpreting it as, "I am absolutely certain [= have the classically self-evident belief] that there are other people."
I did not use the Bible (or any other religious scripture) without justifying my interpretation of the quoted passages.
If I relied on a literal interpretation of any passages in the Bible (or any other religious scriptures), then I also argued that these particular passages are best interpreted in the specific way presented. I did not use the Bible (or any other religious scripture) without arguing that those in my audience ought to accept it as reliable and authoritative on these questions about dualism. I always keep it in mind that my audience does not consist only of those who already take what the Bible (or any other religious scripture) says as reliable or authoritative.
Reminder: Once a paper is submitted, no revisions to it will be considered.
Done printing - back to Dualism Paper Rules and Advice
or Back to Syllabus, from whence I came