Philosophy 101D

Post here by class on Thursday for participation credit for last week.

Prompts and Questions:

• Post any thought you had about the class debate between Clark and Dreyfus.
• Jenkinson and Bleecker both claim that machines deserve credit (and responsibility) for participating in human social activities. How do their claims differ from traditional arguments over artificial intelligence?
• We have basically finished the core course material for this semester. Do you feel like you understand technology better than you did before? Did this class help? Is technology worth understanding well?

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

Prompts and Questions:

• 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?

Please respond by Tuesday’s class for participation credit for this week.

Prompts and Questions:

• 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?

Please leave a comment by Thursday for participation credit for this week. I’m giving you extra time on account of the midterm.

Questions and Prompts:

• 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?
• Is there a real distinction between knowing-how and knowing-that?
• Is technology always subservient to man’s will? In other words, does technology always do what we want, when we want it? Does nature? Would Marx answer these two questions differently?
• Is our history the history of instruments? Perhaps more broadly, is our history the history of techne?
• Are there labor songs?

Respond to this thread by Tuesday’s class to receive participation credit for this week. Also, remember to read Searle’s paper in the course packet for Tuesday!

Prompts and Questions:

• Haugeland suggests that the analogy to computers will solve the Cartesian problem of mind/body dualism. Are you convinced?
• Haugeland lists a number of X-factors that cognitive science may be unable to account for, including consciousness, ‘original’ intentionality, and caring. Do you agree with any of these objections? If so, do you think this introduces a new kind of dualism?
• Explain the difference between analog and digital, or between algorithms and heuristics, as Haugeland describes them. Are these differences fatal to the central thesis of cognitive science?
• Turing’s imitation game is meant to give a behavioristic account of intelligence that avoids the problematic question, ‘Can machines think?’ Do you think the imitation game satisfies this worry? Why or why not?
• Is Lady Lovelace’s objection to the Turing Test fatal? Are Turing’s responses satisfactory?
• Turing’s final suggestion is to build learning machines. Do you think a machine that learns can be genuinely intelligent? Why or why not?

Respond to this thread by Tuesday for participation credit! Note: you aren’t required to respond to the prompts below. Feel free to speak your mind on any topic covered in class or in the readings. These prompts are just meant to stimulate discussion.

Prompts and Questions:

• We went over three different proofs of God’s existence in class. Are these arguments valid? Are they sound?
• Is Descartes’ solution to the mind/body problem satisfying? Why or why not?
• Is Descartes right to claim that I know my own thoughts more intimately than anything else? Is this really an indubitable foundation for knowledge?
• Is the will free? Does this affect our freedom?
• Is the Argument from Design a strong argument? Is it better than Descartes’ arguments?

Here’s this week’s R&L thread. Leave a comment by class on Tuesday for participation credit.

Prompts and Questions:

• Are there real essences in Aristotle’s sense? Is the universe essentially atoms, or quarks, or quantum fluctuations? Are human beings essentially rational animals?
• Is Descartes’ goal, to ‘establish something firm and lasting in the sciences’, a worthwhile project? Does science need to rest on indubitable certainty?
• Is radical doubt the best way to establish certainty? Can anyone ever really raze their entire belief structure to the ground and ‘begin again from original foundations’?
• Is Descartes right to claim that there is no way to distinguish dreams from waking life?
• Does the Evil Genius effectively accomplish Descartes’ goals of destroying his beliefs?

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 next Thursday to receive participation credit for this week. 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.

Prompts and questions:

• Time Person of the Year: You
• Facebook postings alarm UI officials (Daily Illini article) (Note: I don’t want to start a discussion about the Chief, but feel free to talk about the effects of social networking sites like Facebook on campus politics, free speech, etc.)

• Does 1+1=2? How do you know for sure?

• 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?

• 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?