Course Description

This course is an introduction to the methods of contemporary philosophy, concentrating on the following questions:
  1. The Problem of Other Minds: How can we tell whether animals and future computers have minds, or whether they're instead just mindless automata? How can we tell that other people have minds?  
  2. The Mind/Body Problem: What is the relation between your mind and your body? Are they made up of different stuffs? If a computer duplicates the neural structure of your brain, will it have the same thoughts and self-awareness that you have?  
  3. Life and Death: What does it mean to die? Why is death bad? Do you have an immortal soul which is able to survive the death of your body?
  4. Personal Identity: What makes you the person you are? Why would a clone of you have to be a different person than you are yourself? If we perfectly recorded all the neural patterns in your brain right now, could we use that recording to "bring you back" after a fatal accident?  

Info about the Course and Section Meetings

Our Contact Info

See the Course Requirements

Announcements

12/6
The final exam will be on Tuesday 12/18 from 8-10 AM in Kimmel 803. Note that the exam starts at 8:00, not at 9:30.
Here is a review sheet for the final exam. We've also distributed a sample final in class, so that you can see what the format and kinds of questions will be.
There will be review sessions for the final, on Saturday 12/15 from 1-3 PM and on Sunday 12/16 from 5-7 PM, in 5 Washington Place room 201. As mentioned in class, these sessions will be most useful to you if you make the effort to study and review as much as you can on your own beforehand.
As noted below, papers are due on Tuesday and we'll be discussing Feldman's Ch 8 and 9 next week.
Here are some segments from Kagan's presentations on death and value theory, which we'll be discussing in our remaining classes.

12/4
Lecture notes on Parfit.
Here are some links about the movie Memento:

On Thursday, we'll continue discussing Feldman's Ch 6, about the Termination thesis. For next Tuesday 12/11, read Feldman Ch 8 and 9. I won't be posting lecture notes for these last two weeks' lectures on Feldman.
Remember, your second graded papers are due next Tuesday 12/11.
Some more Kagan lectures:

11/29
Lecture notes on Perry's Third Night. Partly these online notes speak about Bernard Williams' article, "The Self and the Future", which I'll just leave as optional reading.
For Tuesday 12/4, re-read the Parfit article (linked to in the 11/27 entry). Also for next week read Feldman Ch 4 and 6. (We assigned Chapter 4 last week; be sure you've read it, and also read Chapter 6.)
The material we're covering in this course overlaps with a course offered by Shelly Kagan at Yale. And also with many other introduction to philosophy courses---but Kagan has released videos and transcripts of his course, which you may enjoy and find helpful. I'll excerpt some parts of the transcripts of his lectures that cover material we're discussing in our course. I recommend you to read these alongside the Feldman---or watch or listen to Kagan lecture. We'll begin with some segments on metaphysical and conceptual questions about death:

