Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
As an extension to the short story “Where am I?” by Daniel Dennett, Dennett is taking the government to court, claiming that NASA owes him a new body, because he is currently forced to share his body with another person (Hubert). Wanting to make usage of my philosophical expertise, the government called upon me to give my recommendation to the court as to what validity, if any Dennett’s claim has, and whether or not Dennett should be awarded a second body transplant. After careful consideration on various philosophical issues pertaining to this case, I have concluded that there is absolutely some merit to Dennett’s claim, and that Daniel Dennett should be given a new body. I will expand upon the details of each specific issue that I investigated,
They may eventually be willing to admit that Dennett is indeed missing a brain, but how could anyone prove that his brain was sitting in a vat of a lab? Furthermore, how can anyone prove that a second entity, a computer with extremely remarkable artificial intelligence is controlling Dennett’s body? While these questions are certainly valid, it should be noted that the government cannot rule these claims out either. They have no explanation as to how Dennett is functioning without a brain, nor can they explain the radio antenna’s that are implanted in Dennett 's skull. It will be beneficial to Dennett, to list off other details, such as the location of the lab where Yorick is, or the details about the mission he performed in Oklahoma. This added information would clarify the story more and be helpful in Dennett successfully winning his
Computers are well known for their ability to perform computations and follow a list of instructions, but can a computer be a mind? There are varying philosophical theories on what constitutes a mind. Some believe that the mind must be a physical object, and others believe in dualism, or the idea that the mind is separate from the brain. I am a firm believer in dualism, and this is part of the argument that I will use in the favor of Dennett. The materialist view however, would likely not consider Hubert to be a mind. That viewpoint believes that all objects are physical objects, so the mind is a physical part of a human brain, and thus this viewpoint doesn’t consider the mind and body as two separate things, but instead they are both parts of one object. The materialist would likely reject Hubert as a mind, even though circuit boards are a physical object, although even a materialist would likely agree that Yorick being separated from Dennett does not disqualify Yorick as a mind. If one adopts a dualism view and accept the idea that the mind does not have to be connected to a physical object, then one can make sense of Hubert being able to act as the mind of Dennett. The story told to us by Dennett, is that when the switch is flipped on his little box attached to his body, the entity that controls Dennett, changes to the other entity. Since the switches are not labeled, it is never known which entity is
...m these advancements that are from human body parts. Instead, it is imperative to honor and preserve those who have made these interventions possible
I chose this dilemma for reflection because of the true dichotomous nature of organ transplantation. Someone must die in order for someone else to live. Additionally, with the current demand outweighing the supply of organs available, another ethical “layer” is formed. In
The demand for human cadaver research continues to exist. Countless notions have been voiced to augment the supply of human cadavers. Science writer Mary Roach believes that our bodies are of significant importance above ground instead of below. In “The Cadaver Who Joined the Army” Mary Roach primarily focuses on the benefits of human cadaver research and how cadaver donation can be rewarding. Mary Roach bypasses the super-replicator beliefs of human cadaver research and highlights the joy one will receive after donating their body to research. Psychologist Daniel Gilbert primarily focuses on how surrogates pass on super-replicators in which we consider truthful. In “Reporting Live From Tomorrow” Gilbert presumes that e rely on super-replicators to make choices that will determine happiness. As a surrogate, Mary Roach convinces us that through informed consent, our decision to donate our bodies to cadaver research will bring happiness.
Also, Yorick was still inside of the brain chamber external from Dennetts body. He called his new body Fortinbras. Up until this point, Dennett was unaware of the extra precaution taken by the doctors of copying his brain’s functional capacity into a computer program, which they named Hubert. Though they had no way of proving that Hubert was identical to Yorick, their outputs had been shown to be completely synchronous, giving encouragement to Hubert’s legitimacy. At first, switching between Yorick and Hubert creates an imperceptible difference to Dennett.
In this theory, since it is based upon matter alone then this is a theory that does not correspond the best, in my opinion, with the essay. In the essay Daniel mentions many times where his mind, Dennett, feels like it is elsewhere from his brain and his body. He contemplates on whether or not Dennett resides in his brain that is out of his body in a life support vat or between his ears in his empty skull. He clearly distinguishes that his brain and body and mind are all separate from each other. In this materialism theory, I personally feel like this does not support Daniel Dennett in his understanding of this situation he was put
Svenaeus, F. (2010). The body as a gift, resource or commodity? Heidegger and the ethics of organ transplantation. Bioethical Inquiry , 7, 163-172.
In the finale of the story, we find out that the computer has diverged from Dennett’s brain (referred to as Yorick) and has come to think independently on its own. Dennett is essentially being controlled by two separate minds or entities, which is a fascinating and frightening idea at the same time. How could Dennett breathe, talk, move, function, or even live without a brain? All human beings must have a brain to be alive, so given that premise, we know that Dennett has access to a brain somehow, or as Dennett would describe it, his brain has access to his body. So the wild idea that Dennett’s brain is in a vat sending signals through wires and then through radio signals seems more plausible now.
