Presentations: #1 Rawls-Savannah, David; Singer-Dakota. #2-Trolley Problem (Philipa Foot)-Chenoa. ANYBODY ELSE? If not, we're done with midterm report presentations.
1. What did John Rawls call the thought experiment he believed would yield fair and just principles, and what was its primary device?
2. Under what circumstances would Rawls' theory permit huge inequalities of wealth between people?
3. What was the Imitation Game, and who devised a thought experiment to oppose it?
4. What, according to Searle, is involved in truly understanding something?
5. How do some philosophers think we might use computers to achieve immortality?
6. What does Peter Singer say we should sacrifice, to help stranger
3. What was the Imitation Game, and who devised a thought experiment to oppose it?
4. What, according to Searle, is involved in truly understanding something?
5. How do some philosophers think we might use computers to achieve immortality?
6. What does Peter Singer say we should sacrifice, to help stranger
7. Why did Singer first become famous?
8. How does Singer represent the best tradition in philosophy?
WGU
1. Being grown-up is widely considered to be what? Do you agree?
2. Is Leibniz's optimism more likely to appeal to a small child? Why? 3
3. What was Kant's definition of Enlightenment? 5
4. What do Susan Neiman's children say she can't understand? Do you agree? 9
5. Why is judgement important? Is this a surprising thing to hear from a Kantian? 11
6. Being a grown-up comes to what? 12
7. What did Paul Goodman say about growing up? Are his observations are still relevant? 19
8. Why (in Neiman's opinion) should you not think this is the best time of your life, if you're a young college student? 20
9. What did Samoan children have that ours lack? 27 Can we fix that?
10. What is philosophy's greatest task? 31
Section #1:
ReplyDeleteWhat was the Imitation Game, and who devised a thought experiment to oppose it?
The Imitation Game, or the Turing Test, was Alan Turing’s method to determine whether or not a computer was intelligent. A human is communicating through a screen and can not see who (or what) they are speaking to. If the human is unable to tell whether the responses are given by another human, or generated by a computer, then the computer passes the Test and is intelligent. However, John Searle’s Chinese Room thought experiment opposes this: you are in a room and are receiving pieces of paper with squiggles drawn on them, matching these squiggles to symbols, and sending these symbols out of the room. You are answering questions that are in Chinese, but you do not realize this; you have no understanding of the meaning of your actions, therefore, you are not truly intelligent.
Why (in Neiman's opinion) should you not think this is the best time of your life, if you're a young college student? 20
Many people idealize the years they had as young adults, and feel that that was the best time of their lives; everything has gone downhill since. However, for most people, those years are some of the most difficult, scary, and confusing, as so many changes in their lives and identities are happening at once. Viewing the college years as the best years, when college students often feel overwhelmed and uncertain, creates a dread of mature adulthood. Sometimes I feel like I’m running out of time and I’m not using the “best years of my life” well, but hearing Neiman say that this perspective on young adulthood is not really the best one to have brings me more peace about growing up.
What is philosophy's greatest task? 31
Philosophy’s greatest task is to help us realize the extent of possibility. This requires us to look at the world and strive to understand both our past and our present. Additionally, we must consider our future and picture what we want that world to look like. This seems like a pragmatic view, that whatever thoughts and questions we have, whether about life or the human condition or something else, should always have an applicable meaning or purpose.
3. What was the Imitation Game, and who devised a thought experiment to oppose it?
ReplyDeleteThe Imitation Game was a test a computer would have to pass to be considered genuinely intelligent. The test included a tester having a conversation with either another person or a computer generating its own answers. If the tester can’t tell whether they’re talking to a person or a computer, then the computer passes the test. Searle invented a thought experiment to oppose it, asserting that even if a computer passed Turing’s test for artificial intelligence, that wouldn’t prove that it genuinely understood anything. I think I agree with Searle’s perspective that the machine isn’t actually “understanding” what it’s doing and that fact makes it impossible for it to be actually intelligent. Being capable of doing tasks does not prove intelligence to me.
4. What, according to Searle, is involved in truly understanding something?
Searle thought that understanding semantics or meaning was involved in truly understanding something. While I’m not sure exactly what I think about this topic, I definitely like this idea. I think it’s important for us to define what “intelligence” means in these situations in order to decide whether or not a computer system is capable of having it. I do agree with Searle that there has to be more to intelligence than executing a task.
5. How do some philosophers think we might use computers to achieve immortality?
Some philosophers think it will be possible to transfer minds from people’s brains into computers. Honestly, while this feels somewhat improbable, I wouldn’t be surprised if they managed to do this one day. I won’t be first in line, though. There would have to be a lot of issues with doing this at the start. I’m not sure whether or not I think someone’s consciousness will ever be able to be immortalized as a computer. It wouldn’t surprise me if one day they were able to replicate a brain, though.
