1. What keywords have we used so far
What keywords have we used so far? Write down at least 3 on your whiteboard

2. What keywords have we used so far?
Analytical Reduction
Materialism / Physicalism
Philosophical Zombie
Consciousness
Property Dualism
Mind-Brain Type Identity
Dualism
Property
Epiphenomenalism
Qualia
Monism
Intentionality
Solipsism
Multiply Realisable
Interactionism
Substance Dualism
Nomological Danglers
Introspection
Substance
Ontological Reduction
Leibniz’s Law
If you are unsure of the definition of any of these terms (remember you need to be precise and clear) make a note of them and use the textbook later on in the lesson to look them up.

3. Alternative 3 Markers – Outlining a position or a claim…
From time to time examiners may ask you to outline a particular position or claim rather than a simple definition: What do substance dualists / property dualists / mind-brain type identity theorists claim about the mind and body? This is not that different to a definition question, we are still looking for precision / clarity and no redundancy. Pick one of the three theories mentioned above and outline their position on your whiteboards.

4. Alternative 3 Markers – Outlining a position or a claim…
Substance Dualism – The view that humans are composed of two distinct types of substance: Mind and matter.
Property Dualism – The view that humans are composed of one type of substance (matter) but two different types of property: mental and physical.
Mind-Brain Type Identity Theory – The view that all mental states are identical to brain states (ontological reduction) although ‘mental state’ and ‘brain state’ are not synonymous (no analytic reduction)

5. What arguments / criticisms have we covered?
Substance Dualism
Property Dualism
Relationship between M+B
Mind-Brain Type Identity Theory

6. What arguments / criticisms have we covered?
Substance Dualism
Property Dualism
Relationship between M+B
Mind-Brain Type Identity Theory
The indivisibility argument for substance dualism (Descartes)
Issues, including:
the mental is divisible in some sense
not everything thought of as physical is divisible.
The conceivability argument for substance dualism (Descartes)
mind without body is not conceivable
what is conceivable may not be possible
what is logically possible tells us nothing about reality.
The ‘philosophical zombies’ argument for property dualism (Chalmers):
Issues, including:
a ‘zombie’ world is not conceivable
what is conceivable is not possible
what is logically possible tells us nothing about reality.
The ‘knowledge’/Mary argument for property dualism Jackson)
Mary gains no new propositional knowledge (but gains acquaintance knowledge or ability knowledge)
all physical knowledge would include knowledge of qualia
there is more than one way of knowing the same physical fact
qualia (as defined) do not exist and so Mary gains no propositional knowledge.
The issues of causal interaction for versions of dualism:
the problems facing interactionist dualism, including conceptual and empirical causation issues
the problems facing epiphenomenalist dualism, including the causal redundancy of the mental, the argument from introspection and issues relating to free will and responsibility.
The problem of other minds for dualism:
some forms of dualism make it impossible to know other minds
threat of solipsism.
Response: the argument from analogy (eg Mill).
Mind–brain type identity theory: all mental states are identical to brain states (‘ontological’ reduction) although ‘mental state’ and ‘brain state’ are not synonymous (so not an ‘analytic’ reduction).
Arguments in favour:
No nomological danglers
Supported by science
Issues, including:
dualist arguments (above)
issues with providing the type identities (the multiple realisability of mental states)
the location problem: brain states have precise spatial locations which thoughts lack.
Think carefully – are you happy with these arguments / criticisms / responses? If not, make a note of them to revise later.

7. What is missing in this outline of an argument? Why is this important?
Mary knows all the facts about seeing colours before being released from her black-and-white room.
On being released, she learns new facts about seeing colours. …
C: Therefore, materialism is false.

8. What is missing in this outline of an argument? Why is this important?
The indivisibility argument states that since the mind cannot be divided and the body can be divided they must be two separate things. Therefore substance dualism must be correct.

9. What should each argument / criticism contain?
The indivisibility argument states that since the mind cannot be divided (broken down into smaller parts) and the body can be divided they must be two separate things (as they do not share a property and therefore cannot be identical according to Leibniz’ law). Therefore substance dualism must be correct.

