Philosophy 101 Unit 1

Please post a comment by Tuesday’s class for participation credit for this week.

Prompts and Questions:

• “Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.” - Ben Franklin. Is Franklin right?
• Dreyfus is attempting to combat the inflated hype surrounding the Internet. In what ways has the Internet been hyped? Does it live up to the hype, or does it fall flat?
• Dreyfus makes a big deal out of the failure of search. What similarities do you see between his arguments and Searle’s arguments against strong AI? Is search really a failure? If not, what does this imply about artificial intelligence?
• Dreyfus thinks the body is the source of meaning, relevance, and significance. Why are Dreyfus’ arguments for this view? What implications does this hold for our engagement with the Internet? Is Dreyfus right to be skeptical of the Internet?
• Dreyfus thinks that distance learning is necessarily deficient. Are his criticisms reasonable? If you have had any experience with distance learning, do his criticisms ring true?
• Dreyfus focuses much of his criticisms at the very notion of ‘telepresence’. He says “Whatever hugs do for people, I’m quite sure telehugs won’t do it.” Are interpersonal relationships over the Internet necessarily deficient? What might Clark say in response?
• Dreyfus thinks that the Internet is symptomatic of the nihilism of the contemporary age, and he sides with Kierkegaard in seeing this nihilism reflected in the press, the media, and the way people behave on the Internet. Is the modern age really nihilistic? If so, is this nihilism a product of the technology or does it reflect something deeper about contemporary culture, or perhaps about human nature?
• Does the internet represent an overload of information? Is this dangerous to our democracy, or to our individual freedoms? Is this something we are prepared to handle, or does the technology move too quickly for us to keep up?
• In the conclusion of the book, Dreyfus distinguishes his criticisms of the Internet from Plato’s criticisms of written language. What is Plato’s view, and why does Dreyfus think his criticisms are different?
• Should the network be neutral? Do the telecommunications companies responsible for building the infrastructure of the network have a legitimate claim to those pipes? Should the internet be a public utility like water and electricity, or is it a luxury item that is rightfully under the control of private interests?

Also, for those interested in the security issues we discussed in class, I strongly recommend watching the Frontline documentary Spying on the Home Front (which you can stream online). It is extremely well done, and goes in depth to both sides of the argument. 

Also, check the following resources on the NSA Wiretapping scandal:

NSA has massive database of Americans’ phone calls (USA Today, who originally broke the story)
NSA Warrantless Surveillance Controversy [Wikipedia]
AT&T Whistle blower’s Evidence [Wired]
Discussion of Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) [Wikipedia]

Net Neutrality:

Vint Cerf (Father of the Internet and Chief Internet Evangelist for Google) on Net Neutrality.
Net Neutrality is about freedom of speech
Lessig on the Law

• Are we natural born cyborgs? Is the mind extended? Are our technological devices part of our (soft) selves?
• Does Clark’s revision of the old mind-body problem solve any of the Cartesian worries we encountered at the beginning of the semester? If so, which ones? If not, why not?
• Which examples in the text did you find especially convincing? Which ones were unconvincing? How does this hurt Clark’s argument?
• What similarities do you see between Clark and Gehlen? What are the differences between these two views?
• Clark boils down our interactions with technology to two fundamental dimensions: the transparency of the interface and the resulting expansion of our capacities. Are there any other ways in which technology might affect our cognitive abilities?
• Clark says the human brain is unique in its plasticity and opportunism. Is he right, or is there some other source of uniqueness? If so, does this fall into the Cartesian problem of dualism?
• Clark downplays the importance of the barrier between biology and technology. Is this barrier important? Why or why not?
• Clark says that language itself is an example of an external prop that not only extends our cognitive capacities but restructures the way we think about the world. Is language an example of an external tool?

Post in this thread by Tuesday for participation credit for this week.

Post 3 is due Monday by midnight. 

Read Natural Born Cyborg: The Introduction, and Chapter 1 and 3 for Tuesday. Read the rest of the book (especially chapters 4 and 5) for Thursday. 

• Why does Heidgger spend so much time talking about causality?
• Give some examples of a poetic perspective. 
• Is science dangerous? Is technology dangerous? Is Gehlen correct to describe science/technology as a way to “force nature open”? How does this relate to Heidegger’s discussion of ‘neutrality’?
• Does Heidegger do a good job of describing the instrumental relationship?
• Give some examples of the dangers Heidegger describes. 
• Heidegger says one danger is that “man always and everywhere sees only himself,” and that this is ultimately a human delusion. Can this delusion butress a critique of the design objection to artificial intelligence?
• Does our technology replace God? Can we build a room of requirement?

Post by Tuesday?

• Is technology a “dumb process of nature”?
• Does technology serve the same psychological functions as magic?
• Is man himself automatism?
• How does technology mirror man?
• How does technology bear a “twisted relationship to nature”?
• Is technology part of our essence?

Respond to this thread by Tuesday’s class for participation credit this week. Also, I am knee deep in grading online material; I should be done before you turn in your midterm (Due next Thursday!!!)