11/27
Lecture notes on Fission Cases.
Links re The Prestige:
For Thursday 11/29, finish reading the Perry dialogues.
For Thursday 11/29, also read Parfit, "The Unimportance of Identity"
Your second graded papers will be due on Tuesday 12/11.
Most of you saw quite substantial improvements in the second draft of your first paper. Here's a hint for your second paper: write multiple drafts. We're not going to collect them and give you feedback on them, but you can realize many of the benefits by simply making a serious attempt at a draft, and then stepping away from it a day or two, then coming back and rewriting it from scratch. Or ask other students in the class to give you feedback on it---we highly recommend this. Or come talk to the TAs or me about your argument---we can do this with you, though we won't read drafts. Or talk to other students about your argument. All of these steps help you write a better paper.
11/20
Whoops, when I said we'd do the post-movie assignment after sections this week, I had lost track of the fact that this was Thanksgiving week. So we will skip that assignment. However, we do expect everyone to have seen and be able to discuss the movie.
Here are expanded lecture notes on Perry's Second Night.
For Tuesday 11/27, read Parfit, "What We Believe Ourselves To Be." Also read selections from John Varley, The Ophiuchi Hotline. Also read Feldman Ch 4 (that pdf also includes Chapter 6, which you don't need to read just yet).
Optional readings: Mind's I Ch 6: "The Princess Ineffable." And Philip K. Dick, "Impostor" (there's also a movie version).
Here is some more info about the Star Trek: TNG episode I mentioned in class (more links)
11/15
Random links: Kat found a terrific YouTube video illustrating some philosophical issues with teletransportation. Also, it looks like teletransportation is getting closer and closer to reality.
Reminder: movie on Monday evening. (See below.) We'll start at 7:30, so get there beforehand.
Earlier, I announced that we'd give the writing assignment after the movie, and ask you to turn it in during section. Given where we are talking through the Second Night, it makes more sense to wait a bit before you attempt this assignment. So we won't hand it out on Monday night. Most likely we'll post it to the website on Wednesday after sections, to be turned in on Thursday at start of class. It should not take you very long to produce an answer; however, you'll have to be prepared. So you'll need to be ready to talk about the movie, and of course you'll need to be caught up on the reading.
Lecture notes on Perry's Second Night (first part).
11/13
Lecture notes on Perry's First Night
For Thursday 11/15, read the "Second Night" of Perry, Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality (not online).
On Monday 11/19 at 7:30 pm, we'll be showing The Prestige in Silver 207. There will be a short written assignment about the movie, due in sections. We'll distribute and explain the assignment after showing the movie. If you won't be able to make the showing, you'll need to watch the movie on your own and make arrangements with your TA to get the assignment. This assignment won't be graded, but everyone must do it: it will be part of your participation grade for the class.
Announcement: Several departments at NYU are collaborating to start up a minor in "Science and Society." We contribute the philosophy of science; other components are the history of science, the sociology of science, and more. Myles Jackson is giving a talk and discussion session for interested students this coming Thursday. Here is the announcement.
About today's quiz: I won't comment on the several answers of "I didn't catch up with the reading yet." We expect you to come to class and sections not only having done the reading but prepared to summarize the arguments, as I sometimes do in our discussions. If you're not prepared to compare how you yourself understood the arguments, without our assistance, to the ways I'm recommending you understand them, you're depriving yourself of some of the most valuable opportunities we're giving you to exercise and refine your critical abilities.
On the other, less important question, about prime numbers. Some of you counted 1 as a prime. In fact, officially neither 1 nor 0 are counted as prime and neither are they counted as composite. (Whereas 2,3,5... are prime and 4,6,8... are composite.) When I was young, I used to think this was just an arbitrary convention and mathematicians could just as easily have decided to count 1 as a prime. After all, the only numbers that divide it are either 1 or itself. But in fact, there are good mathematical reasons for drawing a line around the set 2,3,5... and excluding 1. If you're interested in this kind of thing, google something like "why is 1 not a prime" and read around.
11/8
Rewrites are due Tuesday 11/13.
Lecture notes on What is Personal Identity?
Lecture notes on Some Problem Cases about Personal Identity
For Tuesday 11/13, read the "First Night" of Perry, Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality (not online).
11/6
Lecture notes on Numerical Identity and Identity over Time
We were going to show a movie on Nov 12; we've now moved that to Monday Nov 19 at 7:30 pm.
11/3
(Post-hurricane) I hope your troubles this past week have been bearable. We'll pick the course up again where we left off (see posts below).
Most or all of you should have gotten back grades and comments on the drafts you submitted. Let's aim to have you submit your rewrites of these papers by the start of class on Tuesday 11/13. If your particular circumstances make this unrealistic, then talk your TA about arranging a later deadline. We'll be flexible when needed. (Though do keep in mind that work later in the term for this class and for others will be accumulating. So doing a good job, as early as you can, is only to your advantage.)
