Week 6- Functionalism and AI

Some philosophers, including John Searle, say that computers are not really intelligent. Rather, they just simulate intelligence. However, it could be argued that, just as computers are programmed to respond in different ways to different commands, so human beings are 'programmed' by society, and education, to perform certain tasks. For example, we are programmed to do complicated things like speak a language, as well as more simply things like brush our teeth.

What are your thoughts on this comparison? Is there any difference between the programming of computers, and the 'programming' of humans by society?

I mostly agree with John Searle that computers imitate intelligence because without a human programming it, it cannot exist. Since I am a Christian, my belief is that God created human beings, just like human beings are creating robots. Yes, humans are very intelligent and yes robots are very intelligent, but they cannot surpass their creator because the computer would not be able to do the same. I am saying this in a very broad term, for a concept to get across. Computers and human brains are similar, they can formulate ideas and create many things with their intelligent "software". What separates computers from humans is emotion and experience. For instance, a robot observing Mars would simply show information to a team, versus a human being would be very excited by the discovery and sharing what they have seen with emotion and pride. Computers don't experience fear, pride, or have a passion. They can be programmed to respond a certain way, but it is artificial and does not duplicate natural feeling or intelligence. The textbook gave an example of artificial light and real light. They say the artificial light is real light because humans use light to help construct the artificial light. The same they applied to A.I and humans. But I don't believe it is the same, artificial light will never be natural light as A.I's will not be humans. 

Yes, humans are conditioned by their environment to behave a certain way because of their culture and education. However, computers will always listen to the programming unless there is a malfunction. People argue every day with each other about the right way of living or following rules. For instance, there is the branch of philosophy. Philosophers are educated the same way (or "programmed") but they all won't believe in the same theories about human life and find ways to improve education. Computers cannot do this, they cannot learn from human beings and disagree with their programming. Or if someone does not agree with a tradition, they refuse to because of their beliefs, a robot cannot say, "sorry I cannot kill that chicken for you, it's animal cruelty and it's against my beliefs". Humans may be conditioned to certain behaviors and beliefs, but we all have room for change or disagreement, unlike a computer. Besides, the process of learning is longer and more enriching for a human than a robot. Someone may be trying to learn Spanish and enjoy it so they may open up a business in Columbia. Robots will process a language quickly because it was told to, there is no drive or sense of purpose for it. Humans live life with habits to live a high quality life with meaning, robots simply do this because they were told to. 

Week 5: Dualism and Physicalism

Should we, as human beings, think of ourselves as made out of two different substances, like Decartes argued? Or are you persuaded by the arguments of physicalism that we are purely physical beings?

If you agree with Descartes, how would you explain the fact that our mental life seems to be very closely connected to a physical organ, namely the brain. If you agree with physicalism, how do you explain the fact that our mental life seems to be like nothing else in the physical world (think of how unique something like consciousness is, for example).

Both Dualists and Physicalists come up with very good theories on the mind and the body. I am more on the dualism side because they believe mind and body are separate and important. As a Christian, I believe our bodies are places our souls live in order to live in the physical world. Once our bodies reach death, our souls still live on in heaven, our true selves. For someone who isn't religious, the explanation of an out-of-body experience can make sense. Some people have experienced coming close with death and they watch over their bodies as a soul. I believe once a mind/soul has control over a body, it can use it to its full potential, but without a body, it wouldn't have the necessity to eat, breathe, or laugh. 

The mind is very powerful, when one's emotions are down, that is communicated to the brain and it sends messages to the rest of the body, and the body begins to feel tired and a bit weaker, because the emotion of the person is down. Or, when someone is having a good day, they suddenly feel more energetic and their body functions a bit better. It cannot be denied that our mental life affects our physical brains. The mind causes you to make decisions that may change your body such as overeating when stressed out or losing sleep because you may feel paranoid after watching a scary movie, and you start to notice bags under your eyes and paler skin. Also, there have been cases of miracles such as a pastor praying at a church to make a disabled man walk again, and it actually happens. Phenomena like this are very hard to explain how it can happen, but surely it is not the work of the brain alone, there is the mind/soul. I think the mind interacts with the brain but can also be known as a soul. 