Richard Taylor explained why the body and the mind are one, and why they are not two separate substances. In the article “The Mind as a Function of the Body”, Taylor divides his article in a number of sections and explains clearly why dualism, or the theory that the mind and the body are separate is not conceivable. In one of these sections it is explained in detail the origin of why some philosophers and people believe in dualist metaphysics. As stated by Taylor “when we form an idea of a body or a physical object, what is most likely to come to mind is not some person or animal but something much simpler, such as a stone or a marble”(133). The human has the tendency to believe a physical object as simple, and not containing anything complex. A problem with believing this is that unlike a stone or a marble a human (or an animal) has a brain and the body is composed of living cells (excluding dead skin cells, hair, and nails which are dead cells). The f...
The mind-body problem can be a difficult issue to discuss due to the many opinions and issues that linger. The main issue behind the mind-body problem is the question regarding if us humans are only made up of matter, or a combination of both matter and mind. If we consist of both, how can we justify the interaction between the two? A significant philosophical issue that has been depicted by many, there are many prominent stances on the mind-body problem. I believe property dualism is a strong philosophical position on the mind-body issue, which can be defended through the knowledge argument against physicalism, also refuted through the problems of interaction.
Recent breakthroughs in the field of genetics and biotechnology have brought attention to the ethical issues surrounding human enhancement. While these breakthroughs have many positive aspects, such as the treatment and prevention of many debilitating diseases and extending human life expectancy well beyond its current limits, there are profound moral implications associated with the ability to manipulate our own nature. Michael Sandel’s “The Case Against Perfection” examines the ethical and moral issues associated with human enhancement while Nick Bostrom’s paper, “In Defense of Posthuman Dignity” compares the positions that transhumanists and bioconservatists take on the topic of human enhancement. The author’s opinions on the issue of human genetic enhancement stand in contrast to one another even though those opinions are based on very similar topics. The author’s views on human enhancement, the effect enhancement has on human nature, and the importance of dignity are the main issues discussed by Sandel and Bostrom and are the focus of this essay.
Computers are machines that take syntactical information only and then function based on a program made from syntactical information. They cannot change the function of that program unless formally stated to through more information. That is inherently different from a human mind, in that a computer never takes semantic information into account when it comes to its programming. Searle’s formal argument thus amounts to that brains cause minds. Semantics cannot be derived from syntax alone. Computers are defined by a formal structure, in other words, a syntactical structure. Finally, minds have semantic content. The argument then concludes that the way the mind functions in the brain cannot be likened to running a program in a computer, and programs themselves are insufficient to give a system thought. (Searle, p.682) In conclusion, a computer cannot think and the view of strong AI is false. Further evidence for this argument is provided in Searle’s Chinese Room thought-experiment. The Chinese Room states that I, who does not know Chinese, am locked in a room that has several baskets filled with Chinese symbols. Also in that room is a rulebook that specifies the various manipulations of the symbols purely based on their syntax, not their semantics. For example, a rule might say move the squiggly
If a machine passes the test, then it is clear that for many ordinary people it would be a sufficient reason to say that that is a thinking machine. And, in fact, since it is able to conversate with a human and to actually fool him and convince him that the machine is human, this would seem t...
The traditional notion that seeks to compare human minds, with all its intricacies and biochemical functions, to that of artificially programmed digital computers, is self-defeating and it should be discredited in dialogs regarding the theory of artificial intelligence. This traditional notion is akin to comparing, in crude terms, cars and aeroplanes or ice cream and cream cheese. Human mental states are caused by various behaviours of elements in the brain, and these behaviours in are adjudged by the biochemical composition of our brains, which are responsible for our thoughts and functions. When we discuss mental states of systems it is important to distinguish between human brains and that of any natural or artificial organisms which is said to have central processing systems (i.e. brains of chimpanzees, microchips etc.). Although various similarities may exist between those systems in terms of functions and behaviourism, the intrinsic intentionality within those systems differ extensively. Although it may not be possible to prove that whether or not mental states exist at all in systems other than our own, in this paper I will strive to present arguments that a machine that computes and responds to inputs does indeed have a state of mind, but one that does not necessarily result in a form of mentality. This paper will discuss how the states and intentionality of digital computers are different from the states of human brains and yet they are indeed states of a mind resulting from various functions in their central processing systems.
In Moore’s “The Mind is an Enchanting Thing”, she introduces the idea of the mind’s multifaceted nature and definition through comparison of the mind. This is portrayed through the mind’s knowledge through learned and nature knowledge, the mind’s power through instinct and conscious, and the mind’s ability to bring awe through bird imagery and Herod’s oath. M. L. Rosenthal puts it best when he states,”’Mind’ here is neither an abstraction nor a mechanical process but something magically, and beautifully, alive: glittering, physical, and infinitely magnetic” (Rosenthal
Gilbert Ryle’s The Concept of Mind (1949) is a critique of the notion that the mind is distinct from the body, and is a rejection of the philosophical theory that mental states are distinct from physical states. Ryle argues that the traditional approach to the relation of mind and body (i.e., the approach which is taken by the philosophy of Descartes) assumes that there is a basic distinction between Mind and Matter. According to Ryle, this assumption is a basic 'category-mistake,' because it attempts to analyze the relation betwen 'mind' and 'body' as if they were terms of the same logical category. Furthermore, Ryle argues that traditional Idealism makes a basic 'category-mistake' by trying to reduce physical reality to the same status as mental reality, and that Materialism makes a basic 'category-mistake' by trying to reduce mental reality to the same status as physical reality.