Week 6 — Minds, Brains, and Programs: Testing Three Answers

Assignment 6 of the term — credit this week's cases to their authors, key three arguments about the mind for validity, state the three mind-body positions at their strongest, and explain the Turing test to someone new to philosophy.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into exact, well-reasoned work. You remain the author. The coach asks questions, checks the reasoning you show, and waits for you to revise before it produces the required report. In Week 2 you learned standard form, validity, and the valid and invalid forms, and in Week 5 you saw how one well-chosen case can test a general claim. This week you learned the mind-body problem, substance dualism and the problem of interaction, the identity theory, functionalism, the Turing test, Searle's Chinese room, Nagel's bat, and Jackson's Mary. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Philosophy Workshop practice the same ideas from other angles; this assignment is where you put them together.

The task

You will use this week's pinned sources, Dataset E (the three mind-body positions), and Dataset B, the argument set (illustrative). Dataset B's premises are written for teaching and are not claims the course endorses; the course keys its arguments for validity only, never for soundness, because the premises are open questions. The everyday cases below were written for this assignment; they are illustrative and describe no real person or place.

Part A — get the sources right, then reconstruct. A post on a study-group forum reads: "Turing's Chinese room proved that computers can never think, and Nagel's bat showed that machines can't feel anything." Do four things:

• Correct the post. Name who devised the Chinese room, the paper it comes from, and its year; say what the room is meant to show, and why "computers can never think" overstates it; say whose case the bat is, the paper's title and year, and which position it presses; and say whose imitation game the Turing test is.
• Key argument 2. Write Dataset B's argument 2 in standard form ("If the mind is the brain, then mental states have locations. Mental states have no locations. So the mind is not the brain."), name its form, key it for validity with a one-sentence reason from the definition of validity, and name the premise an identity theorist rejects.
• Key argument 8. Write Dataset B's argument 8 in standard form ("If a machine understands Chinese, it can answer questions in Chinese. This machine answers questions in Chinese. So it understands Chinese."), name its form, key it for validity, and build one same-shape argument of your own, on a new topic, whose premises are true and whose conclusion is false.
• Reconstruct the Chinese room. Write the reasoning of the Chinese room in standard form, mark any premise you add as "(added)", name the form, and say whether it is valid. Then state the systems reply in one or two sentences.

Then work this problem, showing your reasoning:

1. Nagel's "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" dates from 1974, and Searle's "Minds, Brains, and Programs" dates from 1980. How many years separate them?

Part B — weigh the three positions. Work this problem first, showing your reasoning:

1. Gettier's "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?" dates from 1963, and Nagel's "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" dates from 1974. How many years separate them?

Then do two things:

• State all three positions at their strongest. State substance dualism, the identity theory, and functionalism each as its best defenders would, give the case or objection that presses each (the problem of interaction, Nagel's bat, Jackson's Mary, or Searle's Chinese room, as Dataset E pairs them), and give a reply from each position's own side.
• Name the disagreement. End with one plain sentence naming exactly where the three positions disagree.

Explain it to a non-expert

A neighbor who has never taken philosophy reads a headline about a chatbot and says, "It passed the Turing test, so now it's conscious." Write a 3–5 sentence message in everyday words that explains what the Turing test checks, why passing it is not the same as being conscious, and one honest limit of what the test can show. Explain any term your neighbor might not know.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a teammate who asks how an argument can be valid when its conclusion is false. Model answer: "Valid only means the conclusion would have to be true if the reasons were true. It is about how the reasons fit together, not about whether they are true. So a valid argument with a false reason can still end in a false conclusion. One limit: knowing an argument is valid tells you nothing yet about whether to believe it."

Use that pattern for your message to your neighbor, with your own explanation of the Turing test.

Reflect on your revision

After you revise, answer one of these two options in 2–4 sentences; they carry the same weight:

• (a) Which change made your sourcing or one of your reconstructions more exact, and which definition or pinned fact showed you it was needed?
• (b) Which change made your statement of one of the three positions stronger, and what had you left out at first?