Section #1:
ReplyDelete1) What did John Rawls call the thought experiment he believed would yield fair and just principles, and what was its primary device?
Rawls called his thought experiment the "Original Position," where participants designed their "optimal" society without knowing what position they would occupy. This is known as the "Veil of Ignorance," where the participants approach the experiment without assuming a predetermined position for themselves.
7) Why did Singer first become famous?
Singer first became famous due to his 1975 book "Animal Liberation," where he argues that animals' wellbeing matters too and must be accounted for, considering their ability to feel pain when making consequential decisions.
8) How does Singer represent the best tradition in philosophy?
Simple, Singer is "constantly challenging widely help assumptions."
2. Under what circumstances would Rawls' theory permit huge inequalities of wealth between people?
ReplyDeleteRawls’s theory would permit huge inequalities of wealth between people under circumstances only where the poorer people would directly benefit from the richer people’s wealth.
4. What, according to Searle, is involved in truly understanding something?
According to Searle, truly understanding something involves both the semantics and syntax of what is being said or expressed. Simply mimicking patterns does not necessitate understanding. In the Chinese Room example, knowing what the symbols mean is what defines understanding, rather than just being able to return a “correct” answer or even one that makes sense. Just because a sentence is grammatically correct doesn’t mean it makes sense. Similarly, just because a sentence or response from a computer “sounds right” doesn’t mean that the computer saying it understands what it means.
8. How does Singer represent the best tradition in philosophy?
Singer represents the best tradition in philosophy by challenging the current views of morality and the world around us using facts and logical arguments. He doesn’t do it because he loves to argue: rather, he wants to make a meaningful change in the world as a result of challenging the world’s current views.
Section #1
ReplyDeleteAt the time of my writing this, there have only been 4 posts, all of which have been done by section 1. Good job section 1!
Before I start to even look at the questions (or even finish all three chapters), I would like to note that there is an invalid comparison in chapter 37. (which I didn't realize we weren't supposed to read but ahh well I've already written everything that comes after this...)
Waking up with someone else hooked into your kidneys (and not having any input in the process of it happening) vs specifically taking medication to not become pregnant (presumably correctly and routinely) and becoming pregnant anyways (normally due to someone tampering with said medication--- which is rape btw). One is a lack of asking. The other is closer to the equivalent of specifically signing a document saying "I don't want this" and then someone does it to you anyways. Although both are non-consensual, (and thereby absolutely awful) I would argue the latter is far worse because you were asked for consent and you REFUSED. There was no chance of you agreeing after that, when there was a chance of you being cool with a violinist hooked up to your kidneys. (probably wouldn't phase me too much, I like the violin. My schedule will have priority naturally because it's my kidneys, and they didn't get consent beforehand and I will lord it over the poor violinist for the rest of our lives, but I'm cool with modifying my dreams slightly for a sick story). Either way, you should have the right to terminate after they went through with the procedure on your body because, duh, no consent. All I'm saying is that one is still is way worse than the other.
This does however lead to an interesting defense-- "I wasn't thinking about the consequences/I hadn't thought it through/I was young, dumb, and irresponsible" as a valid reason to get an abortion. If you haven't thought it through and read the fine print, you haven't truly consented to the concept. This is what I believe pro-lifers dislike and fight so hard against.
I am, by no means a pro-lifer. Ask me about how stupid our definitions of sentience are and the human double standard. Or the ethics of bringing a human being into the world that still has suffering without consent. Even the fact that I seriously wonder if the world would be a better place without humans on it will tell you so much about my thoughts on this matter.
All that to say, take my opinions on what I think their arguments are with a grain of salt and talk to one yourself.
....
I think that should count as two questions, but perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself. None of the questions listed had anything to do with the trolley chapter we were supposed to read so I suppose I should go read some more.
Rawls sounds like he'd be accused of being a commie during the red scare.
Anyways, to continue on with content I was supposed to read--Rawls would only allow large wealth gaps when the increased wealth of the richest also actively increased the wealth of the poorest (and not just in the regan-esque 'trickle down' economics version, actually increased it).
DeleteThe immigration game, aka Turing test said a comp is intelligent if you can't tell if a person or comp is answering the questions. Searle's Chinese Room has you as the LLM basically saying "I can recognize and imitate (like a parrot) a response based on a rulebook, but that doesn't mean I'm actually parsing the information or thinking about it." It fights back against the imitation game.
...
