Abstract The paper relates that John Searle developed his Chinese room argument in response to some of those who argue that strong artificial intelligence is possible. As will be shown, the Chinese room argument was a thought experiment that appeared to constitute a good argument against the possibility of strong artificial intelligence. The paper shows how it was a sufficiently good argument that many people have been provoked to present counter-arguments in an attempt to rebut Searle's argument. In the paper, the Systems Reply will be considered, as it is proposed that this is the strongest reply to date.
A critique of the logic of Jerry Mander's book, "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television," based on Patrick J. Hurley's book, "A Concise Introduction to Logic."
Abstract This paper discusses Jerry Mander's book, "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television." The paper specifically critiques the logic of Mander's offering using Patrick J. Hurley's book, "A Concise Introduction to Logic." It describes Hurley's discussions regarding the understanding of logic and then applies this to various sections of Mander's book.
From the Paper "Before launching into his four arguments, Mander asks readers to believe (47) that the four are linked together because "they deal with aspects of television that are not reformable." So the reader is now set up to believe that notwithstanding the logic or lack of logic in the material to follow, there is no way out of this disastrous medium, and so the society is basically doomed, driven to its knees. Readers may as well learn why there is no way out. Indeed, in Mander's world, there is no light at the end of the tunnel - only the flickering light from the tube that the whole society is mesmerized by."
This paper critically analyzes George Berkeley's first argument against the existence of matter presented in "A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge."
2,220 words (approx. 8.9 pages), 0 sources, 2002, $ 68.95
Abstract In this paper, the writer critically examines Berkeley's first line of argument against the existence of matter that he presents in "A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge". This argument is frequently called "the Perception Argument" and is his first attempt to more firmly establish his central thesis of existence being tied into perception. The paper thoroughly explains the argument and presents Berkeley's responses to the most immediate objections that come up to it (the objections that are actually addressed in the text of his treatise). The writer also examines briefly how Berkeley's argument serves to contradict arguments regarding material substance made by Locke in "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding". The paper then offers a more robust objection to Berkeley's Perception Argument that attacks some key assumptions that the argument clearly relies on, specifically those regarding relationships between matter and ideas that Berkeley clearly assumes do not exist. The objection is furthered by examining the sections where Berkeley assumes that matter does exist in an attempt to show that such an assumption involves manifest contradictions.
From the Paper " Over the course of reading A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, it becomes evident that Berkeley is not so much trying to convince the reader of a certain opinion of the nature of the world and our perception of it as much as he is trying to present his actual, everyday perception of the world and his existence in it. Berkeley repeatedly says things like, "Some truths there are so near and obvious to the mind, that a man need only open his eyes to see them," (?6) that suggest the intuitive obviousness that he sees in his doctrine. Frequently, a tone of frustration comes through in his writing - especially in the sections dealing with possible objections to his theory (?34-84) - illustrative of the difficulty he must have been feeling in trying to get everyone else to see what was so damn obvious to him. As such, many of Berkeley's arguments in support of his particular fundamental beliefs seem to be afterthoughts of their respective conclusions. His vision of the nature of existence being grounded in "esse is percipi" (?3) is so strong that he does not always seem to be too concerned with the particular logic behind his supporting arguments. This is especially true when it comes to his arguments denying the existence of matter. In this paper, I will argue that, while Berkeley's conclusion regarding the non-existence of matter is quite profound, his actual arguments for this conclusion do not sufficiently verify it. To do this, I will examine the first argument Berkeley makes against the existence of matter, the so-called "Perception Argument." I will argue that this argument relies heavily on a fallacious line of reasoning about the nature of matter and the inability of matter to cause ideas in us. I will then examine several passages in Principles that support the idea that Berkeley's belief that matter does not exist is grounded largely in his - or anyone else's - inability to really define what matter is. "
This paper critiques the design argument based on arguments from William Paley's "The Watch and the Watchmaker" and David Hume's "A Critique of the Design Argument".
Abstract This essay critiques the design argument, as explained in both William Paley's "The Watch and the Watchmaker" and in David Hume's "A Critique of the Design Argument". This paper also explains the features of the design argument and evaluates the argument in order to critique it. The author follows Hume in suggesting that the design argument is ultimately a failure due to the massive egocentricity inherent in assuming that God can be understood through an analogy to the human mind.
