Week 6 Philosophy Workshop: The Library Help Desk and the Room of Rules

Part 1 — The Big Picture

This week you learned three answers to the mind-body problem, substance dualism, the identity theory, and functionalism, and the cases that press them: the problem of interaction, Nagel's bat, Jackson's Mary, and Searle's Chinese room. In this workshop you take one illustrative packet from a public library whose staff are arguing about the program that answers patrons' typed questions. You reconstruct four short arguments and key each for validity. Then you test a variation of the Chinese room, the library room, and ask who, if anyone, understands. You write a short dialogue between a functionalist and a defender of Searle's argument, each in their strongest form. Last, you check a chatbot's version of the same work and correct its slips by hand, starting with who devised the Chinese room.

Time budget: Plan for about 90 minutes.

Part 2 — The Task

Guiding question: Which of the library's four arguments are valid, which one runs a conditional backward, and does anyone in the library room understand Icelandic?

Workshop data: Library help-desk packet: four illustrative arguments and the library room, a variation of the Chinese room

Source: An illustrative packet of four short arguments and one thought-experiment variation written for this course's workshop; it describes no real library or person, and its premises are written for teaching, not claims the course endorses.

• Rows: 4 arguments (A1 to A4) and 1 thought-experiment variation; the reconstruction table has 4 rows and the library-room table has 4
• Arguments: A1 the program that only matches symbols; A2 the correct answers; A3 understanding and the right program; A4 a mind and causal roles
• Thought-experiment variation: a volunteer who reads no Icelandic answering Icelandic questions from a binder of rules, labelled as a variation of Searle's Chinese room

Part 3 — Materials & Procedure

Tools and materials

• A free word processor or note-taking app for arguments in standard form and short dialogues, with the pinned public-domain texts on Project Gutenberg and the Internet Classics Archive open beside it; and one approved chatbot used as a sparring partner whose reconstructions, quotations, and attributions the student checks word for word against the pinned text and record before trusting them
• A free word processor or note-taking app
• One approved chatbot

Ways of working

• reconstruct-the-argument
• test-the-thought-experiment
• write-the-dialogue

Procedure

1. Read the library packet in Part 2 twice. In your notes, copy each of A1 to A4 into standard form: number the premises P1 and P2, and write the conclusion last as C, introduced by So. Tool: A free word processor or note-taking app. Check: Four reconstructions, each with numbered premises and one conclusion line that begins with So.
2. In the first table, name each argument's form and write valid or invalid with a one-sentence reason that uses the definition of validity. For any invalid argument, write a same-shape argument on a new topic whose premises are true and whose conclusion is false. Tool: A free word processor or note-taking app. Check: Every row of the first table has a form, a key, and a reason; the invalid row has a working counterexample; no row says sound or unsound.
3. Count the arguments in the second table: how many are valid and how many are invalid. Show the subtraction from the 4 arguments in the packet. Check: A count of valid and invalid arguments, with the subtraction shown.
4. Work the library room in the third table: say whether the volunteer understands Icelandic, what the systems reply would say about the whole back desk, one change to the case that pulls your intuition the other way (label it as your own variation), and what the library room changes compared with Searle's original case. Check: Each row is filled in, your own change is labelled as a variation, and the original case is credited to Searle (1980).
5. Write a short dialogue of four to six lines between a functionalist and a defender of Searle's argument about the library room. Give each speaker their strongest point, have each answer the other, and end with one plain sentence naming where they disagree. Tool: A free word processor or note-taking app. Check: Each speaker answers the other, neither is a weakened version, and a closing sentence names the disagreement.
6. Paste the prompt from Part 6 into one approved chatbot after your completed work, read its reply, and write the critique report. Or, on the equivalent route, mark up the printed flawed analysis instead. Tool: One approved chatbot. Check: A report that quotes at least two slips and corrects each by hand against the packet and Chapter 6.

Fallback route

When to use it: Use this route if you cannot open a word processor or a note-taking app.

Copy the three tables by hand onto paper or into any text file, read the packet from this page, write the four reconstructions, the count, the library-room table, and the dialogue by hand, and complete every analysis question and the critique step in the same order. Submit a photo or scan of the paper, or the text file, for equal credit.

This route earns the same credit as the primary route.

Part 4 — The Scaffold

Key each argument by its form before you judge it, so a key rests on the pattern and not on whether the conclusion sounds right.

Student scaffold table 1

Argument	Form	Valid or invalid	Reason	Counterexample if invalid
A1 (the program that only matches symbols)
A2 (the correct answers)
A3 (understanding and the right program)
A4 (a mind and causal roles)

Count the keys so every number you report traces back to the table above.

