345001051 Philosophy of Mind Blog

Just to let you all know discovery channel is replaying "Wild Child: The Story of Feral Children" this saturday 12/3 at nine. I found that this program went along with some of the topics we discussed in class very well. It covers timing in childhood when certain faculties like the ability to learn language and others are possible and when it is too late. It gives a good view of what would happen to a human mind if it is not influenced by human interaction. Just thought I would let you all know in case you are interested.

The previous discussion brought up a lot of points on the importance of privacy, and I do agree that privacy is important. However, I think a critical fact was missed by a few – privacy is only lost to the government, the people in charge. The people next door, your best friend and other social relations will only be able to access information the general public is allowed to know about you. In effect, this is digital gossip, something that already occurs. Once again, technology wouldn’t change what is happening, only how. In fact, in digital gossip you are able to monitor gossip directed at yourself, and correct it if necessary, or, at least, defend your actions put into question.

As for the other aspect of privacy, the part that is already truly private, there will be a loss of this to a certain extent. However, this does not mean you will be arrested for saying you wish the president were dead, for example. These things, if said in public or an actual meeting, may indeed warrant attention. But in the case of private off comment like this, new sets of laws would have to be developed. It would be a necessity. After all, a large portion of online transmissions are in fact monitored. These transmissions could easily get us arrested if we confided them to a group that would possibly act on some of our ideas or thoughts.

It is also an undeniable truth that, if the government really wants to monitor an individual, they already can. If you have the means and paranoia to avoid this, that possibly indicates you are indeed someone who should be watched.

The government is a political body, not a private organization or individual person. Your information, what is gathered, would largely be unimportant and filtered trash to these people. We’d all like to think that what we do behind closed doors is private, but that idea is merely a façade. How many of us have had problems because we thought we did or said something in private, but in less than a day it was publicly known and wild gossip?

I am forced to admit that this information would inevitably be abused. That is innate in any progress we make, but this will have to be confronted as it appears, like any moral corruption.

What it will provide in a positive light is a new found security. Despite what some suggest, you are not required to give up freedoms for security. It is already illegal to murder and rape (to use the most heinous examples), and its obvious these occur, and often occur without legal repercussions, especially in the case of rape. Now if things were more thoroughly monitored, these could be properly punished or, hopefully, prevented.

Now, where is the loss of freedom in this? Yes, people are monitoring you. However, they do not prevent you from doing anything you should not. They merely protect. It is sort of a universal, near omniscient police force. While this could be problematic in a non-democratic nation, the option of willingly rejecting the implementation of this in such a country is nil in any event.

The things we keep most truly private – our thoughts – will remain so unless you willingly show them to others. In truth, little else needs to be private. I have nothing to hide, personally, and while I think the moral idea of ‘you shouldn’t do something if you don’t want others to know’ is a bit shallow, it does hold some merit in this respect. While forced morality is not true morality, it certainly works for me if it keeps some criminal from stealing from me.

How much information do we need- not to discount the prior thought- we have tons of information now- but how much of it is worth while- and how much of it is just plain wrong. Having information is only part our abilities to evolve- a community of interested people who demand correct information cannot be overlooked in these times of mass progression. We can make a bee line to get on the boat to the future- but where are we really going? My issue with technology is not technology its self, but our ignoring (or ignorance) in the asking of the hard questions- or a demand for ethical society.
Philosophically, the movement to overcome our environment is not new- we have been doing it for hundred of thousands of years, we are smarter and faster and have tons of ability to create things bigger and better. There is not much of a limit to our imagination. Our bodies are a tool to what we think: Our notebooks, our keyboards, our words, our ideas. It seems to me- if we can think about it- it can be done. We can argue about it- create an argument for or against any aspect of the creation of this thing. And, through all of these hundreds of thousands of years of progression- we are still human, we still can live in a society that gets along and we all are capable of working in groups. We do not ‘ray gun’ each other down; we are still civil. I figure, as Clark states- we will still be civil as the ideas of our capacities as humans change.
But, what IS difficult for the human race is not creating things ‘outside of us’ but dealing with what is ‘inside of us’. Why is this self separate from our technological world? Without the self there would be no outside of self. Could it be that this is what our privacy issues are truly about? What I think is mine and how I deal with it is mine also. I say- a given- but- why does it seem inappropriate to engage in talk about this self. What part of our evolution should not contain knowing one’s self (whatever that it)? I suggest that the labors in this realm will not only create more technological and progressive moves in science, but also a more civil society to evolve into. Why can’t my thoughts of a progressive search for the self be as revolutionary as a mechanical third arm? Maybe because it is regarded as uncomfortable as a third arm.

