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".

Does Socrates die?...

In this video, we explain the painting "The Dead of Socrates" (a 1787 oil on canvas painting by the French painter Jacques-Louis David), what do everybody express.

Mr. Wise

Is always good to learn something about a wise person, they could teach us something amazing, it could be your mother, aunt, grandfather, even your neighbour.

It's important to respect older people, because they will always know more about something than you; they have more experience because of their age.

We interviewed Linda's neighbour Mr. Ruben, he is 63 years old and we consider him wise because of his experience and knowledge about life events. We asked him some questions that could help to understand why we consider him wise.

NOTE: Mr. Ruben voice is low

Immortal Socrates

In the passage you just read, what did the god say about Socrates through the voice of the prophetess?

There were no man wiser tan him.

How does Socrates propose to disapprove the god`s statement ?

If there was a man wiser tan him he would go to the god with a refutation and say “here is a man who is wiser than I am but you said that I was the wisest”

In the next passage what advantages does Socrates say he has over the politicians of his day?

I neither knew or think that I now when he said this he realised he had an advantage.

In what way is he wise?

He is always questioning things and investigate until he found the answer.

What is  his response to this potential offer of a plea bargain?

That he respect and honours the men of Athens, but that he was going to obey god tethered them. And mean while he live with practice and teach philosophy.

What does he say is the mistake that the civilization of Athens are making?

That they care more about receive greatest amount of money and their reputation and a Little bit about wisdom and truth.

What does Socrates is his mission?

To teach and persuade everyone about the greatest improvement of their soul.

Why do you think that Socrates says that of bad person cannot harm a good person?

Because the good person has their own ideals and way of think so is their election to being persuade or not from bad people.

Why does Socrates think that his accusers (Meletus and Anytus) are harming them- selves by prosecuting him?

Meletus and Anytus will not injure him because they cannot, for it is not in the nature of things that a bad man should injure one better than himself.

In the next passage, Socrates says to the jury that he is arguing not for his sake but for theirs. Why does he think that it is the citizens of Athens who are really being judged by the outcome of this trial and not him?

Because if they kill him, they will not easily find another like him. he is that gadfly which the god has given the state and all day long and in all places he will always fastening upon them, arousing and persuading and reproaching them.

What evidence does he give that his intentions were to unselfishly serve the people of Athens?

He does not argue for his own sake. But he does think for the Athenians. This means he was worried about the Athenians and less about him.

GLOSSARY:

-Chisel: metal tool with a sharp beveled edge, used to cut and shape stone, wood, or metal.

- Refutation: Something, such as an argument, that refutes someone or something.

-Hatred:  a feeling of intense dislike; enmity

-Dithyrambic: a frenzied, impassioned choric hymn and dance of ancient Greece in honour of Dionysus.

-Soothsayer: one who claims to be able to foretell events or predict the future; a seer.

- Behalf: Interest, support, or benefit.

-Ludicrous: So absurd or incongruous as to be laughable.

-Gadfly: a persistent irritating critic; a nuisance.

-Sought: P.P of seek; to go in search or quest of.

-Acquittal: Judgement, as by a jury or judge, that a defendant is not guilty of a crime as charged.

-Plea bargain: to agree to plead guilty, especially to a lesser criminal offence, in exchange for some concession from the prosecution, such as dismissal of more serious charges.

WITCHCRAFT = EVILNESS

During the medieval age, witchcraft was something very popular but at the same time it was underrated, it was only consulted by the Christian church. During this period Christianity had a powerful influence not only in matters of faith but also in the decisions of state. And because the witchcraft was against religion, it was considered devil's work, therefore the church said that these acts should be banned and punished.

From 1184-1965 the Catholic Church was dedicated to blame, arrestee, judge and sentence to death millions of people who were considered "pagan" and "heretics" by the benevolent and morally superior Christians who judge them  just because they didn't  follow the moral norms dictating  them as correct. The Holy Inquisition said supposedly witches were dark people that should be purified so this evil couldn't be spread among the society so they had to burn their souls back to purity by burning them. The social context was the divinity so all the events were related to a supreme being, thus charitable things were related to goodness and the unknown or harmed stuff was considered the work of the devil.

The fire is a symbol that has much relevance in cultures, both pagan and Christian. In the medieval age, according to Christian mentality of the time, it is said that the fire purifies, that ends with "the flesh" (the body), who considered the subject of sin.

Nowadays this topic is more open, although the church doesn't like it; the situation is still brought up and talked about in educational ways. Whether the acts of the church were considered sins and evil themselves, the supernatural is still something we can’t decide if it’s real or just all in our head.    

eliminación de una bruja

Philosophy is...

Are there any common themes throughout the 10 answers? 

The majority of the people mentioned that is the reasoning and the way to see the life.

How do the answers compare to the description of philosophy in this chapter?

Something that most of people said was that is the way of thinking and the reasoning, also that is a way to find an answer to something. In part is related with the reading about what do philosophers study. But something that people said is that philosophy is the study of all, and its not true, because philosophers ask specific questions about specific things. Most of them are related with the people thoughts.

Are any features about philosophy missing in the responses?

