Question A:
In a sense, I agree with Peikoff when he says that there is no such thing as a collective brain. In a slightly smaller sense, I might disagree with him. I think that there is no such thing as a collective brain because individual people make up groups; therefore everyone in the group may have a different channel of thought. I think that I disagree with his opinion, as well, for the simple fact that everyone must come to a common opinion and make a final decision; therefore the group is making a choice. There are many people in a society that try to be non-conformist, while in their efforts, they are really doing the exact opposite. On a psychological level, non-conformists try to be different than what they expect other people to be; therefore a group of non-conformists might all think the same thing, in hope that no one else shares their opinion. Because of this, non-conformists might not really exist, because they are all hoping for the same thing. While there are people in a society who are more concerned about putting out their opinion and their thoughts, there are also people who only want to fit in with the majority of the group. The psychological side of this situation reflects in the final decisions of a group, known as collective decisions. I don't really think that these types of decisions exist, for the simple reason that not everyone could have the exact same opinion about a choice made using group effort.
I don't think that Peikoff's opinion would have changed if he would have known how advanced technology would become, because I think that some of our highest levels of technology don't really affect the way we think. Although technology makes many things more convenient, it does not affect our moral opinions of situations. I do not think that anything could become a collective brain, because collectivity consists of individual opinions. IF a super source of intelligence had access to all of the knowledge in the world, I might be typing a completely different blog. Things would be different, IF that were possible. If there was a source of intelligence that had every piece of knowledge in the world, no one would have to worry about anything. The source wouldn't really have to strategize, because everything would be available to it. It would respond to changes in the best possible way- with efficiency and accuracy. It would know EVERYTHING. We cannot associate this sort of super power with human intelligence, because it is impossible for anything lower that "super". Computers do not have brains of their own, they simply record information and programs that are put into them, and allow access to those programs use. Computers cannot think for themselves- everything takes place in a system that has been programmed into them. Computers could not replace human intelligence, because human intelligence is needed to create and upkeep a computer. Nothing could have access to all of the knowledge in the world, but if anything did, then it could be considered a collective resource.
Question B:
In Rand's philosophy, she was referring the possibilities that individuals can accomplish, but groups cannot. In example, she was talking about individual thoughts, opinions, and perceptions. Individuals can accomplish their dreams, hopes, and goals, where groups can only accomplish group effort projects. Groups cannot have individual hopes, because then the group could never be on the same page. Individuals can live up to these things simply because individuals have individual thoughts, hopes, and decisions. Groups must combine everything, and not everything is one person's aspirations. Rand looked at men and saw individual people, with original thoughts and actions, working together, but independently at the same time.
Question C:
I disagree that Rand attacks the "ideals of the sacred," but I do agree that Rand attacks the general idea of religion. She doesn't so much talk about what is wrong with different religions, but the idea of believing in a religion. People do not need religion to have morals, because religion does not control what people think, or how they make decisions. Although a choice can be affected by the morals of a religion, people can have those morals without having a religion. I personally know this, because I am Atheist and I have morals. I know many people that are part of the Christian religion, who have no morals at all, but claim to be fine because all they have to do is "ask for forgiveness." People think that a lack of religion can cause immorality, and in some instances, they could be right. The absence of religion does not necessarily imply the absence of morals, but the implication of religion can imply morals that were not there to begin with. I do not think that religion effects how a person can survive, because in that sense, many things just come into science. Religion may affect the way a person thinks, or acts, but it cannot effect how you think if you know nothing of it. I know many things about Christianity, but that does not imply, in any way, that I am a Christian. Religion does not effect the development of morals, because I grew up without the prescience of religion. I learned about Christianity when I was older, but that does not effect what I see as right and wrong.
In a sense, I agree with Peikoff when he says that there is no such thing as a collective brain. In a slightly smaller sense, I might disagree with him. I think that there is no such thing as a collective brain because individual people make up groups; therefore everyone in the group may have a different channel of thought. I think that I disagree with his opinion, as well, for the simple fact that everyone must come to a common opinion and make a final decision; therefore the group is making a choice. There are many people in a society that try to be non-conformist, while in their efforts, they are really doing the exact opposite. On a psychological level, non-conformists try to be different than what they expect other people to be; therefore a group of non-conformists might all think the same thing, in hope that no one else shares their opinion. Because of this, non-conformists might not really exist, because they are all hoping for the same thing. While there are people in a society who are more concerned about putting out their opinion and their thoughts, there are also people who only want to fit in with the majority of the group. The psychological side of this situation reflects in the final decisions of a group, known as collective decisions. I don't really think that these types of decisions exist, for the simple reason that not everyone could have the exact same opinion about a choice made using group effort.
