Movies and novels such as “Planet of the Apes” and 2001: A Space Odyssey are called Science Fiction because they portray situations that seem extremely unrealistic concurrent with contemporary philosophy. “Planet of the Apes” depicts a world where apes rule while humans are subjected to servitude and confinement. These apes speak intelligibly and are human-like in appearance and behavior. In 2001: A Space Odyssey, the highly advanced computer, HAL 9000, an acronym for “Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer,” controls the bulk of spaceship operation. It makes declarative statements, learns from mistakes and, in the beginning, interacts well with the crew. In both works non-human entities, apes in one and a robotic system in the other, make spontaneous declarations and perform functions based upon previously acquired “knowledge” which goes against what most consider to be normal animal/machine behavior, thus it is termed Science Fiction. In 1637, celebrated French philosopher and mathematician, René Descartes (1596-1650), published Discourse on Method, Optics, Geometry, and Meteorology in which he maintains that he had established two universal criteria to distinguish animals and machines from humans, and thus those entities without souls from those with. His criteria are the entity must have the capacity for speech and act from knowledge. His justifications that machines do not meet these two criteria are sound; however, he fails to verify that animals do the same. Descartes’ argument that humans have an infinite capacity to make appropriate responses is true as well as his implication that this capacity is non-material.
Descartes’ first argument is only humans have the capacity for speech. In the opening of Discourse on Method Descartes remarks that machines and animals could never use speech or signs as we do when placing our thoughts on record for the benefit of others. For we can easily understand a machine’s being constituted so that it can utter words, and even emit some responses to action on it of a corporeal kind, which brings about a change in its organs….but it never happens that it arranges its speech in various ways, in order to reply appropriately to everything said in its presence. (Descartes)
Speech can simply be defined as the faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions ...
... middle of paper ...
...” deliberately invert human-machine and human-animal interaction so as to bring more emphasis on how the audience and society distinguishes them. Descartes uses two determinants as the distinguishing factors: speech and action from knowledge. Both of these factors rest on the assumption that humans have an infinite capacity to make appropriate responses and, because it is an infinite capacity, it is non-material. He has successfully argued that machines differ from humans in these two ways. However, he was unsuccessful in showing that animals differ from humans through action from knowledge because more recent studies show that animals, such as Ravens, are more intelligent that previously thought. Though, even studies at the Language Research Center have showed that Descartes’ speech criterion still holds with animals. With new technological developments on the horizon, in half a century there may be no more debate about distinguishing humans from animals and machines, but instead debate about distinguishing humans from artificial intelligence and advanced robotics. If so, would Descartes’ criteria still apply? If not, what would the new factors be?
To read Damasio's critique alongside Stephen Gaukroger's remarkably rich intellectual biography of Descartes, however, is to realize that Damasio could just as aptly have titled his book "Descartes' Vision." As Gaukroger points out, Descartes was reviled during his lifetime and for a century after his death not for his dualism but for his materialism. Only when the history of philosophy was rewritten in the nineteenth century as the story of epistemology did Descartes come to bear the double designation of being both the "father" of modern philosophy and the ranking nativist who visited upon us the catastrophic separation of mind from body and of reason from emotion. These labels are essentially caricatures that distort the actual complexity of what Descartes struggled to work out in his cognitive theory. Gaukroger reconstructs this struggle for us, sometimes on a month-by-month basis, showing how Descartes shuttled back and forth between an account of the body and the pursuit of the mind.
Another one of Descartes arguments supporting the separation of humans and animals is that if machines were created to resemble and act like animals, there is no way we would be able to tell them from the real thing. Unlike the animals though, a machine created to resemble a human could never pass off as real. According to Descartes, it would be impossible to get the machine to react to other humans in an appropriate way. Human conversations are too complicated for machines to understand and interact properly without flaw. This is what separates humans from animals. Even the dumbest ma...