The brain is more of a messenger, it has access to the mind and body and allows the body to interact with the mind. Descartes believed there was an extra organ called the "vital spirit" in the human body, but I don't think that is the case because it didn't seem like a well-researched answer to justify his beliefs on dualism. If the mind and body weren't separate, then they would have to be identical, but since the mind is non-physical and no one can hear, taste, touch or see it, it is very different from the brain and body. Perhaps it could be the non-physical part of the body that is connected, I am open enough to believe the research could change. 

Our consciousness is very complex and cannot be explained by the physical world. There are beliefs, ambitions, feelings of love and the need to find out our identities. The body reproduces, but it's the mind that forms love since it is a non-physical term that becomes real when people get married or spend time with each other. Also, if we were only our bodies, we would have everything we need, yet, people still try to figure out who they are, and why they exist. The idea of purpose itself is part of the conscious mind. If we were only bodies, we'd ask "Who am I? Oh, there I am" and our appearance would be enough.  People have ideas on justice, ethics and living a fulfilling life. That sounds like dualism to me, there is a mind, and a body, the body alone is not enough. 

Week 4: Pragmatism and Feminism

Pragmatism and Feminist Epistemology both challenge the view of knowledge as a detached, intellectual activity. Do you think they are right? How do you think we should think about knowledge? Now that we have concluded the section on epistemology, write about what kind of thing you think knowledge is.

Philosophers like Descartes tried to remove themselves from communities and reach a level of detached knowledge to not be influenced by social factors. They believe this is the best form of gaining knowledge but feminists call this the Robinson Crusoe assumption. They disagree with this perspective because thy want the community to be included in studying knowledge. When people help you, they have different perspectives to understand what knowledge is. Feminists feel they can offer their knowledge to help others understand philosophy not limited to only male thinkers. In fact, on page 176 of our textbook Lorraine Code shares her view, "knowledge production is a social practice of embodied, gendered, historically, racially and culturally located knowers whose products bear the marks of their makers and whose stories...need to be told". She stresses the importance of everyone participating in knowledge because people have diverse ways of thinking and if we do not include them, the theory of knowledge will only be held in the viewpoint of the well-educated white philosopher. Not excluding the views of people living on this earth, knowledge can expand and humans can get one step closer to understanding how we gain knowledge. Learning something is about team-work, not an individual task where only one person's thoughts matter. 

Pragmatists disagree with the individual comprehension of knowledge as well, however, they explain why for different reasons. Now, the greatest pragmatists believed pragmatism could be a creative instrument of change, addressing the problem of the contemporary culture, while emphasizing scientific thinking applying to moral decisions (154). In addition, the world is an ongoing process, therefore experiences change. If someone detached themselves from others, they cannot learn about knowledge because they wouldn't know about experiences changing, they would only know about their own experiences. Without social factors, their decisions cannot turn into actions if not engaging with others when it comes to knowledge. Truth and error occur in the human experience, and according to William James, each person will answer differently to the question of the purpose of the world. He gives an example say a theory that solves a problem for us is more satisfying than another, making us believe in it more (160). Truth is not objective or absolute, therefore, more people have to revise it constantly and one person cannot do that, in fact, Dewey, Pierce, and James agreed and disagreed on many ideas and tried to revise because of the constant change of human experience. 

To some extent, these epistemologies are correct, however, no point of view is perfect and every belief has holes in them. Knowledge is very complex and so are humans and it is difficult to find one theory of knowledge that answers all of the questions about the truth. What if the truth was already in us? What if humans are truth themselves? Perhaps it's religious, or a topic of subjectivity. I agree with the feminist point of view on including everyone's experiences to studying knowledge. We are diverse being for a reason, and when studying knowledge we cannot ignore this and stick to the beliefs of only one group of people. This way, knowledge can be discovered more accurately because it includes all humans. Also, social, cultural and religious factors greatly change the meaning of truth and knowledge for everyone, and this makes me believe that not everyone will agree on one idea. Could it be that we were not meant to find out?  

I somewhat agree and disagree with all of the epistemology covered in the book, they all have excellent insights on knowledge but it is not complete. I believe we are born with knowledge and learn from others who share their own ideas through experience, and we should include the ideas of people from all races, ages, genders, and religions. I would open myself up to other's inputs, even if their beliefs are the complete opposite of mine because we both don't absolutely know who is right or wrong. We cannot ignore each others views, it is not about being right or having the truth, but like James believes, there could be more than one truth.