I don't think that Peikoff's opinion would have changed if he would have known how advanced technology would become, because I think that some of our highest levels of technology don't really affect the way we think. Although technology makes many things more convenient, it does not affect our moral opinions of situations. I do not think that anything could become a collective brain, because collectivity consists of individual opinions. IF a super source of intelligence had access to all of the knowledge in the world, I might be typing a completely different blog. Things would be different, IF that were possible. If there was a source of intelligence that had every piece of knowledge in the world, no one would have to worry about anything. The source wouldn't really have to strategize, because everything would be available to it. It would respond to changes in the best possible way- with efficiency and accuracy. It would know EVERYTHING. We cannot associate this sort of super power with human intelligence, because it is impossible for anything lower that "super". Computers do not have brains of their own, they simply record information and programs that are put into them, and allow access to those programs use. Computers cannot think for themselves- everything takes place in a system that has been programmed into them. Computers could not replace human intelligence, because human intelligence is needed to create and upkeep a computer. Nothing could have access to all of the knowledge in the world, but if anything did, then it could be considered a collective resource.
Question B:
In Rand's philosophy, she was referring the possibilities that individuals can accomplish, but groups cannot. In example, she was talking about individual thoughts, opinions, and perceptions. Individuals can accomplish their dreams, hopes, and goals, where groups can only accomplish group effort projects. Groups cannot have individual hopes, because then the group could never be on the same page. Individuals can live up to these things simply because individuals have individual thoughts, hopes, and decisions. Groups must combine everything, and not everything is one person's aspirations. Rand looked at men and saw individual people, with original thoughts and actions, working together, but independently at the same time.
Question C:
I disagree that Rand attacks the "ideals of the sacred," but I do agree that Rand attacks the general idea of religion. She doesn't so much talk about what is wrong with different religions, but the idea of believing in a religion. People do not need religion to have morals, because religion does not control what people think, or how they make decisions. Although a choice can be affected by the morals of a religion, people can have those morals without having a religion. I personally know this, because I am Atheist and I have morals. I know many people that are part of the Christian religion, who have no morals at all, but claim to be fine because all they have to do is "ask for forgiveness." People think that a lack of religion can cause immorality, and in some instances, they could be right. The absence of religion does not necessarily imply the absence of morals, but the implication of religion can imply morals that were not there to begin with. I do not think that religion effects how a person can survive, because in that sense, many things just come into science. Religion may affect the way a person thinks, or acts, but it cannot effect how you think if you know nothing of it. I know many things about Christianity, but that does not imply, in any way, that I am a Christian. Religion does not effect the development of morals, because I grew up without the prescience of religion. I learned about Christianity when I was older, but that does not effect what I see as right and wrong.
2 comments:
I agree with your opinion in question C. Religion doesn't make you have morals; your conscious does. You are also right about some Christian people, but they are too ignorant to understand that in order to receive forgiveness, one must try their best not to do something that can be unforgiveable. I am Christian, and I see this too often myself.
I disagree with your thoughts on a collective brain because if you look at my post you'll see that I think of a collective brain as a metaphor that does exist in the form of brains coming together toward a common goal.
I do agree with your idea that internet would not change anything because it doesn't change how we.
But I can't help but be skeptical at the thought that computers are just lifeless entities. Who's to say that computers really can't think? I consider computers to simply be smaller versions of our brains. Our brains hold a lot of information, billions and billions of bytes in computer speech, and we cannot always think of something as quickly as we'd like to. But think about it. A computer takes a longer time to unlock information when there are many megabytes to sort through.
And who's to say that computers don't think? What they lack is a consciousness, but what is consciousness anyway? Who's to say that we will never gain this consciousness in the future. I don't know, but I don't see why it's not possible.
Post a Comment