Real Wild Women/Wild Real Men
The movie Sorority Row is about six girls in a college sorority who are all seeking for their own identities. They are all young, naïve and have distinct personalities separating them from one another. Don’t get me wrong, they still depict the typical sorority girl stereotype of being rich and gorgeous with a hardcore attitude, but you would never see such diverse individuals as friends outside of the sorority. In order for them to truly bond as “sisters” they are brought together surprisingly by a horrible accident late one night. Their personalities are so varied that they must each contribute to the storyline immensely in different ways, which is what makes this movie so intriguing.
The backbone to the storyline sucks in each sorority sister to a bond that they cannot break, even if some of them are unwilling to cooperate. Megan, a very prissy, dramatic individual decides to get back at her boyfriend for cheating on her. She proceeds to “fake” her death in order to freak him out for payback. All the other sisters decide to get in on it and they take her “dead body” to an abandoned part of the desert. Each one of them contributes to the prank that is eventually taken too far. The boyfriend decides to stab Megan to her actual, real death discovering at the same time that she was never dead in the first place. Jessica, the head of Theta Pi, convinces the other sisters to keep it a secret, creating a forced bond between them, until a killer who knows their dark secret comes after them all.
There are a few stereotypes and similar motivations that Jack Boozer has pointed out about certain films. He explains how “heterosexual couples tend to commit crimes out of spontaneous convenience and role-playing” (Boozer 12). Megan and her boyfriend would be a prime example of this typical similarity. Although her boyfriend was not in on the crime originally, the origin of the storyline was based off of Megan impulsively playing a prank on her boyfriend. The end result was the infamous crime of coldblooded murder. You also tend to see quite a few movies with couples who commit crimes out of nowhere. Take for example the movies, Fun with Dick and Jane and Sugar and Spice. These two movies are also about couples who rob banks and stores in order to fulfill their financial needs. In movies where the characters commit serious crimes, they almost always have a significant other, or an accomplice throughout the entire film. It seems to make the storyline more intriguing.
Not only are the sorority stereotypes heavily present in this movie, but there are also a few other female stereotypes that Boozer discusses. Boozer claims the irony in that “the protagonist is increasingly entrapped the more desperately he/she seeks emancipation” (Boozer 209). Cassidy, another sister, is constantly harassed by the other sisters because she does not believe they should keep the murder a secret. Throughout the entire movie she is trying to find a way, but is always sucked in to the sisterhood. But do not let her weakness fool you! We all know the cliches in movies, and she ends up being a significant factor in the ending!
Although this movie is a typical horror movie, it shows how broken female bonds can be mended by even the costliest of crimes. However, one of the more prominent similarities would definitely be gender roles. If the protagonist is a female, then she is almost always a bully with masculine personality features. It’s interesting to ponder the similarities in certain genres of movies; they almost always have more than one aspect in common.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
Week 4 Blog Reviews
Group 2 Blog Reviews
Kayla Smith
In your “Can Machines Think?” post, I’m assuming yours was the summary assignment as well, but I really like how you were able to shorten it up into a very small summary. It kept me more interested and not lost in all the different machine “lingo”!
I’m not particularly an artsy person either, so I was also very hesitant for the Frida Kahlo assignment. Your descriptions were very nice but it was hard to picture it without the picture posted! But I’m glad you enjoyed the painting rather than just doing it for the assignment! That’s what art should be about!
Jessica Tavizon
I found your “So… Can They?” post very interesting! I disagreed with the fact that machines could think, but you put it in an entirely different way which was very cool. You believe that machines can think by tricking us into thinking we’re having an actual full on conversation with them, however, it’s an “empty victory.” I thought that was clever how you put it that way. I never really considered it like that!
I really enjoyed your Frida Kahlo assignment. It’s cool to see that you could actually relate with the painting. It honestly really makes you enjoy the art that much more when you actually can see similarities with the artist and yourself.
Unfortunately, Erin Lyng did not have any assignments posted for me to read.
Kayla Smith
In your “Can Machines Think?” post, I’m assuming yours was the summary assignment as well, but I really like how you were able to shorten it up into a very small summary. It kept me more interested and not lost in all the different machine “lingo”!
I’m not particularly an artsy person either, so I was also very hesitant for the Frida Kahlo assignment. Your descriptions were very nice but it was hard to picture it without the picture posted! But I’m glad you enjoyed the painting rather than just doing it for the assignment! That’s what art should be about!
Jessica Tavizon
I found your “So… Can They?” post very interesting! I disagreed with the fact that machines could think, but you put it in an entirely different way which was very cool. You believe that machines can think by tricking us into thinking we’re having an actual full on conversation with them, however, it’s an “empty victory.” I thought that was clever how you put it that way. I never really considered it like that!
I really enjoyed your Frida Kahlo assignment. It’s cool to see that you could actually relate with the painting. It honestly really makes you enjoy the art that much more when you actually can see similarities with the artist and yourself.
Unfortunately, Erin Lyng did not have any assignments posted for me to read.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Just an Illusion??
