similarminds.com

[C.Beck]

For those of us with a lot of reading time or unbridled curiousity, i bring you: Essay time.
Post your past essays or current works for the viewing pleasure of your peers. I always like to look at an essays style, the writers style, i find it revealing.

Here is one i did last year for my english narratives class.



Heroes and Inner Daemons

While reading Conrad’s Heart of Darkness and Findley’s Dreams, it is possible to view the characters in terms of heroes. Further, it is possible to view them in relation to the image of a classic hero who possesses values beneficial to themselves and, importantly, others. Dividing the idea of a hero is not as easy as a good or bad dichotomy. Kurtz, of Heart of Darkness is an enterprising ivory collector who forsakes European culture and contact to realize his influence over the Amazon people and consequently unprecedented levels of Ivory retrieval. Mimi is a psychologist who works with autistic patients and is married to a psychologist who becomes increasingly disturbed by one of his own patients as the line between dreams and reality are blurred. There are qualities these two characters possess that warrant viewing them as heroes but further examination reveals traits that oppose each other. This leaves portions of Kurtz and Mimi’s dispositions that can offer significant insight into the commonalities that constitute a hero. The classic hero is something else again, which is unfalteringly good and beneficial. Providing benefit to others is perhaps the key element of a classic hero. It is, by definition, good. Relevant to the characters are the traits of egocentricity, examining motivation and inhibition and looking at what triggers grief. The classic hero must be oriented towards providing benefit to others and this is expressed by these traits. In the two works, Mimi and Kurtz often occupy opposing ends of the spectrum, as a heroin who shares the classic values of a hero and Kurtz, who does not, while both remaining heroes.

Heroic character can be discerned by looking at what a person loves and how they react when it is taken away. Kurtz is thrown into despair when his escape into the Congo is halted by Marlow: “‘I was on the threshold of great things,’ he pleaded, in a voice of longing, with a wistfulness of tone that made my blood run cold.”(173 Conrad) The gravity of this appeal is significant in the narrative as the climax and is expanded upon further: “They were common everyday words, - the familiar, vague sounds exchanged on every waking day of life. But what of that? They had behind them, to my mind, the terrific suggestiveness of the words heard in dreams, of phrases spoken in nightmares.”(174 Conrad) Dreams and nightmares denote the impactful archetypal purity of ideas. To say that the conversation was dreamlike is to say that there was more depth of emotion and meaning than is immediately apparent. Dreams are symbolic of something bigger, being indicative of some other circumstance or desire. Marlow senses the gravity of Kurtz words, as they symbolize his defeat. A wistful tone is one used when something is lost and not when responding in challenge or in defense. So this loss that upsets Kurtz is like a quashing of his dreams and plans for the future. If he was on the threshold of great things and was working towards them, then it is safe to assume that he would be doing more of what he was doing all along, perhaps on a different scale or with a different method. He was leveraging the Congo tribe’s beliefs and had set himself up as some type of dictator or spiritual leader. He used his position to gain Ivory and had plans to continue to do so: “He had been absent for several months – getting himself adored I suppose – and had come down unexpectedly with the intention to all appearance of making a raid either across the river or down the stream.” (163 Conrad) If the pursuit of ivory being stifled causes such grief, then we must consider what stature that pursuit has in his values and importantly, which beliefs are outranked by it. Mimi is moved by different events in Dreams. “Mimi thought about her own worst case: a child whose obstinate refusal to communicate was currently breaking her heart, and thus, her ability to help.” (648 Findley) Mimi refers to her own worst case in the professional sense, the case of Brian Bassett. But the focus of the narrative is on Mimi and her husband’s professional lives: “Both had always worked with the kind of physical intensity that kills, and yet they gave the impression that this was the only tolerable way to function.” (646 Findley) In both the narrative and the personal life of Mimi, her patients play big roles. It is ironic that Mimi works with an intensity that kills, as Brian Bassett dies. One of the effects of Brian’s death is to create a precedent, or perhaps a frame, of Mimi’s attitude towards both death and dreaming. Her feelings are ambiguous when Brian passes: “Mimi stayed home and made her notes and she wondered if and when she would weep for Brian Bassett.” (655 Findley) This lack of definitive emotional display can be attributed to her appreciation for Brian Bassett’s wishes, as his death may very well have been a blessing for him, and not as apathy directed at her patient. Her concern for him is noted in her actions as the “Bassett’s crazy guardian angel” (653 Findley) who won’t quit trying to help him. The classic hero serves people and is capable of love for other humans. Kurtz’s main concern tends to be his ivory conquest. He accomplishes a lot in service to the ivory company. He is admired by many people and hailed as, “an emissary of pity, and science, and progress and devil knows what else.” (127 Findley) Yet, for all of that, he is most upset about being removed from his jungle seat of power and the chance to gain more influence. Kurtz’s behavior is not aimed at being beneficial to others. Mimi’s sentiments and behavior more closely resemble the classic hero, who values people above other objective measures of greatness, success or the self.

