1. What state of mind, belief, or knowledge was Descartes' Method of Doubt supposed to establish? OR, What did Descartes seek that Pyrrho spurned? Was his approach more sensible than Pyrrho's? Do you think it's possible to achieve the state of mind Descartes sought?
3. What strange and mythic specter did Gilbert Ryle compare to Descartes' dualism of mind and body? ("The ____ in the ______.") Does that specter seem strange or silly to you?
4. Pascal's best-known book is _____. Do you like his aphoristic style?
5. Pascal's argument for believing in God is called ________. Do you find it persuasive or appealing?
6. Pascal thought if you gamble on God and lose, "you lose ______." Do you agree?
7. (T/F) By limiting his "wager" to a choice between either Christian theism or atheism, says Nigel Warburton, Pascal excludes too many other possible bets. Is that right?
Weiner-
- Why doesn't Eric "buy" Epicurus's dismissal of death as a worry? Do you agree?
- What's the best Montaigne thinks we can do to find truth? Do you think he was trying to build a "tower of certainty"?
- How did Montaigne reverse himself on what we learn from philosophizing? But is it really a reversal?
- What was Montaigne's experience of his equestrian accident? Do you share his newfound confidence that nature will make dying comfortable and easy? Is this a form of "denial" (notwithstanding his likely disapproval of our culture's form of denial)?
- What did Horace say to persuade yourself of? Is that a good idea?
- Montaigne's philosophy boils down, says Eric, to trust, surprise, responsibility, and ___? And what other four words sum up his philosophy and way of life?
HWT
1. What familiar western distinction is not commonly drawn in Islamic thought?
2. According to Sankara, the appearance of plurality is misleading. Everything is ____.
3. The Islamic concept of unity rules out what key western Enlightenment value, and offers little prospect of adopting modern views on what?
4. What Calvinist-sounding doctrine features heavily in Islamic thought?
5. What deep philosophical assumption, expressed by what phrase, has informed western philosophy for centuries? To what concept did Harry Frankfurt apply it?
* BONUS QUESTIONS- Sarah Bakewell says Montaigne's first answer to the question "How to live?" is: "Don't worry about _____."
- What was Montaigne's "near death experience," and what did it teach him?
- Montaigne said "my mind will not budge unless _____."
- What pragmatic American philosopher was Descartes' "most practical critic"?
- (T/F) A.C. Grayling thinks that, because Descartes was so wrong about consciousness and the mind-body problem, he cannot be considered a historically-important philosopher.
- What skeptical slogan did Montaigne inscribe on the ceiling of his study?
Will machines ever say "I think, therefore I am"?
Something to consider when we talk about Descartes... [I had a chat with ChatGPT about reality and related matters. It may not be conscious but it does simulate the appearance of consciousness pretty impressively...]
We had a serious and sober conversation in Environmental Ethics about the difference between living longer vs. living better, between a life of many years vs. a life of completion and earned satisfaction. I was encouraged by the maturity and wisdom of the young people in the room, whose acceptance of mortality stands in striking contrast to that of futurologist/transhumanist Raymond Kurzweil.
Ray's the guy who pioneered optical character recognition (OCR), text-to-speech synthesis, speech recognition technology etc., and then went to work for Google to help Larry and Sergei figure out how to conquer aging and the biological restrictions of mortal life. He's the very antithesis, in this regard, of Wendell Berry.
I first became aware of Ray when I read his The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence, which audaciously and (we should see now) prematurely, if not ludicrously, predicted that we'd have self-conscious machines "before 2030"... We'll talk about this in CoPhi soon, when we turn to Descartes.
Descartes’s famous dictum “I think, therefore I am” has often been cited as emblematic of Western rationalism. This view interprets Descartes to mean “I think, that is, I can manipulate logic and symbols, therefore I am worthwhile.” But in my view, Descartes was not intending to extol the virtues of rational thought. He was troubled by what has become known as the mind-body problem, the paradox of how mind can arise from non-mind, how thoughts and feelings can arise from the ordinary matter of the brain. Pushing rational skepticism to its limits, his statement really means “I think, that is, there is an undeniable mental phenomenon, some awareness, occurring, therefore all we know for sure is that something—let’s call it I—exists.” Viewed in this way, there is less of a gap than is commonly thought between Descartes and Buddhist notions of consciousness as the primary reality. Before 2030, we will have machines proclaiming Descartes’s dictum. And it won’t seem like a programmed response. The machines will be earnest and convincing. Should we believe them when they claim to be conscious entities with their own volition?
Ask that again when they make that claim. If they do.
At least Ray has inspired entertaining films like Her, Ex Machina, Transcendence...