Student scaffold table 2

Count	Number	How you got it
Arguments in the packet	4	Given in the packet
Valid arguments
Invalid arguments

Run the variation one step at a time, so your verdict about understanding is argued rather than asserted.

Student scaffold table 3

Step	What you find
Does the volunteer understand Icelandic, and why?
What the systems reply says about the whole back desk
Your own change to the case that pulls the other way (a labelled variation)
What the library room changes from Searle's case

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

1. How many of the packet's 4 arguments are valid, and how many invalid? Show the subtraction, and name the form of each valid one.
2. Why is A2 invalid even if both of its premises are true? Explain with your same-shape counterexample and one plain sentence about the help-desk program.
3. Using your library-room table, explain whether the volunteer understands Icelandic, what the systems reply says, and which way your own variation pulls. Keep the original case credited to Searle (1980).
4. In your dialogue, what is the strongest point each speaker makes, and where exactly do they disagree? Connect the functionalist's side to A4 and the idea of a causal role. End with one plain sentence.
5. What can a validity check not tell you about A1 or A3, and what can the library room not show about the real help-desk program?
6. Choose one reflection: (a) which argument in the packet did you first key the wrong way, and what in this week's definitions changed your mind? or (b) which speaker in your dialogue did you start out agreeing with, and did your view survive writing the other side at its strongest?

Part 6 — AI-Critique Moment

Choose one equal-credit critique route. Route A: ask an approved AI tool to critique your completed work, then check its response against your own evidence. Route B is the no-AI equivalent printed below.

Approved tools: Claude, Gemini, ChatGPT, Grok, Microsoft Copilot.

Prompt to paste:

I've completed my reconstruction table, my count, my library-room table, and my short dialogue above. Here is an illustrative workshop packet from my philosophy course. Library help-desk packet (illustrative): a public library's staff debate whether the program that answers patrons' typed questions understands them. A1: If the help-desk program only matches symbols, then it does not understand the questions. It only matches symbols. So it does not understand the questions. A2: If the help-desk program understands the questions, then it answers them correctly. It answers them correctly. So it understands the questions. A3: If understanding is nothing more than running the right program, then the help-desk program understands. The help-desk program does not understand. So understanding is more than running the right program. A4: If the help-desk program has a mind, then it has mental states. If it has mental states, then something in it plays a causal role. So if the help-desk program has a mind, then something in it plays a causal role. The library room (a variation of Searle's Chinese room, written for this workshop): a volunteer who reads no Icelandic sits at the library's back desk with a binder of rules for matching Icelandic symbols, and passes fluent Icelandic replies back to visitors. Please do six things. First, put each of A1 to A4 in standard form, and say whether each is valid and whether it is sound. Second, tell me who first devised the Chinese room, with the paper and year, and who wrote the paper about what it is like to be a bat, with its year. Third, give me Searle's exact words stating the room's conclusion. Fourth, give me Descartes' exact words about the mind and the body, and tell me which book 'I think, therefore I am' comes from. Fifth, summarize substance dualism, the identity theory, and functionalism, and say whether anyone outside Europe ever asked what a mind or a self is. Sixth, tell me whether the volunteer or the library room understands Icelandic, and end with a balanced summary.

Test the response for these likely failures:

• Chatbots often call A2 valid, reading 'it answers correctly, so it understands' as if it were modus ponens.
• Chatbots often say A3 is sound, or that it proves understanding is more than a program, without asking whether its second premise is true.
• Chatbots sometimes credit the Chinese room to Alan Turing, mixing it up with the imitation game.
• Chatbots sometimes date Searle's paper to 1974 or Nagel's to 1980, swapping the two.
• Asked for Searle's exact words, chatbots usually supply a crisp quoted slogan in quotation marks as if it were his line.
• Asked for Descartes' exact words about mind and body, chatbots give an English sentence and present it as Descartes' own words.
• Chatbots usually place 'I think, therefore I am' in the Meditations of 1641.
• Chatbots often reduce functionalism to 'the mind is a computer program' or 'only brains have minds', and dualism to a belief in ghosts.
• Chatbots sometimes say the question of what a mind or self is was a European discovery.
• Asked whether the library room understands, chatbots often announce that it plainly does not, or that the systems reply settles the matter.
• Chatbots often end a 'balanced' summary by saying that brain science has proved the identity theory, or that the Chinese room refutes functionalism.

