Philosophy 251: Visions of the Self

Post by Nov. 30th for credit for Post 13. This should be your last required post for the course! Any additional posts you make will be extra credit. As per the syllabus, you are still required to have 34 comments, and I’m going to hold you to that comment count, but you have until the Dec. 3rd at midnight to finish commenting and posting extra credit.

• Read Douglas Adam’s How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Internet, and respond to any of the points he makes.
• Does Wikipedia give us a special reason to be concerned? Why or why not?
• Discuss Lessig’s view of copyright policy as discussed in his lecture. What are his worries? Is Lessig’s solution adequate?
• Is Girl Talk’s music his own creation, or is he stealing the music of others? Why?
• Is Duchamp’s Fountain an original creative work? Are Flavin’s fluorescent pieces original works of art? What, if anything, is the difference?
• When you download, listen to, or remix music you are creating copies. What sort of restrictions should we be able to put on your ability to make these copies? To what extent are the original creators owed credit and control over your ability to reuse and appropriate these works?
• If Clark is right about the extended mind, then I am partly the copies I make, and the way I make these copies, and the way these copies extend and expand my influence and control over my environment. What might Clark say about copyright laws and policies? If we are natural born cyborgs, is it EVER ok to limit our ability to produce copies?
• [10 points extra credit] Watch RiP: A Remix Manifesto. Explain the main points of the documentary, and give it some critical analysis.
• Post any other thoughts you have on the Internet, copyright law, remixing, art, or anything else discussed this week.

During the last week of class I will return to the question of Artificial Intelligence in light of the discussion of technology we’ve had over the last few weeks, and I’ll give you my own views on the subject. I hope its fun!

Have a good break!,

Below the jump is your final assignment. Good luck! If you have any questions, post them in this thread.

Read the rest of this entry »

During class on thrusday, one thing that stood out to me the most was the idea of UAV’s. These are self-flying or driving vehicles. They have been rumored for being used during combat. I also believe that I heard our instructor mention that these vehicles have been used already.This made me think back to “The Great Robot Race.” I still find it hard to believe that these machines will be able to do things as well as we can. I want to read more on it to try to understand the reasoning behind having robots to do a job tat humans are doing very well to begin with. Also, the fact that those vehicles in the video could not function normally on their own would make me consider not trusting them in combat. The whole idea makes me very nervous to think about.

Clark believes that we all have an extended mind outside our body. Whatever we are in control of is where our mind is. This theory that Clark poses creates a few questions that need to be answered. Clark runs into the problem of individuation. When does something become a new work and is no longer just part of the extended mind of another person. When something is endorsed, we identify it as being part of ourselves. Many things are then endorsed by the human brain and become part of the extended brain. The problem arises when more than one person shares part of their extended brain. Who declares ownership of this piece outside of each of them?

This relates back to the previous discussions in class about copy right laws. Clark would argue that copy right laws should not be in place, because it is part of our extended brain. Clark puts emphasis on the ownership that people have to things outside of themselves. What happens when more than one person claims ownership to the same piece of art work or music that contains similar materials.

To solve this problem in class, we discussed the concept of “we”. We are all responsible for things created. It is hard to trace back the origins of many things to find the one lone creator. Often that isn’t the case, such as in Wikipedia, where millions of people can claim ownership to the website by being authors. We were also faced with the problem of responsibility when looking at broader things, such as the war in Iraq.

I believe that Americans are responsible for what is going on in Iraq. Not only are the ones that voted responsible, but those that didn’t as well. Choosing not to vote is allowing for whatever happens to happen an accepting the consequences that arise from it. People who voted against the current president are also responsible, because by voting, they acknowledge the order of events, that there candidate might not win and therefore they must accept defeat. Whether or not the person we wanted to win was selected, he was still selected to make decisions for the American people. I believe we therefore have somewhat responsibility for people being killed in Iraq. I think it is ignorant to wash our hands of and be pretend to distant from the entire happenings.

In yesterday’s class we talked about everything we had learned throughout the semester. It was really interesting to me to see how everything we have learned and talked about has tied together. One particular part of the discussion that really interested me was the part about Obama’s speech and the different views that people had about it. The main point of the speech was whether or not we as the American public are responsible for Obama sending more troops to Afghanistan and for the war in general. I believe that as the American public and the way our democratic system works, we are responsible for choosing our leader and the decision he makes. It doesn’t matter how you look at it, we are a united country and what our leaders do and their actions reflect on us. I can understand that people would disagree with this because they feel that since they didn’t vote for Obama that it doesn’t reflect them or their opinions. I will say I did not vote for Obama, but I still feel that his actions reflect how people in other countries look at Americans as people and as a country. It’s especially hard if you did not vote for him to say that his actions are representing you or your country, but we are a United States and we rely on our leaders to represent us. Like I stated in class, if terrorist were going to attack again, they would not pick out just certain people who are against the war and not target them. They would target our whole country as a whole. I don’t think it should matter who is running our country because we are very lucky to live in the country we do and should always stand by it.