What I Saw in the Water or What the Water Gave Me
Filipacci, Daniel. "Frida Kahlo: What the Water Gave Her." Venetian Red. 10 12 2008. Wordpress.com, Web. 14 Sep 2009. http://venetianred.net/2008/12/10/frida-kahlo-what-the-water-gave-her/In Frida Kahlo’s painting, What I Saw in the Water or What the Water Gave Me, I see very dull colors, nothing too bright. I see the illusion of someone sitting in the bathtub with numerous mini pictures on top of the water. There’s a building burning in a volcano next to what looks like a bird on top of a tree trunk. There’s a lot of brown and dirt around them and the water is very shallow, but murky. I also see a naked woman, two of them next to each other. It almost looks as if there’s a dress floating in the water that belonged to one of the women. Some of the figures are hard to make out, but I observed what looks like different kinds of plant life throughout the entire painting. It looks very earthy. She doesn’t use any vibrant colors so all of these different objects seem to almost flow together as a collage.
The reason why I chose this painting was because it caught my eye. Not because it had bright colors or anything like that, but it was a painting that I have never seen before. Frida Kahlo uses numerous objects and morphs them all into one, which I think symbolizes many different things. I like how she used a bathtub as the main background because whenever I’m taking a relaxing bath, I tend to think many different things at once, so I felt like I instantly related to this picture. I feel like each separate “mini picture” symbolizes something specific. The volcano engulfing the building reminds me of manmade disaster. An example of this would be 9-11, even though this picture was painted in 1938. I do not know what the naked women symbolize, but maybe how women were perceived back then? I think this picture is very intriguing, and you can definitely leave it up to your own imagination, which almost makes me wonder if that was Kahlo’s intentions. I would love to read the background on this painting and find out the meaning to each little piece.
Monday, September 14, 2009
"Soulful" or "Soulless?"
Cog as a Thought Experiment
Page 165 “Philosophy Unit Writing Assignments” – Write a summary of Wright’s essay. Start your summary with a short, objective introduction to the topic engaged by Wright, and state the author’s main point, or his thesis, in your introduction. In the summary that follows, recount what you take to be the key points of Wright’s essay, rephrasing them in your own words and clearly indicating how these key points relate to Wright’s thesis. Imagine that your reading is a peer, is not a philosophy major, and has not read Wright’s essay; thus, since all that the reader will ever know about these ideas will come from you, you may need to simplify and provide explanations for some of the more difficult concepts and terminology that Wright discusses. When the reader has finished reading your summary, he or she should have a thorough understanding of the ideas Wright deals with.
The best chess player in the United States might win a nationwide tournament with no problem, however, he still has his flaws just like any other human. He might choose the wrong move during a game and not realize the mistake he has made until after, when it’s too late. What if that move was against a computer – a computer with no flaws? Does that automatically make man-made intelligence just as good as us humans? Robert Wright clearly states that the better these seemingly soulless machines get at doing things people do, the more plausible it seems that we could be soulless machines too.
This might seem like an interesting topic to the everyday reader but for some reason it does not appeal to many scholars. Philosophers are not theologians, so they simply speak about “consciousness and the mind” rather than the “soul.” Wright points out that as our information advances with technology, philosophers seem to be taking the existence of mind and consciousness less seriously.
A British computer scientist Alan Turing wrote the original question, “Can machines think?” in one of his famous essays. He then proposed the now called “Turing test.” Suppose an interrogator is communicating by a keyboard with accessories that he cannot see. Some of these accessories are people, and some are computers. The interrogator then must guess which is which. The fact that a computer can fool interrogators is the reason why it is said to be able to think. His test was not supposed to answer his question, but to actually replace it. He did add, “I believe that at the end of the century the use of words and general educated opinion will have altered so much that one will be able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted.” Turing was obviously wrong, because with the century almost over, no machine has consistently passed the infamous Turing test.
The lesson learned from this is that the hardest thing for computers is the “simple” things. Yeah, computers can play a good game of chess, but making small talk is a whole different story. As Marvin Minsky once speculated, “the biggest challenge is giving machines common sense.” In order to pass the Turing test, a computer must have that crucial piece of mind. Even if a computer could pass the test, the debate would still be constant in whether they could still think or not. Nobody ever doubted the machine’s chess skills, but they did doubt whether or not it was a thinking machine. It uses zillions of difficult calculations rather than a quick thought. However, on the other hand, there are many chess programs that work somewhat like us. Although they aren’t good enough to beat chess champion Gary Kasparov, they are good enough to leave the average individual swimming in their own humiliation.
Many people would say that computers cannot think. When they think about this, they don’t just mean our brain functions and how smart we are, but they mean more of what’s within us – like feelings. Could a computer ever feel upset or angry when it loses in a simple game of chess? Can they recognize faces? Can computers actually have experiences like we do every day? These are just a few of the questions of consciousness or mind. As computers keep evolving, some philosophers are taking the issue of computer consciousness more seriously. Some of them, like David Chalmers who is a professor of philosophy at the University of California at Santa Cruz, are using this to argue that consciousness is a much harder puzzle than many other philosophers have previously thought.
Chalmers has a fourth book coming out, which is said to be an “illusion” by the well-known philosopher Daniel Dennett of Tufts University. He claims that consciousness is no longer a mystery. The root of this heated debate between the two goes back to Gilbert Ryle from Oxford University. In 1949 Ryle published a book called The Concept of Mind. It dismissed the idea of a human soul. It also had no enthusiasm for the less supernatural versions of the soul: mind, consciousness, and subjective experience. Some insisted that these did not exist, but others said that they do exist, but it consists simply of just the brain.