But his desperate quest to "live long enough to live forever"-- see the Wired Magazine feature story on Ray,wherein it was revealed that he'd daily been popping upwards of 200 pill supplements and downing oceans of green tea every day in hopes of beating the Reaper (lately he's cut back to just 90)-- really does look sad and shallow, alongside the mature view we've explored in The World-Ending Fire and that I was gratified to hear echoed by my fellow mortals in class yesterday.
==
The World Is Waiting to Be Discovered. Take a Walk.
…Study after study after study have proved what we feel, intuitively, in our gut: Walking is good for us. Beneficial for our joints and muscles; astute at relieving tension, reducing anxiety and depression; a boon to creativity, likely; slows the aging process, maybe; excellent at prying our screens from our face, definitely. Shane O'Mara, a professor of experimental brain research in Dublin, has called walking a "superpower," claiming that walking, and only walking, unlocks specific parts of our brains, places that bequeath happiness and health.
I have no beef with any of this, but I believe we have it backward. We are asking what we can get out of a walk, rather than what a walk can get out of us. This might seem like a small distinction, a matter of semantics. But when we begin to think of walking in terms of the latter, we change the way we navigate and experience — literally and figuratively — the world around us... nyt
5) Pascal's argument for believing in God is called ________. Do you find it persuasive or appealing?
ReplyDeletePascal's argument for believing in God is called Pascal's Wager. In essence, he believed that it would be more beneficial to commit your life to God and have a chance of being wrong than not doing so and risking eternal punishment. I personally agree and disagree. In my experience, far too many Christians try to prove the existence of God and rationalize what they believe with that they experience. "Apologetics" exists for this. I would argue that this is one of the greatest contradictions I have experienced regarding faith. Faith, in the religious sense, is defined as a strong belief in something that is not able to be proven. Given this, why would people insist on trying to find rational and provable evidence for God? It goes against the very nature of what they believe. If Christians endlessly seek to find proof for God, then I believe that is not actually true faith. Faith is believing in something you cannot test or prove, so do not try to prove it. I suppose some of those who do are in reality skeptics of some sort. I believe Pascal's Wager attempts to simplify something that should not be simplified, which is why I am not the biggest fan of it. However, I am sure it could be helpful for those who would rather not experience the occasional existential crisis regarding the subject.
I agree, I don't find his wager very appealing. Before the mention of the wager the book says he didn't think reasoning could prove god and that it was in the heart. I think Pascal saw it more as a way to get nonbelievers to consider and think about god rather than a definitive reason as why one should believe in god. I had an experience where someone tried to use it to get me to believe in god. When I followed up with, "I don't think anything could make me believe." He followed up with telling me to do all the church stuff. I denied because he couldn't give me an example of someone who didn't think they'd believe in god actually ended up believing because they did all of the church stuff.
DeleteSection 3
DeleteAs an early believer, I even came up with a notion of Pascal's Wager. Even if God didn't exist, at least I am still striving to be a good person and do good things. This mindset was short-lived because of my growth in Christianity and my personal experiences. I think testimonies can be impactful, and sometimes they're the basis of what we use to prove the existence of God in our own lives. Since our religion is built on faith, I think this can help others build faith in God as well. The Apologetics are reasoned arguments to defend our faith. As Christians, we are meant to share God's word and be able to answer people's questions, which is why it's important to know how to defend our faith. I think it's human nature to be curious and search for reasoning, but I also think it is done to provide answers for people who struggle with having faith. At least for myself, I'm not trying to prove God, but find answers through Him.
So yes, in the beginning, Pascal's Wager was more appealing to me.
Delete6) Pascal thought if you gamble on God and lose, "you lose ______." Do you agree?
ReplyDeletePascal thought if you gamble on God and lose, you lose "nothing" except "those poisonous pleasures." This is another very interesting idea. I do agree with his reasoning for his belief in God being related to the heart and not the head, and that seeking proof in the world is unconvincing. I should have added this to my other comment. Regarding the gambling aspect, I think the response on this depends on one's experience with Christianity, or lack thereof. For those who live an incredibly strict and suppressed life, as many do, it may be harder to give up most earthly joys if they are not completely sure of why they are doing so. It may be easier for those who are laxer about such things. It all depends. Ultimately, I do not agree with Pascal, and I would argue that this is another oversimplification of a complex idea. I could very well be wrong, of course. It seems he is trying to convince people out of fear, and I am profoundly against that. This whole concept seems very off to me.
I agree with you about Pascal trying to make people believe in God through fear. He's technically giving them a choice in saying that they could chose to not believe in God if they want, but they have to be prepared for the risk. By making one choice sound way better than the other, he's basically telling them that's the one that they should pick. We see a lot of this in today's society too. Many extreme Chrsitians go places with picket signs saying if others don't convert to their religion they will suffer for eternity. This type of fear-mongering is even heard in Churches. This MAY scare some people and make them convert as a result, but for the majority, it will just turn them away of that religion.