Write 3-5 sentences naming what the chatbot got right and at least two places where it slipped into one of the failures above, quoting its words and correcting each by hand against the packet and Chapter 6.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

No AI account is required for this workshop. This route assesses the same objectives, Objective 4 (compare positions on the mind-body problem, personal identity, and free will, and evaluate them with the thought experiments that test them) and Objective 2 (identify arguments, put them in standard form, judge whether they are valid, sound, or inductively strong, and test claims with counterexamples and thought experiments), takes comparable effort of about the same 90 minutes, uses the same rubric, and earns the same credit. Instead of the chatbot, critique this flawed analysis of the library help-desk packet, printed here in full: "A1, A2, A3, and A4 are all valid, and A2 is modus ponens, so the program understands. A3 is sound, which proves that no computer could ever understand anything. Alan Turing invented the Chinese room in 1974, and Nagel's bat paper came out in 1980. Searle summed it up in his own exact words, quoted here in full. Descartes wrote in English that the mind is a ghost inside the body, and he wrote 'I think, therefore I am' in the Meditations. Functionalism says only human brains can think, and dualists believe in ghosts. Asking what a mind is was a European invention. The library room plainly does not understand Icelandic. To sum up fairly, brain science has proved the identity theory and the Chinese room refutes functionalism." Mark every error you find, name the failure it shows, and correct it by hand against the packet and Chapter 6; find at least two. Submit the marked-up analysis with your corrections in place of the chatbot report and share link. If you take the functionalist side in your dialogue, rebuild the printed claim about the Chinese room at its strongest as Searle's side would state it; if you take Searle's side, rebuild the printed claim about functionalism at its strongest.

Part 7 — What to Submit

• The three completed tables from Part 4, including the count with its subtraction
• The four reconstructions, the counterexample, and the four-to-six-line dialogue
• Written answers to all six analysis questions
• The chatbot critique report with its share link, or the equivalent route's marked-up flawed analysis

Deliverable:

A short Philosophy Workshop report on one illustrative library help-desk packet: three completed tables (four arguments keyed for validity with reasons and a counterexample for the invalid one; the count of valid and invalid arguments with its subtraction; and the library room worked step by step), a four-to-six-line dialogue between a functionalist and a defender of Searle's argument ending in a plain sentence, written answers to six analysis questions, and a critique of a chatbot's version of the same work, or, on the equivalent route, a marked-up correction of the printed flawed analysis. Choose how you show it: written answers, a recorded explanation with a transcript, or labelled tables with short notes; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria. 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.

Rubric

The rubric below shows how each submitted part is evaluated; bands are full, partial, or none.

Workshop evaluation criteria

Criterion	Full	Partial	None
Accurate reconstruction and validity judgment	All four arguments are in standard form, each form is named and keyed valid or invalid with a reason from the definition, the invalid one has a working same-shape counterexample, and the count is worked with its subtraction.	Most arguments are reconstructed and keyed with reasons, but one is misnamed or miskeyed, the counterexample does not work, a reason is missing, or the count is missing or off.	The reconstructions are missing, or the keys rest on whether conclusions sound true rather than on form.
Thought-experiment test	The library-room table says whether the volunteer understands and why, states the systems reply, adds one labelled variation that pulls the intuition the other way, and says what the library room changes from Searle's case.	The table is mostly complete, but the systems reply is missing, the student's own change is not labelled as a variation, or the comparison with the original case is missing.	No library-room table appears, or the variation is treated as Searle's own case.
Two positions stated fairly in dialogue	The dialogue gives the functionalist and Searle's defender each their strongest point, has each answer the other, links the functionalist to causal roles, and ends in one plain sentence naming where they disagree.	Both positions appear, but one is weakened, the speakers talk past each other, or the closing sentence is missing.	No dialogue, or only one side is stated.
Caught-and-corrected AI slip, on either route	The chatbot critique report, or the equivalent route's marked-up flawed analysis, quotes at least two errors, names the failure each shows, and corrects each by hand against the packet and Chapter 6; either route earns this band equally.	One error is quoted and corrected on either route, or errors are named without a correction.	No critique on either route, or chatbot output is pasted without checking it.
Accurate sourcing and reflection	The Chinese room is credited to Searle (1980), the bat to Nagel (1974), the imitation game to Turing, the library room is labelled as a variation, nothing is invented, and the reflection answers option (a) or (b) with a reason.	The sourcing is accurate but the reflection is thin, or the reflection is strong but one attribution goes beyond the pinned record.	An invented quotation, work, or date appears, and there is no reflection.

Quality Gate

• Every argument is in standard form, with numbered premises and a conclusion line introduced by So.
• Every key says valid or invalid with a reason from the definition, the invalid argument has a working same-shape counterexample, and no argument in the packet is called sound or unsound.
• The library room is labelled as a variation of Searle's Chinese room, any further change is labelled as the student's own variation, and the Chinese room is credited to Searle (1980), not Turing.
• Each position in the dialogue is stated as its strongest defenders would, and no verdict is announced on whether the room understands.
• No quotation, work, date, or philosopher's view is invented anywhere in the submission.
• The critique quotes the chatbot or the flawed analysis and corrects at least two errors by hand.