Colin McGinn, an author and philosopher, and Chalmers have been called the New Mysterians because they obviously both think that consciousness is mysterious. McGinn goes as far to say that it will always remain that way. There have been a few mysterians insisting that the glory of human experience defies scientific reasoning. The current debate is different, however. The New Mysterians do not doubt the premises of artificial intelligence (AI). They agree that an electronic machine can do everything a human brain can do. But wait – humans have a feeling of heat and pain. According to Chalmers, studying Cog, an AI lab, deepens the question of why we have such feelings. Cog’s story seems to say that you do not need pain in order to function like a human being. So then why do we have such feelings? Of course, it’s possible that Cog could have some sort of consciousness. Consciousness is the central source of life’s meaning. So, it’s always possible that consciousness isn’t extra, but it actually does something in the physical world, like what influences our behaviors.
Chalmers claims that once we know what kinds of data become a part of consciousness, and how it gets it, we still have the question “How does data become a part of consciousness?” remaining. McGinn also questions, “How does the brain ‘turn the water into wine’?” He does not mean that the experiences we have are miracles, but he believes that there is some physical explanation for them. These two questions about consciousness that do not depend on artificial intelligence. Dennett has some answers. He says that if you believe that “the mind is the brain” then consciousness must have a function to you. But to people who do not share Dennett’s beliefs, then these arguments may seem odd. That doesn’t mean Dennett is wrong though. Chalmers believes that a solution to the consciousness puzzle is possible, but it will require recognizing that it is something “over and above the physical.”
Although Turing generally shied away from such questions, he noted that some people might complain that to create machines that can actually think would be creating souls and that job is only done by God. He strongly disagreed and wrote, “Rather we are, in either case, instruments of his will providing mansions for the souls that he creates.”
Page 165 “Philosophy Unit Writing Assignments” – Write a summary of Wright’s essay. Start your summary with a short, objective introduction to the topic engaged by Wright, and state the author’s main point, or his thesis, in your introduction. In the summary that follows, recount what you take to be the key points of Wright’s essay, rephrasing them in your own words and clearly indicating how these key points relate to Wright’s thesis. Imagine that your reading is a peer, is not a philosophy major, and has not read Wright’s essay; thus, since all that the reader will ever know about these ideas will come from you, you may need to simplify and provide explanations for some of the more difficult concepts and terminology that Wright discusses. When the reader has finished reading your summary, he or she should have a thorough understanding of the ideas Wright deals with.
The best chess player in the United States might win a nationwide tournament with no problem, however, he still has his flaws just like any other human. He might choose the wrong move during a game and not realize the mistake he has made until after, when it’s too late. What if that move was against a computer – a computer with no flaws? Does that automatically make man-made intelligence just as good as us humans? Robert Wright clearly states that the better these seemingly soulless machines get at doing things people do, the more plausible it seems that we could be soulless machines too.
This might seem like an interesting topic to the everyday reader but for some reason it does not appeal to many scholars. Philosophers are not theologians, so they simply speak about “consciousness and the mind” rather than the “soul.” Wright points out that as our information advances with technology, philosophers seem to be taking the existence of mind and consciousness less seriously.
A British computer scientist Alan Turing wrote the original question, “Can machines think?” in one of his famous essays. He then proposed the now called “Turing test.” Suppose an interrogator is communicating by a keyboard with accessories that he cannot see. Some of these accessories are people, and some are computers. The interrogator then must guess which is which. The fact that a computer can fool interrogators is the reason why it is said to be able to think. His test was not supposed to answer his question, but to actually replace it. He did add, “I believe that at the end of the century the use of words and general educated opinion will have altered so much that one will be able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted.” Turing was obviously wrong, because with the century almost over, no machine has consistently passed the infamous Turing test.
The lesson learned from this is that the hardest thing for computers is the “simple” things. Yeah, computers can play a good game of chess, but making small talk is a whole different story. As Marvin Minsky once speculated, “the biggest challenge is giving machines common sense.” In order to pass the Turing test, a computer must have that crucial piece of mind. Even if a computer could pass the test, the debate would still be constant in whether they could still think or not. Nobody ever doubted the machine’s chess skills, but they did doubt whether or not it was a thinking machine. It uses zillions of difficult calculations rather than a quick thought. However, on the other hand, there are many chess programs that work somewhat like us. Although they aren’t good enough to beat chess champion Gary Kasparov, they are good enough to leave the average individual swimming in their own humiliation.
Many people would say that computers cannot think. When they think about this, they don’t just mean our brain functions and how smart we are, but they mean more of what’s within us – like feelings. Could a computer ever feel upset or angry when it loses in a simple game of chess? Can they recognize faces? Can computers actually have experiences like we do every day? These are just a few of the questions of consciousness or mind. As computers keep evolving, some philosophers are taking the issue of computer consciousness more seriously. Some of them, like David Chalmers who is a professor of philosophy at the University of California at Santa Cruz, are using this to argue that consciousness is a much harder puzzle than many other philosophers have previously thought.