Delete4) Pascal's best-known book is _____. Do you like his aphoristic style?
ReplyDeletePascal's best-known book is Pensées. I do not completely love his aphoristic style; however, I respect him and his views greatly. There are things he said that I agree with and things I do not. One thing I have learned in philosophy is that no one is entirely right, but that does not mean we cannot learn from them.
I like what you said about how no one philosopher is correct but we can learn something from them. In formulating my own philosophy, I have been taking bits and pieces of different philosophies that I agree with, and placing them into the bigger picture.
DeleteI feel like every person we read about mainly has a philosiphy or theory about God, which is honestly not what I was expecting out of this class. That's something I would expect taking Religion and Society, not Philosiphy. I guess it makes sense though see that they are connected. I don't think I have found a philosipher yet that I 100% agree with about whether or not God exists and how we know. I find it fascinating though that all these different people can have so many different reasonings as to why he does or does not. Through these philosiphers, we see the real curiosity in humans and how we do not cope well with not knowing for certain how we came about or where we will end up when we die.
ReplyDeleteBe patient, plenty of philosophers to come do not concern themselves with God.
DeleteBut actually, Religious Studies scholars generally do NOT concern themselves with the question of whether it is rational or reasonable to assert belief in a god, they are more concerned with studying what it looks and feels like to do so. Philosophers are precisely the ones historically who've raised the questions of WHETHER a god (or gods) exist.
Hey Abby! I agree with your sentiments about not agreeing with any one philosopher 100% about God's existence or lack thereof. I have found through our readings that back in the early days they found very complex and intricate ways to describe very normal human emotions and reactions. Maybe it's because science was less definite in their time but a lot of the philosophers we read about seem to be thinking a lot about nothing to us—and this comes from a place of hindsight bias I'm sure.
DeleteI tend to agree with you. It's a very interesting human pattern how much we ponder on God's existence. It seems everyone has something to say on the matter.
DeleteI'm not sure I understand Descartes' argument that God exists because we have an idea for him. I have an idea for what faries and mermaids are, but does that automatically mean they exist.
ReplyDeleteDescartes was echoing Anselm. Many have agreed with you.
DeleteI agree with you. There are many things that you can imagine that aren't real. Of course, there are things that you can imagine that are real, but it ends up being another 50-50. I don't think Descartes's argument uses the best logic.
DeleteLHP
ReplyDelete2. No he never found a definitive method to figure out if he was dreaming or not. Sometimes I do, but I don't tend to dwell on it. I just come to the conclusion that this is what I am experiencing now and I should act accordingly to the experience. I have had dreams where I have "woken up" into a new dream where I "wake up" repeatedly, but by the time I really wake up from this sort of thing it ain't a pleasant awakening and reality hits me.
Section #1
DeleteCooper, I know what you're talking about. The only reason I think it'd be helpful to have a way to distinguish reality from falsity is whenever I wake up from a dream. Just the other day I had a dream where I woke up late and missed an important interview. The alarm going off afterwards was my reality check. It's weird how your brain and body tries to deceive you sometimes. You really can't always trust your senses.
Section #1
ReplyDelete5. Pascal's argument for believing in God is called ________. Do you find it persuasive or appealing?
I actually kind of like Pascals Wager. I think it is a good way to simplify what options are possible, leading to a clearer understanding of the whole picture, at least for those caught up in the nuances (which there are a lot). It is such a straightforward viewpoint which I feel as though I don't see a lot, especially when dealing with God. I tend to like when things are simplified, since it takes a lot of questions out of the equation.
6. Pascal thought if you gamble on God and lose, "you lose ______." Do you agree?
Pascal says if you gamble on God and lose, you lose nothing. I tend to agree with this statement to a certain extent; however, I think it depends on each person's morals and desires in life. If someone thinks that living by God's word will bring them the most happiness in life, then even if they lose the gamble, they still got the most out of life that they could. However, if someone thinks that living by God's word is a hindrance, then if they did live like under God's word and lost the gamble, they would have stopped themselves from doing what they want, or in other words, losing. Essentially, I think Pascals statement is subjective.
7. (T/F) By limiting his "wager" to a choice between either Christian theism or atheism, says Nigel Warburton, Pascal excludes too many other possible bets. Is that right?
Yes, that is true. Nigel says that " But there are many other religions that promise everlasting bliss to believers. If one of those
religions proves to be true, then by opting for following
Christianity the individual who follows Pascal’s Wager might
cut him or herself off from infinite happiness in heaven as
surely as the person who rejects all belief in God would have
done." I think this sentence sums it up nicely.
7. When I read that part of the book I was thinking about agnostics but that is a good point. Not all religions that offer everlasting bliss to believers also have an eternal torment as one's only options after death. Hinduism comes to mind for me as one of those. I am not very knowledgeable on religions so I may make some incorrect statements. In Hinduism one reincarnates and depending on if they were good or bad they may get closer to eternal bliss or further in their next life. I believe in some Christian sects it isn't just heaven or hell there is an in between of sorts. I don't know to what extent belief applies to both of these circumstances, but I don't think the wager suits the parameters of those circumstances.
