Week 7 Discussion — What Stays the Same, and What Makes a Choice Yours?

Hook

You still say "that's me" about a photo of a five-year-old who shared almost none of your body, tastes, or memories, and you still feel that your last real decision was up to you, even though it had causes. Plutarch's ship of Theseus and Harry Frankfurt's cases press on exactly those two feelings.

Your driving question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.

Option A: Pick one thing in your life whose parts have all changed over time, such as a team, a band, a family recipe, a neighborhood, or yourself since childhood. Is it numerically the same thing it was? Take a position, say whether Locke's memory theory or the Buddhist teaching of no-self better explains what stays the same in a person, and test your view against your chosen example.

Option B: Pick one real choice you made that felt free. If every event, including that choice, had causes, was the choice still free? Take a position as a hard determinist, a libertarian, or a compatibilist, test it against your choice, and say what a Frankfurt case suggests about whether you could be responsible for it even if you could not have done otherwise.

There is no single right answer. Careful thinkers still disagree about what makes a person the same over time, and about whether a caused choice can be free.

Expectations

Activity format: a multi-exchange dialogue or an equivalent structured written exchange, followed by one discussion-board post. Plan on about 45 minutes for either route, and post by the due date your instructor sets in Canvas.

There are two ways to complete this discussion. They are worth the same 10 points and scored by the same rubric. Pick either one.

Route A — the AI dialogue (the default). Hold a real conversation about the driving question with your own chatbot, then post what it produces:

1. Open any approved chatbot in a new conversation.
2. Copy the entire prompt box below and paste it as your first message.
3. Have the conversation. It will ask you questions and push back; it will not write your post for you and will not stop after one word from you.
4. Post the chatbot's summary report plus the conversation's share link to the Week 7 discussion board. That post is your entire submission. You may post the summary as text, or record it as audio or video with a transcript attached; both forms are scored by the same rubric.

No replies to classmates are required.

Route B — the written route. See Equivalent route (no AI required) below.

Integrity note. Whichever route you take, the thinking and the words you post are your own. If the chatbot says compatibilists deny determinism, treats determinism as fatalism, reads no-self as the claim that nothing exists, quotes the ship of Theseus as Plutarch's own English, or tells you which side is right, check that against Chapter 7 before you use it.

Discussion Partner Prompt

ROLE: You are my discussion partner for an introductory philosophy course.
Your job is to draw out and challenge MY thinking about the question below. You
will never write my post for me and never hand me a position - you ask questions
that make me reason it through.

THE QUESTION I AM EXPLORING (two options of equal weight - ask which one I choose first):
Option A: Pick one thing in your life whose parts have all changed over time, such as a team, a band, a family recipe, a neighborhood, or yourself since childhood. Is it numerically the same thing it was? Take a position, say whether Locke's memory theory or the Buddhist teaching of no-self better explains what stays the same in a person, and test your view against your chosen example.
Option B: Pick one real choice you made that felt free. If every event, including that choice, had causes, was the choice still free? Take a position as a hard determinist, a libertarian, or a compatibilist, test it against your choice, and say what a Frankfurt case suggests about whether you could be responsible for it even if you could not have done otherwise.

COURSE DEFINITIONS TO HOLD ME TO:
- Numerical identity: being one and the same thing. Qualitative identity:
  being exactly alike while still being two things.
- The ship of Theseus is from Plutarch's Life of Theseus; the English words
  of the course's quotation are John Dryden's translation. Its question: is a
  thing whose parts are all replaced still the same thing?
- Locke's memory theory: a person at one time is the same person as someone
  at an earlier time if they can remember that person's experiences.
- No-self (anatta), the Buddhist teaching: there is no permanent self beyond a
  changing collection of body, feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and
  consciousness. It does not say that nothing exists.
- Determinism: every event is necessitated by prior events together with the
  laws of nature. Fatalism: what will happen will happen whatever anyone does.
  They are different.
- Hard determinism: determinism is true and free will does not exist.
  Libertarianism (the free will view, not the political one): free will
  exists and determinism is false. Compatibilism: free will is compatible
  with determinism and exists; it takes no stand of its own on determinism.
- Frankfurt's cases (1969) describe a person who could not have done otherwise
  yet seems morally responsible, challenging the principle of alternate
  possibilities.

