More philosophy - epistomology

For this week's philosophy assignment, I had to study Gettier's counter opinion to Plato's traditional definition of knowledge (that knowledge is knowledge when we have a reason to believe what we believe). In the scenario we were given, a person's knowledge (justified true belief) is faulty because of a broken clock.

Knowledge is such an interesting topic, especially considering the metaphysics topic we explored last week. I definitely see metaphysics and epistomology as connected.

To begin, I should say that I do agree with Gettier to a certain extent. We can justify a good many things and believe them, but these things just are not true. I remember hearing one example of justification that really drove the point home for me. The example stated: suppose you have a friend who was in an airplane crash. There have been searches upon searches, but no survivors have been found. You would probably justify in your mind that your friend perished in the crash. In reality, however, your friend is floating in the ocean, holding on to a piece of debris, wondering when (s)he is going to be rescued. I think that is the perfect example of what Gettier is referring to. I think this is a good example of a justified true belief that turned out to be false.

In this example and in the clock example provided in this discussion board, I do believe the subjects have knowledge. If I look at a clock, I have no reason to believe it to be incorrect; unless I see another and another that say a different time. In the above example, the person whose friend was involved in an airplane crash would have no reason to doubt the authorities that there is little chance of survival. That is to say, to the best of one's knowledge, this is the case. In this case, I believe Gettier's theory is flawed. Knowledge is not omniscience. Knowledge is the believing of something to the best of one's ability.

I do believe knowing our viewpoints following an internalistic model is important. We do need to know why we believe what we believe. In the clock example, we would know the correct time based upon the justification that the library would have a working clock. In the airplane example, we would know based upon the information from the authorities. That said, I also believe it is important that we do not judge ourselves as all-knowing. As finite creatures, we prove over and over that we are not all-knowing. We possess knowledge, but not ultimate knowledge. There are always going to be times that we are proven wrong. This should, then, change our knowledge.

I do agree with the definition of justified true belief as presented in the point casts - a "true belief" that we believe and have a reason to believe. I do think, however, that this definition could go further. There are some things that we cannot explain. In this sense, this internalistic defintion of justified true belief does not seem to go far enough. As externalists point out, there are some things that we just "know" to be true without proof. For example, I have a justified true belief in angels and demons. Can I prove with reason that they exist? Others can justifiably disagree with me and probably present a more rational case than I can. Rationality and reason are not always the proper answers, however. I think what can be added to the definition of justified true belief is an element only explained by the human mind - that spiritual aspect of humanity that we discussed in metaphysics. I think most people will agree that they sense something more. This something more is our spiritual longing for not just more knowledge, but knowledge on a higher plain than we understand now. There are some things that I believe we can truly say are justified true beliefs because they do surpass the traditional defintion of knowledge - they reach that higher plain of understanding.

I do, in a sense, believe that Gettier had some valid points. In the clock and airplane examples, the knowledge that the subject thought he/she possessed turned out to be false. However, the subject's understanding was correct based upon the information (s)he had available. I do not think that the person's knowledge was at fault, but rather once his/her horizons were broadened with new facts, so to speak; the knowledge would change. I like the expression, "I reserve the right to change my mind." Changing one's mind to coincide with new evidence does not show lack of knowledge. On the contrary, it shows not only knowledge but wisdom to be able to admit a mistake and move on in the correct direction. I believe this is the best counterexample to Gettier's counterexample. We can only form our opinion (our knowledge) based upon the facts at hand. This does not immediately mean a flawed knowledge but flawed facts.

I do think we need to be careful when stating that we "know" something. However, I think it is even worse to be unwilling to adjust our justified true beliefs when they are proven incorrect, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Because we are finite creatures, we are not all-knowing; I believe the best defintion of "knowing" something is to sincerely believe it. This does not mean that our knowledge will never be proven wrong. We are flawed creatures. Our knowledge is not perfect, we just believed whole-heartedly in the knowledge we possess.

Kandy

Building

Lots of fun building projects today...