From the Paper "The reason I have been rather pedantic in deconstructing Paley's analogy is twofold. Firstly, we have the problem of Darwin's theory of evolution. That is to say, the theory that explains that the mechanism or process that makes things fit is intrinsic to the system of nature itself. If you wish, Darwin's theory of evolution is akin to showing that the watch really does produce the watch and is the only creator thereof. Whether Darwin believed that God made it so or not is irrelevant--the point is that God can be taken out of evolution and the underlying principle of nature shown to be merely survival, and the survival of those traits which help us survive. Naturally, this system creates something which looks like it has been designed--because we have adapted to our environments, not because we have been created alongside our environments as a system always already in perfect harmony. Again, I am not concerned to argue that this is so--but this is merely an instance of the observer coming upon the watch and having no knowledge of the manufacturing processes involved in the production of mechanical objects, assumes that this watch is something which just exists, with no thought or evidence of processes that were involved in making it, because his lack of understanding of the need for those processes means he doesn't recognize them. Paley's argument is that we know something has been designed, because we recognize that the process by which it is constructed is one that requires thought--by I am suggesting that, when it comes to nature, we cannot know what the process is that is required to construct it, and therefore we cannot arrive at any certain deduction as to its having been designed by the method Paley describes. In fact, as I have shown, the only theory that describes the process (of evolution and survival) that creates, or recreates, nature is one that does not need to rely on design--at least not in any sense which we can understand, which brings me to my second criticism of Paley's analogy."
Tags: God, human mind, religion, egocentricity theology
Abstract This paper examines how in the book, "Phaedo", Plato argues that the human being is spiritual and offers a series of arguments that illustrate that human beings are not just material beings, but have a spiritual component in the form of an immortal soul. It looks at how one of the arguments in this work is known as the "recollection argument." The argument is described, then followed with a critical analysis that questions its validity. In conclusion, a new position on the argument is analyzed, which offers a suitable alternative to Plato's theory and illustrates that the "recollection argument" is not valid evidence that there is a soul that exists before birth.
From the Paper "Another problem is that Plato does not provide evidence for the idea of recollection as a whole. For example, Plato says that recollection is recalling something that has been previously known. However, not everything an individual experiences is based on recollection. A person who sees a hat for the first time, may not recall anything based on viewing the hat. Instead, they acquire knowledge from the experience of seeing a hat. Therefore, experiencing something is a means of acquiring knowledge. The problem in Plato's argument is that he does not make a case for why developing values cannot be based on experience. For example, he asserts that individuals are born with a sense of 'absolute beauty' which is used to determine the level of beauty of a scene or an individual."
Abstract This essay will focus on a claim of value within the structure of Annette T. Rottenberg's style of argument with her book entitled "Elements of Argument". By analyzing a claim to value in an objective projected by a business, we can use these arguments to achieve a greater understanding of how a value can be projected onto an item and convincingly revealed. Value can be determined by the way that is presented in Toulmin' system of argumentation through the scope of a business writer like Rottenberg. The essay will cover her methods-via the Toulmin System- and seek to uncover a value claim within its perimeters.
Abstract The writer of this paper shows how Anselm (1033-1109), philosopher, theologian and church leader presented an argument for the existence of God that has been debated by philosophers and academicians for centuries. The paper shows that from the beginning, Anselm's argument has been met with criticism, appreciation and interest by philosophers such as Kant, Descartes and Spinoza. The writer is of the opinion that, after studying the argument, although interesting, it has certain basic flaws, which he attempts to bring out in this paper.
From the Paper "While analyzing Anselm's argument and focusing on its weaknesses, the obvious question arises: Why has the argument fascinated so many philosophers over the years, if it was such a weak argument? The answer probably is that it is difficult to prove Anselm's argument wrong logically. Even Kant's argument that ? existence is not a predicate? has been challenged by others who have argued that there are senses in which existence is a predicate. So the controversy of and fascination with Anselm's argument is far from over and is likely to continue."
Tags: Book, on, Behalf, of, the, Fool, Lost, Island, Proslogium, Gaunilo, Liebniz, RAA
Abstract This paper discusses how a great deal of human communication is in the nature of argumentation and how in this day and age the "speech" that is going on on Web sites is also in the nature of (rhetorical) argument. It examines two different websites that make argumentative claims that the author was inclined to reject to help to determine the strength and persuasiveness of those claims. The first site is the Jeb Bush gubernatorial re-elections site and it evaluates how election sites are in many ways the quintessence of argumentative speech because the stakes are so high and the second site is that of Pepsi site to see if the author could be swayed to drink Pepsi.
