Human VS Artificial Intelligence

We as humans, are evolving all the time, in a social and technological way; and when people combine both, we have Artificial Intelligence machines, that supposedly can think and act as us, so we can be identified with "them".
The movie "HER", talks a little bit about this situation. What could happen if we converse too much with an OS that has AI with a loneliness problem. 

-Which activities are performed by Theodore and not by the OS?
Most of them are completely physical events, as think, eat, run, walk, breathe, he has the sense of touch, taste and smell, etc. but also mental situations as have feelings, dreams, etc.

-Which activities are performed by the OS and not by Theodore?
The facility to search for things, information management, the capability of doing more than 2 things at the same time very fast (f.e. talking with Theodore while it's correcting the cards). The OS, can do every computer or machine process, and these are physical events.

-What could be a physical description of the OS?
The computer, the small portable square, the earphone, and the most important, the voice, because this characteristic identifies the OS of other computers or smartphones.

-Without physically describing him, which mind events are more important about Theodore?
Some conscious and unconscious activities, as: sadness, because he's lonely, desperation to share his life with someone, especially with a woman; also to give love to an own family (with children),  that's why he's obsessed with pregnant women.

-In which way this hypothetical machine is changing Theodore's ideas?
It´s more less in a positive way, because she helps him to watch the world from another perspective, he becomes more open minded, also the OS gives confidence to Theodore, he becomes more social and starts "dating someone". He changes his ideas because she knows everything, but he believes in someone/something that knows more than in himself. 

-Why, by the end of the film, the OS is not held by any moral responsibility of her actions?
The OS has no responsibility because it is only a system, a machine, and the decisions to do or not things, were on Theodore. She couldn't analyse or think in a dualistic way, gathering mind and body to solve problems or do activities; she hadn't moral and didn't feel guilt or any real emotion.

 -What are the fundamental differences between artificial intelligence and humans?
That a human has skills to express ideas, perspectives, thoughts, feelings. Can form mental models; Has abstract and mathematical reasoning. It can understand, motivate and help others. Has the ability to realize and differentiate moods, intentions, temperament, etc. And the AI, even the most advanced OS, has not reached a learning, thinking, perception, language, etc. to express emotions, which are considered essential for intelligence. Humans are 100% dualistics, something that machines just can't acquire.

-According to metaphysics, why is it possible that Theodore confuses the OS with reality itself?
Because this OS is dualistic to certain point, it is evolving continuously, learns from experiences, and the most important, uses a woman voice that makes sound effects as a real human, so Theodore relates the OS to a real person. She acts like a person would do it, and does what Theodore wants, so he feels that is a real woman, because receives what he would like to.

Physicalism and Dualism in daily life

Our mind and body do a lot everyday at every moment; here we are going to analyse a normal story in the physicalistic and dualistic way.
One day, Julieta went to visit Katya, had been so long without seeing her. They began to talk and after a while, someone knocked on the door. Katya and Julieta started to think and analyse who could be the person at the other side of the door, a neighbour, pizza, a robber, etc. Then, Katya opened and observed that it was Abigail; she was there for visiting Katya too and the 3 girls continued talking.

Dualism:
 -Physical events:breathe, talk, walk, knock, hear
 -Mental events: remember, analyse, imagine, to be afraid
Physicalism:
 -Conscious brain activities: analyse, imagine, to question, talk, knock
 -Unconscious brain activities: to be afraid, breathe, answer, listen, to be happy

Dualism/Physicalism...

It is hard to explain if what we see is physical or mental, there is a little problem when we talk about actions, if there are physical or mental; if a decision is made because of a mental or physical cause.

But there is the Physicalism and Dualism to classify our mind-body perceptions.

Here there's a test to know if you think Dualistically or in a Physicalistic way.

My answers were:

1. Disagree

2. Agree

3. Disagree

4. Agree

5. Disagree

6. Disagree

7. Disagree

8. Agree

9. Disagree

10. Agree

A1-A2: 1

B: 9

This means that I am Dualistic.

Also we interviewed 2 people to know how did they think, their answers were:

#1

1. Disagree

2. Agree

3. Agree

4. Agree

5. Agree

6. Agree

7. Disagree

8. Agree

9. Disagree

10. Agree

A1-A2: 2
B: 8
This means that it's a Dualistic person.

#2

1. Disagree

2. Disagree

3. Agree

4. Agree

5. Agree

6. Disagree

7. Disagree

8. Disagree

9. Disagree

10. Agree
A1-A2: 4
B: 6

This means that it's a Dualistic person too.
The Dualism holds that the mind, or soul (not the theological one), is immaterial or made of an immaterial substance.
The Physicalist in turn holds that the mind is not an immaterial substance but is rather physical. 