I think overall this class has taught me to be a lot more open minded and to think outside the box. It was very interesting to see how you can connect philosophy into our everyday lives. How something such as remixing music to make it your own can be thought of in a very philosophical way.

Yesterday in class many interesting topics were discussed.  We discussed the idea of endorsement and individuation.  The concept of endorsement relates to that of identification.  For example, if an artist puts their name on a song, they claim it as their own property and believe they have certain rights over it.   Individuation raises the question: When is something an original act?  From Descartes’ perspective, we identify with what we are conscious of.  According to Descartes this would ultimately mean our minds.  With Clark, however, individuation becomes very tricky because he believes that our minds are expanded out beyond the confines of our body.   Thus, according to Clark, we all share existence.  If we all share existence, then we should all also share responsibility for our combined actions.  The example of Obama’s decision to send some 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan got brought up in class.  If we all share an existence, like Clark says, then we must all be responsible for our actions overseas.  Although we are a democracy, and it was therefore the people of the US that voted Obama into office, I do not think that every US citizen should be held responsible for the deaths that occur resulting from war in the Middle East.  Even though I voted for Obama, I do not think that I should be held responsible for the decisions that are made regarding Afghanistan.  Because there was so much negative public opinion that occurred after Obama’s speech on Afghanistan, the public should not be held accountable for these decisions.  Obama and those who have advised him to send troops to Afghanistan should be the ones held responsible.

The last class was a heavy load that tied together a lot of material we learned in past lectures.  The main point that was made, was how copyright laws tie into the rest of the course.  Going back to Clark, it was said tha Clark’s extended mind project requires endorsement and that identification in very clear.  It is clear in a way that you simply “sign your name on it.”  An example was given in class about Britany Spears.  Her and her producers, etc put her name on the C.D. In other words, they “endorse”it.  It is theirs.  Like a few lectures ago, we also brought up that “The internet is ours” and that the governent does not own it.  It is in this way that we share existence and that we are responsible for our technology.  We all share the responsibility of what gets put on the internet.  It was also mentioned in class about whether or not we were responsible for our president’s actions. If we voted for him, does that mean we are resoponsible for his decision to send over another 30,000 troops to Afganistan?  I know that it is much more complicated than this  but my feelings are that if you voted for Obama than maybe yes the responsibility is shared among you and if you did not vote for him, you are in the clear.

We also briefly talked about UAV (Unmanned autonomous vehicles.)  THese are self driving cars or fighter jet planes, etc.  I found something Dan said in class really interesting and I had no idea we were this far along with this area, but on October 2008, I believe he said that these self flying planes accumulated 500,000 hours of combat flight!  I just thought that was very neat to hear.  Dan also told us that Artificial inteligence is not about making ‘thinking things’, but about integrating machines into the collective. Latour says the more humans and non-humans share existance, the more humane the collective is.

In today’s discussion, the topic of Individuation was brought up.  When does something become our own?  Over the course of the semester we discussed many things, and one was about the art by Duchamp.  Was his urinal “his own”? Many people had different views on the subject, but today we talked brought up Clark. He says that so much of what we identify with is out in the world.  This is interesting to me.  Maybe nothing in this life is original anymore.  As a graphic design major, we are always encouraged to be creative and to come up with new ideas, yet we are taught history ideas that we should use.  Even when someone does make their own design piece, many times it can be traced back to someone else’s influence on them. This world we live in has been done before. Dan gave the example today that while we make posts on the website, those ideas had to come from somewhere else first.  We don’t just create our own information. We looked at someones post and he said that her post was an assembly of many different pieces of information from either class, internet, or books. Who we are depends on other people’s ideas.  This couldn’t be more true. Clark said that the world is our extended mind.  Our small brains can’t handle all the information that is available.  That’s why he said that we use things like phones, notebooks etc to recall things.  We as humans aren’t physically capable of storing all that data.  I think we can all agree that everything in life has been taken from something else.

I really enjoyed this class, and the talks about the internet and how it has changed us, was exciting to me.  I definitely have a broader understanding on the subject of philosophy and I’m glad i took this course.

