Philosophy and Religion (week 8)

What, if anything, do you think philosophy might contribute to the understanding of religion. Think about i) whether you think these arguments might change someone's religious convictions, and ii) whether there is anything about religious experience that is left out of these arguments.

I definitely think Philosophy has something to say to us about religion - I don't think it can provide all the answers, but I do think that listening to what some of the philosophers had to say about God, creation, the nature of our existence, the universe, and all that good stuff brings us a bit closer to forming our own beliefs and ideas about it all. No matter what any of these great thinkers say though, we have to remember that none of them know for sure. They're all just people trying to figure things out themselves and don't have any authority to tell anyone of us how it really is.
I think fideism is interesting because it seems like it's the only one of the religious philosophies that we read about this week that says that faith is the whole point when it comes to religion, and that searching for proof or answers actually ruins the whole concept of religious belief. I do sort of see what they mean by this - faith is faith, not knowledge - but for me it just seems like willful ignorance. I really liked reading Aquinas's discussion on the creation of the world by God, and seeing how he argued for this using what looked like logic (but it turns out he ultimately believed God made the world because that's what the Bible says, which kind of misses the point, in my opinion).
I think some people might be persuaded to change their opinions on Intelligent Design after reading David Hume's arguments against it, but for me, the most convincing argument is definitely Darwin's theory of natural selection and evolution. Apart from the fact that it just has all the evidence on its side and makes the most sense, it doesn't make any claims about whether or not God exists. Darwinism and God can co-exist quite happily (the harmonizer's position), allowing for a God who created the universe using a simple design that was capable of evolving and developing over millions of years into all the life-forms that have ever existed - but it also leaves a lot of room to doubt. Personally, I find it impossible to believe in a detail-oriented, precisely planned Design, but not so hard to believe in a God who made a simple design that would eventually lead to life as we know it. Whether there's a God who designed everything deliberately, or one who just set everything in motion, or none at all, no-one alive knows and anyone who claims they do is just full of it. I think people should definitely read some opinions that differ from their own, just to see if anything resonates or sounds like it might feel like a better fit. For anyone who isn't quite sure what to believe, I think these philosophers provide some very interesting arguments on the subject of religion, and reading them may guide you towards some kind of belief or philosophy that you hadn't thought of before.

Artificial Intelligence (week 6)

Some philosophers, including John Searle, say that computers are not really intelligent. Rather, they just simulate intelligence. However, it could be argued that, just as computers are programmed to respond in different ways to different commands, so human beings are 'programmed' by society and education, to perform certain tasks. Is there any difference between the programming of computers, and the 'programming' of humans by society?

I have to agree with John Searle on this. I think computers do a really great job of simulating intelligence but I think there's a difference between real live intelligence and a computer that's programmed with responses to things that it has no real understanding of. I really like Searle's Chinese Room idea, I think it describes the apparent "intelligence" of a high functioning, yet non-thinking /non-understanding object really well. If something just produces shapes in response to other shapes, in accordance with some pre-written code of translation - even if the shapes make perfect sense to everyone else - it's a really good performance, but it's not real intelligence. I think for it to be called intelligence, a computer would have to show some obvious understanding. Maybe come up with ideas of its own? Not just search results or computations, but real ideas unique to itself. This might show that it understands what it's being asked, instead of just searching huge databases of information, using Key Words, and selecting some canned response.
The way we teach babies and children is sort of like programming computers, but we don't have to actually program everything into them. A lot of stuff they just pick up on their own from observing, copying, experiencing things for themselves, recognizing the merits of good behaviour and the downside of bad behaviour, etc. They can try things out and realize certain things won't work for them, and then maybe try other ways.
Can a computer learn on it's own? Can it try something, have it not work out, and then try something else? I have had some maddening experiences where my computer has been stuck in some kind of a loop, and just could not get past whatever point where it had a breakdown in its system - if it really had intelligence, as opposed to just running along on a pre-written script, it should be able to change its mind, go back a bit, try a different idea, or maybe even see where the directions it has been given are wrong, and correct them.
It's a grand little computer, don't get me wrong, and can do a million things I'll never be able to do - but there are so many things it will never master. Understanding, emotional intelligence, recognizing sarcasm, humor, etc, having a sense of right and wrong, learning from experience... It's hard to come up with some sign of intelligence that every single intelligent person or creature shares, though, so in a way the definition of intelligence might actually apply to computers. I just don't want to accept that, though! For something to be intelligent, I think at the very least it should be alive.
ps I tried talking with one of those robot things today and by the third sentence it was already obviously not understanding me, and I wasn't even trying to trick it. If that's the test for computer intelligence, then I don't think humans need to worry yet:)

Dualism & Physicalism (week 5)

Should we, as human beings, think of ourselves as made out of two different substances, like Descartes argued? Or are you persuaded by the arguments of physicalism that we are purely physical beings?

The idea that we are made of a body and a mind feels like what I've always thought was true, but I don't think it can stand up to scrutiny when I really think about it. I would really like to believe that my mind is independent of my body/brain, it certainly feels like something with its own... identity, I guess? But when I think about all the massive amounts of evidence that brain science can show us - I don't know. The fact that neuroscientists can now see activity in specific parts of our brains when we do certain things, think about certain things, feel certain emotions, etc - and now the new science that can read the brainwaves that happen in our brains when we hear sounds, and actually reproduce a close approximation of the sound we've just heard by playing that brainwave back! - my god, I mean, how long before they can actually read our thoughts?? In a way I would much rather they didn't go much further with this technology... one day they may find a way to decode our brainwaves and read our thoughts without permission! (But I can also see the wonderful potential - people who can't communicate by any normal means suddenly being able to share their thoughts!) Anyway - back to the discussion...

I've read about people who've had brain injuries and woken up with different tastes in food, different senses of humor and so on, and the story of what happened to Phineas Gage is another example.I would like to think that my personality is my own, shaped by my personal history, my upbringing, my genes, and whatever other little spark it took to make me me, and it's in sync with my mind. If an injury in our brain can have that much of an effect on our personality, then where is the mind in all of this? I think of my mind as my thoughts, my awareness, my ideas, my beliefs, my judgments, my tastes... I'm sure I've left a lot out, but you get the idea. If my mind is totally separate from my brain, and is in fact a different substance, then it shouldn't be affected at all by a brain injury - my sense of humor should stay the same, my taste in food, my personality... But since we know these things are affected by brain injuries, I don't think we can deny that our personalities (and for me, that really is almost the same as saying our minds) are too closely linked to the condition of our brains for them to be considered independent. I used to think of my mind as sort of an invisible thing that hovers inside my head, but when I really think about it, I have to admit it's probably more a sort of an elaborate by-product of my brain activity.
And while I'm on here, for the record, I don't see any reason why anyone assumes that dogs, cats, birds, or any other creature with a brain wouldn't have what we would call a mind. If our brains are creating interesting and elaborate by-products in us that we think of as minds, then why wouldn't theirs? Maybe less complex than ours (or maybe not...) but I don't see why they wouldn't have the same physical things happening to them as we have happening to us. Just sayin'.