The examination will have two parts. The first part will ask you to explain, carefully but briefly, a number of basic ideas covered in the readings. The second part will ask you to write two more extended essays. Each part will count for half of the overall grade.

1. phenomenal states vs. intentional states
2. Cartesian dualism (= substance dualism)
3. property dualism
4. supervenience
5. physicalism
6. indiscernibility of identicals
7. epiphenomenalism
8. dualist interactionism
9. behaviorism
10. verificationism
11. behaviorism: linguistic thesis (Kim: Logical Behaviorism)
12. behaviorism: methodological thesis (Kim: Scientific Behaviorism)
13. behaviorism: metaphysical thesis (Kim: Ontological Behaviorism)
14. identity theory
15. Ockham's Razor
16. "species chauvinism"
17. functionalism
18. multiple realizability
19. Turing machine
20. probabilistic automaton
21. Turing Test
22. Chinese room argument
23. inverted qualia
24. absent qualia
25. zombie
26. token physicalism vs. type physicalism
27. nomological model of causation
28. anomalous monism
29. causal closure of the physical
30. the causal exclusion problem
31. consciousness vs. awareness
32. HOP and HOT analyses of consciousness
33. explanatory gap
34. hard problem of consciousness
35. interpretation theory of mental content ("interpretivism")
36. causal-correlational account of mental content
37. teleological account of mental content
38. narrow vs. wide (or broad) content
39. intrinsic property
40. identity reduction
41. functional reduction

Questions for Part II: Essays

The general idea for the essays is to take a position on one of the theories we have discussed so far, and defend your position in relation to the issues and arguments discussed in the readings for the class. Essays will be graded on the accuracy, thoroughness, and clarity with which you discuss the relevant readings, as well as the cogency and clarity of your arguments. I will give you three of the following questions, and ask you to write on any two of the three I choose.

1. Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of dualism, focusing on Cartesian dualism. You should include discussion of the following issues: What arguments can be offered in favor of a dualist view? What objections have persuaded many that Cartesian dualism is not a tenable view? Can these objections be met? Does epiphenomenalism provide a more acceptable version of dualism? (Of course you may want to consider other issues as well.)
2. Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of behaviorism. You should include discussion of the following issues: What arguments have made behaviorism attractive to some with a scientific mind-set? What are the chief difficulties the view faces?  How might a behaviorist respond to these difficulties, and are these responses adequate? Conclude by discussing connections between behaviorism and other topics we have discussed. What are the similarities and differences between behaviorism and functionalism? (Of course you may want to consider other issues as well.)
3. Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the identity theory. You should include discussion of the following issues: What is the identity theory?  How does it fare against the problems with behaviorism? Is it compatible with the existence of nonhuman sentience or intelligence? (Of course you may want to consider other issues as well.)
4. Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of functionalism. You should include discussion of the following issues: What exactly is functionalism, anyway? How is it similar to and different from behaviorism and the identity theory? To what extent does it overcome objections to those views, and to what extent is it still vulnerable to them? Does it face additional objections? (Of course you may want to consider other issues as well.)
5. Kim discusses two main problems of mental causation. Both arguments lead to the conclusion that, although mental events may be able to cause physical events, they cannot do so by virtue of their mental properties. The first is an argument that Davidson's anomalous monism leads to this conclusion; the second is an argument that functionalism, plus the causal closure of the physical, leads to this conclusion. Write an essay in which you discuss one of these two arguments in detail. Include an explanation of the distinction between token physicalism and type physicalism, and a precise explanation of how there can still be a problem of mental causation even if token physicalism is true. Conclude with your own assessment of the correct conclusions to draw about mental causation. 
6. The main problems for a physicalist account of consciousness concern phenomenal consciousness, or qualia. Explain what phenomenal consciousness is by contrasting it with what Chalmers calls "awareness." Then explain why this aspect of consciousness seems so difficult to account for (that is, explain why there seems to be a "hard problem" about consciousness, or an "explanatory gap" that is difficult to fill). Conclude by explaining whether you think there is in fact a "hard problem," and if so, what this shows about physicalistic theories of consciousness. (For example, you might think that some versions of physicalism can solve the problem while others can't; or you might think that it shows that no version of physicalism can be correct.)
7. Explain the interpretivist, causal-correlational, and teleological approaches to mental content, including the advantages and problems of each. Conclude by discussing which view you think is closest to the truth, and why. (Alternatively, if you have a rival view, you could explain and defend that.)
8. Explain what is meant by the distinction between reductive and nonreductive physicalism. Note that Kim treats both the identity theory and functionalism as offering "reductions" of mental to physical properties. He contrasts both with emergentism as a form of nonreductive physicalism. Explain what identity reductions and functional reductions are, and how they deal with the "explanatory gap."