DeleteWeiner
ReplyDelete1. One is a nothing that was always nothing the other is a nothing that was once something. I do agree, but as someone who doesn't believe in an afterlife I found Epicurus' teachings on this matter a little comforting. Losing someone is definitely a different feeling than not being aware of their existence.
Pascal’s best-known book is “Pensées”. I believe the aphoristic approach he takes to the belief/existence in God is both clear-cut and yet leaves me with some questions of my own, mostly pertaining to his argument that in order to convince yourself that you believe in God that you have to imitate people who already believe in God and soon enough you’ll hold the same feelings about God that those you are mimicking do. If you are trying to form a connection with God/convince yourself to believe in God and you’re imitating the actions of others, what good is it doing you to mimic the actions and behaviors when there’s no genuine feelings behind those actions? Wouldn’t those people who are trying to convince themselves to believe in God only falling into a routine? Even if you do develop the same feelings and beliefs that other people have, how do you know that it is genuine, or that you’re only feeling that way because some outer force is imposing those feelings upon you?
ReplyDeleteLHP 2: Descartes did not claim to have found a way to know if he was dreaming or not. I have long thought about if I am real or not. It's quite a scary thing to think about, am I even alive? The best answer I can come up with is that I am as real as I can be, and I might as well do something with that. I think Descartes was right to question our existence, but I think he dwelled on it a bit too much.
ReplyDeleteSection #1
ReplyDeleteLHP
6. Pascal said that if you bet on God and lose, "you lose nothing." Looking at this from different perspectives, I can definitely see how this could be false. Even as a Christian now, if I learned that God was for certain not real, I would feel lied to by all of the trusted figures in my life. My entire childhood was shaped on reliance and obedience to God, so learning that he wasn't real would leave me desolated. And then what kind of fate is it for devout Christians to die for their cause, like many have in the past? And from a non-Christian standpoint, the dedication that comes with believing is either too vague or too time consuming. I even find myself wondering, "Do I do enough for God? Do I believe enough?" People who don't' believe in God have likely already understood what it feels like to be an independent body. Sometimes I feel like that guilt that comes with believing takes away from that concept.
I have found many arguments in my upbringing that reside with Pascal's wager about taking a chance on believing in God because "what's the harm in that." I am not sure if that is conclusive enough to base that many evangelistic efforts on, but the Christian church seems to find it adequate. I admire Pascal's versatile thinking since he was a physicist, mathematician, and philosopher whose triangles and equations we still use today. I am not sure if his religious theories were substantiated enough for me however.
ReplyDeleteI really like your ideas Mady and would have to agree with you. I do think Pascal was a genius but his religious theories leave more to be desired when looking at the cost benefit relationship Pascal himself mentions.
DeleteDescartes's argument about dreaming vs reality is hard for me to conceptualize. Perhaps it's because I am too busy in my life to sit around questioning if I'm dreaming. Regardless if I am dreaming I still have responsibilities and work to take care of. If my whole life has been a dream then that is fine with me because it means I still have time in whatever real body I occupy "laying on a french beach" or wherever. This is my wager (sorry Pascal): i will not question if I am dreaming because that is a win-win situation to me since I'm having a good time here and I'd believe I am fine wherever I really am.
ReplyDeleteYeah i agree with you about dreaming there is no way my brain is dreaming about me sitting in college listenting to long lectures then stressing about my grades life is to complex to ever feel like a dream. I feel that most dreams are always a escape from reality in which we are doing anything we want.
DeleteCorbin Medley - Section 3
DeleteI think Descartes' argument is philosophically interesting, but not one of primary significance, by that I mean it is not something for me to actively worry about as there is little I can do to change it. I like your wager in contrast, it is a win-win, you can't change it if you are and as long as you are enjoying yourself then what's the problem? I enjoy the laissez-faire attitude.
I like how you mention that it's a win-win situation. Even if my current day or life is a dream, I feel fulfilled at this moment. Perhaps we shouldn't question ourselves about whether we are in a dream, but rather, are we enjoying what we are experiencing now? If you end up waking up on some French beach one day, at least you'll know you had a good dream.
DeleteSection #1
ReplyDeleteWeiner
1. I don't agree with Epicurus's statement. Weiner said that the nothing before our lives was different than the one after it. And to me, it is because it is a loss of something. Not worrying about death or what happens after you die is placing so much importance on the life we have now...but does that mean that what we do here is all that matters? After we die, we don't exist? An infinite universe (or a very, very, very long finite universe), and we are less than a second of it? That's comparable to nothing, in my opinion. Is my life really nothing?