No, most of them mentioned different parts about what do philosophers study, but they didn't mention that they make tests or experiments to make conclusions about their affirmations.

Which answers do you think are the bests? Why?

"The process of critical thinking to explain the whole of a topic." Because is the closest answer to what the reading mention.

Which answers do you think are least satisfactory? Why?

"It's a school subject." Because its an answer that I find, lazy, non-analysed, very poor.

Universe study

This is a collage that explains what does the philosophers study, what do they analyze to make their conclusions, theories; what do they observe in our reality, environment, surrounding, world. How do they explain some questions about our purpose in the life, our origin.

It is divided in 6 areas, that are: epistemology, metaphysics, logic, philosophy of religion, political philosophy and ethics; and the centre represents the word Philosophy. As every physic, psychologist, historian or biologist study a certain topic, philosophers also have their own topic to study, and this is divided.

In the logic part, we have shapes, as circles, squares, triangles, etc. Because they study how we should think, if we are rational or not, if we know what is good and what is not. So, its something specific, that only has a form or description; something real.

In epistemology, we can see experiments, tests, because this represents what does the philosophers do when they wonder some questions like, how could we know that something is true or not, or if all opinions are relative. They wonder fundamental questions about the concept of truth, what it could be possible. So they make some proves to clarify this questions.

We represented metaphysics with different people, different brains, because in this part the philosophers try to find if all mental events are really brain events, what is the relationship between the mind and the body. So they study different people and their believes, thoughts, feelings.

In philosophy of religion, we can see some religions, different cultural representations of deities, because philosophers investigate about the existence of God, the problem of evil, and the relationship of faith and reason, if these two concepts are opposites or complements each other.

In political philosophy, we put some government representations as flags, presidents, territories, because philosophers wonder what is justice, what are the limits of governmental authority, if the authority is good or not. So they study all these concepts as rules, ways of government; if these people is fair and right.

And the ethic part is represented by people demonstrating their values, what is correct and incorrect for each person, because the philosopher wonder if there are any correct ethical values, if they are relative or how can we decide what is right or wrong. They study the different values from one person to another.

GLOSSARY

-Fuzzy: Not clear; indistinct.

-Realm: An area or sphere, as of knowledge or activity.

-Glibly: Performed with a natural, offhand ease.

-Seek: To try to locate or discover; search for.

-Quark: Any of the six quarks' associated antiparticles, the anti quarks.

-Marvellous: Causing wonder.

-Assumption: The act of taking to or upon oneself.

-Soaring: Ascending to a level markedly higher than the usual.

-Woven: Made by weaving.

-Wide: Having a specified extent from side to side.

All come from...WHERE??? O.o

The aim of this activity is to make people know some theories of the origin of everything. Nowadays we have heard about some theories like Darwin's, Arrhenius', Redi's, etc. But its also important to know some theories from people who lived long time before all of these scientists. These philosophers (Thales, Anaximenes and Anaximander) made their own conclusions by the observation, in those times, there wasn't microscopes, laboratories, or any materials to make a better and depth research.

The greatest talk over...

1. How do this philosophers explained reality?
  By divinities, in those times they believed in gods, but they explained them in form of Elements like water, air. They thought that something was the pioneer because they explained that the element was very important and influential in the creation of life. Without it, it would be impossible the origin of life.

2. Does these explanations have something to do with the way I conceive reality?
  Yes, because I think that something natural, maybe a cell, bacteria or little organism was evolving and changing until these were turning on the things that surround us. There has to exist a pioneer that started everything; and on one hand, they proposed that.

3. Could this explanation be enough? Why?

  No, because they say that it exist something that originated the life, but they don't explain how that item was created. Also, some of them only explain the origin of our world, but what happens with the galaxies, other planets, the sun, stars or the entire universe.

Our world answers...¿?

1. What are the mythical/scientific/theological/magical elements in my story?

-Mythical: the unicorn is a mythical animal

-Scientific: the mention of cells, the moon, evolution, grenades, explotion

-Theological: the evilness and goodness reflected in the characters, the reference of gods with animal forms

-Magical: the flying unicorn and pig, their powers

2. How my current knowledge could influence the story's plot?

In the way that I know some different versions or theories of the world's origin and I can mix them; also with all the analysis, I can make my own version of the beginnig of time and use it in the story.

3. Why is it necessary for every human group to have an answer to its origins?

Because they can feel safe and sure of their origin, also they can answer some questions with their origin idea, why they do the things they do, why they feel those feelings, why they are look like that. A person need to find a way to answer every question that he has, so they try to explain those answers with these stories.

Everything started...

In the beginning of time, there were a jealous brothers because, the unicorn had more power, being the first to inhabit the Earth, while the only power that the pig had, was flying. They argued about who was going to handle the Earth. Their ideas were quite contrary, firstly, the unicorn wanted to see beautiful scenery with a radiant moon; on the other hand, the pig just wanted to see chaos and catastrophe, grenades, explosions and fire. They agreed that both would handle the Earth. The unicorn would control the beautiful things and the pig chaos and destruction so that they could procreate small cell filled with peace and understanding, capable of destroy themselves whenever it was necessary. These changed over time, until they look like what we know today as humanity.

the young world