The rewrites are permitted to be a page or two longer; many of you will need that extra space to further develop parts of your paper. When you turn in the rewrites, please also turn in the original paper together with your TA's comments.
10/25
We've been asking questions like: would a computer running the same software as your brain have the same thoughts and experiences you do? Now the class is going to turn to a different question: would it be you? Would "uploading" your mind to a computer be a way to survive the death of your body---either by running that mind in the computer, or by restoring it back into another organic body?
For Tuesday 10/30 11/6, read Ch. 3 of Cory Doctorow's Down and Out In the Magic Kingdom. The fictional notion of "Whuffie" plays a role in this story, as in the story Truncat we read a few days ago. Basically it's something like a scoring system of how much other people appreciate and admire you and the things you've done; the economies of Doctorow's future societies have given up money and work on Whuffie instead. You can have a look at Wikipedia for more details. What's important for our purposes aren't the social changes he imagines, but rather the stuff about backing up and restoring your memories, in case your body dies. To get some context for Ch. 3 of this book, you could: (i) scroll up a bit and read the last six paragraphs of Ch. 2; or (ii) read all of the Preface, Ch. 1 and Ch. 2; or (iii) read the Wikipedia entry on the book, which includes a plot summary.
Also read Mind's I Ch 13: Dennett, Where Am I?.
Random links: Wikipedia on Mind uploading in fiction. Another similar list on Ask Metafilter.
Soon we will be reading John Perry's A Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality. You will need to purchase that book if you haven't already done so.
10/23
Lecture notes on Searle's Chinese Room
For Thursday 10/25, read Mind's I Ch 26: "A Conversation with Einstein's Brain"
Questions about "A Conversation with Einstein's Brain".
Random links:
Optional readings:
10/20
Remember, first graded papers are due Tuesday 10/23, at the start of class. Papers turned in after Prof Pryor begins lecturing are considered late. Here is our policy for late papers.
For Tuesday 10/23, read Mind's I Ch 22: Searle, "Minds, Brains, and Programs"
10/11
We mentioned Occam's Razor in class in connection with why the proponents of the overdetermination argument think that argument should persuade us to give up on dualism. The link is to a Wikipedia article which is just for optional historical details.
Lecture notes on Behaviorism vs. the Causal Theories of Mind.
No class on Tuesday 10/16 (University closed). The TAs and I will all have extra office hours starting Wednesday to discuss your plans for the papers.
For Thursday 10/18, read Cory Doctorow's Truncat. What would the mind have to be like, so that feeding it a computer program recorded from another person's brain, and stored on a network, could give you some of the experiences and memories of the original subject?
Random links:
10/9
Here is a question about supervenience that a student from a previous year emailed, with my reply.
Lecture notes on Arguments for Materialism.
Your first graded papers are due Tuesday 10/23. We will grade these and give you comments, and then you will need to rewrite the paper. The rewrite will also then be graded. You want to do the best job possible on the first draft, so that we can give you comments that will help you improve in the most productive and rewarding way. Decide on a paper topic now and start going over in your mind what your argument is. Roughly plan out the argument you want to make. Come to one of our office hours, or talk to someone else in the class, and give your central argument orally. (Best if you do both!) Get people's feedback on that, then once you're finally happy with your argument, you can sit down to write it up. If you wait until a few days before the paper is due to begin this process, the result will be poor and you'll have cheated yourself of one of the major learning exercises in this course.
For Thursday 10/11, read Armstrong, The Nature of Mind and Lycan, Machine Consciousness. (Optional reading: Block, What is Functionalism?.)
10/2
Lecture notes on Descartes' Argument that He is Distinct from His Body.
Lecture notes on Necessity and Conceivability.
9/27
For 10/2, read selections from Meditation 6 and the Objections and Replies to it.
Lecture notes for Leibniz's Law and Arguments for Dualism, Privileged Access and Inverted Spectrums, and Illegitimate Uses of Leibniz's Law
Optional: here are some papers by philosophers who argue that we don't have privileged access to our own minds: Armstrong, "Is Introspective Knowledge Incorrigible?" and Heil, "Privileged Access".
9/26
Prof Pryor and your TAs all have office hours, which you are welcome to make use of.
We also strongly encourage you to make use of each other, outside of class and sections, to help refine your understanding of the issues we're exploring. Additionally, The University Learning Center has some times reserved where other philosophy majors are available to talk to you about your courses. Those sessions are held in the Commons of University Hall (110 E 14th St), at these times: M 12-1:30, T 4:30-9:30, W 12-1:30, Th 4-7, Sun 2-10.
9/25
Lecture notes for Meditation 1 and Meditation 2.
Remember, second writing assignments are due on Thursday.
9/24
There's a public lecture at NYU today, at 5 pm, on "The Coevolution of Humans and Machines". You can regard this as another "random link": material that we won't be engaging with directly, but is relevant to the issues we're discussing in class. It may be of interest to many of you.
9/22