On that note, the classic hero is not egocentric. Egocentricity is contrary to being beneficial to others, and one will not be viewed as a hero unless there is benefit being felt by others. The difference between the hero and the classic hero here is that it is perhaps more attractive to be a hero as one who excels, is admired and is in the spotlight than it is to be a classic hero who provides benefit to those around him or her with no intention of using that as a means to glory or power. Kurtz is a prime example of someone holding their self worth and awareness far above others: “my intended, my ivory, my station, my river, my -’ everything belonged to him.” (153 Conrad) Thinking something as natural as a river belongs to him is not consistent with everyone else’s view of the river. A less egocentric person might more likely believe that the river belongs to no one in particular as it is used by many people and was in use when Kurtz discovered it. Mimi’s mind is often on other people, rather than herself. She relates to others easily: “Even in the dark, she could gauge Everett’s tension.” (648 Findley) “Mimi refused to give him up; he might as well have been her own flesh and blood” (648 Findley) She is emotionally invested in the wellbeing of others and shows awareness of their circumstances. Being in tune with her husband’s tension level demonstrates this. It is the nature of her job to help autistic patients become better but that requires no emotional investment. Brian is not just a job for her then; she cares for his well being. To say he is like her flesh and blood describes a deep emotional investment and caring of his needs. Letting Brian Die, mercy killing, is controversial. Some see it as an evil and some see it as the humane thing to do. Regardless, the choice is hard to make and loosing someone you care about is difficult. To put Brian’s wishes above her own immediate wants is unselfish and not egocentric. In this case, nothing Kurtz does on the egocentric scale garners him the title of hero, classic or otherwise. He is qualified as a hero all the same. Mimi does exhibit traits associated with the idea of a classic hero: being beneficial to others by being aware and receptive of their needs.

To learn of someone’s moral compass, of their inhibitions and motivations, it is impossible to learn in any verifiable manner of them unless we note, empirically, their actions. A classic hero, when pressed against a wall, will hold true to their morals or directives, aimed at providing benefit to others. When one retreats to values that provide benefit only to themselves, they will not be viewed by others as a hero. The ending of Dreams denies closure and remains ambiguous: “Mimi said: ‘no.’ She sat on the toilet seat. “I’m waiting here,” she told him ‘until we both wake up.’” (Findley 659) Her we see her take a stand with reason. She refers to an external system to gauge her actions. This ensures that she will not become morally confused by bending her perceptions to suit her desires. It coincides that her wish, that the blood is a dream, and relying on logic are the same in this case. However, holding on to the idea of being in a dream when the appearance of everything, aside from the one discrepancy, appears to be as the waking world is, is perhaps not the instinctive move an ordinary person would make. The classic hero will hold to their values through disbelief and trial. In Heart of Darkness, Kurtz anticipates that Marlow will interfere with his ambitions in the jungle. In order to stop this, he sends a group of native archers to shoot at his boat. This results in people on Marlow’s expedition dying. Kurtz own aspirations, which are questionable - “he is alright now.’ ‘Ye-e-es,’ he muttered, not very convinced apparently” (170 Conrad) – were put above the lives of others. Whichever philosophy one subscribes to, it is difficult to attain benefit when you are dead. Kurtz’s judgment in this case is not in line with the classic hero. Marlow also describes the lack of external focus in Kurtz: “There was nothing either above or below him, and I knew it. He had kicked himself loose of the earth.” (174 Conrad) This describes his tendency to refer to himself as the source of morality. The only thing in his mind is himself. Being egocentric is linked to loosing external focus and pulling away from providing benefit to others. In addition to this, and in part because of this, Kurtz holds life in low esteem: “but I want you to clearly to understand that there was nothing exactly profitable in these heads being there. They only showed that Mr Kurtz lacked restraint in the gratification of his various lusts.” (164 Conrad) One last example of Mimi holding to predetermined standards, in this case reason: “if her years of training had no prepared her to watch for signs like this, she might have been better off. As it was, she had to face the possibility the strongest, most sensible man on earth was having a nervous breakdown of major proportions.” (647 Findley) Instead of putting her head into the sand, Mimi remains true to her teachings so she can deal with the real symptoms and causes of her husband’s state, providing benefit. Mimi lives by rules that facilitate others gain. Kurtz lives by rules that allow him to satisfy his own desires. Our heroine fulfils the idea of a classic hero.