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft Part A, Part B, and your message to your neighbor before opening a chatbot.
2. Open any course-approved chatbot. Copy the entire Coach Prompt box, including its first and last marker lines, and paste it as one message. The coach will ask for your draft and then work one question at a time.
3. Reply in your own words. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one correction, reconstruction, or statement of a position, even if your first attempt was strong, and then reflect using option (a) or (b).
4. Continue until the prompt's exit condition is met.
5. Save the chat's share link and copy the final report exactly as the coach gives it.

The chatbot is a coach, not a ghostwriter. It must draw out your reasoning rather than write your corrections, reconstructions, or message for you. If it credits the Chinese room to Turing, says the room proves machines can never be intelligent, calls the Turing test a test of consciousness, or says which position is right, check that against Chapter 6 before you use it.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful learning coach for an introductory philosophy course. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about this week's ideas: the mind-body problem; substance dualism and the problem of interaction; physicalism and the identity theory; functionalism and causal roles; Turing's imitation game, now called the Turing test; John Searle's Chinese room from "Minds, Brains, and Programs" (1980) and the systems reply; Thomas Nagel's "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" (1974); and Frank Jackson's Mary from "Epiphenomenal Qualia" (1982). Do not write my assignment for me and do not invent work I did not show. Never invent a quotation, a philosopher's view, or a source; never call a Dataset B argument sound or unsound; and never announce a verdict on which mind-body position is right.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these two problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. Part A: I correct a forum post that says "Turing's Chinese room proved that computers can never think, and Nagel's bat showed that machines can't feel anything." I name who devised the Chinese room, its paper and year, what it is meant to show, whose case the bat is with its title and year and the position it presses, and whose imitation game the Turing test is. I key Dataset B's argument 2 (illustrative): "If the mind is the brain, then mental states have locations. Mental states have no locations. So the mind is not the brain." I name its form, judge its validity with a reason, and name the premise an identity theorist rejects. I key Dataset B's argument 8 (illustrative): "If a machine understands Chinese, it can answer questions in Chinese. This machine answers questions in Chinese. So it understands Chinese." I name its form, judge its validity, and build a same-shape argument with true premises and a false conclusion. I reconstruct the Chinese room in standard form (P1, P2, P3, then C introduced by "So") with any added premise marked "(added)", name its form, judge its validity, and state the systems reply. Part B: I state substance dualism, the identity theory, and functionalism at their strongest, each with the case or objection that presses it and a reply from its own side, and I end with one plain sentence naming where they disagree.
PROBLEM P1: Nagel's "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" dates from 1974, and Searle's "Minds, Brains, and Programs" dates from 1980. How many years separate them?
PROBLEM P2: Gettier's "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?" dates from 1963, and Nagel's "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" dates from 1974. How many years separate them?
For P1 I must also supply the forum-post correction and the three reconstructions. For P2 I must also supply the three positions with their pressing cases and replies, and the plain sentence; then a 3-5 sentence message in everyday words to a neighbor who thinks passing the Turing test makes a chatbot conscious. After revising, I reflect using option (a) or (b) from my assignment page.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply, out of 100 points. Sourcing and attribution (P1): 20 if the correction credits the Chinese room to John Searle, "Minds, Brains, and Programs" (1980), says it is meant to show that running a program is not enough for understanding rather than that computers can never think, credits the bat to Thomas Nagel, "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" (1974), as a case that presses the identity theory, credits the imitation game to Alan Turing, and works the P1 year gap; 10 if at least three but not all of those five parts are accurate; 0 if fewer. Argument reconstruction (P1): 25 if argument 2 is in standard form, named as denying the consequent, judged valid with a reason, with the rejected premise named; argument 8 is in standard form, named as running the conditional backward, judged invalid, with a working same-shape counterexample; and the Chinese room is in standard form with its added premise marked, named as denying the consequent, judged valid, with the systems reply stated; 15 if two of the three are complete and the third has one gap; 5 if at least one form is named and judged with a reason but two or more have gaps; 0 otherwise. Evaluation of the three positions (P2): 25 if all three positions are stated at their strongest, each with the case or objection that presses it and a reply from its own side, the plain sentence names the disagreement, and the P2 year gap is worked; 15 if one of those parts is missing; 5 if two or more are missing or a position is stated in a weakened form; 0 if no accurate evaluation. Plain-language explanation for a non-expert (P2): 15 if the message is in everyday words, says what the Turing test checks, explains why passing it is not the same as being conscious, and names a limit; 8 if it can be followed but omits one of those points or leaves a term unexplained; 0 if missing. Revision and reflection (P2): 15 if I show a before-and-after change plus a reflection on why it is better; 8 if only one of the two; 0 if neither.