Corbin Medley - Section 3
DeleteI think the questions you are asking are the most fascinating and deepest of existential thought. Although there is no objectively right answer, whatever answer someone comes up with is as valid as another. To me, if we do not exist after death, it does not mean our lives do not serve a purpose, a purpose given to us by ourselves and the world/people around us. The significance of life is one that you give it, not the microscopic time-frame in which it exists on a cosmic scale. If the length of something's existence decides its significance, nothing in the universe truly matters, and if that's the case why does reality even exist? To compare your life to the heat death of the universe is obviously a scary comparison, but it is largely irrelevant to your place within it, what you do with that life is why it's such an important something. You only have one shot, so make it count and enjoy it.
Section #1
ReplyDeleteDescartes
Descartes didn't claim to know if he was living in his meditations or not. It was one of the doubts he explored, He casts doubt on everything he believed to be true, Including the world and himself and mathematics. One of his thoughts was that he could be always dreaming as dreams feel real in the moment. He questioned the reliability of senses, and thought like this until he reached the conclusion that, "I think, therefore I am". For me, I am aware that I am not dreaming, but I do wonder a lot about my own consciousness and reality. Is everything we Interpret really reality? I ask myself this a lot in this world as a lot that you experience could be considered a "delusion".
Mackenzie Harris, section 2
DeleteI like how you said you wonder if everything we interpret is reality or not because I always wonder if sometimes, we see things one way that another person sees it differently. Like color for instance if you hold up a color many different answers could be said because color is how you perceive it which has never made a lot of sense to me.
Hey Daxton, this is great, I agree. Reality and our perception of reality seem to have quite the strange relationship. I think this is what keeps us curious. Whether science, art, or philosophy, our desire to further understand what reality truly is seems to be our grand motivation.
DeleteMatthew Martin
ReplyDeleteSection #3
3. What strange and mythic specter did Gilbert Ryle compare to Descartes' dualism of mind and body? ("The ____ in the ______.") Does that specter seem strange or silly to you?
Gilbert Ryle compared Descartes’ idea of mind and body to “the ghost in the machine.” To me, that image does feel kind of strange and even a little silly, because it makes it seem like the mind is some invisible spirit sitting inside the body and pulling the strings, which doesn’t really match how we think about the brain today.
4. Pascal's best-known book is _____. Do you like his aphoristic style?
Pascal’s best-known book is Pensées. I actually like his style because the short, direct statements make his ideas easier to take in. They feel more like notes or reflections than a formal essay, which makes the book more approachable.
5. Pascal's argument for believing in God is called ________. Do you find it persuasive or appealing?
Pascal’s argument for believing in God is called Pascal’s Wager. I think it’s an interesting way of looking at faith, since it’s based on weighing the risks and rewards. It’s not the most convincing argument for actually believing, but I can see why it would appeal to people who are unsure or on the fence.
Antonella Comaschi section 3
DeleteI agree that his idea that the brain and body are separate is silly, but during his time period it is was advanced thinking to even think about how the mind and body fit together. I think his thoughts on it being separate is incredibly interesting because how how the body work without the brain taking care of it. And also the body affects how the brain works through senses such as through touch.
Philopateer Iskandar #3
ReplyDeleteHis whole thing is that you have the slightest doubt about something is that you can’t believe it until you are one hundred percent sure that it is real
I think after his one dream that is when he started questioning everything but he never stated that he might be dreaming but he said that maybe a devil took out his brain and put in a jar but he never mentions that he is still sleeping. For me I never question if am am dreaming or not because if i remember a dream it is always weird and ridiculous
Jay Triplett, Section 2:
ReplyDelete1. What state of mind, belief, or knowledge was Descartes' Method of Doubt supposed to establish? OR, What did Descartes seek that Pyrrho spurned? Was his approach more sensible than Pyrrho's? Do you think it's possible to achieve the state of mind Descartes sought?
1. His Method of Doubt was supposed to figure out if you could know anything for certain, which is something that Pyrrho deemed impossible. I think that his approach was more sensible than Pyrrho’s, because we have to take some fundamental discoveries as facts in order to learn about the world. In a sense, we must outline some truths about our world, even if they are abstract and dependent on our non-rational senses, because it is the only way to outline why our world functions the way it does.
2. Did Descartes claim to know (at the outset of his "meditations") that he was not dreaming? Do you ever think you might be?
1. Descartes did not claim to know that he was not dreaming. I don’t ever think that I might be dreaming, but then again, I wouldn’t notice that I was dreaming until I woke up. Once I woke up, it wouldn’t matter that I had been dreaming, because what I was doing in the dream never existed in the first place, and therefore has no effect on my hypothetical present state.
3. What strange and mythic specter did Gilbert Ryle compare to Descartes' dualism of mind and body? ("The ____ in the ______.") Does that specter seem strange or silly to you?
