INSTRUCTOR: Eric
Winsberg
OFFICE: FAO 205
PHONE: 974-4635
E-MAIL:
winsberg@chuma1.cas.usf.edu
OFFICE HOURS: TBA
TIME: TTH 2:00-2:50
(lecture)
Expected Enrollment: 60
COURSE DESCRIPTION: Are computers that think really a technological possibility? Does it even make sense to speak of a thinking machine—or is a thinking computer a conceptual absurdity, like a round square or a happy rock? Could a computer possibly display more intelligence than its programmers? Could it act of its own free will? Could it be conscious? The course examines these and other traditional issues in the philosophy of mind from the perspectives afforded by recent work in artificial intelligence and cognitive science. Much of the work of the course deals with areas where philosophy, psychology, mathematics, linguistics, and computer science meet. No background in any of these areas is assumed or required.
PREREQUESITES: None.
TEXTS:
SCHEDULE of READINGS and ASSIGNMENTS:
Works and pages cited
for a given day will be covered that day in class and should have been read in
advance.
Unit 1. Minds and Matter
Week 1. Substance Dualism
· Descartes, p. 75
· Arnaud, p. 104
Week 2. Behaviorism; Linguistic Behaviorism
· Skinner p. 160
· Ryle. p. 187
Week 3. Varieties of Physicalism
· Hobbes p. 129
· Armstrong, p. 225
Week 4. Property Dualism/ Functionalism
· Churchland, p. 355
· Fodor, p. 328
Unit 2. Minds and Machines
Week 5. A.I.: The Movie
Week 6. The Turing Test
· Turing, p. 265
· Copland Chapter 3
Week 7. Turing machines.
· p. 254-261
Week 8. The symbol system hypothesis
· Newell and Simon (coursepack)
· Midterm Exam
Week 9. The knowledge problem./ hardward vs. wetware
· Denett “cognitive wheels” (coursepack)
· Copeland, chapter 9
Week 10. The Chinese Room.
· Searle p. 282
· Copeland ch. 6
Week 11. Connectionism
· Copeland chapter 10
Unit 3. Minds and Ourselves.
Week 12. Freedom of the will.
· Nagel (coursepack)
· Copeland chapter 7.
Week 13 Consciousness.
· Nagel, p. 391
· Jackson, p. 401
Week 14 Consciousness cont.
· Copeland, chapter 8
· TG Break
Week 15 etc.
· Dennett, 409
· Bill Joy “ Why the future doesn’t need us.” http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html
Assignments
|
Title |
Due date |
Weight
|
Description
|
|
Dualism Paper |
Sept. 5 |
10% |
2 pp. |
|
What is a mind? Paper |
Draft: In lab week of Sept 24th. Final: Oct 3 |
20% |
4-5 pp. |
|
Midterm Exam |
Oct 17 |
15% |
In-Class Exam |
|
Chinese room/Turing Test
paper |
Nov 12 |
20% |
4-5 pp. |
|
Final Exam |
See Exam Schedule |
25% |
Final Exam |
|
In-Class Participation |
Daily |
10% |
Attendance plus helpful, voluntary participation in every
discussion. |
|
|
|||
Papers
For the first paper, I want you to write a short, two page paper evaluating the debate between Descartes and Arnaud. Does Descartes have good arguments for mind/body dualism? Does Arnaud have a good reply to them? In the end, I want you to give a clear answer as to whether or not you are convinced by Descartes that mind and matter are separate substances, and explain why.
For the second paper, I want you to answer the question “What is the relation between mind and matter.” You can adopt the position of any of the authors we have read, or you can develop your own. In either case, I want you to make the best argument you can for your position, and defend it against what you think are the best objections against your view.
For the Turing Test /Chinese Room paper, ask a sharp question about either the TT or the CR as your topic, answer the question by your own lights, and argue explicitly and cogently for your answer. Defend your answer against what you think are its strong objections. Of the many questions one could ask about the Turing Test and the Chinese Room, pick one that you would like to explore more deeply. Put your topic question into the title of the paper. The question should go to the merits of the Turing Test as a measure of machine intelligence, or to the merits of Searle's Chinese Room argument against strong AI. I'll give some example questions in class.
While these papers will be on Turing or Searle, they are not primarily interpretive. The purpose is not merely to understand Turing and Searle, but to decide whether they are right.
In all three graded papers for this course, I want your thoughts in answer to your question. While interpreting our texts is not primary in these papers, it will occasionally be necessary. When you do interpret authors (such as Turing and Searle for the first two papers), be clear, accurate, fair, and document your claims with textual evidence, as usual. You will almost always be able to give a better answer to your topic question, and a stronger argument for your answer, if you read what other people have written on your topic and take their arguments into account.
Academic dishonesty policy: (see p. 11 of the 2002
Undergraduate Catalog) THIS IS REQUIRED
READING—due before the first paper is turned in.