Peters in Chapter six, “Machines, Animals, and Aliens,” talks about 20th century and new technology that has influence in communication. Movies, television, phones and internet. He follows the idea of analyzing how these new mediums effect the communication and gave a new form and understanding to that. Peters claims that “the chief challenge to communication in the twentieth century is contact with beings that lack mortal form” (pg 227). He talks about Rene Descartes and his idea of communication, “communication a distinctly human capacity that distinguishes us from animals and machines” (pg 231). Then Peters talks about Alan Turing, his computing machine and intelligence test, and asks question of “how can you tell a human from a fake?”(pg
Descartes makes a careful examination of what is involved in the recognition of a specific physical object, like a piece of wax. By first describing the wax in a manner such that “everything is present in the wax that appears needed to enable a body to be known as distinctly as possible” (67), he shows how easily our senses help to conceive our perception of the body. But even if such attributes are modified or removed, we still recognize the changed form, as the same piece of wax. This validates Descartes’ claim that “wax itself never really is the sweetness of the honey, nor the fragrance of the flowers, nor the whiteness, nor the shape, nor the sound” (67), and the only certain knowledge we gain of the wax is that “it is something extended, flexible, and mutable” (67). This conclusion forces us to realize that it is difficult to understand the true nature of the wax, and its identity is indistinguishable from other things that have the same qualities as the wax. After confirming the nature of a human mind is “a thinking thing” (65), Descartes continues that the nature of human mind is better known than the nature of the body.
One of the ways in which Descartes attempts to prove that the mind is distinct from the body is through his claim that the mind occupies no physical space and is an entity with which people think, while the body is a physical entity and cannot serve as a mechanism for thought. [1]
Descartes’ first two Meditations are arguably the most widely known philosophical works. Because of this, one can make the error of assuming that Descartes’ method of doubt is self-evident and that its philosophical implications are relatively minor. However, to assume this would be a grave mistake. In this paper, I hope to spread light on exactly what Descartes’ method of doubt is, and how, though it furnishes challenges for the acceptance of the reality of the external world, it nonetheless does not lead to external world skepticism.
Rene Descartes decision to shatter the molds of traditional thinking is still talked about today. He is regarded as an influential abstract thinker; and some of his main ideas are still talked about by philosophers all over the world. While he wrote the "Meditations", he secluded himself from the outside world for a length of time, basically tore up his conventional thinking; and tried to come to some conclusion as to what was actually true and existing. In order to show that the sciences rest on firm foundations and that these foundations lay in the mind and not the senses, Descartes must begin by bringing into doubt all the beliefs that come to him by the senses. This is done in the first of six different steps that he named "Meditations" because of the state of mind he was in while he was contemplating all these different ideas. His six meditations are "One:Concerning those things that can be called into doubt", "Two:Concerning the Nature of the Human mind: that it is better known than the Body", "Three: Concerning God, that he exists", "Four: Concerning the True and the False", "Five: Concerning the Essence of Material things, and again concerning God, that he exists" and finally "Six: Concerning the Existence of Material things, and the real distinction between Mind and Body". Although all of these meditations are relevant and necessary to understand the complete work as a whole, the focus of this paper will be the first meditation.
The philosopher explored the concept of a machine that looked and behaved like a human being. Following his attempts to unmask such a machine, Descartes concluded that no machine could behave like a human being and that characteristically explaining human behavior needed something beyond the physical.... ... middle of paper ... ... This argument has attracted huge considerations in the field of philosophy as physicalists try to examine it because of the problem it poses to physicalism.
The teaching of Descartes has influenced many minds since his writings. Descartes' belief that clear and distinct perceptions come from the intellect and not the senses was critical to his ultimate goal in Meditations on First Philosophy, for now he has successfully created a foundation of true and certain facts on which to base a sold, scientific belief structure. He has proven himself to exist in some form, to think and therefore feel, and explains how he knows objects or concepts to be real.
Using Strawson’s examination as a guide to Descartes philosophy,i have tried to show how the two issues, of individuation and identity threaten to destroy Descartes’ philosophy of mind-body dualism.
Descartes is a very well-known philosopher and has influenced much of modern philosophy. He is also commonly held as the father of the mind-body problem, thus any paper covering the major answers of the problem would not be complete without covering his argument. It is in Descartes’ most famous work, Meditations, that he gives his view for dualism. Descartes holds that mind and body are com...
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 short, I summarized Descartes position of the relationship of the mind and body. After that I discussed two objections to his argument which were related to the mind existing without the body and that the mind is not divisible while I discussed how Descartes might respond to these arguments. These arguments adequately show that Descartes argument for mind/body dualism is false.
Speech is vitally important for a variety of reasons. I believe that our words can increase or decrease our level of happiness or even have a positive or negative effect towards our future. Speech helps us as a society to resolve issues in a respectful manner; it helps us get important points across and convey messages, it also helps us structure our ways of communicating. The importance of speech is giving us the ability to make situations more...