1. Ryle compared Descartes’ dualism to “the ghost in the machine”, where the soul is a ghost inhabiting the body, the machine. It seems fair to label the soul a ‘ghost’, because our Western understanding of a ghost is similar to our understanding of a soul: a nonphysical entity with thoughts and emotions that is separate from our physical forms
.
4. Pascal's best-known book is _____. Do you like his aphoristic style?
1. Pascal’s best-known book is his *Pensèes* or *Thoughts*. I like the concise nature of this book because I’ve noticed that later philosophers like Kant tend to ramble in their writings and use a lot of scholarly or made-up language in order to make their points. By keeping his points short and understandable, Pascal makes his message clear without overcomplicating it.
5. Pascal's argument for believing in God is called ________. Do you find it persuasive or appealing?
1. His argument for believing in God is called Pascal’s Wager, in which he says that there is no proof for God's existence, so you have to gamble on whether or not He does exist. I don’t find this argument particularly appealing because I don’t feel comfortable dedicating my entire life to a ‘what if’ statement.
6. Pascal thought if you gamble on God and lose, "you lose ______." Do you agree?
1. Pascal thought that “you lose nothing” if you gamble on God and he doesn’t exist. I don’t agree with this point because it undermines the real dedication that people have to the Christian faith. From mission trips and teaching bible school to tithing and operating ministries, Christians devote a lot of time and money to their faith.
7. (T/F) By limiting his "wager" to a choice between either Christian theism or atheism, says Nigel Warburton, Pascal excludes too many other possible bets. Is that right?
1. I agree with this point because there are infinite interpretations of spirituality and God, which could mean that anybody who takes Pascal’s Wager would lose.
Section 2
ReplyDeleteI am quite captivated by the topics of consciousness and artificial intelligence, especially when discussing their relation. Firstly, I think it helps to attack the question of consciousness’ existence and definition. This is not an easy task, and one to which I am and have been unable to formulate a satisfactorily complete answer to, but I do have a rudimentary response. Consciousness, outside of specific interpretation, seems to be trying to tackle the task of putting a name and attributes to the nature of ‘experience’.
Experience, at least in my own terms, being the culmination of thought and the senses to perceive and react to the world. Funnily enough, this definition of experience has potentially already roused debate, given a common argument that it is not simply taking in and interpreting information, but also the act of FEELING. To this, I understand the reasoning but I implore us to then prod further: what is feeling? Is it not just a response to information? Proponents for the existence of a soul or similarly immaterial or spiritual conceptions of experience may simply be at an impasse with me here, given the fundamentally different foundations on the topic (I believe, with a healthy dose of skepticism, that the mind is a purely physical machine which behaves purely upon the principles of the universe). With this in mind, I see the experience of feeling as the result of information processing. Ok, so we have a potential definition for experience and feeling, and thus a clear process of what we wish to explain with consciousness, but consciousness encompasses both experience AND its mechanisms, which are their own mystery.
So then, who or what possesses consciousness? Can we determine so without truly understanding the systems that cause it? Both I believe are valid questions which many have attempted to answer, though the first is usually the simplest to attempt, and so I shall entertain it first as well. Montaigne’s “I think therefore I am” statement can be used to reason that you, specifically YOU, have consciousness. Most people, myself included, then make the point that, assuming our experiences aren’t entirely fabricated and that other humans do, in fact, exist and have thoughts of their own, then they also consciousness. Beyond humanity, however, people tend to hesitate. This makes sense to me, given how divergent we can seem from other things, but it also feels entirely too dismissive of a resolution. Firstly, we base many moral decisions on the assumption that nonhuman entities cannot truly care for their circumstance or status, which feels too large of a risk to me given it could be that we are wrong and have been causing needless suffering. Secondly, many nonhuman entities DO seem to display behaviors that are more similar to us than not, specifically in regards to experience. Thirdly, perhaps we are using too malformed a concept of consciousness to appropriately asses its existence in other beings.
(Continued from original post, ran out of space)
DeleteThe first point, I feel, is relatively self-explanatory. The second and third, I would like to elaborate on, however. A perfect example, in my opinion, of nonhuman entities that are often, if not almost always, cast as unfeeling and unconscious systems all but inanimate, is insects (and the larger group, arthropods, which encompasses crustaceans, arachnids, and relatives). They are among the most hated creatures by humans worldwide, and also among the least regarded as worth empathy. We base this on the assumption that they are too simple. This assumption is continually shrinking as we study them, to the point where we have started to reason that they may feel pain, experience trauma, have memories, feel sadness, happiness, frustration, and so on, but always with an oppressively large dose of caveats and objection, despite the risk of causing suffering. We are so conditioned to hate and disregard them that we let it bleed into our research and continually mute evidence against it. And my third point, we don’t have nearly a realized enough idea of what to observe to detect consciousness for me to really trust most consciousness testing (this goes back to determining the systems and mechanisms that cause consciousness). I believe that all of this could apply even beyond animals or life generally, to any system in the universe at all. Am I saying everything is conscious? No (but let’s be skeptical of that too, just in case), but I am saying I would like not to overlook anything that might be.
