Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Platopus)
    Hahahahaha.... Failed
    How so?
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by Sainsbizz)
    How so?
    Well I did unspeakably badly... But nothing surprising there
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Platopus)
    Well I did kunspeakably badly... But nothing surprising there
    Was there a particular question?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jt18976)
    What did you write for the first 25 mark question on dualsim. Did you include arguments and criticisms for just one dualist theory or more than one?
    I wrote about Decartes, Malebranche and Huxley (Epiphenomalist), and then talked about property dualism (mostly focusing on the Knowledge argument because I could talk about Dennet's criticism and lightly touched on Chalmers, but only briefly). I'm worried I talked about too much, but at the time it seemed like a good idea. Having said that, I think my argument was pretty balanced and I filled out the space exactly, and made it as precise and as clear as I could. What about you?

    I'm a little worried about the deontology question, because I left out the last page. I honestly did the best I could for that question, its just that gap that's bothering me. I just ran out of ideas and I feel like I wrote everything.
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by Sainsbizz)
    Was there a particular question?
    Kant is my worst nightmare, both the 12 markers were horrible and the mind 5 marker and I made a stupid mistake in my ethics 3 marker. But other than that it was just swell! Please not my dripping sarcasm.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I only had time to talk about substance dualism (conceivability, indivisibly argument) and property dualism (zombies and Mary's room) with criticisms so I'm not sure what I'll get on that one.
    I didn't fill all the pages up but it's fine out teacher said all we need is 3-4 detailed criticisms to get a good mark so it should be ok.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jt18976)
    I only had time to talk about substance dualism (conceivability, indivisibly argument) and property dualism (zombies and Mary's room) with criticisms so I'm not sure what I'll get on that one.
    I didn't fill all the pages up but it's fine out teacher said all we need is 3-4 detailed criticisms to get a good mark so it should be ok.
    That's most of it, you did well
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    For the deontological question i wrote about the theory in detail then i evaluated the theory using criticisms are saying that this makes the theory not correct. But i only touched upon one ethical application which was the axe murder . People are saying you needed to use applied ethics in that essay is this true ?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jimnugent18)
    For the deontological question i wrote about the theory in detail then i evaluated the theory using criticisms are saying that this makes the theory not correct. But i only touched upon one ethical application which was the axe murder . People are saying you needed to use applied ethics in that essay is this true ?
    You didn't need to use applied ethics in the essay question they are mainly used in the 12 markers but it didnt come up in this exam.
    What did you say about the axe murderer?

    As long as you did 3-4 criticisms along with your argument then you should do well.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jt18976)
    You didn't need to use applied ethics in the essay question they are mainly used in the 12 markers but it didnt come up in this exam.
    What did you say about the axe murderer?

    As long as you did 3-4 criticisms along with your argument then you should do well.
    The axe murder can be used as a criticism - the intuition of consequentialism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sainsbizz)
    The axe murder can be used as a criticism - the intuition of consequentialism.
    What did you write for the 12 marker on functionalism and identity theory thats the one i was really unsure on.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    i wrote it on just how they differed and that they were both materialist views and used arguments that criticized both of them, Its just the way the deontological question was phrased saying correct rather than effectiveness of the theory so you reckon you can get full marks with no applied ethics
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jimnugent18)
    i wrote it on just how they differed and that they were both materialist views and used arguments that criticized both of them, Its just the way the deontological question was phrased saying correct rather than effectiveness of the theory so you reckon you can get full marks with no applied ethics
    I'm pretty sure you can still get full marks without using applied ethics as 25 markers are mainly based on the criticisms of theory and your view of them. I think all you had conclude was if deontoligical ethics was correct or not using the criticisms you analysed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I basically read the deonotlogy question as whether it was useful rather than if it was correct. I was wondering if I would still get any marks, considering all the knowledge I used was still kind of right, it was just the evaluation that was wrong? :/
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jt18976)
    What did you write for the 12 marker on functionalism and identity theory thats the one i was really unsure on.
    Functionalism can be - and is primarily seen as - physicalist like mind brain identity theory, but has the potential to not be. Functionalism is typically non reductive whereas identity is ontologically reductive (mental -> brain). Functionalism is liberal as it allows anything with the same function to have consciousness, identity is strict etc...?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kittgenstein)
    I basically read the deonotlogy question as whether it was useful rather than if it was correct. I was wondering if I would still get any marks, considering all the knowledge I used was still kind of right, it was just the evaluation that was wrong? :/
    I just wrote the normal objections but linked them to why it would not be correct just as conflict of duties Etc
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think I did the 25 marker on Philosophy of Mind completely wrong. Rather than assess substance dualism and property dualism, I basically interpreted it as dualism vs physicalism. So I wrote how physicalist theories weren't right because they cant explain qualia, but dualism (in particular property dualism) is better.
    I basically structured it:
    INTRO: Dualism is correct in saying the mind is not completely physical