Chalmers has a fourth book coming out, which is said to be an “illusion” by the well-known philosopher Daniel Dennett of Tufts University. He claims that consciousness is no longer a mystery. The root of this heated debate between the two goes back to Gilbert Ryle from Oxford University. In 1949 Ryle published a book called The Concept of Mind. It dismissed the idea of a human soul. It also had no enthusiasm for the less supernatural versions of the soul: mind, consciousness, and subjective experience. Some insisted that these did not exist, but others said that they do exist, but it consists simply of just the brain.
Colin McGinn, an author and philosopher, and Chalmers have been called the New Mysterians because they obviously both think that consciousness is mysterious. McGinn goes as far to say that it will always remain that way. There have been a few mysterians insisting that the glory of human experience defies scientific reasoning. The current debate is different, however. The New Mysterians do not doubt the premises of artificial intelligence (AI). They agree that an electronic machine can do everything a human brain can do. But wait – humans have a feeling of heat and pain. According to Chalmers, studying Cog, an AI lab, deepens the question of why we have such feelings. Cog’s story seems to say that you do not need pain in order to function like a human being. So then why do we have such feelings? Of course, it’s possible that Cog could have some sort of consciousness. Consciousness is the central source of life’s meaning. So, it’s always possible that consciousness isn’t extra, but it actually does something in the physical world, like what influences our behaviors.
Chalmers claims that once we know what kinds of data become a part of consciousness, and how it gets it, we still have the question “How does data become a part of consciousness?” remaining. McGinn also questions, “How does the brain ‘turn the water into wine’?” He does not mean that the experiences we have are miracles, but he believes that there is some physical explanation for them. These two questions about consciousness that do not depend on artificial intelligence. Dennett has some answers. He says that if you believe that “the mind is the brain” then consciousness must have a function to you. But to people who do not share Dennett’s beliefs, then these arguments may seem odd. That doesn’t mean Dennett is wrong though. Chalmers believes that a solution to the consciousness puzzle is possible, but it will require recognizing that it is something “over and above the physical.”
Although Turing generally shied away from such questions, he noted that some people might complain that to create machines that can actually think would be creating souls and that job is only done by God. He strongly disagreed and wrote, “Rather we are, in either case, instruments of his will providing mansions for the souls that he creates.”
Week 3 Blog Reviews
Group 2 Blog Reviews
Kayla Smith
I really enjoyed reading your writings this past week, especially the one title “Class Discussion” for September 10th. I completely agree with you, because I also totally disagree with Marvin Minsky. I mean, it was a pretty interesting essay to read, but the brain really is more complex than we even know. And yes, biological features like consciousness cannot just be placed into a machine – this seems impossible!
Good posts :)
Jessica Tavizon
I also really enjoyed reading your post on Marvin Minksy’s essay. You proved a great point – humans are the ones who created machines in the first place. So true, we are the ones placing that information into the computer, therefore not making it a genuine functioning machine. I thought that was a great point.
Your other post, on Robert M. Hazen’s “The Great Unknown” I really found interesting. Your example about Jack and Jill was a great way to explain your point. I honestly do not think that science can fully explain why we feel such emotions in our hearts. It seems that nowadays we need science in order to explain EVERYTHING. Why can’t we just stick to the simple answers, like we feel those emotions because we are human??
Good posts :)
Unfortunately, Erin Lyng did not have any assignments posted for me to read.
Oh, and I wanted to let you guys know, I have classes pretty much all day on Tuesdays and Thursdays, so my posts usually are posted a day or so earlier than the due date. I just thought I’d let you guys know in case it was confusing to figure out which posts you needed to read!
Kayla Smith
I really enjoyed reading your writings this past week, especially the one title “Class Discussion” for September 10th. I completely agree with you, because I also totally disagree with Marvin Minsky. I mean, it was a pretty interesting essay to read, but the brain really is more complex than we even know. And yes, biological features like consciousness cannot just be placed into a machine – this seems impossible!
Good posts :)
Jessica Tavizon
I also really enjoyed reading your post on Marvin Minksy’s essay. You proved a great point – humans are the ones who created machines in the first place. So true, we are the ones placing that information into the computer, therefore not making it a genuine functioning machine. I thought that was a great point.
Your other post, on Robert M. Hazen’s “The Great Unknown” I really found interesting. Your example about Jack and Jill was a great way to explain your point. I honestly do not think that science can fully explain why we feel such emotions in our hearts. It seems that nowadays we need science in order to explain EVERYTHING. Why can’t we just stick to the simple answers, like we feel those emotions because we are human??
Good posts :)
Unfortunately, Erin Lyng did not have any assignments posted for me to read.
Oh, and I wanted to let you guys know, I have classes pretty much all day on Tuesdays and Thursdays, so my posts usually are posted a day or so earlier than the due date. I just thought I’d let you guys know in case it was confusing to figure out which posts you needed to read!
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Screwdriver, hard drive......... brain?
I Process Therefore I Am
Page 109 “Directed Freewrite” – In what ways will machines surpass the human brain, in the view of Minsky? In his view, do these areas of superiority make advanced computers "smarter" than human beings? Discuss your own reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with Minsky's position on this point.