Knowing this, we can analyse each question:
1. The physical world is the only kind of reality there is.
P= Yes, because if we can touch it and see it, then is real.
D= No, because there is also the mental world, things that we can't see but happen
2. The mind is something non-physical yet real.
P= No, because the only reality is what is tangible.
D= Yes, because it exists
3. The mind is nothing more than a word that refers to the sum of those cognitive activities produced by the brain.
P= Yes, because the mind and brain is the same
D= No, because they are different parts, entities.
4. The mind and the brain interact even though they are different entities.
P= No, because they are the same, so they don't interact
D= Yes, because they need each other, they are their own complement to function.
5. When I make a decision, the immediate cause of this event is the physical events occurring in my brain. 
P= Yes, because everything is caused by something physical
D= No, because it can be made for a mental cause
6. The act of making a mental decision is not a physical event, nor does it have a physical cause.
P= No, because everything has a physical "root"
D= Yes, because it may come from something mental.
7. A physical event can be caused only by another physical event.
P= Yes, because everything is physical and it can only have a physical origin
D= No, because a mental decision, act, etc. can cause a physical reaction 
8. An act of my will is not a physical event, but it can cause my body to perform some physical action.
P= No, because your will is something physical. 
D= Yes, because something mental can cause something physical and vice versa 
9. Even if we cannot accomplish this as yet, everything that a person does or thinks or feels is capable of a scientific explanation.
P= Yes, because if it is physical, it has explanation, logic, sense
D= No, because sometimes something doesn't have a rational sense or explanation, but it is still real
10. The mind and its activities will never be completely explained by the science or the brain.
P= No, because the brain and mind are the same thing, so it can be explained
D= Yes, because sometimes brain and mind do not share rationality or logical sense.
The majority of us, think and know that there is "more" than only what we see, the different aspects that happen in our brain and mind.

Mind?...Physical?...

The differences between column A2 and B2 are: A is physical and B is emotional, A is visual while B don't and that A is global when B is relative.

And the differences between A3 and B3 are: the column A are physical actions while B are mental ones, A are visual and B don't, with the column A you don't progress meanwhile with the column B you do.

Combination A2-B1-A3

• Wet sadness between us
• Rotten memories running
• Red goals in front of me
• Circular believes under the desk
• Hot goals on top of  the car

Combination B2-B3-A1

1. Positive learning table
2. Cute thinking owl
3. Happy analysing eraser
4. Selfish believing wolf
5. Hideous concluding desk

-Are there two completely different type of realities?
Yes, because the first phrases are in a metaphorical way, we tried to describe feelings, thoughts; something that doesn't have shape and specific description. The second ones, we tried to give a quality to a complete real thing, like the eraser, its something that exists, it has shape, volume, etc. 
-Why is the language of physical events so different from that mental events?

Because both are completely different things, we could say they are the opposite of each other. Something physical has touchable, exact and global descriptions, whereas something mental has a relative description.

Real?...

Reality is something hard to describe and define, it is relative, sometimes a real thought for somebody is not for somebody else. Also people classify things, believes, feelings, etc. in different levels of reality.
We did an activity in which we discussed what do we consider real and what not, how do we knew that something was real, which were their characteristics.
First, we talk with somebody we knew, a friend; then we  switched partners, and we talked with somebody we not used to talk. It was easy to discuss with a friend, because we knew his way of thinking, but it was interesting when we had to talk with other fellow, because we learned other way of thinking, other opinions.  

We couldn't define exactly what are the characteristics to consider something real, more less real, or not real. Because when we started to mentions some characteristics, these were relative too, so it was not easy to define them.

But, despite this, we could say that something becomes real, since the moment you think about it. So something unreal is anything that hasn't been thought.

Which empirical knowledge do you have?

Here, I will analyse which empirical knowledge does a person have through 10 questions. These are:

The interviewed person was: Aranza Castañeda.

Her answers were:

1. Agree

2. Disagree

3. Agree

4. Agree

5. Agree

6. Disagree

7. Agree

8. Disagree

9. Agree

10. Agree

According to the answers given by her, we can say that she believes in constructivism, because she believes in her experiences more than her reason, that we acquire knowledge with our experiences. Also that if we have enough evidence about a believe, then is knowledge.

Equally she says that anybody knows the real truth, there are just opinions, you don't know the absolute truth, we only have our concept of something, its our personal reality.

Relativism today:

-Group's aim: Leadership

-Description: It's an activity that consists in taking a group of people and give them roles (like: professor, doctor,etc.); an apocalyptic catastrophe occurred in the world, and they can save only 3 people. So each member has to convince the others why he is important and he deserves to be saved.