Kurtz’s egocentricity, his focus on ivory and influence and his exclusion of external sources in judging morally sensitive situations exclude him from the role of the classic hero. The classic hero strives to provide benefit to others. Mimi does this, with her awareness of other people, her value being placed on people and relying on external sources to determine her discretions. Kurtz is, perhaps, more easily viewed as a simple hero. He is influential, revolutionary and enigmatic. Mimi is a working professional. She saves lives, but it is not a traditional role of a hero, a psychologist, even though she exhibits classic hero traits. This goes to show that people’s ideas of a person are not always accurate, and upon close examination, we can see how there is more to the classic hero, which is intrinsically good, than being admired.
_________________
I Need To Prognosticate
5-9 r|C|uaI Scorpio Facilitator
"The sun to which my eyes could not adjust"
http://cognitionexpo.21.forumer.com/index.php

[Nostros]

OMG....essays.....I was never good at writing them. Always hit a writers block, got distracted, could never get any ideas to come forth in the beginning, or was procrastinating too damn much.
_________________
Carpe Diem

[Lenka]

Haven't got any essays on this computer, sorry Cooper.

[ABCD]

Ooooh I wrote an amazing (and very long) essay on dutch literature a few months back....

Buteeeeeeeeeeeh, it's in dutch.

[Mayflow]

[ABCD]

[Mayflow]

Is uw God' s naam door om het even welke kans Babelfish? Babelfish en om het even welke God die online vertaalt zijn zeer belabberd en won' t hulp u. Ik nog am die een nieuwe autoped van China morgen wordt. Ik zal u over het meer recentere, beste liefde vertellen.
_________________
If a human dreams it is an Angel; How sure is it, that it isn't an Angel dreaming that it's human? - Blue Angel http://exploringyourmind.forumotion.com/index.htm

[lordofthefood1]

[Thrusthamster]

This is my final essay for a subject we had called TOK (Theory of Knowledge) in the IB. Except for us being bound by an extreme amount of rules, it was a somewhat interesting subject, especially for an ENTP, because it was about basically questioning knowledge, or questioning everything.

So, as is apparent in the essay, we HAD to go to painstaking lengths to define every single thing we said with examples, and explain that this is a subjective view and not an objective one, since that cannot exist according to the IB, and linking it to the Ways of Knowing and Areas of Knowledge defined in the curriculum.

But I still think it's a damned good essay, did tons and tons of research for it as it would make up most of the grade I would get in that subject. Spent weeks studying, reading complex philosophical texts for this thing, and that makes me even more proud.

I got an A for this one, quite an accomplishment and incredibly lucky, considering the people grading the essays have to grade stuff so that it fits in with the "bell curve", to some extent at least. 3% of the 30000 students that take the exams each year get an A in ToK, it's the hardest subject to get an A in.

I think it's the best essay I've written.

If you're wondering, the ways of knowing are:
Emotion, reason, perception and language.


Can a machine know?

To me, a machine is an assembly of small parts that work together as a whole to aid humans in some way. For example an elevator or a car. The only organism, and therefore the only thing, that can be said to know are humans, since we created the word «knowledge». The machine that resembles humans the most is the computer. A computer uses electric signals and electric pathways much in the same way as the human brain, and compartmentalisation of the human brain resembles part of the machinery of machines. Some computers have shown reasoning capabilities. Therefore, I will focus my argument on computers. My belief is that a computer can know, but the types of knowledge it can have is limited due to its lack of self-awareness.

