For the most part I agree with Searle's theory that computers are not really intelligent, but just simulating intelligence. They are not able to think and understand on their own, but have been programmed to respond to certain commands and actions in a very specific way that makes them seem intelligent. However, an interesting question was posed about whether or not humans have been programmed by society the same way computers are programmed to respond to different commands?
Personally, I would answer no. I can see where this idea is coming from because society and socialization make a huge impact on the way people live their lives and definitely lead people to act a certain way, but I don't think this can be so easily compared to what happens with a computer. With society there are things leading us in a certain direction: developing our beliefs and morals, telling us right from wrong, establishing things like class systems, gender roles, etc, but everyone takes in different parts of it and interprets it in their own way. A computer is not like this. You could set up 50 computers with the same programs and they will all be exactly the same and do the same exact things. But if you raise say 30 girls in the same society, under the same conditions, they will not all do or say the same things in any given situation. They not only interpret and understand the things society is influencing them with differently, but also can use their own free will when making decisions. Computers cannot do this - they're simply given information and commands and are able to make sense of them based on their software and programming.
What goes into speaking a language shows that humans cannot really be programmed. Some people speak a certain language when they're a child and then move to another place and begin speaking that language too. After a while people sometimes completely forget their native language and can no longer speak it when they return to their home country. Even though society "programmed" them to speak the language, they eventually forgot. This would never happen with a computer unless something happened to the hard drive (for humans this would equal brain damage). Clearly, humans are able to adapt to their environment and change their behavior regardless of what they were taught or told before. People are not really being programmed by society, but rather heavily influenced. Even though they're learning things from society, they still have the ability to act on their own and complete any task they choose, whether or not society agrees. Computers do not have this luxury and are entirely controlled by those entering in the information. The human mind cannot be programmed; it is an extremely complex and ever changing thing that, even when given the same command as before, will not always produce the exact same result, as is the case with computers.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Physicalism vs. Dualism
I believe both physicalism and dualism to be somewhat incomplete in their own different ways, but given the choice between the two I find the ideas behind physicalism to be most believable. Dualism states that the mind and the body are two completely different things, independent from one another. Physicalism other other hand, says the body and the mind are essentially the same thing. This also may not be entirely true; however, I cannot deny that they interact with and depend upon each other in some way, meaning they cannot be completely separate as dualism suggests.
Some arguments used to back dualism, like the idea of doubt and consciousness being separate from the physical body, may not be completely accurate. I'm no scientist, but based on what I've been taught about the brain and the way it interacts with the rest of the body, I think there's a very good chance that when we have a feeling like doubt certain neurons are firing and physically certain things are taking place in the brain - this is what physicalism argues. They're not necessarily saying that what you do with every part of your physical body like your hands or legs will affect the mind, but what is taking place physically in your brain is responsible for everything that happens in your mind.
Take love for example: Love is something that dualists would probably say is clearly entirely separate from the physical body. You can't point to love, you can't open up your head and see the love there in your skull, so they would argue that it is clearly separate from the physical body. However, modern science has shown us that when someone is in love or has feelings of love, different parts of the brain light up and certain chemicals are released. Although love may not be it's own physical structure inside your head, it is creating some sort of physical change in the brain, which then also creates a change in the mind (serotonin, endorphins, etc.) Clearly they have an strong effect on one another and therefor cannot be entirely separate from each other.
Some arguments used to back dualism, like the idea of doubt and consciousness being separate from the physical body, may not be completely accurate. I'm no scientist, but based on what I've been taught about the brain and the way it interacts with the rest of the body, I think there's a very good chance that when we have a feeling like doubt certain neurons are firing and physically certain things are taking place in the brain - this is what physicalism argues. They're not necessarily saying that what you do with every part of your physical body like your hands or legs will affect the mind, but what is taking place physically in your brain is responsible for everything that happens in your mind.
Take love for example: Love is something that dualists would probably say is clearly entirely separate from the physical body. You can't point to love, you can't open up your head and see the love there in your skull, so they would argue that it is clearly separate from the physical body. However, modern science has shown us that when someone is in love or has feelings of love, different parts of the brain light up and certain chemicals are released. Although love may not be it's own physical structure inside your head, it is creating some sort of physical change in the brain, which then also creates a change in the mind (serotonin, endorphins, etc.) Clearly they have an strong effect on one another and therefor cannot be entirely separate from each other.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
What is Knowledge Anyway?