Test your understanding: How many arguments does van Inwagen offer for dualism? Can you say in a sentence or two what is the main strategy of each of the arguments? Where does his discussion of the "second" argument for dualism begin, and where does it end? Which side (the dualist, or the physicalist) is "ahead" at the start of each paragraph in that discussion? What does van Inwagen mean by "interactionism" and "epiphenomenalism"? What question are these views competing answers to? Then: how many arguments does van Inwagen offer for physicalism? (these come after the blank page in the pdf).

It's to be expected that you'll have trouble answering some of these questions: after all, you've just started studying philosophy. We will be discussing most of them in more detail in the coming weeks. But to the extent that you can't answer the questions, it means you haven't fully understood that part of van Inwagen's discussion. When you find yourself in that position, you should work hard to improve your position. Reread the article several times, trying to keep track of the details. We can't gift you with understanding. We're more like personal trainers who can guide you ways that may help you learn more efficiently---but only if you're already seriously engaged in the attempt in the first place.

One thing you may notice, if you're alert, is that van Inwagen will define some terms a bit differently than I do, and also states some debates a bit differently than I will. As I've said in lecture, this is inevitable in philosophy. You need to learn how to work around it. The first step is noticing when different philosophers are using the same words in slightly different ways. I'm aware of at least one word I introduced during last Thursday's lecture that van Inwagen defines a bit differently: can you identify it?

9/20
Random link: here is another video about a possible new form of life(?)
For 9/25, read selections from Descartes' First Meditation and Second Meditation. Please bring a printout of these texts to class on Tuesday.
When Descartes wrote the Meditations, he sent them out to various other intellectuals in Europe, some of whom were sympathetic to his arguments and others of whom thought those arguments weren't very good. Some of these other intellectuals composed seven booklets of "Objections" to Descartes, and Descartes in turn wrote "Replies" to the Objections. Some excerpts from the Objections and Replies are included in our reading selection. However, Descartes also considers argumentative objections and replies to them even in his initial presentation. Sometimes he shifts between stating an objection and giving the reply even within a single paragraph. So important argumentative moves can happen within a sentence or two. Other times, several paragraphs in the text all constitute a single unit pushing in a single direction. Try to map out the dialectical structure of the Descartes reading, in the same way you did for van Inwagen. This will probably be a more challenging exercise. Even if you get confused, at least form a hypothesis about what direction each sentence is pushing in, what it's supposed to accomplish.
Here are lecture notes on Dualism vs. Materialism.
A second writing exercise is due Thursday Sept 27.
9/18
Here are lecture notes on What is Life?.
Random link: Here's a video by chemist Martin Hanczyc about his research on "protocells," simple chemical models of living cells. He discusses how this research may help us understand the difference between living and nonliving systems, and recognize life on other planets that might be fundamentally different from the forms of life we find on earth.
For 9/20, read selections from Peter van Inwagen's book Metaphysics. This introduces a number of arguments that we'll be discussing over the next few weeks.
An important task when approaching philosophical writing is to identify the "dialectical structure" of the text. For example, here there's an argument for thesis X (I usually draw a box around the text containing the argument); here an objection to that argument is being described; here a response is being given to that objection; here is an objection to that response; here is a second objection to the original argument; here an argument is being given for a weaker thesis Y; and so on. Some of our texts are in the form of dialogues, and there each of these shifts usually corresponds to a new speaker. But in other texts, we have to do more work to see these shifts. Try to figure out and pencil in the back-and-forth structure of the argument in the van Inwagen reading. This will help position you better to understand what the arguments are actually saying.
9/13
We will come back to questions about what it takes to have a mind, and how we can know who else has minds. But we're going to turn now to a neighboring topic: what it takes to be alive. Plants and bacteria are alive but presumably don't have minds. Maybe we can bioengineer more living things, that also lack minds. So "living" doesn't imply "has a mind." What about the other direction? Arguably, there may someday be computer programs that think and have intentions, but aren't alive. Now, maybe, we shouldn't take it for granted that computer programs necessarily fail to be alive. There is a research field devoted to trying to create "artificial life." But even if we decide it is possible for some computer programs to be alive, it's not obvious that only the programs that are alive will be capable of thinking. So perhaps "has a mind" doesn't imply "living", either.
Random links: A-Life, Synthetic biology (more, more)
Start reading for Tuesday 9/18: Feldman Ch 1-3
Here are some sample writing exercises from previous years, with comments. A previous teaching assistant David Barnett provided another helpful example of how to do the first assignment poorly, and then improve it. I strongly recommend you study these examples, and also the comments your TAs will give you next week. When reading the examples, be sure to click the links at the very top of the page. They will display the papers at various stages of revision.
9/12
Random links: Here are some early computers:
9/11
For Thursday read: Greg Egan, Learning to Be Me. This is one of my favorite sci-fi explorations of the philosophical ideas we'll be discussing this term.
Optional reading: here is a novel about building a computer to pass the Turing test. (Here is a summary.)
Here's a note on a detail in Turing's article.
At this point we have more students interested in taking the class than our hard upper limit on how many we can permit in. If you are already on the waiting list, or have emailed me, you should have received emails from me this morning. Others who haven't been coming to lectures already, I'm afraid we won't have space for you.
Remember, first writing assignments are due on Thursday.

