Design Arguments</h1> <article> <h1>Design Arguments</h1> <p>Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000</p> <h1 id="design-arguments"> Design Arguments <a class="anchor" href="#design-arguments">#</a> </h1> <h1 id="question-why-are-we-here-is-there-a-reason"> Question: Why are we here? (Is there a reason?) <a class="anchor" href="#question-why-are-we-here-is-there-a-reason">#</a> </h1> <h2 id="1-teleological-explanation"> 1. Teleological Explanation <a class="anchor" href="#1-teleological-explanation">#</a> </h2> <ul> <li>God created the world</li> <li>Appeal to intentions/desires of an agent (God)</li> </ul> <h2 id="design-arguments-logical-explanation-of-existence-of-god"> Design Arguments: logical explanation of existence of God <a class="anchor" href="#design-arguments-logical-explanation-of-existence-of-god">#</a> </h2> <p>i) There is no scientific explanation to our existence. ii) The explanation must be teleological. iii) There must exist a God.</p> <ul> <li>Biological complexity</li> <li>Fine-tuning: how was the universe arranged in a perfect way to support life?</li> <li>Cosmological argument: stuff exists. Why tho</li> </ul> <h2 id="2-scientific-explanation"> 2. Scientific Explanation <a class="anchor" href="#2-scientific-explanation">#</a> </h2> <ul> <li>no higher agent</li> <li>natural/random occurrences</li> </ul> <h1 id="the-cosmological-argument"> The Cosmological Argument <a class="anchor" href="#the-cosmological-argument">#</a> </h1> <h2 id="q-why-do-i-exist"> Q: Why do I exist? <a class="anchor" href="#q-why-do-i-exist">#</a> </h2> <ul> <li>an event must have occurred. (Parents) <ul> <li>Why do parents exist? (Grandparents) <ul> <li>…. <ul> <li><strong>Brute Event</strong>: the original event that caused this chain of events to come into existence</li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> </ul> <p>The Cosmological Argument suggests that the Brute Event causing the universe to exist <em>explains itself</em>. It <em>must have</em> occurred (not random). This event must be <strong>God</strong>.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Fine Tuning Argument</h1> <p>Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000</p> <h1 id="the-fine-tuning-argument"> The Fine Tuning Argument <a class="anchor" href="#the-fine-tuning-argument">#</a> </h1> <ul> <li>The Universe is dependent on very exact values of constants</li> <li>If they were changed even a little bit, life (or the Universe itself) wouldn’t exist</li> </ul> <p>“a very fine tuning” is required to support life!</p> <h2 id="the-argument"> The Argument <a class="anchor" href="#the-argument">#</a> </h2> <ul> <li>The chance of all these parameters being exactly right is extremely unlikely by chance</li> <li>It is more likely that a designer intentionally set these parameters</li> </ul> <p>O = Constants: Physical constants support life. H1 = Design: Constants set by creator H2 = Naturalism: Brute chance of constants being this way</p> </article> <article> <h1>Hume's Problem of Induction</h1> <p>Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000</p> <h1 id="scientism"> Scientism <a class="anchor" href="#scientism">#</a> </h1> <p>Science delivers objective and value-free knowledge about a wholly material world.</p> <ul> <li>independent of individual perspectives</li> <li>questioned — is it even possible to have purely objective information?</li> </ul> <h1 id="the-principle-of-independence"> The Principle of Independence <a class="anchor" href="#the-principle-of-independence">#</a> </h1> <ul> <li>In order to satisfy our own confidence in the accuracy of information, we require an independent <strong>check</strong> to corroborate the information. <ul> <li>ideally, this independent check would be done by ourselves</li> </ul> </li> <li>For many cases, such a check is difficult or impossible <ul> <li>who do we trust then?</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <h2 id="belief-forming-methods"> Belief-Forming Methods <a class="anchor" href="#belief-forming-methods">#</a> </h2> <p>Many different ways to form beliefs about the world: examples —</p> </article> <article> <h1>Natural Kinds</h1> <p>Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000</p> <h1 id="natural-kinds"> Natural Kinds <a class="anchor" href="#natural-kinds">#</a> </h1> <ul> <li> <p>Argument: there exists a division between groups defined by nature. Some categorizations are better than others.</p> <ul> <li>ex. gold, pyrite should be in different groups</li> </ul> </li> <li> <p>Counterargument (Goodman): all groups are defined by language and matter of taste. All distinctions are equally valid.</p> </li> <li> <p>Example of a “natural kind”: species</p> </li> <li> <p>Realism: natural kinds are very sparse and defined by nature (independent of human thought) ← Franklin-Hall</p> </li> <li> <p>Anti-realism: natural kinds are defined by human nature/culture ← Goodman</p> </article> <article> <h1>Scientific Realism</h1> <p>Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000</p> <h1 id="scientific-realism"> Scientific Realism <a class="anchor" href="#scientific-realism">#</a> </h1> <h1 id="scientific-realism-science-aims-to-give-a-literally-true-understanding-of-the-world"> Scientific Realism: Science aims to give a literally true understanding of the world <a class="anchor" href="#scientific-realism-science-aims-to-give-a-literally-true-understanding-of-the-world">#</a> </h1> <ul> <li>science ⇒ discoveries, not inventions</li> <li>acceptance of theory = belief that it is true</li> <li>postulated entities exist, even if they cannot be observed directly (quarks…)</li> </ul> <h1 id="scientific-anti-realism"> Scientific Anti-Realism <a class="anchor" href="#scientific-anti-realism">#</a> </h1> <h2 id="different-types"> Different Types: <a class="anchor" href="#different-types">#</a> </h2> <ul> <li><strong>Instrumentalism</strong>: to propose a theory is not to