I found this essay very interesting. For one, robots have always been a big part of our entertainment. Think about movies like I-Robot. It’s always about crazy robots that are as capable as any human being is at tasks and everyday life. And two, it’s just amazing to think about how much our technology has advanced even in just the nineteen years I’ve been alive. I mean, in the 90’s I would have never considered the possibility of a robot with a consciousness and similar brain functions as a human. With technology today, I believe it’s possible. I mean, anything is possible, right?!
The fact that “computers can perform a broad range of tasks that involve reasoning, learning, planning and other functions usually associated with human intelligence” opens up numerous pathways and arguments (Davidson 116). First off, considering that computers are capable of so many things, it’s a given that robots should be successful in fully functioning. Second off, this brings up the question, “does that make these machines intelligent?” (Davidson 116). There are quite a few people who agree that it does make robots intelligent, but “some scientists and philosophers argue that mechanical intelligence is not the same as mind” (Davidson 116). Igor Aleksander and Marvin Minsky disagree with those scientists and philosophers – they believe “that machines could be conscious, [and] possibly even more conscious than humans” (Davidson 116). But what makes these computers conscious?
In the human brain, neurons are connected in complex networks where input from nerve cells of the eye generate patterns of activity in particular centers of the brain (Davidson 117). Wisard, the first large-scale neural network built by Aleksander and others, had a quarter of a million artificial neurons (Davidson 117). This demonstrates that neural networks could be trained very quickly in order to perform certain tasks, like a human (Davidson 117). Neural networks cannot be programmed, but they can be learned (Davidson 117). According to Minsky, “the human brain has only very limited records of what it has been doing recently. A machine could be vastly more conscious than a person because we didn’t evolve for that” (Davidson 120). In his eyes, he honestly believes that a manmade computer is not only more capable of what a human can do, but can also have a conscious. This seems a bit absurd to me, but who knows what we are eventually capable of creating.
All in all, I would have to mostly disagree with Marvin Minksy. I believe that the only way advanced computers can be smarter than a human being, is by being able to calculate numbers and figures that we would not be able to do on our own. Other than that, I do not think a robot is as competent. An artificial brain may be as close to a human brain as possible, but still, it can malfunction just like any other computer. Also, Minksy seemed to be stuck on common sense. Common sense seems more like a learned trait based off of your personality and environment rather than something you can artificially create. With that said, humans are definitely the superior race in this argument!
Page 109 “Directed Freewrite” – In what ways will machines surpass the human brain, in the view of Minsky? In his view, do these areas of superiority make advanced computers "smarter" than human beings? Discuss your own reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with Minsky's position on this point.
I found this essay very interesting. For one, robots have always been a big part of our entertainment. Think about movies like I-Robot. It’s always about crazy robots that are as capable as any human being is at tasks and everyday life. And two, it’s just amazing to think about how much our technology has advanced even in just the nineteen years I’ve been alive. I mean, in the 90’s I would have never considered the possibility of a robot with a consciousness and similar brain functions as a human. With technology today, I believe it’s possible. I mean, anything is possible, right?!
The fact that “computers can perform a broad range of tasks that involve reasoning, learning, planning and other functions usually associated with human intelligence” opens up numerous pathways and arguments (Davidson 116). First off, considering that computers are capable of so many things, it’s a given that robots should be successful in fully functioning. Second off, this brings up the question, “does that make these machines intelligent?” (Davidson 116). There are quite a few people who agree that it does make robots intelligent, but “some scientists and philosophers argue that mechanical intelligence is not the same as mind” (Davidson 116). Igor Aleksander and Marvin Minsky disagree with those scientists and philosophers – they believe “that machines could be conscious, [and] possibly even more conscious than humans” (Davidson 116). But what makes these computers conscious?
In the human brain, neurons are connected in complex networks where input from nerve cells of the eye generate patterns of activity in particular centers of the brain (Davidson 117). Wisard, the first large-scale neural network built by Aleksander and others, had a quarter of a million artificial neurons (Davidson 117). This demonstrates that neural networks could be trained very quickly in order to perform certain tasks, like a human (Davidson 117). Neural networks cannot be programmed, but they can be learned (Davidson 117). According to Minsky, “the human brain has only very limited records of what it has been doing recently. A machine could be vastly more conscious than a person because we didn’t evolve for that” (Davidson 120). In his eyes, he honestly believes that a manmade computer is not only more capable of what a human can do, but can also have a conscious. This seems a bit absurd to me, but who knows what we are eventually capable of creating.
All in all, I would have to mostly disagree with Marvin Minksy. I believe that the only way advanced computers can be smarter than a human being, is by being able to calculate numbers and figures that we would not be able to do on our own. Other than that, I do not think a robot is as competent. An artificial brain may be as close to a human brain as possible, but still, it can malfunction just like any other computer. Also, Minksy seemed to be stuck on common sense. Common sense seems more like a learned trait based off of your personality and environment rather than something you can artificially create. With that said, humans are definitely the superior race in this argument!