A fascinating predicament I walked into accidentally (and which relates back to AI), was when I found a video on the testing of a robotics company’s new robot dog model. In the video, they discussed how exactly the robot determined where walls were, how to avoid obstacles while going on a path, and how to even move its legs to walk at all. Interestingly, they stated how difficult and inefficient it would be to preprogram all of these behaviors into the dog, and so they came up with a solution: literally train the dog both in real life and simulated environments to better navigate. They explain that the dog could not simply start training and improving with no support; it needed an incentive to tell it what was an improvement and what was a failed attempt. Though this took the shape of a simple numerical score in which a larger score was better, it did strike me as eerily similar to the reward system of life: emotions. No matter how abstract, at its core, this robot dog now has a way to take in information as either “good” or “bad”, and change its behavior accordingly. My question then is, which I ask rhetorically and not necessarily with an answer myself, is that experience and, by extension, consciousness?
Mackenzie Harris, Section 2
ReplyDelete1. Descartes state of mind he wanted to achieve was seeing how many things that he knew was certain. He did this by going through a bunch of things he believed in and questioned if they were certain. If there were any room for doubt, then move on. His approach was different from Pyrrho because he knew there were some things that were certain and set out to find out what wasn't certain. However, Pyrrho just assumed you couldn't trust anything.
2. He did not claim to know that he wasn't dreaming that is why he set out to question which things were certain. Sometimes I feel like I'm just going through the motions of life without actually living. Kind of like someone is controlling a puppet version of me, but I don't believe that is what is actually going on.
6. Pascal thought if you gamble on God and lose, "you lose ______." Do you agree?
ReplyDeletePascal thought you would lose "nothing" if you gambled on god and lost. I would have to disagree with Pascal on this one because of the assumed cost of the gamble. I feel as though the cost of believing is very little and therefore it would almost be counterintuitive to even risk a major loss instead a small price. Then again this is from someone who buys an insurance policy whenever its available so I may be biased.
Corbin Medley - Section 3
ReplyDelete1. What state of mind, belief, or knowledge was Descartes' Method of Doubt supposed to establish? OR, What did Descartes seek that Pyrrho spurned? Was his approach more sensible than Pyrrho's? Do you think it's possible to achieve the state of mind Descartes sought?
His method was an attempt to bring assurance in the existence of his knowledge, that is, to question and analyze things he thought to be true and only accept it as true if there was no doubt in mind about it's authenticity. Pyrrho never sought truth/knowledge like Descartes did, it was also more mild in contrast which made it more sensible in its realistic application.
3. What strange and mythic specter did Gilbert Ryle compare to Descartes' dualism of mind and body? ("The ____ in the ______.") Does that specter seem strange or silly to you?
The Ghost in the Machine. I don't think the specter is strange at all, it makes total sense; many if not most people understand that the human body is an organismic machine made up of components that work together to form a greater whole (Gestaltism). The concept of the soul/mind as the overall controller of our bodies is often a meta-physical one that can only be compared to something like a ghost/apparition.
4. Pascal's best-known book is _____. Do you like his aphoristic style?
Pensées. I like his aphoristic style because it allows the message of the work to be easily understood through simple and concise phrases while also invoking deeper existential thought of its meaning.
5. Pascal's argument for believing in God is called ________. Do you find it persuasive or appealing?
Pascal's Wager. I found his argument to have significant bias to his religious perspective, making it out to seem that if you lived your life as though God didn't exist in contrast to if he did, you really wouldn't get all that much and would lose everything and if you lived your life as though God did exist and he didn't, you wouldn't have really sacrificed anything so why not just do that; this fails to acknowledge or accurately portray the pros and cons of both walks of life. Generally the concept is interesting, it just is not portrayed well.
6. Pascal thought if you gamble on God and lose, "you lose ______." Do you agree?
Nothing. I do not agree, as to me, the purpose of life is to live it as much as you can, in a way that will help others while also providing fulfillment to oneself. If you devote your life to religion just on a gamble of God's existence, you are likely to miss this opportunity and miss out on what life has to offer.
Addison Baird
ReplyDeleteSection 2
Why doesn't Eric "buy" Epicurus's dismissal of death as a worry? Do you agree?
Eric doesn't "buy" Epicurus's dismissal of death because, as he put it, "everyone gets thrown into the pool at some point" to ignore the fact that everyone must die seems crazy to Eric. While I do believe that it is important to remember that we all must die and that at some point we will cease to be, it is also important to not let the thought that you will die consume you to a point where you will forget to live. I, personally, would lean more towards Epicurus and say that because your death is not a part of your life, it is best not to be consumed by it like Montaigne was.