I agree with the previous comment, that we need, as a nation, to me familar with emerging technology. If the United States is too cautious then hostile countries such as North Korea could pass us by economically or even threaten us. We might not think that some of these products are safe or ethical, but other nations won't care. There is "nothing wrong with considering possible consequences", unless we are left defenseless. Besides, more and faster information will only enable us to make more accurate predictions about future problems.

Today we discussed the extent to which a human manufactured infrastructure could extend the human mind. I find this a fascinating subject, and am truly surprised so many people seem to find it threatening to our ways of life.

I don’t quite understand the problem with this. As it is, our collection of knowledge and understanding can hardly be argued to be entirely organic as it once was. Do we think that we’d be able to be as intelligent and understanding as we are without our level of technology? The new level of mass communication, especially the internet, has changed the way we look at other people. They aren’t just the ‘other’ anymore, they are cool person to chat to on our buddy list. Similarly, our core knowledge has been expanded. While I do find it more pleasing to read a book than browse the same text on a monitor, it is impossible to ignore the speed and depth of knowledge that can be had from external machines, whether they be software encyclopedias, or once again turning to the internet.

This is not information that can be reasonably memorized. This is not communication that is practical in person. In effect, this new infrastructure hardware we have created around us not only extends our ‘mind’ to new ideas and facts, but expands our community to encompass others. There is little reason to be threatened by this new technology – we made it, it is only a tool to serve us. It can do nothing we haven’t thought of, and made it do. Yes, there is the threat of criminals using new technology to their advantage, but the fear of this is misleading. Technology doesn’t make the old crimes any worse, it only changes how they are committed.

As the past fifty years have shown, this technology will only continue to expand. Our infrastructure, like wise, will become more complex and interconnected. Some argue that the technology we can create will take away from us as a whole, but that is suggesting our current progress has done that. It hasn’t. Once again, it doesn’t change what is done, only how it is done. Would these new extensions become more valid if they were organic? Say, instead of a computer implant, we knew how to make our brain capacity for memory grow rapidly. I think to many that idea seems more comfortable – but is the effect or practice any different? Whether organic or otherwise, born by nature through nature alone, or through man, it is still natural. After all, if this expanse of our mind was unnatural, wouldn’t that suggest that we, and the things we do, are unnatural? I don’t think that’s even possible.

In chapter three of the Clark book they discuss the contributions of language snd speech to human thought. I've always wondered how thoughts and words develop in the first place. Can somebody think something that they can't really describe? I know I've often felt, when writing an essay or such, that there must be a better word to describe what I'm trying to say and I imagine that's how a word develops but it's mind-boggling to think of some complex terms and imagine that people once had to make up this word and they had to do it from words that existed before it. How restricted are our thoughts by the language that bounds them? This also reminds me of certain words in other languages that are simply untranslatable because there isn't a word for it in the other language. Do certain languages have an advantage by allowing deeper meanings and if not, could they?

In Janelle Brown's article "Have My Shoe Talk to Your Refrigerator", Neil Gershenfeld presents some interesting ways to look at technology. He says that in "mature technologies" the form and the function are inseperable. This is essentially what we have been talking about in class in terms of the mind. He also uses the same idea presented in "Natural Born Cyborgs", that all tools used to aid the function of the mind are technology. That means that books, pens, and even language are "mature technologies", but hardly anyone notices. The combination of these two theories allows Gershenfeld to predict a future where technology "will be integrated into every other object around us -- allowing us to forget about it completely". His prediction is much more comforting than the popular visions of technological explosions that we are told will happen in the future. Gershenfeld's future is the result of a more gradual process, which is more likely to be accepted by most people. This is something we are already doing with some electrical technologies, such as electric blankets. I can't help but wonder what a conversation between Gershenfeld and Ted Kaczynski would be like.

The Cartesian model of thought makes sense when we are taking a historical view of philosophy. We had to start somewhere. But then there is the evolution of thought. This is where Dennett goes to great lengths to suggest that we should be evolving the consciousness model. Dennett begins to deconstruct the old theories- let us take away all of these-givens- pare down the myths and force some different concepts to be viewed in their place.

But, as a beginner with this concept- I am very attached to this theater of–me. I am my thoughts; I am at the center of my thoughts. No one has ever shown me any differently (from a western view). Rather than a self centered view, I have a self constructed view, I can know only what I know, and I usually learn from following examples. If I exist, which I must, since I am sensing that I do, ‘I” must be at the strong center of my theory, I must be my own consciousness. Such begins our modern thought, now three hundred years old; the foundation of our modern world view. And as such, an epistemological investigation of the self, politics, and ethics still rule philosophy, What can I know?