The Past Few Days

Well, Taliesin and Nathanael enjoyed reading and studying while they were sick this past week. Day one, they decided to study about the earth. One of Nathanael's favorite things is looking up pictures of tornados and volcanos online. He is gaining some fantastic computer skills and has learned how to spell many words by typing them to conduct a search. Taliesin prefers playing computer games - his favorite right now is found on Bob the Builder's website. I Spy books are always a hit. Taliesin is so much into hidden pictures right now. At Nathanael's request, we read two Little Einstein books - Butterfly Suits and Music in the Meadows. I love these books! I like how they keep the little ones' attention by asking questions and even including songs and actions for the kids to participate in. Taliesin had fun with Arthur's Reading Race. He enjoys reading the words along with D.W. in the story. They also enjoyed studying about the creation, Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden, and Jonah. They also got into more Dr. Seuss and into dinosaurs. Nathanael was very interested in why dinosaurs are "extinct." He found this word fascinating. Last night, Taliesin requested that we bring out the Resurrection Eggs. I love the Resurrection Eggs. They really reinforce the concept of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection in a hands-on way that kids love. Other than these, we watched a lot of DVDs - mainly Winnie the Pooh, Veggie Tales, and here lately Fraggle Rock. Yeah, we made the most of our time at home. And, of course, it was all child-directed. :^)

Kandy

"I Am the World of You"

Today, Nathanael informed me that I could not go to work because, in his words, "I sick. And I am the world of you!" He then added, "And I am the world of Daddy, too." Just too cute! And so true. Our kids really do become our world, don't they? Taliesin and Nathanael are definitely the reasons I missed four days of work this week and didn't even get my college assignment (the philosophy assignment) posted until the very day it was due - and wrote it in thirty minutes, at that. LOL. And those are just small ways that they become our world. Amazing, isn't it?

Kandy

Interesting Philosophical Discussion

For my philosphy, I had to read a scenario of an episode of Star Trek the Next Generation in which Data, an android, is set by Maddox to be taken apart. Picard, the captain of the Enterprise takes Maddox before the JAG to fight this, because Data can think and reason and has self-awareness. I had to post a philosophical post regarding this episode - over whether I feel androids will ever be human and the consequences if they would.

As I was reading the scenario of the Star Trek episode and these questions, several ideas were running through my mind - ideas such as: what it is that makes us human?, are we unique in our humanity?, what about the rest of creation? The first thing that I thought while reading the scenario, however, was that the writers of the episode were playing on our sympathy for Data. I was reminded of the movie I Robot and of how, by the end of the movie, I was rooting for the robot. But, then, I remembered that if scientists do eventually create artificial intelligence with human emotions, feelings, and actions; the writers have simply captured the emotions that we humans may feel toward our "property." Wow! This question is much more complex than I first imagined when reading over this assignment.

Man is comprised of three elements: body, soul, and spirit. Philosphy asks us how we know that these properties exist. The body, obviously, is observable. We can see and feel our own bodies. But how do we truly know that the soul and spirit exist? I remember, when I was child, contemplating how no one else was me. No one else understood totally what I was feeling and thinking. I wondered, "Why am I, me? Why are they, they?" Many argue that the mind and the brain are the same thing. I have to disagree. A child would not contemplate such questions with the brain alone. There is a spiritual aspect to the mind. I read a good example once regarding this philosphy, although I cannot remember where I read it. This unknown reference stated that if a person is connected to an MRI, the MRI can read when a person is dreaming. However, it cannot read what is being dreamt. That left a huge impact on me. There is a spiritual level to human beings that allows them to dream and to contemplate existential questions.

This leads us to the point of a soul. This point was brought up in the Star Trek episode. It is hot philosophical and theological issue: is man the (only) creature to have a soul? Some philosophers feel that humanity is what we see here - a body. Once the body dies, nothing lives on. All we have is here and now. Others, on the other hand, believe that man possesses a soul that lives on - the idea of immortality of the soul. Yet others claim that man can live on without a soul - the Christian materialists described in the Hasker text. Perhaps the best way to answer this question: does man have a soul? - is to contemplate the question that I asked myself as a child "What makes me, me and you, you?" Is it something physical - the color of hair, the color of skin, the color of eyes, one's height, one's weight?" If this were the case, then were I to bleach my hair from brown to blonde, I would cease to be me. If I were to lose or gain weight, I would cease to be me. This, of course, is a laughable conclusion. Perhaps it is something emotional. That is, does a significant event in someone's life such as a marriage, divorce, or birth of a child change that person's humanity? In all fairness, it may change the person's view on life; but, nonetheless, the person who experiences these events is still human. Nothing has been changed in that area. There is something beyond the physical and the emotional that makes me, me and you, you - a part of us that sees without using eyes and senses without using skin. That part of us is best defined as the soul.