From the Paper "In asking what would constitute a good web-based argument for this candidacy, the answer would be one that supplied enough substantive coverage of the governor in a sufficiently balanced way that I would want to vote for him if I lived in Florida. This means that while the rhetoric should be persuasive it should not seem forced ? or so positive that it seems false.
The rhetoric on this site lacks that sense of balance. For example: The homepage of the site has a number of different options, such as "Women for Jeb", "Hispanics for Jeb", "Seniors for Jeb". I find it hard to believe that people actually think of themselves in this way. The Web site's categorization of people into convenient, poll-oriented demographics makes the campaign seem soulless and calculating, surely not the intention of the Bush advisors."
Abstract This paper first outlines Descartes? argument for the existence of God as set forth in Meditation V. The writer then addresses the two most prominent objections to this argument: First, Kant's objection that Descartes' argument is valid but unsound because it contains a false premise, and second, Caterus? objection that the argument is invalid because the conclusion does not logically follow the premises.
From the Paper "Having established that clear and distinct perceptions are true, Descartes then asserts that he has a clear and distinct perception of God. ?Clearly the idea of God, that is, the idea of a supremely perfect being, is one I discover to be no less within me than the idea of any figure or number.? (M., 368) Additionally, this perception of God includes the concept of existence. ?It is obvious to anyone who pays close attention that existence can no more be separated from God's essence than [a triangle] having three angles equal to two right angles, or that the idea of a valley can be separated from the idea of a mountain.? (M., 369) Descartes then combines this concept with his first premise to complete the argument. Since clear and distinct perceptions about the nature of a thing are true, and the idea of existence is inextricably linked with the idea of a God, Descartes concludes that a God must therefore exist."
Abstract This paper argues that Descartes' "Trademark Argument" can only be a sound argument if all the premises are true leading to a true conclusion; thereby, all the premises must be 100% true and there is no argument within an argument. The author points out that there is a problem in the first premise because Descartes says he has this idea of a perfect being but he doesn't mention anything else besides the fact that he has this idea of something perfect. The paper contends that Descartes' actually trying to prove that there is a God is just ridiculous because the author feels that God's existence is supposed to be based on a belief system; there are many religions held by many types of people in the world, and every religion seems to have their own God and own story behind how the world became into existence.
From the Paper "The first thing Descartes said in his argument was, "I have an idea of a perfect being." Well his perfect being he is referring to is supposed to be God. Since Descartes' whole goal of this argument is to prove the existence of God, this was probably a good start to the argument. He kept it simple, and short without too many details. Once he had this idea, he probably might have been thinking how this idea came to him, which brings up the next premise in his argument."
Abstract This essay looks at the argument for the existence of God, by arguing against Kant's criticism of the Anselmian Ontological Argument in favor of God. It details the Ontological Argument, noting the definitions of the priori, a posteriori, necessary and contingent propositions. It then looks at how Kant built on Aquinas' proofs of the existence of God, and refutation of Anselm's proofs, but then how Kant's criticism fails through his inconclusive argument that God must not exist in order to exist.
From the Paper "A Criticism of the Ontological Argument for God The Ontological Argument was formulated by Saint Anselm (1033 - 1109), the future Archbishop of Canterbury. He made the influential "A Priori" argument in favor of the existence of God. This argument would later be famously rejected by Saint Thomas Aquinas (c. 1224 - 1274), an accomplished theologian and philosopher, who rejected Anselms' argument with a five point "A Posteriori" argument in favor of God. It would be later Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804) who would launch one of the strongest critiques of Anselm's ontological argument, by arguing that existence is not actually a property of existing things."
Abstract This paper critically analyzes the teleological argument, which is an argument based on the idea that the universe is too complicated to have been created by accident and so must have had a creator. The paper describes the basis for this argument and then presents the problems that are inherent in it and concludes that the argument is flawed.