Yet, plenty of other ideas have come and gone. Take for instance Descartes math demon. We surely know this demon never existed- it is hard to not laugh at the intellectual thought of it. So, why continue to assume the “Cartesian Theater” idea?

I think-just because I do! Yet, it doesn’t seem as catchy.

Mary has all knowledge, Mary has nothing left to be surprised by- what is left for her? Would she want to free fall- if she already knew what the experience would be like? She would know that there was no risk in her attempt, she could make sure of that, but would it be worth the effort of getting out of bed for?

I am fine with Dennett's memeified software answer of consciousness, but what do we do with it now? Do we write new software that can recode our memes? (maybe the 'not American enough' meme or the 'too liberal' meme?) (even though I was an activist for rewriting racist memes earlier this semester, and still am.)

I feel like I must be missing something important in Dennett’s consciousness claim, like it is going over my head. Consciousness is not going to be found inside our brains, like life is not going to be found inside my body- I am alive, I am conscious. Did I already know this? I thought I did… Am I too attached to my own first-person experiences that I have gotten mixed up by something that I thought I knew and do not know? What good comes from making these distinctions? These are the questions I am left with after reading the final chapter of Sweet Dreams.

Dennett seems to have thought all of his ideas out. There is example after example that seems tight enough to hold his theory together. I do not philosophically disagree with his thin materialist view, I think it is good to stretch the imagination and think hard about ideas that you initially disagree with; but what is it that makes me skeptical of this easy agreement? I guess it is just that it hasn’t really changed my mind about how I view my ideas of the world, even if Dennett did ask me to change the way I could see the world. Even so, I feel uneasy, as if I have forgotten something and can’t remember what it is.

I thought that the argument that Dr. Garns brought up in class was very good. It is hard for me to see the brain as the only place one could look to find thoughts or reflections of self. In other words, I do not believe that by looking at neurons firing that I could tell you exactly what someone is thinking, however I do believe we could tell that whatever they are thinking is making them depressed, happy, or excited. But if we could view someone’s entire life, and see every event that has happened in their life, I believe that it is a good possibility that we could then make a good estimation as to what they could be thinking. We may even be able to understand their emotion.

Interesting enough, this article is talking about a remote control that can control human movement....(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9816703)

Brainman(Discovery Science)

Video clips from Brainman

Synopsis "Daniel Tammet is a "super brain". He can calculate numbers to hundreds of decimal points in seconds and learn new languages in a week. Through a set of challenges against other "super brains," Daniel's amazing cognitive abilities are demonstrated."

First off... I was distracted by the woman's name in the discussion on Thursday. Geez, talk about distress (I can *so* see color!). Second, I already TRIED to post this, and it got all wonky on me.

I'm not trying to "persuade" anyone, but for me, at least, seeing something as opposed to just knowing it through second-hand knowledge (books, etc.) changes how I view it.

For example, last summer I went to England, and Stonehenge specifically. Before we went, I read up on it, and essentially knew everything there was to know about it. But when I actually SAW it with my own two eyes, albeit on a very wet, rainy day, it somehow added an extra layer to my knowledge about it. The knowledge MEANT something now, as opposed to just floating around with no emotional attachment.

I'm sure there's disagreement about whether or not emotions and feelings are included in the "total knowledge" area, but I'm inclined to think it is. Humans are emotional creatures, and whether those emotions are all neuroscience or something more intangible, they're inseparatable from experience.

Again, I'm not saying that seeing Stonehenge was a religious experience for me, or even bringing up religion at all, but it's just an example.

So, as I understand it, all of these Mary thought experiments are trying to establish that there is something beyond just the physical at play in our minds. My argument is that this example doesn't quite prove this. How do we know that something like experience cannot be fully explained in physical terms? Maybe, like in so many philosophical problems, we just don't have the words for it, or the means to measure such things. Measuring experience is something that seems fathomable to me so I find it hard for Mary to prove to me that we should accept that there is still that mysterious element to the mind which we will never be able to quantify or explain. The mind is still mysterious, but this seems to me like the easy way out of the problem. Even if we were to establish that there is something more than that, it seems like we would be giving it a divine cause without any real proof of anything divine. This seems to me like giving color to something black and white when we get everything we need out of the black and white version. It is also like assuming learning is the outcome of Mary's release from her black and white world when the thought experiment clearly states she knows everything physical about color. It just isn't necassary or substantiated.

I thought I would put the link to the movie homepage out here for anyone who may be interested in checking this out. I rented it from netflix. Marlee Matlin plays the lead and I think it is worth the 108 mins whatever you take away from it.

I wish I was smart enough to be a research scientist, because they really get to get down and dirty with some neat ideas and discoveries.

http://www.whatthebleep.com/synopsis/