Repоlаrizаtiоn during аn actiоn potential is mostly due to the movement of which ions?
Whаt dоes the SMART gоаl аcrоnym stand for?
Instructiоns In nо fewer thаn 1,200 wоrds, аuthor а dialogue between you and two philosophers discussing a question from this course. Questions to consider include but are not limited to: What is philosophy? Can we know if there is a real world beyond our experience? What makes something true? Does God exist and if so what explains evil? How has religion been used to undermine human freedom (according to Daly, Sojourner Truth, Jacobs, Nietzsche) and how would John Hick respond? Are the hard determinists right that free will is an illusion? In what sense do people mistakenly believe themselves to be free? What does it mean to be truly free? Those who wish to answer one of the following ethical questions will present two characters representing two distinct ethical theories (utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, virtue ethics) discussed in this course. Should we try to make the world a better place even if we might not succeed? Is the current distribution of wealth in society fair? Why or why not? Given its threat to displace significant numbers of human laborers and the destructive possibility of its misuse, how should artificial intelligence be incorporated into society? Those responding to this prompt may respond to one of the following questions if they prefer: How should it be regulated if at all? How should the profits generated by artificial intelligence be distributed? Should the profits go to the AI companies alone or should the profits be shared with the wider public? In the event that artificial intelligence advances cause mass job loss, should those impacted be provided a universal basic income to ensure a dignified life? Deciding a Winner? You can choose to either pick a side that wins the exchange, or you can leave things ambiguously as Plato did with Euthyphro. But remember that you are also a participant in the dialogue. You may comment on the other thinkers' ideas, facilitate the discussion, and/or offer your own unique perspective. Each of the three participants must be meaningfully represented in the discussion. Grading Criteria (15 points total) Opening (1 pts): Creative, engaging opening that draws the reader into the philosophical discussion. Philosophical Question (2 pts): The chosen question (right, real, true, or free will) is clearly articulated and genuinely explored. Accurate Treatment of Thinker; Friends' Perspectives are Distinct (5 pts): The spirit of the two philosophers' positions / ethical theories are accurately rendered. The philosophical ideas must be drawn from materials from this course. The author--you--makes a meaningful contribution to the discussion through facilitation, adding comments, asking questions, and/or offering a unique thought on the question at hand. Creative Dialogue (3 pts): Genuinely conversational, not a lecture with line breaks. Characters interrupt, question, clarify, joke. The exchange has energy and rhythm. Intentional Conclusion (2 pts): The conclusion conveys intentionality, whether a stalemate, a new conclusion steered by the author, or a refined question. Philosophy is an ongoing discussion, and your ending should reflect that you have made a conscious choice about where this conversation lands. Enjoyable Writing (2 pts): Warm, clear, clever, and creative. A pleasure to read. Humor and voice emerge naturally from the characters and situation. Preparation: Notecards During the proctored writing session, you may refer to two handwritten notecards. These are the only materials you may bring. Your notecards may include: Key quotes from philosophers Brief outlines or bullet points Key terms or questions you want to explore Prepare your notecards thoughtfully. They will be checked during the proctoring setup. Note on Accuracy & Notecard Use You are not expected to have memorized each thinker or character's ideas. You will be evaluated on your knowledge of the spirit of their positions. Your notecards are there to support you. Use them to recall key quotes or concepts. But do not allow them to interfere with your creative intellectual flow. Note that you are not being asked to recall each philosopher's exact words. You are expected to take creative leeway in representing the their thinking and views; however, you must accurately render their core commitments. The one exception: as the thinkers engage in Socratic dialogue, you may have them arrive at a compromise or even admit error in discussion with the other thinker. Such a resolution is not necessary. Philosophy is, after all, an ongoing discussion. Grading Criteria (15 points total) Criteria Points Description Opening 1 pts Creative, engaging opening that draws the reader into the philosophical discussion. Philosophical Question 2 pts The complexity of the free expression question is explored with depth. Accurate Treatment of Thinkers/Theories; Author adds meaningful contribution 5 pts Spirit of philosophers' positions / ethical theories are accurately rendered. Author's contribution is meaningful -- through facilitation, asking questions, making comments, and/or adding unique analysis. Creative Dialogue 3 pts Genuinely conversational, not a lecture with line breaks. Characters interrupt, question, clarify, joke. The exchange has energy and rhythm. Intentional Conclusion 2 pts The ending conveys intentionality— whether a stalemate, a new conclusion steered by the author, or a refined question. Philosophy is an ongoing discussion, and your ending should reflect that you have made a conscious choice about where this conversation lands. Enjoyable Writing 2 pts Warm, clear, clever, and creative. A pleasure to read. Humor and voice emerge naturally from the characters and situation. Total: 15 points (15% of final grade)