Kameron Allen's Archive

Chapter 20 of our textbook outlines some very interesting concepts about artificial intelligence, such as the Turing test and the argument of strong versus weak artificial intelligence. According to the text, artificial intelligence (AI) is defined as a “special branch of computer science that investigates the extent to which the mental powers of human beings can be captured by means of machines.” Scholars in this field have been debating the potential “humanness” a machine currently possesses or will possess for the last fifty or sixty years. Proponents of weak AI claim that a computer will only ever be able to simulate a human mind, whereas proponents of strong AI claim that computers actually duplicate the mind. Turing sought to answer the question, “Can machines think?” with an experiment where a computer and an actual human response were alternatively given to an interrogator. If the interrogator was unable to consistently determine the human response, the computer, according to the test, could be said to think.

So what do you think? Will true artificial intelligence ever be realized? Is a machine’s ability to mimic human behavior or characteristics enough to classify it as a thinking being, or are there other factors that need to be considered as well? I know this is kind of random, but what about the issue of cloning (if that’s ever possible), would clones fall under the heading of natural or artificial or neither?

Yesterday in class we talked a little bit about a man who was, in his time and even today, both a walking miracle as well as a scientific phenomenon: Phineas Gage. For those that don’t remember, Phineas Gage was a foreman for the American railroad business back in the mid 1800’s. He survived an accident in which a large iron rod was driven completely through his head, destroying much of his left frontal lobe and leaving him with significant behavioral and personality changes. Following his accident, he lived for almost twelve more years before he died in San Francisco in 1860. Below is a picture of Phineas holding the tamping iron that pierced his brain and left him, according to those close to him, “no longer Gage.”

As I mentioned before, Phineas’ injury changed both his behavior and his personality considerably. My question is: where does the soul fit into this story? Are personality, behavior and the soul intertwined? If so, was Phineas’ soul changed because of an alteration to his biological make-up, as were his personality and behavior? Or is the soul completely outside the realm of biological explanations like brain functioning? How are the soul and personality related, if at all? I’m sorry for the question spree, but I am really interested in different theories regarding this topic. These questions may be better answered with definitions of the terms we are dealing with: the soul, personality , and behavior. I have provided links to the definitions below if you would like to use them.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/soul

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/personality

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/behavior

…

I was once asked by a very close friend of mine why I felt like I needed God in my life. Indeed, why does the vast majority of the earth claim to believe in a “higher power” of some type? He asked me to contemplate an existence where it was universally accepted that there never was and never will be a god. After I thought for awhile in silence he said something to the extent of, “That’s right, you can’t even contemplate it. Our world has been so shaped by the various gods we have created, that a world without them is incomprehensible to our minds. Our need for a god or gods is instinctual to our very core.” He then went on to explain how he thought the world would look if humans had never had that seemingly universal need for God. It was one of the most thought-provoking, if not entirely mind-blowing, discussions I have ever had.
Anyways, talking about Descartes in class lately really brought this memory to the surface of my mind, particularly his thoughts on innate and derived ideas. Is the need for a God in our lives an innate idea that is programmed into our minds? Or, could it be a derived idea from different experiences we have had that have led us to believe in the existence of a higher power?

Last week in my Intro to Philosophy class my professor brought up a topic we have been discussing a lot as of late: Plato’s allegory of the cave. After a brief description of the allegory, he opened up the class for discussion/debate on our interpretations of what it meant and how the allegory applied to us. The first twenty minutes heard many detailed theories about God being the sun and the cave being sin — more or less everyone saying the exact same thing. After everyone had had their say, my professor told us to imagine for a second that our interpretation of the cave was completely wrong. He asked us to try and imagine that God, instead of being the sun outside of the cave, was actually nothing more than a shadow on the inside wall of the cave. At first, I was completely unable to comprehend what that would mean concerning my life. I had a silent panic attack as I quietly pondered the meaning of life without God. If my view of God was really just a shadow on the wall of the cave, what then would be considered the sun? This led into questions like, “Is life just an infinite cycle of caves that we are forever trying to escape?” or “Can we ever truly realize absolute truth?” etc. My professor later explained that was not his personal belief about the allegory, but only an exercise to challenge our beliefs about truth.

Anyways, it was by far the most mind-blowing class I have ever had and it definitely brought to question a lot of things that I had previously deemed as immutable. Although it was very uncomfortable to view reality from a completely different perspective, in the end, it made me realize a lot more about both myself and my faith.