I think Singer would agree with me on our human double standard. Although he goes a bit farther than I went with that, I like him following the argument to it's logical conclusion and I'd probably agree with him more if I was exposed to the more animal testing side of science and took the time to think about it thoroughly. Anyways, he represents the best of philosophic argument because his philosophy is reasoned and well supported by evidence, he isn't afraid to speak out about controversial topics, and he constantly challenges widely held assumptions.
What did John Rawls call the thought experiment he believed would yield fair and just principles, and what was its primary device? John Rawls designed a thought experiment that would remove personal biases while discussing wealth distribution. He called the experiment "the original position", in which people would create a perfect society without knowing what role they will play. Rawls observed that when people are asked about a perfect world, their personal position is reflected in their answer. A rich person would struggle to surrender their riches for a fairer world, while an impoverished person would likely sacrifice the ultra-rich to create equality. Rawls called this a veil of ignorance, and he believed that by gambling unfortunate circumstances, most people would dream of a more fair society.
ReplyDeleteWhat, according to Searle, is involved in truly understanding something? Searle believed that understanding something involves meaning.
How does Singer represent the best tradition in philosophy? Singer represents the best tradition in philosophy by challenging popular belief. He makes people reconsider their viewpoints by questioning their reasoning and consistency.
1. What did John Rawls call the thought experiment he believed would yield fair and just principles, and what was its primary device?
ReplyDeleteIf we built a society where we didn't know how we would fit into it.
2. What was the Imitation Game, and who devised a thought experiment to oppose it? If a computer can fool you into thinking its a human, it must have human intellect.
3. How do some philosophers think we might use computers to achieve immortality? We make a computer program that makes decisions exactly as we would.
ReplyDelete2. Under what circumstances would Rawls' theory permit huge inequalities of wealth between people?
Rawls’ theory would permit large inequalities in wealth only if those inequalities benefit the least advantaged members of society. According to John Rawls’s Difference Principle, it is acceptable for individuals, such as bankers, to earn more money, but only if their higher earnings lead to improved conditions for those at the bottom of society. This idea reminds me of trickle-down economics, policies associated with Ronald Reagan, where benefits given to the wealthy are expected to “trickle down” to everyone else. However, Rawls’ view is more demanding, since he requires that inequalities be structured in a way that actually guarantees benefits to the least advantaged, not just assuming they will happen. In practice, wealth does not always benefit the poor, as higher earners seem to pay themselves more and leave everyone else in the dust. For this reason, it could be argued that achieving Rawls’ vision of justice would require different methods of redistribution than he outlines.
5. How do some philosophers think we might use computers to achieve immortality?
These philosophers think that if someone can design a computer to map the billions of connections in our brains, then they could theoretically upload their minds to a computer and achieve immortality. I do think that technology like this will be possible someday if we keep developing data storage, semiconductors, neuroscience, etc. There will be many interesting questions that come with this technology. Some questions that come to my mind include; is immortality fair?, who gets access and who doesn’t?, is the digital version of me still me or a clone?, do digital people have the same rights?, etc. There is an awesome episode of Black Mirror on Netflix that tackles this idea of techno-immortality named San Junipero.
6. What does Peter Singer say we should sacrifice, to help a stranger?
Singer says that we should sacrifice some of our luxuries to help people who have not been born as lucky as us. I agree with Singer that the child drowning in front of you is no different than the child starving far away. I think that helping is as easy as donating food to a food bank or clothes to a Goodwill. The hardest thing is finding time to help. We have such a busy culture in America, and that distracts us from stopping and thinking about the world in a meaningful way. I have used my time to help those in need before, but I plan to actually incorporate a method of volunteering into my schedule, so that hopefully one day I make it part of my life in a disciplined, recurring way. My dad is a good example of someone who has sacrificed years helping other people, and he lives Singer’s philosophy in that way. For the past four years he has spent large parts of the year in Ukraine, providing life saving aid to victims of the war. I hope to have a positive impact on the world, and use my time like he has.
I found it really cool that he brings to light how people think of themselves first when thinking of how to better society. I do think that's human nature and I think even the fairest of people have to consciously correct that. When thinking of this question it's so easy to ask yourself what am I unhappy with or what makes me struggle but for a truly better society I think you need to look at other people before addressing your own problems, chances are your issues are solved along the way.
ReplyDeleteRawl's thought experiment was called "The Original Experience". During this experiment people are meant to design a society without knowing what position they would be in society or struggles they may be facing.
Rawl's "difference principle" would only allow income inequalities if it would give more wealth and opportunity to the most disadvantaged people of society.
section #1
DeleteSection #1
ReplyDeleteLittle History of Philosophy
2.) Rawls’ Difference Principle allowed wealth inequalities if it helped people who were worse off as opposed to those who are wealthier. I agree. Personally, I think people who are homeless or living pay check to pay check should receive more money until they’re back on their feet, and afterwards, it can be given back to the world. I feel like Rawls’ way of thinking would solve many issues in the world—at least, it would for those willing to accept help.
