Maps | General information (large file!) | Details and features | Specifications | Issue areas | Press release
Methodology | Background paper | The cartographic metaphor | Criteria | How the maps work (large file!)
For Instructors and Students | Importance of Turing debate | For instructors | For students | Protagonist index | FAQS
Commentary and Reviews | Commentary and reviews | Errata and corrections
Action Items | Buy the set of maps | How you can participate in this debate
Examples | View the maps. | Map 1 | Map 2 | Map 3 | Map 4 | Map 5 | Map 6 | Map 7 | (large files!)
MacroVU home page | Send us a message | Project Director's Home Page

Commentary

"Prompted me to reorganize my Philosophy of Mind course"
I am writing in appreciation of the series of maps, "Mapping Great Debates: Can Computers Think?" that I recently purchased for use in my Philosophy of Mind course. I have installed some on the walls of my office, and find that students have consulted them for help in answering questions, thinking about the debates, and understanding fundamental views of the key philosophers in the areas. They are outstandingly clear and well-organized, characteristics both my students and I appreciate and which make them outstandingly useful, as well.

The maps have, in fact, prompted me to reorganize my Philosophy of Mind course to cover certain issues and problems from a particular approach, using the commentaries of thinkers noted on the maps--e.g. the Chinese Room in more depth, and connected more explicitly to the question "Can Computers Think?" I am sure that they will continue to be an invaluable resource for my students, as well as generating new ways of thinking about the major issues in Philosophy of Mind and Artificial Intelligence. I am delighted to have them.

-Ellen Wagner, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, University of North Florida

We'd like to hear from you about how you've used the argumentation maps in class. We've reserved this space for teaching exercises, course syllabi, supplementary material, bibliographies, etc.

From Selmer Bringsjord, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
"I posed this question recently to students in my "Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence" (PAI) course: Can you imagine a way of presenting information in such a class that is strikingly innovative, makes no use of computer technology, allows you on the very first day of class to understand what this course is all about, and draws everybody immediately in as a group? There were some weak guesses, nothing significant. I then proceeded to unfold map #1 ("History and Status of the Debate") over the table at the front of the room and asked students to get up and take a look. The result was remarkable. With a humble pointer (rather than powerpoint slides and a browser, eg.) I was now able to do something I've been unable to do in a decade of teaching PAI. Instead of limiting linear progression of information on the overhead, or on the board, or on the projection screen, in minutes the entire context and content of the bulk of PAI had been mapped out--and students were already thinking about where in the argumentation maps their own papers would fall!

In similar presentations, I've been able to explain to some of my colleagues what it is I in general do, and where, specifically, my own argumentation falls. That this new way of presenting information is independent of information technology (you can in principle present it using a computer, with large enough viewing screens, but the maps are powerful in no small part because their size allows for a huge amount of integrated information to be presented in one shot) is something that hits many of my colleagues hard. Horn has found a new way of navigating philosophy, and the innovation is not yet another website with dazzling links and streaming video: his way is to exploit the marriage of the visual and hypertextual modes in order to present content that from time immemorial has been presented in linear form. The linear is in some sense fleeting: when on page 3 (or slide 3, or the third minute in a lecture), pages 1 or 2 are in some sense gone, and in some sense page 15 doesn't yet exist in the minds of readers and hearers. But Horn's argumentation maps offer up the whole shining landscape at the same time. Even outside of class, when the maps are hanging up for people to peruse at their leisure, readers are engaged."

Texts that cover many regions of the maps
Copeland, J. 1993. Artificial Intelligence: A Philosophical Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Franklin, S. 1995. Artificial Minds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Teaching Exercises

Introductory
1. In-class debate. Ask the class to raise their hands: "Who thinks that computers can think now or will definitely be able to in the future?" Suggest that those people go to one corner of the room. Then ask: "Who thinks computers will never be able to think?" Suggest that those students go to another corner. Then ask the rest of the class to arrange themselves according to where they lean on the question.

Divide the class into groups 3 or 4 students and ask each to come up with their best reason for their position. They may refer to the maps­posted in the classroom­for assistance.

At the end of a given time in that class, or in the next period for an assignment, ask the students to have a debate giving their best reasons.

Note: It may be interesting to have students write their opinions at the beginning of class and to repeat the exercise at the end to see what kind of movement has taken place in their judgments.

2. Early assignment to familiarize students with the maps. Put the Can Computers Think? maps on reserve in the library. Suggest that students look at them and pick a branch (or issue area) that interests them. Tell them to examine the arguments in that branch and write a short paper as to why they agree or disagree with the positions represented.

More Advanced
1. What are the most weighty arguments and why? Choose areas of the maps that you want students to focus on. Ask them to evaluate, and perhaps rank order, the arguments for a given position in terms of weight. Ask them to write a short paper that explains why they give more weight to one argument than another.

2. Why do schools of philosophers disagree on specific points? This assignment asks students to look at the descriptions of the 10 different schools (or camps) described on the maps by postulates. Ask them to find places on the maps where the schools seem to disagree and to write a paper that explains why they disagree about these specific points.

These are the camps and where they are located on the maps:

Map 3 
Physical symbol systems hypothesis
The dialectical paradigm
Dreideggerianism (Dreyfus + Heidegger)
Ordinary language
Experiential realism
Subsumption architecture
Situated action

Map 5
Connectionism
The dynamical approach to cognition
The subsymbolic paradigm
Quasi-pictorial image psychology
Gestalt psychology

Map 6
Functionalism