Philosophy Experts

For anyone that is a philosophy major or very interested in it, I have to answer some questions on the following statements. I am by no means a philosophy pro, nor do I like it., but I can give a somewhat educated ramble on some topics. Anyone care to give their opinions on any of the following?

  1. What do you think is the weakest point(s) in dualism?
  2. What distinguishes weak artificial intelligence from strong artificial intelligence?
  3. There are several ways to reject skepticism. What is a potential argument? Can skepticism be used against the brain in the vat scenario? (totally lost on this one)
  4. What are the reasons that John Locke gives for thinking that our ideas of external objects must really be caused by so something external to us?

For 3. the one question to ask is how you know you don’t know anything. If you know that you don’t know anything, then you know something. If you don’t know that you don’t know anything, then you may, indeed, know something. Either case the argument for scepticism is questioned.

You might need to read that a couple times.

[quote]IFlashBack wrote:
For 3. the one question to ask is how you know you don’t know anything. If you know that you don’t know anything, then you know something. If you don’t know that you don’t know anything, then you may, indeed, know something. Either case the argument for scepticism is questioned.

You might need to read that a couple times. [/quote]
This helps, thank you

[quote]IFlashBack wrote:
For 3. the one question to ask is how you know you don’t know anything. If you know that you don’t know anything, then you know something. If you don’t know that you don’t know anything, then you may, indeed, know something. Either case the argument for scepticism is questioned.

You might need to read that a couple times. [/quote]
Where is Varqanir? See this is the kind of shit I’m talking about man…

“2. What distinguishes weak artificial intelligence from strong artificial intelligence?”

Comparing the Atari 2600 to the PS4.

  1. I’d say the ability to guess or take a chance. Taking the hypothetical seriously, while still understanding it’s only hypothetical.
  1. Unnecessary complexity. Why two and not one? Why the equilibrium? Etc

  2. Strong AI is at least as smart as a human. There’s huge bucketload of implications following that.
    Weak means essentially a great computer.
    Philosophically, there’s little reason not to call most computers weak AIs.

  3. There isn’t really a strong argument vs scepticism (the classic one was already mentioned). Sorry.
    You could be a brain in a fishtank.

  4. It’s just a more-or-less tidy theory.

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]IFlashBack wrote:
For 3. the one question to ask is how you know you don’t know anything. If you know that you don’t know anything, then you know something. If you don’t know that you don’t know anything, then you may, indeed, know something. Either case the argument for scepticism is questioned.

You might need to read that a couple times. [/quote]
Where is Varqanir? See this is the kind of shit I’m talking about man…[/quote]
That’s what happens in semantics based logic. It’s not a question of who makes a more valid argument, but who is better at shutting down arguments and generating an emotional response.

“Je pense donc je suis” is not semantics.
You wouldn’t really disprove your own scepticism, therefore → something.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
“Je pense donc je suis” is not semantics.
You wouldn’t really disprove your own scepticism, therefore → something.
[/quote]
I was referring to how someone could regard the words “anything” and “something”. Didn’t even know that portion was from Descartes.

Lol, that’s straight up Descartes homework. Bro do your reading.

Here’s a way to shoot down dualism. Dualism vs Solipsism - YouTube

Understand solipsism…

[quote]chobbs wrote:
For anyone that is a philosophy major or very interested in it, I have to answer some questions on the following statements. I am by no means a philosophy pro, nor do I like it., but I can give a somewhat educated ramble on some topics. Anyone care to give their opinions on any of the following?

  1. What do you think is the weakest point(s) in dualism?
  2. What distinguishes weak artificial intelligence from strong artificial intelligence?
  3. There are several ways to reject skepticism. What is a potential argument? Can skepticism be used against the brain in the vat scenario? (totally lost on this one)
  4. What are the reasons that John Locke gives for thinking that our ideas of external objects must really be caused by so something external to us?[/quote]

I recently just graduated from a UK University with a BA in Philosophy, so I might as well give you my opinions on some of the above questions.