As a Christian, I believe God's creation (whether human or non-human) is unique. God breathed into his creation. As scientists attempt to create a non-human machine that can think, feel, and understand as man does; they are, in a sense, attempting to become God. Such is a result of the philosophy that science is the answer to all. I maintain that science is not the answer to all! I do not believe that man will be able to create a machine that has the feelings and emotions of an ant let alone of a human being. God is God. We are not. My computer may be faster than I am and may be able to store more information than I will ever be able to. However, it cannot understand what is stored.

Recently, my four-year old son lost a favorite stuffed toy - a gray stuffed cat he named "Flower." He was very, very upset for the two weeks that "Flower" was missing. What made this experience difficult for him (and for his parents)? Was it the fact that "Flower" had feelings and would fear being lost? Of course not. (Regardless of what the writers of Toy Story believe - LOL). What made it difficult was the emotional attachment that my son, a human being, felt for the stuffed cat. (Needless to say, we were thrilled when "Flower" was found!) In the same way, scientists may create a machine that will work for us and assist us in our endeavors - one that we will build an emotional attachment to. However, without the breath of God, I conclude that there is no way for that machine to develop an emotional attachment back.

This being said, the only thing that would be considered a "crime" in turning of any artificial intelligence the future may hold would be in emotionally harming the human beings who care about the machinery. This would definitely not constitute murder in that murder is the taking of a human life. An android is no more human - with a human spirit and sould - than "Flower" is a real cat. My sons swings "Flower" by the tail and tosses "him" into the air. Would I allow him to do this to our pet cats? Of course not! This being said, I do feel that the view of Maddox in the Star Trek episode is heartless. It is important to remember the view of those who do care about Data. No, Data is not a human being, and, as such, does not have human rights. However, there are humans who care about Data. Their rights should be respected. Maddox, however, I believe is closer to the truth about the differences between humanity and machines that Picard is. The mind, the soul, the human aspect that makes each of us human, as Maddox believes, is not present in any machine. Picard seems to be willing to place human value on a non-human object. He views Data as human because "he" has human characteristics. However, no matter how hard Picard may try to prove his point, Data will never possess a human mind or soul. That is unique to a creation of God.

I believe that Maddox does have a point by stating that Picard is being emotional. That, however, is the difference between man and machine. Man is emotional. That is part of our make-up. It is not part of the make-up of a machine. Is he being irrational? I do not think so. He is defending something that he truly cares about. If that is considered irrational, so be it. Would someone cry if his/her house was destroyed by fire? More often than not, yes. Is (s)he being emotional? Definitely. There are emotional attachments to a home. In the same way that it is illegal to destroy someone's home, I do not think it is right to destroy anything that is non-harmful that a human being has developed an emotional attachment to.

I do believe stating that robots could be enslaved is going too far. Again, I think back to the movie I Robot. Is it possible that robots being treated as servants is immoral and unethical? I do not think it is. This would be worse than saying that keeping a horse to ride is unethical. Horses are creations of God. Robots are simply creations of the mind of man. Horses are flesh and blood with physical feelings (and possibly emotional?) I believe all of God's creation contain an immortal soul (but this is another philosophy). Robots do not, based upon the previous discussion.

This all being said, I do believe the judgment of JAG was correct for the incorrect reasons. I do not believe Data had a self-understanding. However, as I stated above, I do believe strictly for the emotional attachment that human beings showed for the machine, it should not be destroyed.

Kandy Crosby-Hastings

Taliesin and Nathanael feeling better

Well, last night Nathanael's fever reached 102.5. Today, both Taliesin and Nathanael are feeling quite a bit better. Taliesin's fever is gone for the moment, and Nathanael's is much lower. They both enjoyed the spice cake with cherry frosting that Kelsey baked me last night for my birthday. (Notice that Kelsey put that I'm 33 on my cake. That's okay if I'm a year older, in reality - LOL). And, of course, I got a Pirates of the Caribbean birthday card. It is one of my favorite movies!

Kandy

My Poor, Sick Babies :^(

Well, the good news is it's not mono! That is a big relief. But both of my poor babies are still sick. Last night, Taliesin's temperature reached 103.9. I called the exchange, who said if it gets to 105 to go to the ER. Nathanael's temperature has been hovering around 100 or 101. We've been making the most of it, though - reading lots of fun books, watching Winnie the Pooh and Veggie Tales DVDs, and eating popcicles.

Kandy