4.) Searle, from my understanding, believes you have to understand the meaning of something in order to truly understand. He uses the metaphor of a computer being programmed— a computer is given rules to follow, but it does not have meanings to follow. I agree with Searle.
7.) Singer initially rose to fame for a book about animal cruelty and how we should be more considerate of animals. He called people who don’t give enough attention to the animal situation “speciest.” He also argued that we could live as vegetarians and avoid eating animals. Personally, I just think everyone should decide what they want to do—whether that be eat more or don’t eat meat, I think everyone has their own choice for it.
LHP 1 - John Rawls's thought experiment was "The Original Position," which stated that if you are trying to design a better society, you should do so without knowing where you will end up in it. You should imagine yourself as unborn, and it is up to chance wherever you'll end up in your own imagined society. Because of that, you'll likely design a fairer society so that you will be well off no matter what you are born as.
ReplyDeleteLHP 2 - Lou Rawls's imagined society allowed unequal earnings if those conditions created more wealth and opportunity for those with less money. A person can be allowed to earn more money than others only if those under that person benefit directly from that person's wealth.
LHP 3 - The Imitation Game (now known as the Turing Test) is a test of how convincing an artificial intelligence can be. If a person is having a conversation unknowingly with a robot, and they believe this robot is a person, that robot has won the Imitation Game. John Searle responded to this with the Chinese Room thought experiment. You are given pieces of paper with Chinese characters through a mailbox. For the sake of the thought experiment, you don't know Chinese, but you are given an instruction manual on what to slip back through the mailbox. So, you respond to these symbols with other symbols without knowing what any symbol really means. This experiment conveys how despite however intelligent a computer may be, it is only mimicking whatever we put into it.
3. What was the Imitation Game, and who devised a thought experiment to oppose it? The Imitation Game was a thought experiment to determine if a machine can exhibit intelligent, human-like conversation. John Searle devised the Chinese Room to oppose the imitation game, and his test stated that computers could manipulate symbols to pass the test without really understanding the game, proving that simulating and thinking are not the same thing.
ReplyDelete4. What, according to Searle, is involved in truly understanding something? According to Searle, intentionality is involved in truly understanding something.
5. How do some philosophers think we might use computers to achieve immortality? By using computers to do what is called “mind-uploading” which is essentially the brain’s information is mapped and uploaded to a computer to allow consciousness to exist in a virtual environment.
1. John Rawls called his thought experiment “the Original Position.” Its primary device was the “veil of ignorance,” where people design a society without knowing their own position in it (such as wealth, abilities, or status), which helps remove bias and leads to fairer principles.
ReplyDelete2. Rawls’ theory allows large inequalities only if they benefit the least advantaged people in society. This is part of his Difference Principle, meaning wealth differences are acceptable if they improve the situation of the poorest.
3. The Imitation Game was another name for the Turing Test, created by Alan Turing, to determine if a computer can appear intelligent by responding like a human.
The thought experiment opposing it was devised by John Searle, called the Chinese Room, which argues that passing the test doesn’t mean true understanding or thinking.
Section #3
ReplyDelete4. What, according to Searle, is involved in truly understanding something?
Understanding to Searle means more than just knowing the right answers to a question. Rather, it means knowing the question, as well as actively knowing the meaning behind the answer.
5. How do some philosophers think we might use computers to achieve immortality?
Some philosophers believe that we may one day use computers to "upload"our minds into. However, Searle counters this by saying that though the information from the human mind may be within the computer, it would not contain that person's consciousness.
3. What was the Imitation Game, and who devised a thought experiment to oppose it?
The Imitation Game was created by Alan Turing. It states that if a person is unable to tell whether they are talking to another human or a computer, then the computer is then deemed intelligent of its own accord. However, Searle created the Chinese Room Experiment in order to combat this notion.
Section #1
ReplyDelete1. Rawls called it the “original position.” The main idea is to imagine people choosing society’s rules behind a veil of ignorance, so they do not know anything about themselves. That way, the rules are fair for everyone because no one wants to be disadvantaged.
2. Inequalities are okay only if they benefit the least advantaged people. Rich people can exist as long as their wealth somehow helps those at the bottom, like creating jobs or opportunities that raise everyone’s standard of living.
4. Searle thinks understanding is not just following rules or processing symbols. You can manipulate information without actually “getting it.” True understanding comes from having meaning and intentionality, not just outputs.