  1. The weakest point in dualism is mind-body interaction, if the mind and body are different substances (physical/mental) how do they interact with one another? People have tried to answer this in different ways but never really satisfactorily. Karl Popper and Eccles probably presented the best defense on dualism in their 1977 book ‘The Self and its brain’, but even that is still unconvincing.

  2. In regards to the Brain in the vat skeptical solution, people generally consider the most successful way to reject such skepticism as adopting some form of externalism. For instance Robert Nozick’s externalist approach is supposed to overcome such skeptical problems such as the Brain in the Vat Scenario.

  3. Locke takes three approaches:

  1. Simply refuses to take the skeptic seriously.
  2. A pragmatic approach, if you want doubt the world be our guest but all that matters is that we know enough to get around and navigate etc.
  3. Inference to the best explanation. There are certain facts about our experience which make an external world filled with objects the best explanation. He runs his arguments regarding this in Book IV of the Essay Concerning Human Understanding and while they will be pretty convincing to the average Joe, the ultra skeptic won’t buy it. Which is why many people think Locke’s doctrine of Secondary and Primary qualities creates a ‘veil of perception’.

for #2, if I remember right it’s understanding the difference between analytic and synthetic distinctions/ a priori. Descartes isn’t my specialty, that’s all the tips you get! Do your reading!
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/

Philosophy is usually underlying in every Social science and arts degree. It will make you crazy lol run. In all seriousness, their is a physical world that we all see yet we all perceive it differently. This creates our reality that is different than anyone Else’s therefore you have your own understanding of reality.

Your understanding is that philosophy is crazy, keep it that way, everyone I know who ponders all this crazy shit goes insane run lol, worse THAN BPD. Since you have to do it I would make pros and cons to his theories for yourself so you understand his theories and can arrive at a better understanding.

It won’t take very long this is essentially a dead horse that has been beaten for thousands of years. The most crazy philosophy is archetypes and causes, very confusing and deep to wrap head around. Create stuff in your likeness is all I have to offer.

[quote]chobbs wrote:
For anyone that is a philosophy major or very interested in it, I have to answer some questions on the following statements. I am by no means a philosophy pro, nor do I like it., but I can give a somewhat educated ramble on some topics. Anyone care to give their opinions on any of the following?

  1. What do you think is the weakest point(s) in dualism?
    [/quote]
    None, it’s a pretty strong case. The physical is far more difficult to argue than the metaphysical. It’s not a weakness of the argument or argument ‘type’. The two ways around it, idealism and empiricism are both weaker in their purest takes. I find idealism more interesting though. It delves into things most people don’t bother with in their lives, but they are important questions.

The word ‘strong’

The ultimate goal of the skeptic is to prove nothing exists. That’s it’s inherent weakness. It’s difficult to prove nothingness when the very act of perceiving it is something. So you have fragmentations of skepticism whose goal is to rather prove very little exists of a kind of nature or another. It’s not pure, it’s technically not skepticism, but it’s close enough for folks to believe they can retain the label.

Uh, why don’t you read what Locke says? Damn it, you’re putting your homework on line aren’t you? That last question feels like a homework question.

Damn I felt like I had a solid grasp on this until I read everyone’s thoughts lol

Exactly lol, it’s very personal I believe everyone will give you a different answer.

[quote]chobbs wrote:
Damn I felt like I had a solid grasp on this until I read everyone’s thoughts lol[/quote]

it’s philosophy, not math.

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Lol, that’s straight up Descartes homework. Bro do your reading.
[/quote]
The only substantial thing I’ve ever learned of Descartes is that quotation and his existence during the Enlightenment. Pretty sure that’s all that actually matters. I don’t take philosophy. I read what he piques my interest, not what someone tells me to read. I consider suggestions but don’t follow orders.

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]chobbs wrote:
Damn I felt like I had a solid grasp on this until I read everyone’s thoughts lol[/quote]

it’s philosophy, not math.[/quote]
Exactly. That’s what I was stating earlier.