After covering several different theories on epistemology, I find myself both believing in and arguing against different aspects of each.
Empiricism -
I agree that a lot of what we know comes from what we've experienced before, but not everything. I think in terms of what we see and experience in everyday life - things like our environment, the weather, etc, our knowledge does come from what we've seen before; but for more complex ideas this doesn't really apply. While parts of empiricism apply to most of what we encounter in our everyday lives, I do not believe the idea that ALL of our knowledge is based on the use of our senses because there are some things that are just too complex to rely solely on our experiences.
Pragmatism and Feminism-
The more I read about pragmatism and feminist epistemology, the more I found myself agreeing with their view that knowledge is not a completely detached intellectual activity. Both theories question our ability to separate ourselves from society and outside influences, in order to gain real knowledge about the World. To me this makes sense because all people are different based on the kind of environment they were brought up in. Knowledge cannot really be an entirely detached and independent thing because there is always something that led us to gain that knowledge or come to a certain conclusion - these things are affected by outside sources. Unless someone has never encountered any sort of human interaction or socialization (including TV, newspapers, etc.), the way they gain and perceive knowledge about different things will be in some way skewed by their human experiences. However, I do not completely agree with pragmatic idea that true knowledge of something is based only on an idea's ability to help us do something useful because this implies that if we are not getting some sort of practical use of out an idea, than we do not have any knowledge. I don't think this is always the case becuase again, some ideas are too complex to rely on just one thing, in this case the value of an idea.
Overall the theory I most agree with is Kantian Constructivism. I agree that both sense experience and reason are needed to gain true knowledge, and that our ideas of space and time are simply a part of the way we structure and organize what we see and feel at different times. The only thing I'm not totally convinced on his idea that intuition is only anything present to the senses, because I think there are some things we know simply due to human nature. After looking at many different views, Kantian Constructivism made the most sense to me and seemed to fit best with my views of the definition and origin of knowledge.
Skepticism and Rationalism -
I agree with Descartes' idea that we are more certain of our own thoughts and what we think we know about the World around us, than we are of the ACTUAL World around us. He believes we should be questioning the things we know, and only accepting those things that we can prove without any doubt to be true. While I think methodological skepticism is a good strategy for making decisions about the validity of some things, I don't think it can be applied to all things in life. It's important to realize that if there is great doubt about a certain concept and it's validity, or if there are many little doubts about an idea, that it may not be true. However, there are also a lot of things that you may never be able to prove without a shadow of a doubt, and that doesn't necessarily make those things untrue. This method is simply not practical; it would be exhausting if applied to every idea one holds about life and about themselves.Empiricism -
I agree that a lot of what we know comes from what we've experienced before, but not everything. I think in terms of what we see and experience in everyday life - things like our environment, the weather, etc, our knowledge does come from what we've seen before; but for more complex ideas this doesn't really apply. While parts of empiricism apply to most of what we encounter in our everyday lives, I do not believe the idea that ALL of our knowledge is based on the use of our senses because there are some things that are just too complex to rely solely on our experiences.
Pragmatism and Feminism-
The more I read about pragmatism and feminist epistemology, the more I found myself agreeing with their view that knowledge is not a completely detached intellectual activity. Both theories question our ability to separate ourselves from society and outside influences, in order to gain real knowledge about the World. To me this makes sense because all people are different based on the kind of environment they were brought up in. Knowledge cannot really be an entirely detached and independent thing because there is always something that led us to gain that knowledge or come to a certain conclusion - these things are affected by outside sources. Unless someone has never encountered any sort of human interaction or socialization (including TV, newspapers, etc.), the way they gain and perceive knowledge about different things will be in some way skewed by their human experiences. However, I do not completely agree with pragmatic idea that true knowledge of something is based only on an idea's ability to help us do something useful because this implies that if we are not getting some sort of practical use of out an idea, than we do not have any knowledge. I don't think this is always the case becuase again, some ideas are too complex to rely on just one thing, in this case the value of an idea.
Overall the theory I most agree with is Kantian Constructivism. I agree that both sense experience and reason are needed to gain true knowledge, and that our ideas of space and time are simply a part of the way we structure and organize what we see and feel at different times. The only thing I'm not totally convinced on his idea that intuition is only anything present to the senses, because I think there are some things we know simply due to human nature. After looking at many different views, Kantian Constructivism made the most sense to me and seemed to fit best with my views of the definition and origin of knowledge.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)