Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Final Dialogue
Under this post will be a question lending itself to a dialogue between me and Mr. Alperen utilizing material we have covered throughout this year.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Paradoxes
Thoughts on Zeno's paradox, as I understand it:
1. An infinite geometric series can converge to a definite number, therefore an infinite number of tasks can take a finite amount of time.
2. An infinitely small segment is not an actual thing. Limits can be used to discuss what happens as the number lengths approaches infinity (the length approaches 0), but you can not say what happens at infinity.
In short, plurality does not lead to contradiction.
Thoughts on the Pensioner's Dilemma:
You might be tempted by possibly: confessions minimizes risk. But remember, they will reach the same rational conclusion; their decision is not arbitrary. And, whatever way you come to your conclusion, if you both arrive at "I should confess," you would both realize this is irrational: why both confess when you can both not confess?
If you assume the other prisoner will arrive at the same conclusion as you (since the most rational decision would be the most rational no matter how many times it is repeated), you would not confess. But the other man knows this, so you should confess and take advantage of him. But he should realize this too... So the question is who will extrapolate further and who will stop at the right point.
Thoughts on Zeno's paradox, as I understand it:
1. An infinite geometric series can converge to a definite number, therefore an infinite number of tasks can take a finite amount of time.
2. An infinitely small segment is not an actual thing. Limits can be used to discuss what happens as the number lengths approaches infinity (the length approaches 0), but you can not say what happens at infinity.
In short, plurality does not lead to contradiction.
Thoughts on the Pensioner's Dilemma:
You might be tempted by possibly: confessions minimizes risk. But remember, they will reach the same rational conclusion; their decision is not arbitrary. And, whatever way you come to your conclusion, if you both arrive at "I should confess," you would both realize this is irrational: why both confess when you can both not confess?
If you assume the other prisoner will arrive at the same conclusion as you (since the most rational decision would be the most rational no matter how many times it is repeated), you would not confess. But the other man knows this, so you should confess and take advantage of him. But he should realize this too... So the question is who will extrapolate further and who will stop at the right point.
"Good" and "Evil"
When people use the words "good" and "evil," they do not specify whether according to their morality or common morality because they are usually similar. (I suspect they are similar because all societies have similar moral requirements in order to function well, but that is a separate discussion). However, a specification must always be implicit because their can be no objective standard; how can you say what a human life is worth (emotionally, not materially) except by consulting your own unique morals or by consulting the morality of others? I do see how another standard could be identified for the definition of "good," but I do not see how one could argue the standard to be more more right, when their is to way (or standard) to judge the standard itself.
So, if the world accepts theft as morally correct while a certain individual does not, it is wrong according to the individual and right according to society. Theft may be colloquially referred to as "good" and seen that way by most in this imaginary world... And, in our world we would have no authority to say their world is "wrong" and that our morals are objectively "better."
Furthermore, as Bertrand Russell would say, our concept of "good" cannot come from God, because we ascribed the quality to Him and must therefore have had an idea of the concept to begin with. To define "good" as "God-like" then saying "God is good" would be meaningless.
Sin therefore, as a transgression before God, must not be considered "evil," especially as the common morality shifts away from its former standards.
What is a definition of "good" that every society would agree upon regardless of their morals?
When people use the words "good" and "evil," they do not specify whether according to their morality or common morality because they are usually similar. (I suspect they are similar because all societies have similar moral requirements in order to function well, but that is a separate discussion). However, a specification must always be implicit because their can be no objective standard; how can you say what a human life is worth (emotionally, not materially) except by consulting your own unique morals or by consulting the morality of others? I do see how another standard could be identified for the definition of "good," but I do not see how one could argue the standard to be more more right, when their is to way (or standard) to judge the standard itself.
So, if the world accepts theft as morally correct while a certain individual does not, it is wrong according to the individual and right according to society. Theft may be colloquially referred to as "good" and seen that way by most in this imaginary world... And, in our world we would have no authority to say their world is "wrong" and that our morals are objectively "better."
Furthermore, as Bertrand Russell would say, our concept of "good" cannot come from God, because we ascribed the quality to Him and must therefore have had an idea of the concept to begin with. To define "good" as "God-like" then saying "God is good" would be meaningless.
Sin therefore, as a transgression before God, must not be considered "evil," especially as the common morality shifts away from its former standards.
What is a definition of "good" that every society would agree upon regardless of their morals?
Sunday, August 26, 2012
AI
Even if computers could have consciousness, how could they have free will? We design then such that we know where their electricity will flow. And, if we don't have free will, what is the difference between our thought and theirs?
God and Free Will
If
there is a being that can predict the future with 100% certainty, how can we
have free will? And if God can't,
how can he be omnipotent or omniscient? If God knows what will happen and you cannot avoid what he knows
will happen, how can you "will" anything?
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
The Question of Free Will
To start us off, I thought I would lead with a few questions:
If there is no randomness in particle motion
and interaction, then can thoughts be predicted and do we have no free will? If there is randomness, do our thoughts
have no meaning and are they just as random as their cause? If there is randomness, can our larger
brains have control over smaller random interactions and create meaning?
...Do people have
free will?
Some clarification:
The question may be better put "Do we have
free choice," as "will" implies a certain order of the desire to
some philosophers (especially Harry Frankfurt, who is my source for the term). However, a lack of free choice
necessitates a lack of free will (or a lack of free "free will"). If you cannot choose anything, then
your highest order desire is still forced and you cannot freely
"will" anything. So I
will not concern myself with the distinction, and we should progress using the
word "will," since this is how the question is commonly phrased.
Or, maybe it should be called “free
thought.” And,
indeed, if we do not have free thought, we cannot have free choice or free will of any order...
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
This is a blog for anyone who wants to discuss Philosophy during or even after this summer. You can post parts of papers here for comments or post general ideas that you want to discuss. If you want to contribute, please send a blank email from a gmail account to jacooba9@gmail.com with the subject "Philosophy12346," so you can be added. Once you have been added, you can create your own posts from blogger.com by logging in through your gmail account. Or, if you only wish to comment on previous posts, you can forgo the email.
If you've made it this far, you probably know the url. But, just in case you are on a mobile device and want the standard link, here it is:
philosophy123456.blogspot.com
Have fun!
If you've made it this far, you probably know the url. But, just in case you are on a mobile device and want the standard link, here it is:
philosophy123456.blogspot.com
Have fun!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)