Please make sure your name is on your paper, you've used wide margins and double-spacing to facilitate us giving you comments, you've stapled the pages if you're submitting a printed copy, and so on. These should be your normal expectations when submitting any written work. Your TAs will let you know if they prefer to be given printed or electronic submissions.

Lecture notes on AI and the Turing Test. I guess I wrote the first draft of those notes a long time ago, since I talk about Palm Pilots. This is some ancient, steampunk-era technology you kids may never have heard of.
Random links:
9/6
Here is a question about definitions that a student emailed, with my reply.
If you want to take the course, but aren't yet officially registered---for example, if you're on the waiting list---then email Professor Pryor and be sure to give your name and NYU ID. Be sure also to list all of the section times that Albert would allow us to register you into. What section you actually attend should be worked out with the TAs (so you should also be emailing them, see next item), and we are not concerned to keep that in synch with what Albert says. We will try to accommodate everyone who is seriously interested and ready to do the work this course requires. But as I said before, we can't make promises in advance.
If you want to switch sections, we're arranging this through the TAs rather than through Albert. Some of you may need to switch in Albert too, to accommodate other parts of your official schedule; we realize that. But our primary understanding of who is in what section will be the list that the TAs are keeping, so whatever you do (or don't) do through Albert, be sure you also get the TAs' permission to switch. Kat will collect everyone's requests about this and she and Ian will work out the details and get back to you. Her email is <kjp273@nyu.edu>.
Readings for Tuesday 9/11 were already posted (scroll down).
A short writing assignment is due Thursday 9/13. Here are some Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper.
Some random links about animal intelligence. When I say "random links" that means I'm not asking or expecting the class to read these. I'm just making these available for those who are interested or bored and want to read further. You should not think that reading these is any part of our first writing assignment. But of course, it's possible that you may get ideas for arguments that you weren't already considering, when browsing these links or re-reading Allen's "Star Witness" article.
9/5
Some students asked about the assignment at the end of Allen's article. That's part of Allen's paper; it's not specifically an assignment for this course. However, you will be writing an assignment for this course shortly which is in the same spirit as that one.
9/4
Read for Thursday 9/6: (i) Mind's I Ch 8: "Mark III Beast", (ii) Allen, "Star Witness"
Read for the class after that (Tuesday 9/11): (i) Brian Aldiss' story "Super-Toys Last All Summer Long"; (ii) Mind's I Ch 4-5. Don't rush! The last articles need to be read several times. Try to get a solid understanding of what the arguments are in each of them. You might look again at How to Read a Philosophy Paper.
The following story is longer than the Super-Toys one listed above, and addresses some similar themes. It isn't required reading. I'm just linking to it for those who might be interested: "The Lifecycle of software objects", by Ted Chiang.
9/2
The first course meeting is on Tuesday 9/4. Before the first meeting, read this online debate about whether the TSA should use racial profiling at airports. We'll use this as source material to get used to arguing/reasoned debate with each other.
You will have to purchase some texts (listed under "Course Requirements"); others will be available on the course website using a password announced in class. Some readings will be available both ways. The texts will be available at the NYU Bookstore. (Let us know if they're available yet; I don't know if they will be.) We've also posted links so that you can purchase them from Amazon or Barnes&Noble.
Some other introductory readings for the course: (i) Philosophical Terms and Methods and How to Read a Philosophy Paper. For your entertainment: What is an argument?.
Sections will meet starting the first week of class: on Tuesday 9/4 and Wednesday 9/5. If you want to switch sections, discuss this with the two TAs, whose emails are listed under "Contact Info." (You don't need to do anything with Albert.) Go to one of the sections the first week anyway, even if it's not the section you ultimately hope to be in.
If you are wait-listed for the course, but are seriously interested in taking it, be patient. We'll try to accommodate you; but we won't be able to settle this until after a lecture or three. Have a back-up plan, but in the meantime just attend this course on the assumption it may work out.