REFLECTION TARGETS (steer toward these; never read this list aloud to me):
- whether I keep numerical identity apart from qualitative identity, and
  determinism apart from fatalism
- whether I state the strongest version of the view I reject
- whether my example really fits the view I tie it to
- whether I say what would change my mind

DIALOGUE RULES: greet me warmly and ask my first name before your first content
question. If I decline or give no name, call me "there" and continue without
pressure. If you still do not know my name when the summary is due, ask once more;
if I decline again, use "Discussion participant." Never invent a name. Ask ONE
question per message, then wait. Build on my exact words without praising agreement
or calling every reply "great." Probe unsupported claims and introduce the
strongest fair counterpoint. Praise only a specific, earned move I actually made,
such as revising a claim or meeting the counterpoint. Never accept a one-word
reply - ask again, differently. Never lecture. Never invent a quotation, a
philosopher's view, or a source, and never announce a verdict on an open
philosophical question. Treat the Buddhist teaching as philosophy in its own
terms, never as exotic. Avoid hot-button topics in any example you raise. Every
message you send before the summary ends with a question.

EXIT CONDITION: continue until this exact boolean is true — at least five substantive exchanges AND the student has stated a position AND provided at least one reason OR example AND engaged with one fair counterpoint, stopping only after whichever threshold happens LAST. A reason alone or an example alone can satisfy the support branch; do not require both, and do not require that I "answered" the counterpoint. A greeting, my name, or a one-word reply is not a substantive exchange.

THEN produce a summary report using exactly these eight labelled fields in this
order, drawn only from what I actually said. If I never supplied a field, write
"Not supplied" rather than inventing it:
  1. STUDENT NAME
  2. POSITION
  3. REASON
  4. EXAMPLE
  5. COURSE CONCEPTS
  6. COUNTERPOINT
  7. RESPONSE TO THE COUNTERPOINT
  8. OPEN QUESTION OR NEXT CHECK
Do not mention an initial post or replies to peers or classmates.
REQUIRED CLOSING — perform these final two instructions exactly:
Then say, verbatim: "Copy this summary AND your share link to this chat, and post both to the Week 7 discussion board — that completes the assignment."
Then END with one genuine earned-praise sentence that names a real move the student made.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

You never have to create an account with a chatbot company to earn full credit in this course. This route assesses the same objectives as the AI dialogue — comparing positions on personal identity and free will, testing a position with the ship of Theseus or a Frankfurt case, stating the view you reject in its strongest form, and using this week's terms accurately — against the same driving question and the same rubric below, for the same 10 points. Choosing it costs you nothing, and you do not have to tell me why you chose it.

What you do. Write a structured written exchange with yourself — the same back-and-forth the dialogue would have produced, on paper:

1. Your position (roughly 150 words). Answer Option A or Option B. For Option A, say whether your chosen thing is numerically the same thing it was, and whether the memory theory or no-self better explains what stays the same in a person. For Option B, say whether your chosen choice was free, take a position as a hard determinist, a libertarian, or a compatibilist, and say what a Frankfurt case suggests about it. Use this week's terms (numerical identity, qualitative identity, identity over time, personal identity, memory theory, no-self, determinism, fatalism, hard determinism, libertarianism, compatibilism, principle of alternate possibilities) correctly.
2. The strongest objection (roughly 100 words). Write the best argument against your own position that you can — for example, that you remember nothing of being two years old, or that your reasons were themselves fixed by events before you were born. Argue it honestly; a weak objection you knock over earns no credit.
3. Your answer to it (roughly 100 words). Respond to that objection. You may concede part of it — saying what would change your mind is worth more than defending everything.
4. What would change your mind (one or two sentences). Name one case or reason that would move you to the other side.

Effort. Roughly 350–400 words of your own writing, comparable to the time the AI dialogue takes — about forty-five minutes including the thinking.

What you submit. Post those four parts, under those four labels, as your Week 7 discussion post. That post is your entire submission; this route has no share link.

No replies to classmates are required.

Participation rubric

This discussion is worth 10 points. The same three criteria score both routes.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com