What is it to know? Plato stated that in order to know something, it has to be justified true belief. One has to know that it is true, one has to believe that it is true and one has to have good reason for doing so. There are of course problems with this definition, such as this example: John believes Jack is in his room, and when he enters his room he sees Jack, so he is justified in believing so. But he did not see Jack, he saw his identical twin Roger. Jack is in fact hiding behind the curtains. So John did have justified true belief, but it was not knowledge. That is one problem with defining knowledge as justified true belief. However, for lack of better alternatives, I will use Plato's definition for the sake of the argument, so I can concentrate my argument on the mechanics of computers rather than the characteristics of knowledge. I will also try to focus on infallible justification, which is the problem with the example above.

Intelligence is required to know. Intelligence is the ability to learn, to be able to think abstractly, and to be capable of reasoning and judgement. Intelligence is processing the information one receives from the Ways of Knowing to knowledge, so intelligence is a prerequisite to knowledge. Without intelligence, one cannot reason nor comprehend a language, and then only perception and emotion are left of the four Ways of Knowing. Of course, one can aquire knowledge through perception and emotion, but without the ability to make a judgement on the things one is perceiving one cannot have justified true belief. Without intelligence, one cannot identify the problems with justified true belief. The only way of aquiring knowledge left then is emotion, which has yet to be seen in any computer.

Alan Turing proposed in 1950 a test to see if a computer is intelligent.1 Turing proposed that if a computer is placed in a room, and a human is placed in a separate room nearby, and a third-party human were to ask questions to both of them and was unable to decide which of the two test subjects was human based on their answers, the computer must be intelligent. This has been critisised for several decades. Many believe that Turing's test is too superficial. For example, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, is it a duck?2

One other fundamental problem with the Turing test of artificial intelligence can be shown in this example: When I learned the formula to calculate the area of a triangle
(A= (b*h)/2), it was never explained to me why it was the length of the base times the height divided by two. I was never given an explanation as to why one had to divide any of the measurements by two. Still, I used the formula and was told that my calculations were correct every time. When I was given the proper measurements and told to calculate the area of a triangle, I used the formula and calculated the area. This example resembles how a computer works. A computer is given input, for example when we double-click an icon with a mouse, the computer initiates a process that it is instructed to use whenever that happens. But the computer does not understand that it is to initiate the program being selected, but it is programmed to do so when that icon is double-clicked. It does not understand, it executes. However, this does not mean that a computer's lack of understanding excludes all knowledge. For example in Mathematics, a computer could figure out problems using a formula or a program that utilises several of them. Although intelligence is the ability to process information into knowledge, what happens to the information once it is processed is different in humans than in computers when one takes self-awareness into account.

Consider this: A human suffers permanent brain damage, and will never be able to walk again. That person is given the option to replace the damaged brain cells with brain implants that are made of metal and plastic, but functions as neural pathways would. Soon, the person starts walking. Now, if this person was to replace more and more of his brain until he/it was all machine, he would turn into a cyborg, a machine with organic parts. Then, would he be self-aware? Would he be intelligent and able to know?3 These questions suggests that if a computer had enough programs working at one time, the sum of these programs could become a fully functional human-being. Or the cyborg would be a philosophical zombie, a being that is impossible to distinguish from a human, but does not have conscious experience and is not sentient or sapient. Emotion, reason, perception, and language could be seen as programs as well. Is it then possible for a computer to become human, and therefore know, if it is assigned the right program and the right amount of them. If it is programmed to have all the variables of human behaviour and capability, will self-awareness and the ability to know arise? As we do not have a universal definition of self-awareness, there is no correct answer.

However, self-awareness to me is to know that one exists. A self-aware being has to be able to say «I know». If a being is self-aware, it knows that it is a separate entity from all other beings. Self-awareness therefore means that the being has its own opinions, since the belief that «This is correct, and I know this because that is my belief» means that the being perceives itself as a separate being from all others. Opinions are abstract, in that they are ideas of the mind. Computers cannot think abstractly, since all flow of information in a computer consists of numbers, which are concrete. My point is, that since computers cannot think abstractly, it cannot have its own ideas since it does not have a subjective perception, its perception is what its programmer tells it to. Therefore, it cannot have opinions, and is not self-aware, and cannot say «I know», which means it cannot have knowledge.