In today’s class I liked how Dan was wrapping everything up from the semester.  I believe that everyone is responsible for what they put out there on the internet.  We are all responsible for our technology.  We sign our name to it and receive credit.  Just like we do in class with posting blogs on the internet.  The topic that I did find interesting was if a soldier kills someone overseas are we as citizens individually responsible for that murder.  I am kind of on the fence about it because I don’t think I am responsible I am not in the war or overseas nor do I support the way.  This is  my country though and I am an American so there is some sense of responsibility.  I wish Dan would have told us more about what he believes and who he agrees with.  All in all this is probably one of the most interesting classes I have ever taken that has made me think.

Today in class we incorporated how everything we’ve been learning thus far relates to our recent dissection of copyright and that it can fit into two categories: the endorsement and the individuate. Clark is on the endorsement side, which is a way of identification and how we receive credit. When we sign our name to something, we are endorsing it and we have protected rights under copyright laws for this. Individuation, an anti-Clark idea, poses that we as individuals make up a collaborative effort. We are all responsible for our technology, and who we are depends on our resources, which we share. We share the same existence. The problem Clark has with this view is the matter of if we can differentiate what is personal and individual, and what is shared in our collaborative existence.

We were then asked “how much should we individually bear responsibility for Obama sending more troops to Afghanistan?” From afar, we are grouped together as the U.S and we are viewed as responsible for Obama’s actions because we voted for him. I don’t think we should individually bear responsibility for what is happening overseas because it is impossible for everyone to have relative viewpoints. It’s easy for another country to group us as one viewpoint though. We are stereotyped as material obsessed, obese, and bloodthirsty. When I travel to another country and communicate where I’m from, there’s a preconceived assumption that takes place because of what my country has done and represents.

I think it’s interesting how machines and A.I. come into play with this. AI is not about making “thinking machines”, but rather integrating machines into the collective, our collaborative existence. We talked about Google and how it is a language user that participates and shares with us. As Latour stated, “The more humans and non humans share existence, the more humane the collective is.” This means that the more humans and machines depend on each other’s efforts and share the same language, knowledge, and resources, the more human-like they seem as whole. As Dan said in class, this is a manipulation of the external environment for cooperation and coordination, so ultimately technology can work with us as part of the collaborative effort.

Today in class we discussed quite a few profound topics. We discussed artificial intelligence, and how we have created a machine that can control its own behavior. The advances that have been made with regards to technology are astounding, and it is beginning to scare people in some ways. Many people believe that the machines are still under our control and that we tell them what to do and they follow us. They are not self governing minds, like humans.

Another topic was about responsibility. We share in the risk of having stuff and information on the internet, and we share the existence of the technology we have created. Yet one topic that caught my interest was how responsible are we for what happens overseas? The war is escalating again with the increase of 30,000 men and woman being deployed to Afghanistan in the next couple of months. This brings me back to moral responsibility, and the judgment of whether we are blame or praise worthy. We are only responsible if we acted freely, and with the free will of holding people responsible for their actions. What warrants or conditions who is correctly responsible? I believe that it is both blame and praise worthy in the situation of the war. We deserve blame for allowing the situation to escalate the way that it has, and by enabling it to continue escalating. However, it is praise worthy the way that the troops have handled the situation and how sooner or later the conflict will be resolved, or at lease shut down for the time being.

Everything that has been discussed in this class has somehow affected me, or been something I have considered. The copyright laws, moral responsibility, even the living of an examined life. Things change, and this class has helped me to realize certain things are out of my control, yet there are something’s that should always be questioned.

A few weeks ago we were discussing egoism, and there was one form that really stood out to me. Psychological egoism states that we always do act in our own self interest. Many people may think that they are acting if favor of the greater good, when in fact, they are acting in their own self interest. It is difficult to think of anyone simply acting only for other people, when there is always a reason, or rational that they are thinking of themselves. Another point is that we are not always moral. Sometimes what we do may feel right, however, it is not the moral thing to do in the situation.

People also owe it to themselves to be authentic, meaning to be your own person, and to be true to yourself. Integrity is the key to being authentic. This definition ties into discussions we have recently had because Girl Talk is being authentic, and true to himself, yet he is receiving criticism for doing so. He is making remixes using other people’s music and turning it into something completely different and mashing it together with other music. It is a new and authentic piece of music, but he is being hounded by the copyright laws saying that he stole the music.

It is difficult for me to believe that he is doing anything wrong when it is said that we owe it to ourselves to be new and original with our work. The creativity he displays is one of a kind, and something that we have never heard before. Girl Talk’s remixes are fun to listen to, yet just downloading and listen to one is entirely illegal. It does not make sense to me that creativity is being flattened simply because the music industry is looking for money and they feel cheated because someone else not a part of the industry is more popular then themselves.