1. (a) According to Ryle's understanding of dualism, are minds located in space or outside of space? Provide a quotation (with page reference) to support your answer.
According to Ryle’s understanding of dualism, minds are not located in space: “But minds are not in space, nor are their operations subject to mechanical laws" (71).
Comments: None.
(b) According to Armstrong's understanding of dualism, are minds located in space or outside of space? Provide a quotation (with page reference) to support your answer.
According to Armstrong’s understanding of dualism, minds are not located in space: "It is very natural to think of the mind as actually situated inside the body: as an inner realm. But this is to put the mind into physical space, and the essential point about Dualism is its denial that the mind is a spatial thing" (81).
Comments: A lot of people missed this one. Many people were misled by Armstrong's claim that, according to dualism, "the connection between the mind and the body [is] very close indeed" (80).
Remember that in questions
1(a) and 1(b), I was not asking you whether Ryle or Armstrong
thinks that minds are located in space. Rather, I was
asking you whether Ryle or Armstrong thinks that dualists think
that minds are located in space. Both Ryle and Armstrong
are materialists -- they don't believe in the existence of minds
at all.
2. Many of you tried to extract the argument from section (c) of Armstrong's paper. One of you wrote the following (for the "Extract" step):
1. If CD is true, then every body has a mind.
2. If every body has a mind, then there is an exact point that the body acquires a mind.
3. If there is an exact point that the body acquires a mind, then there is a sharp break in our development.
4. There is no sharp break in our development.
5. Therefore, CD is not true. 1,2,3,4 MMT
This was an excellent answer. I think this is exactly Armstrong's argument.
Another student chose to extract the same argument, but gave a different -- and equally excellent -- answer:
1. Physical organisms develop gradually.
2. If physical organisms develop gradually, then there is no sharp break in our development.
3. If there is no sharp break in our development, then there is no point in whch we "acquire" a mind.
4. If there is no point in whch we "acquire" a mind, then CD is false.
5. Therefore, CD is false.
Some of you who did Armstrong's argument from section (c) gave something a bit like this.
1. The mind is created by the body.
2. If the mind is created by the body, then the mind and the body cannot exist independently.
3. If The mind is created by the body, then CD is false.
4. Therefore, CD is false.
There are two main problems with this argument: (1) it is not Armstrong's argument; and (2), it is obviously unsound. Armstrong never defends a premise like premise 2 of this argument. And premise two is obviously false. Even if the body creates the mind, it does not follow that it cannot exist independently from the mind. Just because A creates B, it does not follow that B cannot exist independently from A. For instance, your parents created you, but you are able to exist independently of them (i.e., if they were to cease to exist, you would continue to exist).
(Note: Maybe I have just missed the passage wherein Armstrong says something like Premise 2. If you gave something this argument for your answer, and you think that Armstrong does indeed endorse Premise 2, please show me where. I will reconsider your grade on the homework.)
Guide to Abreviations for Grading
ABC -
a bit confused
ABS - a bit too sketchy
DNE - this rationale does not
explain the premise
JR/DNE - this rationale just restates the
premise you are suppose to explain; it does not explain it
MD - missing definition
NN - not necessary (but no points taken
off) (Many students unnecessarily give a rationale for the conclusion
of an argument, but this unnecessary since the conclusion follows
logically from the premises (the premises are its rationale).)
OK - not perfect, but good enough
PAL - pick a line (you are saying why the argument might
be unsound, but you fail to identify which premise is false).
SM - say more -- your answer is ok as far as
it went, but you need to say more.
VC - very confused
VS - very sketchy
X - Incorrect
? - huh?
! - expression of shock at what you
said
(check mark) - correct