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Week 2 Blog Reviews
Group 2 Blog Reviews
Kayla Smith
While reading your “Do You Need God to Be Good” post, I couldn’t help but agree with you about how our society is quickly to judge based off of stereotypes. My view is pretty much the same as yours – I believe that we can be good without God because of our own individual morals. Actions do matter the most in the end compared to ideas and that’s what breaks the stereotype of say, an atheist. The thoughts in an atheist’s mind might be different from a devout Christian, but the most important thing to consider is that just because they do not believe in a God does not mean they would follow through with the action of stealing.
I also agree with you on your other post about “The Individual Self.” The two classrooms do differ mostly because of the lack of the face to face action. We cannot judge someone the same exact way in both classroom settings because we are presented certain things in different ways.
Overall, your posts were very interesting to read, but I did think that they lacked a bit of length. I never thought I'd say this for a class, but I want to read more!! I also look forward to reading some more of your posts! :)
Jessica Tavizon
Your post “Yes, We Can!” brought me a lot of different insight on the concept of “Can We Be Good Without God?” Growing up in a pretty religious family myself, I do seem to have the bias thinking that people who do not attend church regularly generally live “bad lifestyles.” But when doing this assignment, I did not stop to think that different people might have different definitions and perceptions of “good.” But in the end, we all do have different backgrounds and morals – so yes, we can be good without God!
I really enjoyed reading your “My ‘Self’” post. Your intro paragraph was very interesting and definitely caught my attention. I never really thought about it, but we really do change how we interact with customers at work, or how we answer the phone. At my work, I could be having the most horrible day, but the customer would not know that because of my “fake” smile and cheerful voice. Whenever I do answer the phone, I change my voice to be friendly and inviting. Besides all of that, talking with friends, or in class I act pretty much “normal.” I don’t have to change my voice, wording of sentences, or watch my actions carefully like I do at work. I feel like we all can agree on that – which is what really opened up my eyes.
Good job! I look forward to reading some more of your posts!
Unfortunately, Erin Lyng did not have any assignments posted for me to read.
Kayla Smith
While reading your “Do You Need God to Be Good” post, I couldn’t help but agree with you about how our society is quickly to judge based off of stereotypes. My view is pretty much the same as yours – I believe that we can be good without God because of our own individual morals. Actions do matter the most in the end compared to ideas and that’s what breaks the stereotype of say, an atheist. The thoughts in an atheist’s mind might be different from a devout Christian, but the most important thing to consider is that just because they do not believe in a God does not mean they would follow through with the action of stealing.
I also agree with you on your other post about “The Individual Self.” The two classrooms do differ mostly because of the lack of the face to face action. We cannot judge someone the same exact way in both classroom settings because we are presented certain things in different ways.
Overall, your posts were very interesting to read, but I did think that they lacked a bit of length. I never thought I'd say this for a class, but I want to read more!! I also look forward to reading some more of your posts! :)
Jessica Tavizon
Your post “Yes, We Can!” brought me a lot of different insight on the concept of “Can We Be Good Without God?” Growing up in a pretty religious family myself, I do seem to have the bias thinking that people who do not attend church regularly generally live “bad lifestyles.” But when doing this assignment, I did not stop to think that different people might have different definitions and perceptions of “good.” But in the end, we all do have different backgrounds and morals – so yes, we can be good without God!
I really enjoyed reading your “My ‘Self’” post. Your intro paragraph was very interesting and definitely caught my attention. I never really thought about it, but we really do change how we interact with customers at work, or how we answer the phone. At my work, I could be having the most horrible day, but the customer would not know that because of my “fake” smile and cheerful voice. Whenever I do answer the phone, I change my voice to be friendly and inviting. Besides all of that, talking with friends, or in class I act pretty much “normal.” I don’t have to change my voice, wording of sentences, or watch my actions carefully like I do at work. I feel like we all can agree on that – which is what really opened up my eyes.
Good job! I look forward to reading some more of your posts!
Unfortunately, Erin Lyng did not have any assignments posted for me to read.
Monday, September 7, 2009
There's More to Thinking Than You.. Think
Why Neuroscience May Be Able to Explain Consciousness
Page 109 “Directed Freewrite” – Read over this brief essay, and write down the main points in the essay, but in a more conversational and less academic tone. Use everyday words to explain some of the “fifty-cent words” here, and express the points in this article in a way that your fifteen-year-old sibling (or cousin) could understand.
In the piece, “Why Neuroscience May Be Able to Explain Consciousness”, Francis Crick, a biologist, and Cristof Koch, a professor, speak about how they disagree with David J. Chalmers view. Instead, they both insist that by understanding the brain scientifically will ultimately answer questions about our consciousness.
Francis Crick and Cristof Koch believe that right now, the best approach to explaining consciousness is to solely concentrate on finding the processes in our brain that are the most responsible for consciousness. By locating specific neurons (messengers in our brain) in the cerebral cortex (a certain segment of our brain) that only deal with consciousness, we might come across what David J. Chalmers calls the big problem: a full understanding of a subjective experience that makes these processes occur.
Unfortunately, Crick and Koch are not as enthusiastic as Chalmers was about this early stage. They see Chalmers’ “big problem” being broken down into a few questions. Questions like: Why do we experience anything at all? What leads us to a particular conscious experience? Why are some of our experiences private from others? They believe they have an answer to the last question and an idea about the first two, having to deal with a phenomenon known as “explicit neuronal representation.”