say it is correct, but that it is <em>useful</em></li> <li><strong>Constructive Empiricism</strong>: to propose a theory is to say it is <em>empirically adequate</em> <ul> <li>↳ true about all <em>observable</em> things</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <p><em>distinction between realism and anti-realism</em></p> </article> <article> <h1>Epistemic Catastrophe</h1> <p>Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000</p> <h1 id="epistemic-catastrophe"> Epistemic Catastrophe <a class="anchor" href="#epistemic-catastrophe">#</a> </h1> <ul> <li>Belief forming methods systematically mislead us and are therefore unreliable</li> <li>Stronger argument than Hume’s Problem</li> </ul> <h1 id="example-in-natural-selection"> Example in Natural Selection <a class="anchor" href="#example-in-natural-selection">#</a> </h1> <p>R = our cognitive faculties are reliable N = naturalism (not created by God) E = our faculties are the product of natural selection</p> <h2 id="question-what-is-pr--n--e"> Question: what is P(R | N & E)? <a class="anchor" href="#question-what-is-pr--n--e">#</a> </h2> <h2 id="argument-the-probability-of-reliability-given-naturalism-is-true-is-very-low-plantinga"> Argument: the probability of reliability given naturalism is true is very low. (Plantinga) <a class="anchor" href="#argument-the-probability-of-reliability-given-naturalism-is-true-is-very-low-plantinga">#</a> </h2> <ul> <li>Behaviors are derived from a collection of beliefs, desires</li> <li>Natural selection only cares for behaviors — not underlying causes</li> <li>Natural selection thus can produce unreliable belief forming methods as long as they produce the right behaviors <ul> <li>ex: belief that sun rises/sets rather than Earth rotating</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <h2 id="additionally"> Additionally: <a class="anchor" href="#additionally">#</a> </h2> <ul> <li>We use cognitive faculties to determine the theory E. <ul> <li>E is an unreliable belief.</li> <li>Cognitive instability: it is impossible to believe a theory that suggests that our belief forming methods are unreliable.</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <h1 id="defeaters"> Defeaters <a class="anchor" href="#defeaters">#</a> </h1> <p>Definition: anything that weakens/refutes an argument</p> </article> <article> <h1>Statistical Mechanics</h1> <p>Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000</p> <h1 id="statistical-mechanics"> Statistical Mechanics <a class="anchor" href="#statistical-mechanics">#</a> </h1> <h1 id="origins-thermodynamics"> Origins: Thermodynamics <a class="anchor" href="#origins-thermodynamics">#</a> </h1> <ul> <li>Second Law of Thermodynamics: Entropy is unlikely to decrease over time <ul> <li>Systems tend toward states of high entropy</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <h1 id="main-idea-the-micro-physical-explanation"> Main idea: the micro-physical explanation <a class="anchor" href="#main-idea-the-micro-physical-explanation">#</a> </h1> <ul> <li>macro-state = observable state of a system</li> <li>micro-state = microscopic, exact particles that comprise a system</li> </ul> <p>There are many possible micro-states that result in a given macro-state.</p> <p>It is very likely that any micro-state tends towards a higher entropy macro-state.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Values</h1> <p>Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000</p> <h1 id="values"> Values <a class="anchor" href="#values">#</a> </h1> <p>Monday, March 30, 2020 — 11:19 AM</p> <h1 id="science-and-values"> Science and Values <a class="anchor" href="#science-and-values">#</a> </h1> <p>Scientism: science produces objective, value-free knowledge.</p> <p>Challenged by: epistemic relativism, scientific realism/anti-realism</p> <p>Ways values could influence science:</p> <ul> <li>choosing what to research</li> <li>how we gather evidence (cherry picking, etc.)</li> <li>how we come to conclusions/theories</li> <li>how we disseminate (share) our knowledge</li> <li>beneficial — values help us decide what is valuable knowledge to society</li> <li>challenges scientism — suggests science is influenced by values</li> </ul> <p>Value-free ideal: scientists should minimize the influence of values on these two contention points</p> </article> <article> <h1>Ethics of Artificial Intelligence</h1> <p>Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000</p> <h1 id="artificial-intelligence-the-third-revolution"> Artificial Intelligence: the Third Revolution <a class="anchor" href="#artificial-intelligence-the-third-revolution">#</a> </h1> <h1 id="transhumanism-using-technology-to-enhance-human-capacity"> Transhumanism: Using technology to enhance human capacity <a class="anchor" href="#transhumanism-using-technology-to-enhance-human-capacity">#</a> </h1> <h2 id="example-replicate-vision-processing-in-brain-with-external-computer"> example: replicate vision processing in brain with external computer <a class="anchor" href="#example-replicate-vision-processing-in-brain-with-external-computer">#</a> </h2> <ul> <li>would render our biological processes inferior/unnecessary</li> <li>able to improve/upgrade over time</li> </ul> <p>Eventually, we may have replaced <strong>all</strong> cognitive processes with computer-based systems (mind uploading)</p> <h2 id="question-would-this-computer-then-have-a-mind"> Question: Would this computer then have a “mind”? <a class="anchor" href="#question-would-this-computer-then-have-a-mind">#</a> </h2> <ul> <li>not the same as having identical inputs/outputs as a human</li> <li>would it genuinely have human perception, or does it merely pretend?</li> </ul> <h2 id="substrate-independence"> Substrate independence: <a class="anchor" href="#substrate-independence">#</a> </h2> <p>An object has this property if it can be made out of a broad class of substrates (materials)</p> </article> </main></body></html>