• Is Kline’s four part definition of technology complete? Is it comprehensive? Are the distinctions between the four parts clear? If not, can you give counterexamples that don’t fit his definition?
• Is technology a uniquely human activity? Is it a central pattern of human behavior? Are the results of human technological activity ‘non-natural’?
• Can animals use technology, in any sense of Kline’s definition? Can animals innovate?
• Are animals ‘world-closed’? Are humans ‘world-open’?
• Nietzsche says “Man is the underdetermined creature.” Is man underdetermined by nature, and does this make man unique among the animals?
• Plessner identifies Laughing and Crying as unique features of human beings, as a result of our ex-centric relationship to our bodies. Is Plessner right about this relationship, and are there any other behaviors that reveal this unique position?

Reminder: Tonight (Thursday) @ 6pm in Greg 217: I will be giving a short paper entitled “What is the Internet?”

Tomorrow @ 3pm in Greg 213, Bernard Reginster “On being Looked At: Sartre on the Significance of Alienation”

Attend either talk (and say hi to me!) and I will mark you down for extra credit. 

Here are the prompts for this week’s R&L thread. Respond to this post by class on Tuesday for participation credit for the week. 

1) Is the mind a semantic engine? Why or why not?

2) Argue for or against any of Haugeland’s X-factor objections to the central thesis of cognitive science. 

3) Can machines give a damn?

4) Is indistinguishability from human behavior enough for intelligence? Why or why not? Is the imitation game fair?

5) Is the Lady Lovelace objection fatal to the possibility of artificial intelligence?

6) Can machines learn? Are learning machines autonomous?

Reminders: 

1) Post Two is due next week, so start thinking about something to post on! 20 comments are due the week after that. 

2) Read Haugeland, “Semantic Engines” in the course packet for Tuesday (and be ready for a quiz!)

3) Screening tonight at 6 in the main lounge.

4) There is a talk tomorrow in Greg Hall rm 213, at 3pm entitled “KANT’S PARALOGISMS OF PURE REASON”. Should be fun, and you’ll get extra credit for showing up. 

Here are some prompts for this week’s R&L thread. Post by Tuesday before class for credit. 

• Descartes gives two proofs of God’s existence. Are they valid? Are they sound? (Dont answer unless you know what those terms mean!)
• Descartes’ proofs of God are both ‘ontological proofs’. Are there better proofs for the existence (or non-existence) of God? Are any such proofs convincing? Why or why not?
• Expand on any of the debate topics this afternoon. Feel free to stray from Descartes’ text as far as you like. I am especially interested in hearing more discussion on the relationship between the mind and the body. 
• Descartes’ grand conclusion in the Meditations is his thinking subject- the cogito. If nothing else in Descartes interests you, it is hard to deny that this very compelling conclusion. But we know that Descartes still has problems. How else might Descartes have solved his skeptical challenge from this foundation?
• Post anything you’d like on Waking Life. Just about all the segments in the film can be found on Youtube, if you need a refresher. 

Reminder: Screening tonight at 6pm in the main lobby! We will be watching the Attenborough documentary on the Bowerbirds.

Respond to this thread by class on Tuesday for participation credit. 

• Aristotle thinks: To be a thing is to be a kind of thing. He calls the ‘kinds’ of things “essences“. Chairhood is the essence of chairs, cathood is the essence of cats. Humans are essential rational animals. Are there any such things as ‘essences’, or is Aristotle’s ontology fundamentally mistaken?
• Is there a vital force?
• In what ways does modern science represent a threat to the Aristotlean world view?
• What does Aristotle mean by “eudaimonia“, and is there any such thing?
• Is Aristotle’s picture of the virtues of thought complete? What features of the mind are left out, and why doesn’t Aristotle consider them virtues?

This is an open thread to share your thoughts on this week’s reading and lectures. You must leave a comment in this thread by Tuesday’s class to receive participation credit for this week. The following questions are merely prompts to stimulate your mind, but feel free to raise and answer any other on-topic question. You can comment on any topic raised in class this week. There is no word limit on your comment, but it must demonstrate some minor effort on your part to think critically about the topics raised in class. You may also respond to another student’s comments in this thread, or questions raised in lecture. Any substantive post beyond the first will count towards your reply requirements.

• Are all beliefs merely opinion? What is the value of an opinion, and how do we distinguish those from genuine knowledge?
• Why is persuasion and rhetoric a bad thing on Plato’s and Socrates’ view? Do you agree or disagree?
• Protagoras said “Man is the measure of all things.” Does that apply to mathematical and geometric truths as well? Does 1+1=2 simply because we say so, or does it reveal a deeper truth about the world?
• Is the unexamined life worth living? Why or why not?
• What is the area of a circle? How do you know for sure?
• Should we trust our reason and intellect over our senses? How deep does the distinction between the visible realm and the intelligible realm go?
• Can someone be taught an ‘eternal truth’, in Plato’s sense?