Reading Response #4: Consciousness

Reading Response #4 is worth 50 points (5% of your overall grade), and is due at the beginning of class on Thursday, December 20th (the day of our final exam).  The assignment is detailed below:

Consider the three following positions:

1. Tinkerism: The mind-body problem is all but solved. One of the current, commonly-held theories we have discussed in class (that is, a version of materialism or dualism) is basically correct. We may have to clean up the theory a little bit to make it fully correspond with the truth, but we’re pretty much finished.
   
2. Overhaulism: None of the current theories we have discussed is an adequate response to the mind-body problem. An adequate response is going to require a radical shift in our understanding of the world. We will have to reject at least one widely held assumption, and possibly more, though we should inevitably be able to uncover a satisfying solution.
   
3. Unpossiblism: Not only is none of the current theories we have discussed an adequate response to the mind-body problem, there is no theory we humans can come up with to adequately resolve the problem. It’s simply too difficult for us to figure out. We’re doomed to never uncover a solution.

Which position best characterizes your stance on the mind-body problem? In approximately a 750-word essay, explain and defend your stance.

First, explain each of the three positions in greater detail. Among the philosophers we read (including the Nagel and McGinn articles we’re reading this week), who is a Tinkerist? Who is an Overhaulist? Who is an Unpossiblist? Be sure to defend all your answers. Use support from the texts!

Second, explain why you did NOT pick the two positions you did not pick. For example, if you’re a Tinkerist, why don’t you think we have to reject any strong intuitions? Why is the problem solvable at all?

Third, defend the position you choose. If you’re a Tinkerist, explain which theory is basically right, say why you believe it’s correct, and defend it against criticisms. If you’re an Overhaulist, explain what’s wrong with the current theories out there (be sure to consider responses to your general criticism[s] of these theories), and defend the claim that it’s nevertheless still possible to find a solution. If you’re an Unpossiblist, explain what’s wrong with the current theories out there (again, be sure to consider responses to your critique), and defend the further claim that the problem is in principle impossible for us to figure out.