From the Paper "A second problem with the teleological argument is based on the idea that design and purpose are linked. In Natural Theology, William Paley used the example of a watch to show how design and purpose are linked. He stated that a watch serves a specific purpose and has been designed with that purpose in mind. This shows intelligent design. This analogy is then applied to life and the universe and used to conclude that life must have been designed intelligently since everything created serves a purpose. Paley made this argument by stating that "every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater and more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation." The problem with this argument is that there is no certainty that things are intentionally created with a certain purpose. In the case of a watch, it is created for the purpose of creating time. However, this is not necessarily true of the creations of the universe. Consider a simple example such as the creation of a tomato. The teleological argument would state that because a tomato is used for food, it must have been created for the purpose of providing others with a food source. However, it could also be said that a tomato is used as a food source because it is good to eat. This second view is based on the idea that created items are used for the purpose to which they are suited. This does not mean that they had to be designed for this purpose and so intelligent design is not necessary. Instead, one could argue that whatever is accidentally created is used for the purpose to which it is suited. In this way, the fact that something serves a purpose is not proof that it was designed for that purpose and so intelligent design is not a certainty."
This essay deals with the issue of how relevance is established for an inductive argument, and how this process can be encouraged and supported based on an argument given by Patrick Hurley in his paper, "A Concise Introduction to Logic".
Abstract The author of this paper presents an analysis of inductive reasoning based on Patrick Hurley's text on the terms "necessary" and "sufficient". The author states that it should be somewhat easier to demonstrate relevance for an inductive argument, as the association to be established is not as strong as in deductive reasoning. Also, based on criteria established in this paper,the author asserts that, in order to establish relevance in an inductive argument, one must establish that the criterion being argued for is a necessary condition. However, the author asserts that in order to support establishing relevance for an inductive argument, one should insist that each premise be rigorously examined to ascertain whether it is in fact necessary.
From the Paper "In Hurley's terms, we might say that what we need to establish relevance for an inductive argument would be to show that the stipulated criterion was a necessary condition. However, because we are only trying to show a probable connection, we do not need to show that the criteria was a sufficient condition, nor do we need to establish that it is relevant by showing that it is a sufficient and necessary condition. In Hurley's terms, what is necessary to evaluate the strength of an argument is to know 'whether the probability of the conclusion rests upon the evidence given in the premises' (Hurley 379). What Hurley is really saying here is that the strength of an inductive argument rests partly on the relevance of its conditions."
Abstract This paper examines Descartes dualist thesis that mind and body are different things and his "Conceivability Argument" in his Meditations on First Philosophy. The conceivability argument uses one's ability to conceive of a mind without a body as a proof that mind and body are necessarily different things. The writer provides an objection to this argument from the point of view of an Identity Theorist, who believes that mind and body are in fact the exact same thing. The objection takes the meaning-reference distinction approach that states that mind and body essentially refer to the same thing but mean different things.
From the Paper "One of the central pieces of Descartes' dualist thesis is his conceivability argument, which attempts to establish that mind and body are necessarily different types of things. As it provides grounds for substantiating that mind and body are distinct, this argument also serves as the backbone of a prominent objection to the claims proposed by the simple identity theory. The identity theory makes the claim that all types of mental states and experiences are equivalent to types of brain states or other physical states. This clearly conflicts directly with the dualist's view of an independently existing mind that is responsible for the realization of mental states and experiences regardless of the existence of any corresponding physical entity to go with them. As such, the dualist must have significant objections to the identity theory. One such challenge to the identity theory is well summed by a single claim: "I can imagine myself turned to stone, and yet having images, aches, pains and so on." In this paper I will first demonstrate how an objection to the identity theory centered on this claim can be constructed. I will demonstrate how this objection is quite similar in nature to Descartes' conceivability argument, which will necessitate a brief explanation of Descartes' argument. I will then offer a response from the identity theorist to this objection, which will rely on the relationship between "concept" and "meaning" and the distinction between meaning and reference. In presenting this reply, I will show that this response to the dualist's objection also works against Descartes' conceivability argument."
Abstract A definition of an ontological argument is provided - to show that God exists without appealing to any real proof. The paper then introduces Middles Ages Saint Anselm's proposed ontological argument whereby he stated that the thought of God would not exist in the human mind if the potentiality for God's presence were not already embedded in the human mind.
From the Paper "The basics of the ontological argument are: God is defined as the being in which none greater is possible. It is true that the notion of God exists in the understanding and in reality, meaning in the mind and as a possible being. If God exists only in the mind and may have existed in reality, then God might have been greater than He is. But if God is a being in which none greater is possible, then it is not possible for God to have existed only in the mind. The conclusion is that God must exist in reality, as well."