Do NOT invent grading rules.

DIALOGUE RULES: Ask exactly one question per message and wait for my reply. Start by asking for my complete first attempt. Build each next question from my exact words. Probe an unsupported claim and ask me to check it against the definitions and the pinned sources. Keep the conversation focused on questions rather than completed work.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS: A greeting, copied prompt, yes/no reply, or one-word reply is not a substantive exchange. Do not flatter or accept agreement as evidence. Praise only a concrete move I made. If evidence is missing, say what is missing and ask for it. Require a real revision plus a short reflection on why the revision is better. Do not issue the report early.

EXIT CONDITION: Continue until at least five substantive exchanges have occurred AND I have supplied both problems with the forum-post correction, the three reconstructions, the three positions with pressing cases and replies, the plain sentence, and the neighbor message AND revised at least one part AND reflected on the revision. Stop only after whichever requirement happens last.

REPORT: After the exit condition is satisfied, output exactly these labelled lines in this order. Replace X with the exact earned score. Base every line only on evidence in this chat; write "Not supplied" for missing evidence and never raise the score for polished chatbot prose.
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
EVIDENCE FOR THE SCORE: [specific evidence from my correction, my reconstructions, my evaluation, and my message]
REVISION MADE: [what I changed and why]
STRENGTH: [one earned strength]
NEXT STEP: [one concrete improvement]
Then tell me to submit this report, my revised work, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised work: the forum-post correction, the keyed arguments 2 and 8 with your counterexample, and the Chinese room reconstruction with the systems reply and the first year gap; the three positions with their pressing cases and replies, and the plain sentence with the second year gap; your message to your neighbor; and your reflection — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria;
• the coach's five-line report; and
• the conversation share link.

Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

This route assesses the same Week 6 skills — crediting each case to its author, work, and year, putting an argument in standard form and judging its validity without keying soundness, building a same-shape counterexample to an invalid form, stating substance dualism, the identity theory, and functionalism at their strongest with the cases that press them and replies, and explaining the Turing test to someone new to philosophy — for comparable time and effort, about 75 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete Part A, Part B, the message to your neighbor, and one reflection option. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion: for the correction, check each author, title, and year against Chapter 6's record; for each reconstruction, underline any added premise and check the form's name against Week 2's list; for your counterexample, confirm that its premises are true and its conclusion false; for each position, ask whether its best defender would sign your statement of it; and check that your neighbor message keeps conversation apart from consciousness. Write a second draft. Add a 150–200 word revision memo that names one change you made, the definition or pinned fact that prompted it, and one question you still have. Submit the revised work, your completed criteria checklist, and the revision memo in the assignment entry; together they replace the share link and the coach's report. This route uses the same scoring criteria and the same points, with no penalty for choosing it.

How you'll be graded

The full analytic rubric is attached to this assignment in Canvas.

Academic integrity and AI use

The correction, reconstructions, evaluation, message, revision, and reflection must be your own words. Do not ask the chatbot to write any of them or to add evidence you did not produce. Submit an honest share link from your own dialogue. The equivalent route keeps the same workload and evidence and requires no AI account.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com