The best way to define Francis Crick and Cristof Koch’s definition of “explicit” is by providing an example. When we look at another persons’ face cells in our eyes fire rapidly, like the pixels on a television screen, in order to create a representation of their face. At the same time, these cells respond to many other features of the image we are looking at, such as shadows, lines, and uneven lighting. An individual can also lose these visuals from a stroke or other brain trauma, which is called “prosopagnosia.” Prosopagnosia is the individual’s inability to recognize certain and familiar faces consciously, or on their own. There are many other parts that can be damaged which lead to other deficiencies.
At each stage visual information we receive is reencoded, or retransmitted in a different way. Cells in our eyes respond to light and the neurons in the visual area of our brain are best at responding to lines or edges that we see. Neurons higher up respond to faces and other objects that we find familiar. On top of those neurons, there are some that function our pre-motor and motor structures in the brain, where they actually fire the neurons that create actions such as speaking, or our reflexes and movement.
In order for us to describe a visual experience, the information has to be transmitted to a certain part of the brain that deals with motor output. After that, it then becomes available for us to speak about. This process always involves reencoding the information.
It’s not possible to convey with words and ideas the exact nature of an experience we’ve had. However, it is possible to distinguish the difference between our own subjective experiences (knowing the difference between red and orange). This is all possible because a difference in a high-level visual area in our brain will still be associated with a difference in our motor stages. What Crick and Koch get form this is that we can never explain to other people the true nature of any of our own experiences, only its relation to other ones.
The other two questions are much more difficult. Crick and Koch prefer an alternative approach, which involves the concept of “meaning.” Meaning derives the linkage among representations with others spread throughout the brain and spinal system in a network that is similar to a dictionary. The more diverse that these connections are, the richer the meaning is. Of course, groups of neurons can take on new functions, or jobs, which allow our brain to learn new categories like new faces.
Chalmers suspects that information is the key concept, which might be true. It would be very useful to try to determine what a neural network must have in order to generate a meaning. It’s possible that some exercises can suggest meaning. The big problem of consciousness might just appear in an entirely new way, or it might just disappear someday.
Page 109 “Directed Freewrite” – Read over this brief essay, and write down the main points in the essay, but in a more conversational and less academic tone. Use everyday words to explain some of the “fifty-cent words” here, and express the points in this article in a way that your fifteen-year-old sibling (or cousin) could understand.
In the piece, “Why Neuroscience May Be Able to Explain Consciousness”, Francis Crick, a biologist, and Cristof Koch, a professor, speak about how they disagree with David J. Chalmers view. Instead, they both insist that by understanding the brain scientifically will ultimately answer questions about our consciousness.
Francis Crick and Cristof Koch believe that right now, the best approach to explaining consciousness is to solely concentrate on finding the processes in our brain that are the most responsible for consciousness. By locating specific neurons (messengers in our brain) in the cerebral cortex (a certain segment of our brain) that only deal with consciousness, we might come across what David J. Chalmers calls the big problem: a full understanding of a subjective experience that makes these processes occur.
Unfortunately, Crick and Koch are not as enthusiastic as Chalmers was about this early stage. They see Chalmers’ “big problem” being broken down into a few questions. Questions like: Why do we experience anything at all? What leads us to a particular conscious experience? Why are some of our experiences private from others? They believe they have an answer to the last question and an idea about the first two, having to deal with a phenomenon known as “explicit neuronal representation.”
The best way to define Francis Crick and Cristof Koch’s definition of “explicit” is by providing an example. When we look at another persons’ face cells in our eyes fire rapidly, like the pixels on a television screen, in order to create a representation of their face. At the same time, these cells respond to many other features of the image we are looking at, such as shadows, lines, and uneven lighting. An individual can also lose these visuals from a stroke or other brain trauma, which is called “prosopagnosia.” Prosopagnosia is the individual’s inability to recognize certain and familiar faces consciously, or on their own. There are many other parts that can be damaged which lead to other deficiencies.
At each stage visual information we receive is reencoded, or retransmitted in a different way. Cells in our eyes respond to light and the neurons in the visual area of our brain are best at responding to lines or edges that we see. Neurons higher up respond to faces and other objects that we find familiar. On top of those neurons, there are some that function our pre-motor and motor structures in the brain, where they actually fire the neurons that create actions such as speaking, or our reflexes and movement.
In order for us to describe a visual experience, the information has to be transmitted to a certain part of the brain that deals with motor output. After that, it then becomes available for us to speak about. This process always involves reencoding the information.
It’s not possible to convey with words and ideas the exact nature of an experience we’ve had. However, it is possible to distinguish the difference between our own subjective experiences (knowing the difference between red and orange). This is all possible because a difference in a high-level visual area in our brain will still be associated with a difference in our motor stages. What Crick and Koch get form this is that we can never explain to other people the true nature of any of our own experiences, only its relation to other ones.
The other two questions are much more difficult. Crick and Koch prefer an alternative approach, which involves the concept of “meaning.” Meaning derives the linkage among representations with others spread throughout the brain and spinal system in a network that is similar to a dictionary. The more diverse that these connections are, the richer the meaning is. Of course, groups of neurons can take on new functions, or jobs, which allow our brain to learn new categories like new faces.