10. Quick-Test – Ensure you are being specific and precise!
Pick one of the following arguments, outline it fully on your whiteboards. This can be done in prose or in premise / conclusion form:
The P-Zombie argument.
The empirical issue of interactionism.
The multiple realisability issue for MBTIT.
If you want to challenge yourself (and help your revision) pick one you are not 100% about.

11. Quick-Test – Ensure you are being specific and precise!
P-Zombies
Interactionism
Multiple Realisability
According to science the amount of energy in the physical universe must remain a constant.
However if dualism is true then the mind exists outside of the physical universe yet causes events in the physical body.
This is an issue because to cause events in the body the mind would need to impart energy (meaning the amount in the universe would go up).
Since the amount of energy energy must stay the same, dualism must be false.
Physicalism claims that consciousness is ultimately physical in nature.
It follows that any world which is physically identical to this one must contain consciousness
But we can conceive of a world which is physically identical to this one, but in which there is no conscious experience – the world of the physical zombies.
C: Therefore physicalism is false.
MBTIT’s argue that the mind and body are identical, that mental states can be reduced to brain states.
If this is true then then each mental state is equivalent to one brain state.
This would mean that without the brain state we would not be able to have the equivalent mental state.
Since we have examples of this happening (a man missing half a brain for example) MBTIT must be false.

12. Alternative 5 Markers – Giving a longer more detailed definition…
You could also be asked to explain an idea / theory or claim in more detail OR a longer definition OR even a short comparison:
Outline the main differences between substance and property dualism.
What are nomological danglers and why do they support physicalist theories?
How did Hick think he could overcome the issue of solipsism for dualists?
Once again, precision and clarity are the name of the game.

13. What kinds of things might you be asked in 12 markers?
Expanding on an argument or theory in a lot of detail
Comparing theories
An argument and criticism / response
Explaining the way a theory might respond to a particular problem (applied ethics)
The key in 12 markers is to pay attention to the language of the question, include everything it is asking without going overboard. DO NOT worry about evaluation, this is not the time for it.

14. Comparing Theories – Interactionism and Epiphenomenalism
Similarities
Differences

15. Planning 12 Markers
Regardless of what is being asked you should plan 12 markers carefully:
Bullet point the key information you need to answer the question.
Identify any key points in arguments or criticisms (i.e. those that link to a further criticism or response).
Clarify to yourself the order in which you are going to present the information.

16. Whiteboard Plan
Outline the knowledge argument and the response stating Mary simply gains a different type of knowledge.

17. Which of these two arguments is clearer? Why?
Clarity and Precision
Which of these two arguments is clearer? Why?
The knowledge argument is in support of property dualism. It uses the example of Mary who has been trapped in a black and white room all her life. She has never seen colour but has learned all there is to know about what happens when humans see colour. Jackson asks what would happen when Mary leaves the room? Would she learn something new upon seeing colour for the first time? If so it must mean that something in her knowledge (the new thing she’s learned) cannot be accounted for by physical facts, meaning dualism is true.
Mary has existed in a colourless room all her life. Whilst in this room she has studied and gained all the physical information about human colour vision. (She knows what happens when we see colour, how we process it and even what our brain states look like.) Mary then leaves the room and sees colour for the first time. Does she learn something new? If the answer is yes (as some philosophers think) then that must mean there is knowledge about colour (i.e. what it is like to see colour) that is not accounted for by physical facts. This in turn would mean physicalism is false.
Not a bad answer but not perfect, misses out key information (gains all physical knowledge) and could be ordered better. The ending does not match their starting point (they’ve proven physicalism false, not dualism true).
Better answer, covers all the key information and gives a conclusion that clearly follows from their argument.
Some minor issues with redundancy (we don’t need all the details about what Mary knows) but generally good.

18. Key Tips:
Take time to think about your answers, even shorter questions. Rushing leads to redundancy, messiness and dropped marks.
In the case of 5 markers (or 12 markers), if you’re struggling to piece together the argument, start with the conclusion and work backwards. How does the thinker get to that conclusion given the information they have?
Make sure you know which theories and arguments are generally associated with which thinkers, it will often help you stay organised in your answers and your writing.
Remember some criticisms / arguments can support one theory but also be used as an attack on another (Qualia can be used to support dualism but also as an attack on physicalism – interactionism can be used in the opposite way). This is useful in essays but may also come up as a 12 mark question.
REVISE THE STUFF!

19. Misunderstandings: