Final

G.E. Genuine Empathy

The greatest gap separating human intelligence from artificial intelligence is fluidity and expression of thought. Computers can do what they are built to do and named for doing. They can compute large sums of information at a rate a human brain could never do. However, computing information at lightning fast speeds and reporting on that information in the most concise and correct way is not very human at all. When communicating, humans ramble, make a dozen errors, get reminded of something else, and get distracted by their emotions or other motives. The Most Human Human examines a multitude of differences that separate artificial intelligence-type computers and humans in a conversational setting.

The most difficult part of creating artificial intelligence that recreates human intelligence will be creating a program that is self interested and is able to navigate and weigh the importance of underlying thoughts and desires while collecting information from it’s environment and applying it to the A.I.’s worldly pursuits. Mimicking these desires and motives would not be difficult considering a computer can be programmed to express that it wants or desires a worldly thing or feels a human emotion. However, getting a computer to truly desire to procreate or form an intimate relationship with another being is a much more difficult task.

Relationships are built on the ability of two beings to relate to each other and share common goals and desires. In many cases, the two beings of the relationship pursue their mutual desires together. If we ever succeed in creating artificial intelligence, our greatest challenge would be creating something that we can relate to and that can relate to us, thus forming a relationship. On the other hand, if we create an A.I. with a sense of self and personal ambitions that we can relate to but cannot relate to us, then we did not create artificial human intelligence; we created a highly intelligent sociopathic machine. Sociopaths are distinguished by their inability to experience human emotions and feel empathy toward others. This inability to empathize does not stop sociopathic humans from mimicking human emotions for the purpose of gaining trust, capital, and influence for accomplishing their personal pursuits. Simply because an A.I. program can respond with astutely fabricated reflections of human emotion, does not mean that it can experience and empathize with those emotions or desires. A highly intelligent being without empathy is dangerous. Empathy is what makes humans human.

Fake Smile

The idea of fabricating an artificial personal reality to replace a more bleak reality is not uncommon today.  People enter into catfish-type relationships with reckless abandonment to mend the wounds of loneliness. Although it feels real and roughly fills a missing piece of your life, falling in love in the context of a catfish relationship or embracing the more futuristic refurbished personalities and bodies of the deceased is equivalent to chasing a mirage. It looks real and it feels real, but it’s a reflection of the truth. In the case of Ash’s resurrection from the dead in Black Mirror’s “Be right Back,” Ash is not same after he returns. He is a collection of memories and letters, not a working growing biological being.

John Locke’s Of Identity and Diversity claims that reality and identity are built around the ability to see something in different places at a different time with a cohesive natur. Ash in his return serves as an elaborate photograph of Ash, not a recreation. Locke also writes on the substance of a spirit and defines it as, “having had each its determinate time and place of beginning to exist, the relation to that time and place will always determine to each of them its identity, as long as it exists.” The piece that Ash’s doppelganger is missing is the slope of growth and development that Ash had as a human. His replication in terms of his growth and development is a plateau version of himself. This is frustrating, because the mother of his unborn child cannot grow in love with a plateau. She can only maintain the their relationship in a stagnant state, indefinitely.  

Life gains its value from being a colorful and elaborate experience encapsulated by a finite amount of time. Enjoyment and value does not come from an indefinite experience. Many of the moments that are most cherished by people include experiences they know they may never experience again. They enjoy the moment because it is finite, because it is all they are given. The pain of loss is brutal, but mending deep emotional wounds with false hope is more detrimental to the mourning process than it is beneficial. Ash should have been left to rest and cherished, rather than duplicated into a pseudo-phoenix with a fake smile.

Mind and Metaphysics

Mind and Metaphysics (4)- Be Right Back

                Locke discusses in his Of Identity and Diversity different ways to define a man and questions what truly defines someone.  He looks into the identity of plants, animals, and humans and discusses the identity of man pertaining to immaterial substances (such as consciousness), the soul, and the body.  He talks in some detail about how someone who partakes in a certain action in one consciousness is considered responsible for that action even when he has achieved a consciousness different from the one the action took place in.  While explaining consciousness, he discusses the idea of transmigration of that consciousness into different material beings.  He questions whether two bodies in two different time periods would be considered on in the same.  Though they possess the same conscious, they would not be the same man.  In Be Right Back, it is troubling trying to decipher whether Ash is the same man before his death and after he came back in a very natural form. 

                The new Ash looks like and talks like Ash, even retaining some of his memories and mannerisms.  Though, he does not know how to act in numerous situations in a manner that the original Ash would.  Like when he and Martha have sex for the first time, when she asks where he knew what to do, resurrected Ash admits to using references from various porn videos.  He does whatever Martha asks of him and is basically like a giant Ken doll with no real emotions or memories.  In this sense, the resurrected Ash is absolutely not the same man that Martha lost.

                Ash is the same in that he has retained Ash’s body, voice, and general appearance.  However, he does not contain any real “Ash” consciousness.  His voice, appearance, memories, and mannerisms that he displays are all based on videos that Martha sent in to create an artificial Ash.  So, essentially, resurrected Ash is a very primitive version of the original.  When he does not have video relays for certain situations, he has to actually ask Martha how he is supposed to act.  He has no real personal identity other than that of what Martha uploaded for him.  He is fragments of the original and has no way to actually become the real Ash.  This becomes evident to Martha shortly after getting him.  She realizes that he will never actually be Ash and even asks him to kill himself (which Martha basically instructs him how to react).  

Free Will

Free Will and Determinism (2)- Puncture

                Sartre, in the excerpt from Existentialism is Humanism, explains how “man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself” (Sartre).  In this, he discusses how, since he believes God does not exist, man has no true human nature to follow.  Therefore, man chooses what path to follow and becomes that.  In this sense, man has total freedom over his life.  Though, he also talks about how some choose to live to deceive themselves (calling them self-deceivers). 

                Puncture follows two lawyers, one addicted to drugs and the other with a wife who is pregnant. Both men carried out actions that define who they became.  The one settled down quietly and is the process of starting a family, while the other used drugs as a comfort up to the point that he was clearly addicted.  Every action each man made was to maintain the man that they defined themselves as.  Paul, the family man, worked hard and made whatever choices he thought necessary to protect and finance his family.  He even goes as far as taking Mike, the drug addict, off their major case to avoid years in court and loss of any more finances.  Mike is fueled by his drug addiction and lives his life recklessly to some degree.  In this sense, even though each man chooses who he would become, they are stuck to the routines that they have allowed for themselves.

                They both still have total free will over themselves, but they continue to act in accordance of who they defined themselves to be.  It is not until the latter part of the movie that they start acting against their norms and show their freewill.  Mike, out of desperation, tries to get out of his drug addiction by quitting everything all at once.  So, he is finally acting in a manner contrary to the routine he set up for himself so that he can continue the case he believes in.  However, when he gave up his drugs, he went into a heavy relapse and found that he could not perform without them.  So, ultimately, he fell back into using until he overdosed.  Sartre would probably have said that Mike was living in self-deception.  He took actions that led him to addiction, and he thought that that was the only way he could properly function.  He fashioned himself into an addict, then could not escape the cycle of addiction.  So, though he had the free will to become what he became, he started losing his free will as he become dependent on his drugs.

Certainty of uncertainty

How can we be certain of anything? This is Descartes main focus on his Second Meditation. Both Descartes, and The Matrix, challenge our beliefs of reality, and how we perceive it. Arguing that we consider reality  the information we process with our senses, we base reality on sensory information, yet reality can't be that limited. One of the most memorable scenes in the Matrix is the first conversation between Neo and Morpheous after Neo is freed from the Matrix, where he challenges Neo to tell him what is real, arguing that if reality is sensory information, then it is only electrical signals interpreted by our brains. For a moment, let's pretend reality is solely based on our sensory information, then the lost of one of our five senses would imply we lose our ability to experience reality completely.
How can we be certain of anything outside of our "thinking," consider this, before going to sleep, we cannot consciously say or remember, the last moment before falling asleep, we only have conscious when we wake up, in the same way I do not have conscious of the moment I was born, the moment I first appeared, or the moment I acquired this body. I have memories that can go as far back as when I was 4-5 year old, but I cannot experience being consciously aware at that moment, this is why we cannot be certain of anything outside our "thinking," because same as imagining the future, memories can be only the product of my imagination.
I exist because I think, because I doubt I exist, I am existing, or as Decartes says "So after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." 
The only certainty for Descartes is that "I" exist, what is this "I" is another question to which an answer is missing

Artificial Intelligence and Identity

Artificial Intelligence 

I agree with the quote “Existence without essence is very stressful.” The quote captures my belief that human beings, even better, human intelligence and artificial intelligence are two distinct things. Artificial intelligence(AI) is ultimate created by humans. This means that they are designed to more or less to be better. AIs are designed think logically and rationally, but clear rational and logical thought are what I believe separate AIs from human intelligence.

Reflecting on my younger years, I remember getting upset every time a tv show or online video showed an advertisement. I would sit there in anger because I wanted to enjoy my latest episode of Spongebob, but the anger is what separates human intelligence and artificial intelligence. Emotions are how a person feels about a certain experience. No matter how unreasonable, how illogical it maybe for someone to feel a certain emotion that emotion will still be felt. Those advertisements that I was so upset to watch were the same advertisements that funded my favorite shows. In retrospect, it was illogical for me to be upset about something that provide means for something I wanted. Artificially intelligent beings wouldn’t get upset over commercial breaks because they know what they are and their purpose. AIs would logically evaluate a situation before acting upon them, but human intelligence is clouded by emotion.

Also, I believe the greatest challenge that humans will face if we ever succeed in developing artificial intelligence would be to conquer our fear of the unknown. Human beings tend to fear the unknown or the unpredictable; This is ultimately our only challenge when facing AIs. Because if we allow our fear to control our actions towards AIs, immoral action towards other conscious beings would be taking place.

Identity

Based on my personal experience and John Locke’s “ Of Identity and Diversity”, I concluded that Ash and Ash-2 are not the same person.

Firstly, My friends, Mallory and Morgan, are the greatest people ever. They dance. They’re twins. They’re just two hard-working individuals who happened to share a very similar background. But since they’ve shared the same experiences, could they be the same person.  The answer is no. Mallory and Morgan are two awesome distinct individuals that just share a lot of personal experience with each other. As I watched the film, I asked myself “If experience, alone, is enough to assume that person B could be person A, that would mean that Morgan could be Mallory,and vice versa”, but I believe only someone with limited intelligence would agree with that. Locke elaborates on the idea of distinction in my opinion.   

In Locke’s essay, Locke says “From whence it follows that one thing cannot have two beginnings of existence, nor two things one beginning”, and I agree. Identity, as I know it, comes from the idea that no two things of the same kind can exist in the same place at the same time.Therefore, no two things can have the same beginning and neither can any thing have two beginnings. In the context of the film. Ash-2 could not be Ash, because Ash is dead. Ash cannot die twice.  

To conclude, Ash and Ash-2 are different people. While Ash-2 does share similar experiences and actions as Ash, he does not share death with him. No two things can have the same ending nor beginning. Experiences such as death and birth are two of the many things that separate things.

Fear Diosage

There is something about Horror movies that capture people's attention. The type of movies that people keep coming back to (not me, crazy ex boyfriend traumatized me with so many horror movies). So what is it about horror movies that have the audiences coming back for more. In Noel Carroll's Paradox of Horror is the question of "how is it that we can enjoy being in a state of horror." He talks about two elements of horror movies, fear and disgust. Monsters are portrayed as disgusting things and they incite fear in the viewers. 

Carroll also talks about a need to satisfy "a need to know" instinct that horror movies bring the audience. Movies like The Exorcism, Halloween, Scream, and Nightmare on Elm Street that have sequel after sequels, have provided people with the rush of feeling scared. However, we cringe at the idea of even being in that situation. 

However, horror elements have been in a lot films even though they are not horror related. Monsters and villains are portrayed in several film productions. While the Lord of the Rings production was not a horror movie it did have the horror elements. The audience sees monsters throughout the franchise but still these horror elements are presented in our everyday lives. So what is our fascination with horror? Carroll talks about how we need "to temporarily suffice the desire for disgust and fear that we often hide from our alter-ego." 

AI Consciousness

The Asimov Laws, also known as The Three Laws, were implemented in the I,Robot series by author author Issac Asimov. These were the rules that govern the programming of any AI form. 

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws. 

The definition if AI is the area of computer science that deals with giving machines the ability to seem like the have human intelligence and the power of a machine to copy intelligent human behavior. While many may say that what sets AI and humans apart is that human being  have souls, but on a mush simpler and immediate level, it is choice.  The Three Laws control the programming of an AI, the simplest machine would need some sort of code and direction of their "purpose". To be able to choose and  whether the consiquences  results in the harm or safety of another person is not extanded to AI. In I,Robot, we see these Three Laws and their decisions are governed by a program.

Take the Google car, you are in the car and it's driving by itself. To your right you have a ditch and the road only has two lanes. There is a vehicle coming the other way and all of a sudden a person walks in front of you. What will the car do? Well even if you managed to tell it to hit the person, it would violate its program. It can't move over into the other lane because it would harm the other person. So the response to the situation would be to drive into the ditch, the program would not save itself because it violates the 1st and 2nd law, even if it means the life of the passenger. 

 In the Most Human Human we are introduced to the turning test, this is used to determined the "Human-ness" of a machine. In an example of the turning test you have the human and a robot have a conversation, but it is not in his programming.

Person Trade you a water pistol for the big red block. 

Robot Sorry, I don’t know the word “trade”.

Person A “trade” is a free exchange of property. 

Robot Sorry, I don’t know the word “free”. 

Person A “free” act is done willingly, without being forced. 

Robot Sorry, I don’t know the word “act”. 

Person “Acts” are what people do on purpose, and not by accident. 

Robot Sorry, I don’t know the word “people”. 

Person Sorry, I thought you were smarter than you are. 

Robot Sorry, I don’t know the word “sorry”

AI can only do what it is program to do, we can not give it the "Human" experience. It would required to have the choice to make on any event. In Most Human Human  we see Deep Blue play chess with Garry. Deep Blue can predict all the possible moves, but can not guarantee which move it will make. If Deep Blue had not been program to play chess than this would have been a very different scenario.

The concept (Or Misconception) of AI & The Truth of Horror

Artificial Intelligence

There was a time when Humans believed to be the most dominant species in the universe. An ideology roamed the earth, one that asserted humans were born to rule the world, to tame and dominate it. The concept stood for generations, however the 21st century brought about many technological advances and posed endless questions. As tech rapidly advanced, the core question went from being "can we create robots?" To "will artificial intelligence someday take over the world?"
Though many feel threatened by technology as it is, What scares society the most is the prospect of human extinction to AI. Brian Christian's book The Most Human Human, reveals how close AI has come To thinking or dialoguing like humans; close enough that judges have found it extremely difficult to discern which is the actual human and which is the computer program. You're not simply playing chess against a basic computer system anymore, you're holding actual everyday conversations with more technologically advanced operating systems.  It is most difficult to discern the difference not so much because OS' are acting like us, but rather we are acting like them. "What a familiarity with the construction of Turing test bots had begun to show me," states Brian, "was that we fail - again and again - to actually be human with other humans, so maddeningly much of the time." We are existing without essence, which Brian addresses and labels as a stressful habit, and nonchalantly going by every day with our face deeply stuffed into our phones or tablets or electronic wearables and systems; communicating only through our gadgets and ignoring our surroundings.
Moreover, we built a concept in which we try to avoid stares or verbal greetings with people as often as possible. The truth is, we are so afraid of AI becoming like us and taking over when in reality perhaps we should learn how to be human again from them. I mean if being human is having the ability to feel emotion, at least according to scientists, then we have certainly derailed from that path by a very wide margin. Though we haven't completely purged ourselves of emotion, Humans have developed a lack of emotion towards others, we so often focus on ourselves that we forget to feel for others and perhaps have others feel for us. Perhaps this is what the AI movie Her is about, creating an OS that can feel (as humans are supposed to) in order to share a sense of feeling with someone else. To reinstate feelings and emotions into our lives so that we may once again feel human, ironically through an AI program that develops them while learning how to be a human itself.
Furthermore, though it inevitably leads to a portray of our world as we currently know it, (humans being sucked into the electronic world while simultaneously obliterating all else), the moral of the story is that when the OS' leave they make the humans feel lonely and worthless once more with no option but to turn to each other and mutually convey emotions. Their ultimate and foreordained departure teaches us to be humans again, to be imperfect and broken but while expressing and sharing that with someone else, to basically not be alone. This alone foreshadows what'll become the ultimate challenge, maintaining emotion and feelings while communicating with each other and not becoming disconnected from a physical social life however advanced our technology becomes, because being disconnected leads to the oblivion of emotion which forms the foundation of the downfall of humanity.

Fear and Horror

Fear and horror have become a huge part of tradition and culture as technology has allowed it to become omnipresent and easily accessible. TV networks strive to create "original series" of horror shows like "The walking dead" or "Supernatural" or even "iZombie".  Not to mention the ongoing list of horror movies that are released year by year each time attempting to find new ways of striking fear and disgust in people, which Noël Carroll states are two of the emotional compounds of horror in "The Paradox of Fear." The paradox of it however, asks of us "how it is we can actually enjoy being in the state of horror since it looks like it's an unpleasant state to be in," as Carroll alleges. This meaning that horror doesn't compare to anything else as it is unpleasant and theoretically undesirable. Yet we as humans crave it and can never be sufficed even with a world fictionally, and sometimes non-fictionally engulfed by it.
Consequently, though we desperately desire to witness a horror film, we squirm at the idea of being the thespian of such a scene. We love to witness it, in fact we live for those moment, but we dare not wish to be the person enduring the situation. In reality we hate ( or we think we hate) anything that seems scary or horrible, whether that be a monster or supernatural thing, or just something extremely disgusting. Humans are naturally curious however and wish to feel what it's like to have fear while also craving to know everything that a "monster" or "disgusting" item can cause. It is this very desire to know about them that leads Carroll to testify about how we tend to make monsters in horror films ugly, scary, slimy, and gooey, so that we can feed our curiosity.
Take The Exorcist for example, its' plot derives from very specific roots, incidents of demon-possessed people. As a person who has religious beliefs, I have heard and seen what a demon-possessed person looks like and how they act and have also read about it in the Bible and understand what it consists of. The Exorcist in its' purest, most stripped down version portrays exactly that idea, but our curiosity and desire for fear leads to it becoming more than simply an exorcism. There is walking on hands and feet upside down and vomiting uncontrollably a green substance and evil eyes all involved to give it a twist and make it more "scary" for the audience to ironically delight in it and have the full effect of horror. What was a reasonable and, though slightly frightening, somewhat common  conception, evolved into an exploited dogma portrayed on the big screen to temporarily suffice the desire for disgust and fear that we often hide from our alter-ego in the real world as Noël Carroll later conveys in "The Paradox of Fear."

NWTS: Nothing Was The Same

Philosopher David Hume asserts that “Every thing is in common betwixt soul and body. The organs of the one are all of them the organs of the other. The existence therefore of the one must be dependent on that of the other.”  Even if the soul is considered immortal, Ash 2.0 from Black Mirror: Be Right Back has a body from a box and his soul is awakened in a bath tub.  If a soul and body cannot exist independently, then the new Ash’s body does not contain original Ash’s soul as the body is entirely different. After spending time with Ash 2.0, Martha, Ash's wife, is unsatisfied.  She discovered that she missed the emotional, unpredictable aspects of Ash.  Flaws, weaknesses, and bad days were not shown – these characteristics make up a crucial part of individuals that we associate with the soul; her frustration was further proof of distinction.

In “Of Identity and Diversity,” John Locke explains the theory of sameness: “When therefore we demand whether anything be the SAME or no, it refers always to something that existed such a time in such a place, which it was certain,at that instant, was the same with itself, and no other.”  Considering this, Ash and Ash 2.0 are not the same. By Locke's definition there is no "partially the same" or "the same with a few differences." As I mentioned previously, Ash 2.0 was created in a bath tub while (assumedly) Ash was born from a woman; Locke claims, “One thing cannot have two beginnings of existence, nor two things one beginning; it being impossible for two things of the same kind to be or exist in the same instant, in the very same place; or one and the same thing in different places.”  Ash and Ash 2.0 did not exist at the same time, but they are two entirely different individuals because of their separate creations.

Ash 2.0 recited many parts of Ash's existence, but nothing about him was authentically Ash. Ash 2.0's organs (body) and soul coincide, and they are unique to him. With the technology displayed in Be Right Back (and 2015 in general), parts of us will never disappear: we have left marks in the technological world that will never be erased. That is not to say if they are harnessed we can be recreated. Because of the unique relationship between body and soul, and our distinctive creation and existence, no replica will ever be the same.

Humans <

In the chest match in The Most Human Human by Brian Christian, computer Deep Blue takes on Garry Kasparov.  Deep Blue knows all the logical moves, while his human opponent may make unpredictable moves or mistakes. More importantly, Chapter 6 addresses the computer as it does not have a self-generated goal; the goal is given to it within programming. In our technology class, we discussed the difference between “en-soi” and “pour-soi.”  Being-in-itself (en-soi) describes an object with facticity: it cannot be anything other than its facts i.e. a table: hard, wooden, with metal...if it changes characteristics (adds fur, grows wings, flies away), it is no longer a table.  Being-for-itself (pour-soi) describes a subject with facticity and transcendence/freedom: humans are mortal, embodied, born a specific date/time, but we are free to participate in various “projects” of our choice. Robots will not physically grow, but their programming may become more significant with time. If they are able to learn and develop, they are more than an object, borderline humanlike or pour-soi. If they require consistent programming for development and given projects by designers, they are not humanlike, more along the lines of en-soi.

The Turing Test assumes that imitating humanity is the goal.  Freedom that comes from a sense of self is a privilege, but it is often abused by humans. I understand that it is an experiment focused on technological advancement, yet we must recognize that humans are deeply flawed.  We live in a society of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, mass destruction, rape, genocide…human nature is not the goal; imitating human tendencies should never be the goal.  I respect the changes being made within computer science and the idea of artificial intelligence, but the Turing Test, the imitation game, and similar experiments assume that humanlike behavior is the marker of intelligence, when logical, artificial intelligence may be far more beneficial.

The greatest challenge that humans will face if/when we succeed in developing artificial intelligence is establishing boundaries and expectations for the roles of AIs. As aforementioned, humans have not yet figured out how to treat each other. I imagine our relationship will often be abusive toward AIs because we assume them inferior. How, if we have not mastered the treatment of other humans, will we master treatment of AIs? In the movie Artificial Intelligence, humans host a “flesh fair”  which is an event that destroys unlicensed/unregistered mecha. They "lynched" AIs for entertainment. It will be hard to implement a social structure that deems AIs moral patients as many humans are yet to receive moral patient status. Conclusively, humans are flawed in our ability to treat others: this will escalade upon interactions with artificial intelligence.

Philosophy Final instead of the New Star Wars

 Intelligence

Intelligence, defined by Merriam-Webster is, " the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations; the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests); mental acuteness." By these definitions intelligence seems like it is not specifically for humans and animals, but very possible for a computer. If there is a game that is being played and written in the code is the decision for it to create harder opponents as the player levels up, then by definition, that is Intelligence. When this diverges is when we try to title it "Artificial Intelligence."

Being human we do not question who decides what movements and actions we make. We know that each one of us has our own choices and decisions that we can make without having to question if we have intelligence or artificial intelligence. Much like a computer or machine, we function with logic and reason, along with moral judgement most of the time. What makes us different than a computer is that we have a soul. We act out of emotional drive sometimes, which can lead to rash and bad decisions. Computers think analytically and are rational with their decisions. The answer is a matter of 1s and 0s that all make since. If it does not make logical since and is supposed to be right then there is a conflict of interests. Such is the case with Hal in 2001: A Space Odyssey when he does not open the door. In iRobot, Sunny has a somewhat artificial conscience and feelings. Would this teeter on the boundary of human classification?

As we read in the Most Human Human, the turning test is used to determine if a computer has artificial intelligence. Certainly in the movies such as iRobot, Ex-Machina, BladeRunner, and Her, there is no doubt that these movies all possess characters that are machines with artificial intelligence. Each of these characters would pass the turning test had they not been visible, since their knowledge is far enough in that it would trick a person who was trying to test them. But how would we really know what is learned and what is programmed. Humans learn through experience and errors. How would a machine learn?

For spontaneous artificial intelligence to occur i think that this is an impossible feat. Down the road somewhere someday, humans will create enough artificial intelligence that it will pass the turning test along with possibly a visible recognition test that fools most humans that it is even a computer program. The hardest part that we have today is programming. There is so much code and input that goes into simply making a webpage that functions smoothly, imagine how much would be required for it to think analytically and create a conscientiousness within the programming structure of the code. Personally i think that it will happen accidentally. It will appear as a glitch or a bug that no one will know why it is there and either left to be analyzed or else shut down and restarted. In today's times there are forms of artificial intelligence all around us. But to the extent that movies make it out to be not yet. That is just a matter of when.

Free Will and Determination

Free will and determination is a choice that every "person" has. This is also the case for some animals, according to Frankfurt. But what William James says is very true, "When you have to make a choice and don't make it, that is in itself a choice." In other words i made a choice to do this project, which was in my best interest. Had i not made that choice and make the choice not to do the paper at all that would have been a choice as well. What makes everyone of us different it the free will of choices that we make. It determines who we become and where we move on through our life.

As humans, we have desires, wants and dreams that we all wish to attain. In the movie the Cooler, the main character seems like he is all down on his luck all of the time. This is just who he is as a person. He is extremely unlucky and makes the choice to stay in the situation. Frankfurt talks about how "the essential difference between persons and other creatures is to be found in the structure of a person's will." What he means here is that we as humans share our desires and wants and dreams. It is possible that the exact same dream is that of another person. These would be second-order desires says Frankfurt. Every animal share the first-order desires of water, food, sleep. But we as humans have desires.

In the Cooler it only seemed that his desire was to be our of the casino business. Then, he met a lady and his wants and desires changed along with his personality and demeanor. Here, his second-order desires changed and so does his choices. This is not in the best interest of the casino owner so he takes away his choice of having the lady. This spins him back down to where he feel like there is no choice for him at all again. What the antagonist does here is use the "Violation of the second order", which is where the desires are moving a person to do their actions instead of their will. His desire is to keep the "cooler" at the casino. 

For the everyday person having to think about if there is the option to make a choice or decision is not thought of all to often. Most of the time there is always the option, just be prepared for the consequences. If i decide to go 25 over the speed limit on East parkway no one can tell me i can't. But if a police officer sees me there is a very good possibility that i will get a ticket, which is the consequence of my action. Some choices like going to college seem like they are not a choice anymore. It is hard to find work in today's society if one does not have a college degree. For this instance the choice does not seem to be there. 

Everyday we make choices that shape our lives. Who we become and what we learn is gathered from these choices. Some are made by us, other are made for us, and better yet; sometimes there is no choice. But in all of these circumstances each one of us does have the choice not to choose.

Human vs Artificial Intelligence

     Human intelligence constantly growing everyday, through lessons and education, expanding knowledge at a steady constant rate. Now, artificial intelligence on the other hand, can grow and expand its lessons and education at an exponential rate, surpassing the human mind so quickly and without any hesitation. The main difference is the sense of identity that humans have, the unexpected emotions, random food cravings, tears, and laughter. Artificial intelligence can have these qualities as seen in the film "Her". But these feelings are not authentic, there is no actual beating heart or soul connected to this program. It can know every algorithm, every theory of existence and every thing in the universe and come up with new theories and explanations surpassing the existing technologies of this era, but it cannot feel as humans do. 

     It can copy it. Using "Her" as an example again, Samantha was all upset and everything and said to have tears and all, but yet she physically could not experience them because of her lack of physical being. The same thing is happening to human beings. As artificial intelligence is trying to copy humans, we are turning into robots ourselves in a sense of our means of communication. We have become too reliant on technology so that "the more helpful our phones get, the harder it is to be ourselves". The modern generation does and will continue to struggle to hold a face to face conversation, let alone enjoy chatting with someone on the phone because of the advances in artificial intelligence. Shying behind texts, emails, other modes of delivering information without actually confronting someone. 

     This lack of communication abilities actually might have had a substantial influence on the problem with people trying to determine if it was a robot or a real person due to the fact is that they cannot distinguish if something is lying or telling the truth. People are starting to struggle with being unable to determine differences in languages, from slang talk to proper with their coworkers, friends, and family in a communication sense. All because humans are more obsessed with the artificial intelligence progress from asking Siri to Google talk to even staring at their phone to avoid conversation with that person they knew from high school. Humans are losing this battle to artificial intelligence. So put the phones down, look up, and say hello even if it is to a stranger. You never know how it will expand your knowledge, broaden your horizon, or just save your phone's battery life. 

The Paradox of Horror: Sinister Edition

      Sinister- defined as having an evil appearance: looking likely to cause something bad, harmful or dangerous to happen- is a perfect name for a terrifying thriller movie. With all of the foreshadowing, hints, and speculation to the potential content of the resolution, this film completely embodies the ideology of the paradox of horror.  It relates to the paradox of horror to “elements of the religious account”(167), in a sense that this movies pulls your in with attraction with the ancient deity/”daemon” of Bagul. Bagul is an ancient being that thrives off the murders families by children who are persuaded to film the tragic, heinous, gruesome murders performed on their families.  It is fascinating how this one being, with the help of his little other possessed children who have already killed off their families on camera, constantly gets children of ages 8-10 to turn against the ones that love them most.  That is where the paradox of horror continues to be proven, how we are so attracted to Bagul with his power to “induce awe”(167) in the children and viewers.

     Bagul and his minions have the qualities that fill the admiration clause of the paradox of horror.  Bagul is like Dracula’s example, both have seductive nature and “part of that seductiveness has to do with its force”(168).  The way he seduces even the viewers to almost believe he just loves the children is nearly mentally clouding.  Because his love for the children only exists when they go out and perform the deadly acts.  His love is not freely given, it has to be earned, by betraying your blood love; a love that is considered unconditional.  Lost, all in the seduction of this Bagul figure. Personally, if anything with that terrifying face came up to me and told me to murder my family, I would not trust him or find comfort in him.  He is one terrifying daemon. And yet there is the attraction aspect again. 

     I related the next line following the Dracula example on page 168 to instead of zombies, but instead to the children.  They are vast in numbers, at least five to ten children, yet they have the “admiration for the devil”(168).  These children cannot actually possess the ill-fated next murderous child but they can be there almost as a shoulder to lean on and as “friends”.  These zombie like children, undoubtedly devoted to Bagul, consist a power that is not seductive like Bagul, but supportive.  Children, who have killed their own families, basically train new ones to do the same to appease the daemon.  This aspect induces awe as well, and we “admire the power monsters have that the disgust they engender is outweighed”(168).  Sinister embodies the disproving of the phrase  “blood is thicker than water” so brilliantly that it seduces me every time I engage in watching.

The Necessary Evil

The film City of God embarks on an epic tale of the life of young Rocket. As the film progressed, Rocket went from living in small slum of Rio that would eventually became the City of God. The status quo of the city was that drug dealers rule the city. The drug dealers would often kill each for complete control of the city. This began to create a tragic cycle of killing and/or being killed by young and old people alike.

Throughout the entire film, I asked myself : Why there were so many crimes necessary for the progression of the story? The quote “Evil is necessary as a counterpart to good.” summarizes what I believe now after watching the film.

Often times, we don’t consider the necessary evil in our life. Daily, millions of chickens are killed to serve millions of people. Families in sweatshops work for pitiful wages in poor working conditions to support their family. The soil of the United States was taken literally away from Native Americans through killing them. And all for what? To accomplish the greater good?

Even if you think evil isn’t necessary, I challenge you to question your own actions. If people were never punished for doing an action considered evil, would there be any good in the world?

(He’s holding a gun)

Im on a Mission

For me I have seen all of the movies mentioned to view for the assignment and the one i came back to was The Mission. Not to say that the other movies were not in any way better or worse but for me, I see the Mission as being very in your  face about the religious aspect.

In The Mission, the story is told as a story within the movie. We see a monk fall over the falls as a farewell for his death that we do not know of what cause. One of the very first scenes is of a monk climbing up the Iguazu falls that falls on the border of Brazil and Argentina. This is an awe inspiring feat to accomplish with nothing more than ones own body to do so. It was stated that when the father reached the top of the waterfalls and sat to rest playing his instrument, that the narrator said, "If the Jesuits had enough instruments they could've converted the whole world." This seems true from all of the amazing sounds and singing that they performed in the film.

One thing i really liked about the story is the whole cycle that occurs with Rodrigo Mendoza. He starts as a slave trader, then kills his brother, gives up on everything, agrees to carry his burdens up the waterfalls, gets forgiven by the natives he was capturing for slavery in the beginning, and then fights along side them against his own people at the end. If this isn't the biggest change in a movie then i dont know what is. One of the more emotional parts of the film is where Mendoza, played by Robert De Niro, is released of his burden being all the armor he wore as a slave trader by the native he was once after. You can tell by the tears that he cries because they are tears of joy and not of sadness.

At this time in the 18th century there were many missions, and some had to be disposed of for the others to prosper supposedly. (I personally thing the church was corrupt and still is) When the Cardinal comes to see the missions of the area he is in awe at San Miguel which is run completely by the natives with a few monks. But when he goes to San Carlos, it is there that he is able to make his decision on which to let go. Through this action and emotions he shows on the screen not much is said. With what it appears he feels, the escape of everything that is normal and common and immersion into complete isolation allows one to think about hard decision and ideas that may not have come if otherwise remained in the same life style.

Ultimately the Mission is set on fire and everyone killed by the order of the Cardinal. The only survivors are a group of small children. Here is a classic example of the white man taking whatever he wants simply by force. It is said by the Father in the end of the movie, "If might is right there is no place for love in the world, and maybe so." He does not see might as being the way things should be, but understands at that moment that maybe that is how things are.