How did Montaigne reverse himself on what we learn from philosophizing? But is it really a reversal?
Montaigne first thought that to philosophize was to learn how to die, but later he reversed this statement. Instead to philosophies is to learn to live. I think that living and dying are two sides of the same coin. To learn to live is to learn to die and vice versa. To appreciate life, we must remember that death will come, and to appreciate death we must appreciate the life that we lived. I think that it is not so much a reversal, but a different perspective.
What was Montaigne's experience of his equestrian accident? Do you share his newfound confidence that nature will make dying comfortable and easy? Is this a form of "denial" (notwithstanding his likely disapproval of our culture's form of denial)?
I find it interesting that despite the painful nature of Montaigne's near-death experience lead to him being very peaceful. I think that nature will make dying comfortable and easy as long as you accept the fact that you are dying. It was the clawing his way back to life that gave Montaigne so much pain. It seems that dying is the comfort while staying living is the painful part. I don't think that he was in a state of denial as he was dying. Montaigne was in a state of acceptance. I believe that Nature will make death as comfortable as we make it out to be.
Pascal's argument for believing in God is called Pascal's Wager. It's impossible for me to find this argument persuasive or appealing because it goes against the very foundation of what the Christian faith is meant to be: true, all-encompassing belief- even when it is in something you cannot see. I also disagree with the point that spending time and doing the rituals of practicing Christians will, overtime, cause you to believe as they do. I may enjoy their values and their stories but at the end of the day no action can cause me to develop faith. One cannot make themselves a believer through sheer willpower, therefore the entire argument of the gamble becomes faulty.
ReplyDeletePascal thought if you gamble on God and lose all you'd have missed are the "poisonous pleasures" of glory and luxury. I disagree with this argument on two fronts. Firstly, faith is meant to be believed, not logically concluded to be the best odds. Furthermore, love of God should be a selfless thing, if you're only in it for the personal gain of an eternal afterlife then you aren't truly believing. Second, there's a lot more going into the Christian faith than just a belief in God. It's an entire lifetime of subscribing to those values, practices, and communities- a lot more is sacrificed than just mere "pleasures."
I think Pascal's gambling idea is interesting. I can't say I necessarily agree with it but I think it's a very good point. I am not a Christian nor do I necessarily believe in a specific higher power at this point. My idea is this: If I spend the entire duration of my life acting out goodness and upholding moral values, and I am sent to hell for not worshipping the Christian God, then so be it. I guess that I'd say that my focus is to live a morally positive life and to be good to others rather than to dwell on death. My goal is to never act a specific way for the sole purpose of potentially affecting my fate after death. I suppose Pascal would see this as gambling against God, but again I don't see it that way.
ReplyDelete2. I think in many instances it is hard to know whether you are dreaming or not and some dreams can certainly feel real to people. I have heard plenty of stories of people living entirely different lives while in a coma, after a traumatic event, or under the influence of illicit substances, only to wake up and find out it was all just a dream. While I have never had an experience remotely like this, it is stories like this that lead me to believe that it is very difficult if not impossible to ever truly know whether you're dreaming or not.
ReplyDelete5. On the surface it seems convincing, until you consider that their are other religions besides Christianity which Pascal's wager does not attempt to account for in any way. Once you see the one-sided nature of Pascal's wager, it loses almost all persuasive value.
6. Personally, I do not agree with the notion that you lose nothing if you believe in God and he turns out not to be real. The opportunity cost of all the time spent on worship adds up very quickly. This is not to say that people don't waste time all the time, however I think most people would agree that this should be minimized wherever possible. Thus I don't think it's fair to say that there is no cost to believing in God, the cost is everything you could've done in the time devoted to him.
1. The freemason's grand secret according to Franklin is the internal rituals and obligations.
ReplyDelete2. Everything is "Brahman"
3. Pascal's argument is "Pascal's Wager, I agree in some aspects but also believe you should believe in God because you love him and not because you don't want to go to hell.
2. At the start of the Meditations, Descartes admitted he could not know for sure that he wasn’t dreaming. He used this as part of his skeptical test. Personally, it’s possible to feel uncertain about whether we’re dreaming because sometimes dreams can feel very real compared to the real world.
ReplyDelete6. Pascal said that if you believe in God and He isn’t real, then “you lose nothing.” What he meant is that living with faith still gives you a good life, because you try to be kind, honest, and hopeful. On the other hand, if you don’t believe and God is real, you could lose everything. Some people might say that believing when it’s not true does cost something, like following rules you didn’t have to or spending a lot of time on religion. But Pascal’s main idea is that the good things you get from faith are worth it, and the risk of not believing is too big.
ReplyDelete