Chalmers suspects that information is the key concept, which might be true. It would be very useful to try to determine what a neural network must have in order to generate a meaning. It’s possible that some exercises can suggest meaning. The big problem of consciousness might just appear in an entirely new way, or it might just disappear someday.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
A World In Perfect Order.. or Not?
Can we be Good Without God?
One question that seems to come up frequently to this day is does religion and crime go hand in hand? In other words, can we be good without God? Now, there are quite a few other things that do not fall under the category of crime, such as, lying to your parents and pre-marital sex. Other actions that are not considered a crime in our judicial system depend on each individual’s morals. But do morals coincide with crime and religion? Does God, or any other religious figure, have such an impact on how we live our lives honestly?
Ask any individual who regularly goes to church and has a strong belief in God, and they will instantly answer, “We are better because we believe in God.” According to Christianity we are supposed to “Fear God.” Now, that does not mean we are to literally fear God as to where we do not believe in Him, but for an unbeliever, by fearing God, you fear the judgment of Him and eternal separation of Him, which would also be known as hell. However, if you are a strong believer in God, then your fear of Him would be in honor of Him. Because of this, many Christians, or any other religion that follows God, know about sin. Every person in this world sins, whether they know it or not; we are not perfect. Fortunately we are forgiven of our sins. So, from the viewpoint of any strong believer in God, they would tell you, “Yes, we are good because we believe in God; we are supposed to try not to live our lives in sin.” But what if God never existed in the first place? What if the world never saw religion? Can we still be good?
Without God, we would never know of sin in the first place. Although we would not have a Godly figure guiding us throughout our lives, we are still born with our own morals, personality, and beliefs. With religion now, we still fight wars and see numerous unthinkable crimes on the news every day. A very religious person would probably not be able to see a world in order without God, but if we never knew what religion was, then how would we ever know in the first place? Every single individual in this world is different. So yes, without God, there still could be crime on the streets, but I do not necessarily believe that every single person would be corrupt. According to a recent study in which “researchers asked students about their religious affiliation and their willingness to cheat on a test”, they came to find out that the majority of one group resisted cheating, and that was atheists (Conyers, Harvey 63). This study opened up my eyes instantly. Most religious individuals would be astounded by this study because of their opinion on atheists. That study just shows that each person is their own. By that, I mean that although they do not believe in God, they still have morals. They may not be religious based morals, but they are still morals linked to their unique selves proving that we can be good without God. We can live honestly because each of us is one of a kind with our own separate morals, beliefs, and personalities.
There are plenty of criminals present day who regularly attended church prior to being locked up for life and there are plenty of others who have never stepped foot in a Sunday service once in their entire lives. I could never imagine a world without God, but I do realize that every person on this earth is different from each other. So yes, I do believe that we can be good without God.
One question that seems to come up frequently to this day is does religion and crime go hand in hand? In other words, can we be good without God? Now, there are quite a few other things that do not fall under the category of crime, such as, lying to your parents and pre-marital sex. Other actions that are not considered a crime in our judicial system depend on each individual’s morals. But do morals coincide with crime and religion? Does God, or any other religious figure, have such an impact on how we live our lives honestly?
Ask any individual who regularly goes to church and has a strong belief in God, and they will instantly answer, “We are better because we believe in God.” According to Christianity we are supposed to “Fear God.” Now, that does not mean we are to literally fear God as to where we do not believe in Him, but for an unbeliever, by fearing God, you fear the judgment of Him and eternal separation of Him, which would also be known as hell. However, if you are a strong believer in God, then your fear of Him would be in honor of Him. Because of this, many Christians, or any other religion that follows God, know about sin. Every person in this world sins, whether they know it or not; we are not perfect. Fortunately we are forgiven of our sins. So, from the viewpoint of any strong believer in God, they would tell you, “Yes, we are good because we believe in God; we are supposed to try not to live our lives in sin.” But what if God never existed in the first place? What if the world never saw religion? Can we still be good?
Without God, we would never know of sin in the first place. Although we would not have a Godly figure guiding us throughout our lives, we are still born with our own morals, personality, and beliefs. With religion now, we still fight wars and see numerous unthinkable crimes on the news every day. A very religious person would probably not be able to see a world in order without God, but if we never knew what religion was, then how would we ever know in the first place? Every single individual in this world is different. So yes, without God, there still could be crime on the streets, but I do not necessarily believe that every single person would be corrupt. According to a recent study in which “researchers asked students about their religious affiliation and their willingness to cheat on a test”, they came to find out that the majority of one group resisted cheating, and that was atheists (Conyers, Harvey 63). This study opened up my eyes instantly. Most religious individuals would be astounded by this study because of their opinion on atheists. That study just shows that each person is their own. By that, I mean that although they do not believe in God, they still have morals. They may not be religious based morals, but they are still morals linked to their unique selves proving that we can be good without God. We can live honestly because each of us is one of a kind with our own separate morals, beliefs, and personalities.
There are plenty of criminals present day who regularly attended church prior to being locked up for life and there are plenty of others who have never stepped foot in a Sunday service once in their entire lives. I could never imagine a world without God, but I do realize that every person on this earth is different from each other. So yes, I do believe that we can be good without God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