There are many questions regarding computers knowing. In Ethics, for example, one could ask the question of whether it is right for a computer to know? Should human beings be the only known entity that can have knowledge? Another example is if a computer was self-aware and able to suffer. Would the Universal Declaration of Human Rights4 apply to the computer?

The problems with the question of whether machines can know are many, mostly language problems. The definitions of words such as knowledge and self-awareness are lacking and always critisised. A machine can be said to know, but that is mostly knowledge similar to a priori knowledge, which is knowledge independent of experience. To aquire a priori knowledge, it just needs a program that is programmed to repond to certain kinds of stimuli. In that sense, a computer knows that it is to execute a programming. But a computer is not self-aware, which means that it cannot achieve all types of knowledge. Areas of Knowledge it can be said to know are, for example Mathematics and maybe the mathematics of the Natural Sciences, and perhaps some calculation regarding measurements in the Arts. In regards to the Natural Sciences, in medicine and psychology, a program could diagnose patients by analysing tests and checking symptoms to a database. However, there are examples of AI that learns, for example in some video games, but then the code of the program is self-aware, not the computer itself. The computer executes, but does not know. Maybe if a computer was equipped with programs that were as many and as full of variables as all the capabilities of the human brain, self-awareness would arise, and it would be capable of knowing, but this has not been done as of 2007. A human is similar to a computer in regards to the basics of information processing, which is mostly electric signals and reactions to those signals. But the reactions are the difference, since ours can generate abstract meanings and concepts. There is not a computer with this ability yet. When it cannot believe that it knows, it cannot know. It also cannot have justified true belief. It can aquire a priori knowledge through language, it can reason, as seen with chess-playing computers that calculate a number of possibilities and decide which one is the best, and it can perceive. It can aquire knowledge through these Ways of Knowing, but it cannot know since it does not have self-awareness.




Bibliography:

«Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?», Available from the World Wide Web:
<URL: http://www.ditext.com/gettier/gettier.html> (Accessed 21st January 2007).

«Minds, Brains and Programs», Available from the World Wide Web:
<URL: http://www.bbsonline.org/documents/a/00/00/04/84/bbs00000484-00/bbs.searle2.html> (Accessed 21st January 2007).

«Psychologism and Behaviorism», Available from the World Wide Web:
<URL: http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/Psychologism.htm> (Accessed 20th January 2007).

«Minds, Machines and Searle 2: What's Right and wrong about The Chinese Room Argument», Available from the World Wide Web:
<URL: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad00.searle.html> (Accessed 20th January 2007).

«John Searle's Chinese Room Argument», Available from the World Wide Web:
<URL: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/chinese.html> (Accessed 20th January 2007).

«Computing Machinery And Intelligence», Available from the World Wide Web:
<URL: http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/TuringArticle.html> (Accessed 31st January 2007).

«Gettier Problems», Available from the World Wide Web:
<URL: http://philosophyonline.co.uk/tok/knowledge5.htm>
(Accessed 27th January 2007).

«Post 22», Available from the World Wide Web:
<URL: http://forum.darwinawards.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=6125&view=findpost&p=278245> (Accessed 21st January 2007).

«The Universal Declaration of Human Rights», Available from the World Wide Web:
<URL: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html> (Accessed 9th February 2007).
_________________
ENTPEEEEEEEEEEEEE, SCUEI, type 9... and stuff.

Thrusthamster's Youtubia

"Whoever finishes first, we'll call him the Ironman."

[Rocky]

[ABCD]

[ABCD]

Liked reading your essay, Erling.

[C.Beck]

Nice, thrusty. I don't like your opening sentence though, hahaha.
Your later comparison of a human and a robot constructed to be like a human akes it seem there is something lacking in the construction, as it might not aid the human but rather itself, as a human.
_________________
I Need To Prognosticate
5-9 r|C|uaI Scorpio Facilitator
"The sun to which my eyes could not adjust"
http://cognitionexpo.21.forumer.com/index.php

[lordofthefood1]

[Kastor]

God, I love writing essays. Especially when I get to express my opinion and complain
_________________
INFP 4w5
Will they come? I keep a friend serene
Will they come? Oh, baby, come unto me
Will they come? Well, she's come, been, and gone
Come out of the garden, baby, you'll catch a death in the fog
Young girls, they call them the Diamond Dogs