Courtney,
You brought up some interesting points in regards to Picard's defence of Data. At the beginning you start with the inclination that Picard is a materialist, but then seem to say he is not, because he tries to show Data's humanity. While you do not directly state it, you appear to indicate that Picard is following the emergentism solution to the mind/body problem. You explain that Picard would only argue for Data having human-like characteristics if he believed Data actually had them. While Picard did argue that Data had the three characteristics of a sentient being, as defined by Maddox, this was only after Maddox revealed his dualistic view. To prove Maddox wrong, Picard has two basic options, either convince the court that there
William Paley’s teleological argument (also known as the argument from design) is an attempt to prove the existence of god. This argument succeeds in proving that while existence was created by an aggregation of forces, to define these forces, as a conscious, rational, and ultimately godlike is dubious. Although the conclusions are valid, the argument makes several logical errors. The teleological argument relies on inductive reasoning, rendering the argument itself valid, but unsound. The argument fails to apply its own line of reasoning to itself, resulting in infinite regression. Beyond the scope of its logical flaws, the arguments content lacks accurate comparisons. The argument hinges on a watch metaphor, and as will be shown, this metaphor will prove inaccurate in explaining the creation of the universe.
Searle's argument delineates what he believes to be the invalidity of the computational paradigm's and artificial intelligence's (AI) view of the human mind. He first distinguishes between strong and weak AI. Searle finds weak AI as a perfectly acceptable investigation in that it uses the computer as a strong tool for studying the mind. This in effect does not observe or formulate any contentions as to the operation of the mind, but is used as another psychological, investigative mechanism. In contrast, strong AI states that the computer can be created so that it actually is the mind. We must first describe what exactly this entails. In order to be the mind, the computer must be able to not only understand, but to have cognitive states. Also, the programs by which the computer operates are the focus of the computational paradigm, and these are the explanations of the mental states. Searle's argument is against the claims of Shank and other computationalists who have created SHRDLU and ELIZA, that their computer programs can (1) be ascribe...
Pollan’s article provides a solid base to the conversation, defining what to do in order to eat healthy. Holding this concept of eating healthy, Joe Pinsker in “Why So Many Rich Kids Come to Enjoy the Taste of Healthier Foods” enters into the conversation and questions the connection of difference in families’ income and how healthy children eat (129-132). He argues that how much families earn largely affect how healthy children eat — income is one of the most important factors preventing people from eating healthy (129-132). In his article, Pinsker utilizes a study done by Caitlin Daniel to illustrate that level of income does affect children’s diet (130). In Daniel’s research, among 75 Boston-area parents, those rich families value children’s healthy diet more than food wasted when children refused to accept those healthier but
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.
Since Data is a representation of a human, he feels that he should be given the same rights as a human being. Captain Picard agrees with Data and helps him fight for his rights. As a result of the conflict, Captain Picard, Data, Commander Riker, Commander Maddox, and a judge attend a hearing
The movie trailer “Rio 2”, shows a great deal of pathos, ethos, and logos. These rhetorical appeals are hidden throughout the movie trailer; however, they can be recognized if paying attention to the details and montage of the video. I am attracted to this type of movies due to the positive life messages and the innocent, but funny personifications from the characters; therefore, the following rhetorical analysis will give a brief explanation of the scenes, point out the characteristics of persuasive appeals and how people can be easily persuaded by using this technique, and my own interpretation of the message presented in the trailer.
The argument that Jimmy acted ethically using ethical relativism is a valid argument, but in the end, this argument does not prove that someone acted ethically or unethically. The entire argument is relative and allows any choice a person makes to be either ethical or unethical regardless of what cultural standards or laws dictate. Even under ethical fundamentalism one can say that Jimmy acted ethically because of his faith and relying on that central authority. This argument is weak in my opinion because we have no idea why Jimmy chose to act the way he did. We have no knowledge of his religious beliefs or view of the world so we cannot assume that this is why he saved the little boy. The Rules of Professional Conduct are the only undisputable information we have which provides the strongest case that Jimmy acted unethically. If Jimmy was choosing to follow a central authority in his life, it should have been the ethical standards he agreed to when becoming a lawyer. He was aware of the laws and still chose to be a lawyer regardless of whether these ethical standards violated his values. In conclusion, Jimmy chose to save the little boy and I disagree with his actions to do so. Jimmy should have adhered to the professional conduct standards he agreed to and not told the
The objection that there is a law or principle that disposed the watch and made it be in that form is dismissed by Paley because he indicated that the principle of order cannot create the existence of a complex object.
I will explain the reasons for how John Searle's arguments are against the claim that computers are an actual thinking thing.
Being someone who did not people could get married through skype, I thought this article was very interesting to read. For me, I considered this an informative essay because it talks a lot about what skype weddings can lead to and the process on how to do it. When I first read the title of the article “Revealed: How immigrants are gaining U.S. citizenship by getting married on Skype - to people thousands of miles away” I thought that maybe there wasn’t a process through the government and all you needed was a spouse and a priest. According to the article though to become an American citizen you must first be interviewed by Homeland Security or State Department officials, so they can check for fraud or human trafficking. At that point, I started
To silence the hate does not make it go away it causes it fester in the shadows. In Ma’s recent work she places the opinion of critical theorist “like Lawrence have long argued from perspective victims. How can we diagnose the disease and prescribe a cure without listing to the patient? (Ma 702). The critical theorist such as Lawrence think that hate must be heard and then addressed. This listening Lawrence puts forward allows for the pulse of racism in America opposing views must be heard no matter how horrible their thoughts are. A result of opening up the speech is that it is these men will find a way to be heard. Men such as Milo know how to get attention this is because he is “A self-described troll, Yiannopoulos has drawn criticism
Philo on the other hands contends that Cleanthes cannot objectively make that claim. Philo recognizes the problems that Cleanthes’s argument of design brings by being a priori, he recognizes how the causes and effects affect the overall argument made by Cleanthes and is able to pin point where it was this was problematic, that order may not necessarily exist due to an intelligent designer, and that since humans where not all knowing like God there were some aspects that Cleanthes argues are just impossible to know with their limited intellect. In part 2 Philo effectively communicates to Cleanthes that his claims could be reduced to speculation as opposed to being regarded as matters of
Although he admits that Searle is successful in pleading his case that strong AI is false, he gives examples to show that “…running the right program together with the satisfaction of certain conditions may not be sufficient.”(Fodor188) I can see why Fodor might reject Searle’s claim why strong AI is false. He believes that even though the computer or machine does not fully understand the meaning of the symbols that are programmed in them that does not mean that the symbols do not have any meaning to them. What he means by this is that the computers are not aware of the symbols given to them, they do not know what they mean but the pivotal difference between him (Fodor) and Searle is that he believes that the computers derive the meanings of the symbols through external casual relations rather than formal exploitations, like what Fodor claims. Fodor might believe this example. For example, if a dog is given dog treats by its owner when it is told to roll over. The dog does not understand English, but every time it rolls over the dog is given a treat there would be a kind of casual connection. The dog understands when it is told to roll over it will be given a treat, even though the dog has no knowledge of English. So when the dog is told to roll over it would have the correct belief that if it follows the command in its brain which understands what will happen if it rolls over, a treat will be
It is important to review Searle's refutations of these respective theorists' proposition to establish a foundation (for the purpose of this essay) for discussing the applications of Artificial Intelligence, both now and in the future.
Novakovic, J. (2012). Responsibility in Application of ICT as Legal, Moral and Ethical Issues. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.libaccess.hud.ac.uk/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6419151