Week 6 Discussion — Does Following a Program Add Up to a Mind? — Traditional alternative (no AI)
Instructors: publish this instead of the adaptive version if you prefer, and unpublish or delete the adaptive one.
Hook
You have probably asked a machine a question and received a reply that felt as if something on the other end understood you. John Searle's Chinese room asks whether that feeling could be wrong, and Frank Jackson's Mary asks whether even a complete scientific account of a mind could leave something out.
Your discussion question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.
Option A: In the Chinese room, a person who knows no Chinese follows rule-books and passes out fluent Chinese answers. Does the room, or anything in it, understand Chinese? Take a position, say whether you side with Searle or with the systems reply, and test your view against one machine you have used, such as a translation app, a self-checkout station, or a phone's voice assistant.
Option B: Mary knows every physical fact about color vision but has lived in a black-and-white room. When she first sees red, does she learn something new? Take a position, say which of the three mind-body positions your answer supports or presses, and test it against one experience of your own that you find hard to describe in words, such as a taste, a sound, or a pain.
There is no single right answer. Careful thinkers still disagree about whether a program could ever understand, and about whether a physical account of the mind leaves anything out. Pick the option you actually care about, and tell us your reasoning.
Expectations
Activity format: one initial post followed by two substantive peer replies. Plan on about 45 minutes across the two deadlines; your instructor sets both due dates in Canvas.
Your initial post — by the first due date (early in the module week):
- Say which option you chose.
- For Option A, say whether the room, or anything in it, understands Chinese, and test your view on one machine you have used; for Option B, say whether Mary learns something new, which mind-body position your answer supports or presses, and test it on one experience of your own.
- Use at least two of this week's terms (substance dualism, physicalism, the identity theory, functionalism, causal role, the Turing test, the Chinese room, the systems reply, qualia, Mary's room) correctly.
- State the view you reject in its strongest form, give your reason, and say what would change your mind.
- Length: roughly 150–250 words if written. You may instead record your post as audio or video (about two minutes) and attach a transcript; both forms are scored by the same rubric.
- Keep any example you give away from hot-button topics, and never name a real person in a case.
Your replies — by the second due date (the end of the module week):
- Reply substantively to at least two classmates.
- A substantive reply does more than agree: state the strongest version of the poster's view in your own words, ask whether their machine or experience really fits the case they tie it to, or offer a variation that pulls the other way. "Nice point!" on its own does not count.
What a strong post looks like:
I chose Option A. I think the room does not understand Chinese, and the translation app on my phone is my test: it turns a menu into English, yet when it gets a dish wrong it has no idea anything went wrong. The systems reply says the whole room understands, the way a whole brain understands though no single cell does. That is the strongest objection, and I grant that a brain cell does not understand anything either. But a brain cell is part of something that can notice a mistake, and I see no sign that the room can. What would change my mind is a system that could explain, in its own words, why a translation it gave was wrong.
Notice how it takes a position, states the other side at its strongest, ties the reason to the Chinese room and the systems reply as the course defines them, and says what would change the writer's mind. That is the bar.
Participation rubric
This discussion is worth 10 points. The three criteria below look at your initial post and your peer replies.
| Criterion | Strong | Developing | Missing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality of the initial post (4 pts) | A clear position on machine understanding or on what Mary learns, with a reason, a machine or experience of the student's own, and the rejected view stated at its strongest | A position is present, but the reason is thin or the example does not fit the case | Missing, off-topic, or no reasoning |
| Use of course concepts (3 pts) | Uses this week's terms precisely, keeps functionalism apart from the identity theory and conversation apart from consciousness, and credits each case to its author | Uses a term loosely, or blurs one pair once | No course terms, or used incorrectly |
| Engagement with peers (3 pts) | Two or more substantive replies that state a classmate's view fairly and then extend or challenge it | One substantive reply, or replies that only agree | No replies, or "I agree" with nothing added |
Post early if you can — the best threads happen when people have time to reply before the second due date.
Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com