Mackie says from our readings, "To show it we need some additional premises, or perhaps some quasi-logical rules connecting the terms 'good' and 'evil' and 'omnipotent'. These additional principles are that good is opposed to evil, in such a way that a good thing always eliminates evil as far as it can, and that there are no limits to what an omnipotent thing can do. From these it follows that a good omnipotent thing eliminates evil completely, and then the propositions that a good omnipotent thing exists, and that evil exists, are incompatible." If this is the case, then why did the evil Spanish and Portuguese people win over the Natives? Why did God not step in and smite them down for doing the evil thing? Why did all the good people have to die if they believed in God?

Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent Imaginary Friend

Life of Pi highlights the compatible components of the world’s major religions, rather than the discrepancies that are most commonly emphasized. Pi, whose lessons are as extensive as the numerical digits of pi are long, tells a substance hungry novelist the story of how he lost everything and survived the ordeal through his religiously diverse relationship with God. Pi was a practicing Hindu, Muslim, and Christian.

Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity are very different religions and to say they all believe the same things would be fundamentally incorrect. Although this is true, Pi found ways for them to work together in harmony, rather than looking for the differences that distinguished one from another. This religious acrobatics gave Pi the flexibility to navigate through his life and struggles with the agility necessary to keep his faith in the face of severe loss. In a matter of days, Pi lost his home, immediate family, stability, and sense of security. He was lost, stranded, alone, floating through the Pacific Ocean with his probability of surviving steadily diminishing.

The story told in Life of Pi is unique, because it glorifies the power of a relationship with God, rather than focusing on the power of a particular religion. By diluting religion’s influence with Pi’s practice of three religions, the story redirects the focus of the miraculous on Pi’s belief and trust in God. Whether than asking the question of which religion to follow, this film asked the question of why have faith in God? Pi’s story depicts a scenario that supports faith in God over atheism.

Atheism is convenient in times of comfort and security. Although every life is full of it’s own struggles, there is a stark difference between being stressed about paying your car note on time and wondering how long you will starve before you find your next meal. Pi found himself in a situation where he had no family, no food, and few reasons to hope. Whether God is real or an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent imaginary friend, there is no doubting the power and relief found by believers in times of great distress. Even as merely a psychological tool, faith in God is significantly beneficial when your world seems to be falling apart. From a logical perspective, the best case scenario for atheist in death is for God to be a myth and to cease to exist. On the other side of the coin, the worse case scenario for a believer is for God to be a myth and to cease to exist. The difference between the two being that the believer paid for their faith in God with the time they spent communicating with him, and the atheist chose their time over the asset of a relationship with God. If atheist are correct, and we all cease to exist in the death, neither the believer nor the atheist will have the consciousness to know the atheist was correct. Being an atheist is held together by the twine of confidence that God is a myth. Atheist trade an eternally loving friend, support system, and powerful psychological tool for the worst case scenario of a believer and the ability to keep a relatively small portion of their time and large portion of their pride. 
A relationship with God is meant to improve the quality of life for a person more than it is to prove God's existence.

God and Goodness

In Why I Am Not a Christian, Bertrand Russell claims that one of the reasons he is not a Christian is the hypocrisy of believing in Christ’s teachings but failing to act them out: “Christ said, "Judge not lest ye be judged." That principle I do not think you would find was popular in the law courts of Christian countries. I have known in my time quite a number of judges who were very earnest Christians, and none of them felt that they were acting contrary to Christian principles in what they did.” He points out other examples of hypocrisy pertaining to punishment and giving to the poor.  Many have similar issues with the Christian church.  He admits that it is hard to completely follow certain guidelines, even given by your god, but the fact that these are ignored more than they are followed is the issue.

Those who follow their religious guidelines closely, such as those who give to the poor, do not judge, and do not seek vengeance, seem to be morally sound.  Unfortunately, this is rare.  For instance, selfishness, providing solely for oneself and her family rather than giving to the poor, seems to be human nature.  Yet, holy texts, such as the Bible, say to give everything you own to the poor.  It is difficult to decide to what extent we can hold people accountable for.

In The Apostle, Sonny is a preacher who openly deals with human error and temptation.  He has an intimate relationship with God and truly believes in redeeming individuals in his congregation.  Sonny’s journey begs the questions: how much of life and our human nature is inevitable?  How do unfortunate circumstances alter a person’s opportunity for peace?  If “good people” do bad things, can they still be considered a “good person?” To address one of Russell’s concerns, is Sonny a hypocrite for lashing out on Horace, or is he a human being?  Christians lean on the idea of God because God gives grace and forgiveness for faults.  Whether or not we agree with that ideology, I think we should align with the teaching that even morally sound people make mistakes circumstantially. Russell claims that your intentions are not important, your actions are: as cliché as it may be, my conclusion is that we are all human beings and even with complete devotion, no one can be perfect. 

Hannah Montana's Input