tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619743764213415433.post1285979944131688189..comments2023-11-03T07:07:55.456-05:00Comments on CoPhilosophy: When science goes too far, and man “kills God”Philhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02115141650963300011noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619743764213415433.post-69316768019278745062015-02-26T14:39:33.594-06:002015-02-26T14:39:33.594-06:00In my part of the presentation, I explore the conc...In my part of the presentation, I explore the concept of God in science fiction. I do not go into the concept of an actual higher power as much, however, as I do the idea of man attempting to become a god through advances in science and through recreating life. In Frankenstein, for instance, Dr. Frankenstein tells himself that his dogged pursuit of creating life will yield insurmountable advances in science, and that it will ultimately benefit mankind. He will be this creature’s creator—its god. I explore how Nietzsche’s theory of the Ubermensch applies to Dr. Frankenstein, and how Dr. Frankenstein does not necessarily think of himself as better than others, but he does, however, make the huge decision to try to create a new species without considering the moral implications of doing so. His excessive arrogance is what makes him the ubermensch, or overman; he thinks that his scientific “breakthrough” will affect history indefinitely, and this idea makes him a sort of false “overman.” In science fiction, it is almost a trope that man gets too cocky and tries too hard to be in control of the laws of nature, and it almost always backfires. Man tries to be his own god, and this backfires. I then explain that science is a way for people to find out the truth about nature, and science fiction is a way for man to pretend that he can control it. Science does not, however, yield answers about the divine, as there is no definite tangible evidence of a higher power. The next thing in my part of the presentation is a video that explains that the type of god that science fiction wants is a god that can explain the laws of nature—a god that fits into those laws. Since there is no conclusive tangible evidence of a higher power, I explore not only the way that man tries to be a god and take control of nature—which could possibly reflect mankind’s insecurities and his fear that he cannot do so—and how man creates gods. Man creates gods by inventing advanced technology that usually, in science fiction, takes on a mind of its own. This technology, though it often has its own personalities like in Star Wars and Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, as well as video games such as Portal, can become a god to mankind. The supercomputer in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy has the capacity to take on philosophical questions and determine the meaning of life. This computer is revered as a god in many aspects. GLaDOS, from the video game Portal, is meant to guide the player’s actions and advance the plot of the game, but is not overtly regarded as a god. However, as the game progresses it becomes more and more evident that GLaDOS is a malevolent force and that she has more control over your life and the outcome of your actions than you once thought. GLaDOS is thus a god in her own right, based on her abilities. This concludes my portion of the project.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12984697125982341406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619743764213415433.post-72025713155537705202015-02-26T12:09:50.946-06:002015-02-26T12:09:50.946-06:00Group: Holly Aslinger, Rebecca Clippard, Jeffrey L...Group: Holly Aslinger, Rebecca Clippard, Jeffrey LaPorte, Victoria Lay<br />section H01Victoria Layhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00751521499663970172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619743764213415433.post-88632299235302386842015-02-26T08:00:17.147-06:002015-02-26T08:00:17.147-06:00Philosophy in Science Fiction: Artificial Intellig...Philosophy in Science Fiction: Artificial Intelligence<br />Artificial intelligence technology has not caught up with movies and literature, but I am focusing on the science fiction aspect of AI. Think iconic figures such as Wall-E, Hal 9000, and astroboy. Can such created, artificial intelligence have souls? Are they capable of emotions? Souls are difficult to pinpoint scientifically. Even for humans. Lobotomies cut away central parts of the brain and take away a person’s personality but perhaps that is the function and motor aspects and not the soul itself? Computers and robots also have physical parts that, if taken away would inhibit their functions. Some argue that animals do not have souls, but robots are not animal, plant or mineral. Nor would we consider them human. But movies give robots emotions. Wall-E is the most straightforward example but the robot from the movie Bicentennial Man, and even Hal 9000 from 2001 A Space Odyssey exhibit wishes and desires not normally associated with modern robotic technology. Wall-E’s curiosity leads him to discover his likes and dislikes. He forms opinions and shows emotions even as he has limited human interaction. Human create robots. If robots are capable of emotions, even if we cannot prove they have a soul, this places humans in an interesting position. We would have created created a new form of life, making us god-like in