    Mind Brain Identity - Disagrees with dualismHOWEVER it fails to explain qualia so dualism is still right

    Functionalism - Disagrees with dualismHOWEVER Blocks Chinese Mind shows it also fails to show consciousness - cant be physical therefore dualism correct

    Substance dualism and property dualism both say that mind not physical. Substance dualism is weaker than PD because category mistake in saying mental is a substance. Property dualism is better because allows that it is not completely physical, but doesn't go as far to say that a mental substance exists.Mary/Knowledge argument supports the dualist claim and manages to explain qualia unlike physicalist theories

    CONCLUSION: Therefore dualism is right

    Is that wrong???
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jt18976)
    I only had time to talk about substance dualism (conceivability, indivisibly argument) and property dualism (zombies and Mary's room) with criticisms so I'm not sure what I'll get on that one.
    I didn't fill all the pages up but it's fine out teacher said all we need is 3-4 detailed criticisms to get a good mark so it should be ok.
    omg those points are EXACTLY the points I wrote... hopefully these points will be okay.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by qwertyasdfghj)
    I think I did the 25 marker on Philosophy of Mind completely wrong. Rather than assess substance dualism and property dualism, I basically interpreted it as dualism vs physicalism. So I wrote how physicalist theories weren't right because they cant explain qualia, but dualism (in particular property dualism) is better.
    I basically structured it:
    INTRO: Dualism is correct in saying the mind is not completely physical

    Mind Brain Identity - Disagrees with dualismHOWEVER it fails to explain qualia so dualism is still right

    Functionalism - Disagrees with dualismHOWEVER Blocks Chinese Mind shows it also fails to show consciousness - cant be physical therefore dualism correct

    Substance dualism and property dualism both say that mind not physical. Substance dualism is weaker than PD because category mistake in saying mental is a substance. Property dualism is better because allows that it is not completely physical, but doesn't go as far to say that a mental substance exists.Mary/Knowledge argument supports the dualist claim and manages to explain qualia unlike physicalist theories

    CONCLUSION: Therefore dualism is right

    Is that wrong???

    I know they are traditionally quite lenient in philosophy and what you wrote seems fine anyway - I wouldn't worry!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    For Kant I completely forgot about conflicting duties and basically wrote:
    1. Really detailed outline (contradictions in conception and will, categorical imperative 1st and 2nd etc.)
    2. Value of consequences - response - why that's not good enough
    3. Value of motives - response - why that's not good enough
    4. Problems with the application of the principle (forbids good things and allows bad ones)
    --> I said that (2) and (3) were only superficial as it's not a good argument to say that incompatibility with our moral intuitions makes a theory wrong but said that Kant fails due to (4)...
    Can I do ok without mentioning clashing duties?

    Also does anyone have any predictions as to the possible raw marks to UMS ratios we can hope for? Last year the paper was fairlyyy ok and they tacked on 10% or so?? THANK YOU AND WELL DONE!!
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.