-Instructions:

1. You have to make a circle.

2. You have to take your assigned role.

3. Everyone of you must give your arguments in 2 minutes max, by turns.

4. You have 6 min to discuss in group, who will you save and why.

5. You have to eliminate the 4 less important.

6. Why you took that decision?

7. How does leadership influence your role and decisions?

  +Roles:

Doctor: Linda

Professor: Luis Fernando

Police Officer: Azuany

Chef: Sussy

Psychologist: Andrés

Sweeper: Eduardo

-Epistemic accuracy: This activity is relativist, because they have to analyse something with different postures. They have to analyse each role and why it's important or not.

-Results:

Conclusions: This activity was successful, because we observed that a person took the lead and guided her companions. Also the decisions taken by the group were influenced by what did the leader said. In this activity we had only 1 leader and 6 subordinates or followers. 

+How difficult is to transmit/acquire knowledge?

It's hard to acquire knowledge if the given instructions are not clear, because you can't understand what you have to do, learn, say, etc.

And it's hard to transmit knowledge, if you don't have people's attention, because they will not understand and the knowledge won't be transmitted correctly; also your goal will not be achieved, because of the confusion.

+What elements interfere?

Complete attention, clear and simple instructions, clear activity, easy vocabulary, good mood, people's cooperation. These elements are for both things, to transmit and to acquire, because if there's no good communication between you and the other person or people, the activity, experiment, or whatever you want to do will not work.

Knowledge...mind or experience?

Some philosophers believe that knowledge becomes from experience, other from reasoning, etc. Here, you will find some philosophers and their way of thinking, also why do they have that way of thinking.

You or me?, Men or women?, Correct or incorrect?...

Here, we analysed a video that shows a parallel world, where men are harassed by women and if this would be the correct form to stop harassment and discrimination. 

1. If we know that most of people live in a mistake, can we base the society's direction in their desires?

No, because people think that what do they believe, want or desire is correct, but maybe is incorrect for other people; everything is relative, because "every mind is a different world" and everybody will always watch things at their convenience. In the short movie "Majorité Oprimée" we can observe this in some parts, for example, when the girl pees on the street (that reflects what do men do), she thinks is correct, but is not for others. But at the end is hard to define what is correct or incorrect, because everything will influence in these decisions, like religion, moral, education, traditions, culture, etc.

2. Or, should we give power to those who deserve it most?

Nobody deserves more than others, as human beings, everybody should have the same rights and obligations, it's unwise to give more power to someone in some cases, because they will use it to their preference. We can observe in the video that its the same problem if women mistreat men, because it is violence anyway. In the other hand, men and women, disabled and common people, are obviously different, so it could be good if we have equivalent power. 

3. Do individual interests depend on the interest that society believes are most important?

Yes and no, because people will give their own priority to their interests depending on what is better for them, but also sometimes people take more care about something when they watch that most of people do the same. In the video, we watched that the police officer thinks is important to have witnesses in a crime, but the man thinks that is enough with the proves he has. The society influence a lot in a person's life, but depending on the person's ideology, he could accept and follow or not people's opinion. 

4. Can we say that the state regulates the form in which we all live?

Yes, they make rules following what do most of citizens believes is correct, that's why there's always unhappy people; they analyse what do population thinks and what is the percentage of every different way of thinking so, they can regulate what do people do. In the video, we watch an example when a woman appeared without a t-shirt, and we could say that what she did is incorrect, because civility rules says that you must wear clothes in the street.

5. How can we stop opposing the fact that each person has the freedom to choose what they do and that society has a legitimate interest in regulating the actions of each one?

It's true that everyone is free to do what do they want, but also is important to know that is not fair to affect someone else doing what we want to, so I think it's good to apply what does Benito Juarez said: "Among individuals, as among nations, respect for others rights, is peace.", and this is what society tries to do, they try to regulate our actions to, if not affect others, affect them as little as possible. When the girls started to say bad stuff to the guy in the video, that is incorrect, even if they are applying their rights (free speech), because they are attacking him in a psychological way.

6. Are there alternative conceptions to how we should live? Are they effective?

Letting people do what they want, but this could be a big problem because people will affect others, and this is incorrect. Also dividing and separating people by their way of thinking, but a person will never agree with another one at all, so there will be always disagreements and discussions. Maybe letting the power to the people that doesn't have it right now, but it will be the same. In the video, there is shown a parallel way of life, in which women have the power that men have now, but we could see that is the same problem reversed.

Here is the link of the short film:
https://youtu.be/kpfaza-Mw4I

The Allegory of the cave

The objective of this activity is to portray the Allegory's teachings, of Plato's "Allegory of the Cave", in a graphical way, we tried to explain them with photos.

We must analyse if what another person believes is correct, because sometimes, they could be wrong.

Also, we need to recognize that not everything that someone says is the truth, it's only an opinion.

We should reflect if what we get at first sight is the reality, because it could be just an appearance that conceals what is really happening.

In the same way, question our basic assumptions, maybe something has more than a conclusion, answer, usage, etc.

Finally, if we have knowledge about something, it's good to help someone to get out of their "ignorance".