ability. Does this place too much power into human hands? At the same time humans gain this ability, we lose it. Humans create machines as a solution to human problems. Wall-E was originally created to clean up the planet, to help get rid of our pollution. And he’s not the only one. There is Hal 9000, the mega computer Colossus from the book series by the same name, and the robots from I,robot (not the movie, the book. which you should all read). When we want computers to take care of us, to have abilities we do not, this leads to robots stepping the human-created bounds. And this makes sense. If you program intelligent robots to protect humans, as happens in I,robot then they begin to protect humans against themselves. Spoiler: Robots are quietly allowed to take over human’s power. Thus is the pattern when intelligent robots have a large population, they tend to act aggressively. If there were a million astroboys would they try and rescue humans from themselves, as they would perceive it? A more modern interpretation is not the inevitable robot apocalypse, but the idea of coexistence. Wall-E and friends save the humans and together they want to rebuild the Earth (spoiler again, sorry). But how would humans coexist with robots, who can do so much more than they can? If robots can think and are capable of genuine emotion and can think faster than humans, would they become the dominant species? Thus far, science fiction has stayed away from the ideas of robots as a species because they lack key life requirements. They cannot reproduce and do not metabolize. But if these were somehow solved without explanation, as often happens in science fiction, you might get worlds that contain similar technology but are populated by robots...or cars. Rebecca Clippardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619743764213415433.post-31615198957553789512015-02-25T23:15:31.316-06:002015-02-25T23:15:31.316-06:00Jeffrey LaPorte
Honors philosophy
Group members: H...Jeffrey LaPorte<br />Honors philosophy<br />Group members: Holly Aslinger, Rebecca Clippard, Victoria Lay<br />Our Groups is analyzing the philosophical concepts explored in science fiction. My specific area is different visions of the future and what they say about our modern belief in societies direction and the nature of humanity as a whole. Some works of science fiction show a bright future for mankind. Technology cures all our ills and people of all sexes, races, and religions live together in sleek chrome colored comfort and harmony. Some examples of this kind of future are found in A Brave New World, The Foundation Trilogy and most famously Gen Roddenberry’s Star Trek. In the midst of the Cold War, when the whole world was divided ideologically and always preparing for conflict he envisioned a future built around exploration and science. This represents a belief that man is fundamentally good and that all our current problems are merely bumps in the rode to developing the perfect society that is the inevitable result of our advancement. However it is far more common for science fiction to portray a bleak destiny for humanity. Stories like Blade Runner, Snowpeircer and a seemingly endless stream of dystopian Y.A. fiction novels depict a world where humanities penchant for selfishness and laziness has led to the destruction of our planet and endangered our species. This apocalypse is more adaptable then its utopian counterpart and its varied forms can hold many different messages and statements about the nature of our existence. In works like Firefly, and Interstellar the earth is destroyed by ecological catastrophe but man survives by packing up and taking to the stars. Though this represents a belief that mankind is fundamentally shortsighted and selfish it also shows a sliver of hope in the belief that we will save ourselves through ingenuity and that our destiny is to leave behind the cradle of Earth and pursue our destiny among the stars. A much darker prediction of the future shows humanity who failed to escape and is left struggling to survive amidst the remnants of a destroyed earth. Examples of these post apocalyptic works include The Road, The Book of Eli, and pretty much every zombie franchise ever created. These works exemplify Thomas Hobbes idea of the state of nature where life is “nasty, brutish and short”. In post apocalyptic settings when all government institutions and societal trappings have been disposed of most people are revealed to be self-serving animals. The strong prey upon the week and humanity is shown to be truly savage in nature. Finally there is the currently most popular of imagined futures, the totalitarian dystopia. In works such as 1984, The Hunger Games, and its host of spinoffs (Maze Runner, Divergent et al.) the future is controlled by a manipulative ironfisted government that brutally oppresses it’s citizens. These works show a total opposition for Machiavellian political philosophy for even though these villains’ actions may be necessary for the preservation of society in the post apocalyptic conditions there actions are wrong based on some inherent morality with little basis outside of what the protagonist and creator believe to be right. Our view of the future can tell us a lot about what we really think about mankind and the true inner nature of us all so perhaps we should all consider “Were do you think we are going?”<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com