Week 6
Some philosophers, including John Searle, say that computers are not really intelligent. Rather, they just simulate intelligence. However, it could be argued that, just as computers are programmed to respond in different ways to different commands, so human beings are 'programmed' by society, and education, to perform certain tasks. For example, we are programmed to do complicated things like speak a language, as well as more simply things like brush our teeth.
What are your thoughts on this comparison? Is there any difference between the programming of computers, and the 'programming' of humans by society?

When I first read about this comparison I thought that it was a little extreme. How can you compare a computer to a human being? Plus a human being has the freedom to choose if they want to fallow the rules of society or not. But thinking about now I noticed that we are not that free. We have some choices in our lives that makes us think that we have the freedom to choose anything we want to do, but we can’t forget that we have some choices that are given to us giving us an illusion that we have the freedom that we actually don’t have because we have limits and bounds( I was reading a little about Spinoza). And I have to agree that God is the only “one” that can be free. Once that my approach to this comparison was freedom, based on this I think that I have to agree that we are just like the computers, more or less.

Dualism and Physicalism
Should we, as human beings, think of ourselves as made out of two different substances, like Decartes argued? Or are you persuaded by the arguments of physicalism that we are purely physical beings?
If you agree with Descartes, how would you explain the fact that our mental life seems to be very closely connected to a physical organ, namely the brain. If you agree with physicalism, how do you explain the fact that our mental life seems to be like nothing else in the physical world (think of how unique something like consciousness is, for example).
Write your thoughts on these issues

I agree with Descartes argument by saying that we should think of ourselves as made out of two different substances. Even though the physical part takes a big in this discussion I think that there is something else besides the “physical or material components” that make us humans. If was just genetics how would we explain identical twins where one is schizophrenic and the other one is normal? How about homosexuals? It is such a delicate subject but how can we argue that as being just physicalist? We just can’t. I believe the there is an essence in every human being that make us who we are.

Question for Week 4
Pragmatism and Feminist Epistemology both challenge the view of knowledge as a detached, intellectual activity. Do you think they are right? How do you think we should think about knowledge? Now that we have concluded the section on epistemology, write about what kind of thing you think knowledge is.

This is a very complex subject, so complex that philosophers still discussing today. We all have our on opinion about knowledge but I kind of agree with the pragmatism view of knowledge as a detached, intellectual activity.
Even though the feminist Epistemology critiques the concept of gender towards men and the way they influenced the conception of philosophical knowledge I liked the pragmatism view better. For example, on page 157 the author says that there is no division “between the knower and the world, and if any of our ideas are mistaken, our experience will reveal those mistake to us.” That’s something that we all had experienced some times in our lives and this kind of experience reassures what pragmatism says about knowledge.
I believe that pragmatism deals with knowledge in a way that the average people can deal and relate with. I can see that when “Dewey called his version of pragmatism “instrumentalism”, because he viewed ideas and beliefs (which for me means knowledge) as instruments for dealing with the situations we face in life.” With that statement I understood knowledge in a very simple(r) way.