Artificial Intelligence

In my opinion, there is a huge difference between the programming of computers and the way humans are "programmed" by society. To begin with, computers and all its functions are made by humans and for humans. There is no way that a computer can function without the initial input of a human. Furthermore, for all the advancement in technology and the improvements computers have contributed to our daily lives; they still are not able to take over human actions just be sheer instinct. 

Another point that needs to be taken into consideration is the fact that computers are pretty universal in the way in which they work once programmed. What I mean by this is that if you were to take two computers that were programmed by the same person, they will react the same way time and time again to the same commands. 

On the other hand, the way in which humans are "programmed" can vary depending on  the place where they are being raised, the culture, the influence other people have on them. People also have the choice to either follow what has been taught to them or make their own choice in order to follow their own path. Furthermore, if you have two people who have been raised in the same circumstances, with the same influence and the same "programming instructions" more often than not you will get two different reactions. 

It is precisely these differences that make humans and artificial intelligence so different. As smart and useful as computers get with improvements, they lack the liberty of choice and instinct that we, as humans, have and enjoy. Even though computers can be updated once they are programmed, humans have the ability to be completely "re-programmed" if they chose to. 

Dualism

I believe that we are beings composed of two substances like Descartes argued. However, unlike him I believe that these two substances are completely interrelated with one another, which is also known as interactionism. If it wasn't for our ability to combine both our physical assets (like the brain) with our mental ones (like the mind) we wouldn't be able to make simple decisions such as what to write for this blog. 

Due to the lack of knowledge during Descartes' time as to how the brain works, a lot was not properly understood (i.e the example given in the reading about the pineal gland). But now with the technology available to us, we can comprehend more about the way in which the brain works and all the connections that must happen in order for us to complete simple tasks.  

One way in which the brain and the mind work together can be seen in people who have had accidents and suffer trauma. Depending on the severity of the injury, some people have described feeling trapped in their own bodies. In a documentary “Coma” by HBO, a patient by the name of Tom is seen struggling to get his body follow simple commands such as “close your hand”. In an interview done a few months after he had regained both mental and physical strength, he explained how even though early on in his recovery from a coma he could understand what was asked of him; he still wasn't able to get his body to do what he wanted.

If we go back to Descartes’ argument of interactionism, one can see that in the previous example Tom needed both his physical asset (his brain) and his metal (his mind) in order to be able to complete the tasks that were asked of him. I strongly believe that one does not work without the other and with the help of both we become the people that we are.  

Our sense of reality

I believe that our perception of reality is greatly influenced by our senses, however, they are not the only source of our knowledge. Through experiments, scientists have been able to prove that our brain constructs reality through perceptual illusions. By this what scientist mean is that the brain makes a guess (an informed one) in regards to the information being received and the way it is interprets it. 

An example of this is the way we interpret and make sense of colors. One would guess and/or assume that when looking at a cube that has different color patterns on it,  what we see is the actual color (i.e blue,green, red squares). However, this is not the case. What happens in actuality is that the brain just makes an interpretation between what the eye sees  (through the photo pigments found in the cones of the eye) and what the its interpretation from the different information being received. 

If we were to take the above information and analyze it from an empiricists point of view, then we would be able to argue that the brain just makes sense of our color perception based on our previous knowledge and/or exposure to colors before. But what about those facts that have been proven by science beyond reasonable doubt? 

Physics, like math, is an area that cannot be disputed in regards to its facts. But we cannot necessarily say that we experience physics through our senses. One example is the First Law of Thermodynamics.While there are several ways in which it can be explained, it can be safely summarized as follow:
    " Energy cannot be neither created nor destroyed, but it can change forms"
Energy is not something we can feel, we know what it is, we can explain it and how it works; but yet for all the knowledge we have in regards to it, no one can describe what energy feels like. The advancement in science have provide us with facts that defies an empiricist's claim that our senses are the only source of  knowledge. I would have to argue that they enhance our knowledge and help us put words to those things we wouldn't be able to otherwise, but in order to really make sense of our reality we need more. 

Descartes and Methodological Skepticism

In our everyday lives we use 'methodological skepticism', the question is whether or not we accept our findings or we choose to remain blissfully ignorant. One innate condition about human beings is the fear to change. No matter how many times we go through life experiences that can serve as a teaching tool to show that change is not the equivalent to a negative outcome; we still fear it and above all else avoid it. I believe that the more attached we are to a certain situation and/or person the harder it becomes to see reality objectively. 

Being in the denial is a common coping strategy that we employ and even when we can no longer deny the truth of reality it becomes easier to build a different reality in our minds. For some people this becomes the only way in which they are able to face their lives day to day, others employ it when it is the most convenient, but there are also those who get so exhausted that they finally begin to question their reality. The problem with the latter is that they can become so jaded that from that point on they will begin to question absolutely everything.

 On the other hand, there are those individuals that are naturally skeptics. They question absolutely everything they are being told, everything they experience at a given point and even those around them. It is hard to persuade them and to do so, one has to be able to present facts being doubt. These type of individuals employ Descartes' method to not only reach conclusions but also to lead their lives. Some would argue that this is an exhausting way of living, moreover, they would say that these type of people have "trust issues". 

I would argue that employing a certain amount of "methodological skepticism" in our everyday lives is not only healthy but also necessary. It is the best way to reassure ourselves that we have a clear sense of what our reality is. Also, by employing this method we can avoid being manipulated by those who seek to control those whom they might deem as "weak". The key, in my opinion, is to find balance between Descartes' method and taking things for what they are. One can not deny that there are certain things in our daily lives that do not have a clear answer, they just simply are. 

Socrates and The Allegory of the Cave

According to Socrates, the number one responsibility that we have in life is to better ourselves everyday. In his mind, a life that is not examined and questioned, is not a life that is worth living. Socrates, lets remember, was in fact condemned and given the death penalty due to his beliefs. During his trial,not once did he ask for clemency, nor did he fight for his innocence. Until the very end, Socrates kept true to his morals and values and asked the jury to really question themselves along with their own morals. 

For Socrates, philosophy was a road people follow when questioning what really was. His method of questioning, also known as "dialectic", was so unique in the sense that he never made himself out to be better than anyone else. In fact, he would claim ignorance in order to provide room for the other person to fully explain his/her ideas. The latter, provided the perfect opportunity for their ideas to be fully exposed and therefore be open to growth. One could argue that the liberating aspect of philosophy, by Socrates' standards, is that by exposing one's ideas, personal growth can therefore be achieved. By questioning the aforementioned, the flaws and contradictions are hence uncovered thus allowing for further examination. All this is in the hopes that a new more evolved and clear idea is achieved. 

By following Socrates' logic, the lack of self examination is indeed deserving of pessimism. If people choose to "stay in the cave" and accept everything that is being told to them,then they are not reaching (or even trying to reach) their full potential. Moreover, if questions are not asked, there is the threat for society to become stagnant and the possibility for progression to be missed altogether. 

My Blog

This will be my philosophy blog.