Philosophy of Humour

When learning about theatre back in high school, my drama teacher mentioned comedy arises from two basic principles:
1. It’s funny because it’s not me
2. It’s funny because it’s true

This has probably been said at one point, but I would like to offer a third principle for consideration:
3. It’s funny because it’s me

Why is this different than the second principle? While there may be some overlap, we often think of ourselves as separate from typical functions which determine truth values. Sure, we are able to run through a list of propositions about ourselves and can evaluate them like any other, but there is something more at play here.

Sometimes our feelings hint at things we aren’t ready to confront. Are you able to look yourself in the mirror and say “it is true that I am ___?” Maybe for certain characteristics this is easy, but others may be more difficult to admit. Our laughter, however, suggests we have understood some property about the world, and may be able to relate it to other things, perhaps to ourselves and others, in ways that are less explicit or unarticulated. We may feel amused for several reasons, one of which may include a certain level of meta-analysis. Perhaps deep down we are aware of one character trait we are not proud of but are able to recognize in a moment of leisure. This openness to information may allow ourselves to acknowledge aspects of our life or personality which we typically tend to hide or fix. Humour, especially reflexive humour, which turns the examination process back to oneself, can be therapeutic insofar as it allows us to understand ourselves without feeling the pressure to do anything about it. The first step to change is the recognition that something exists or must be better understood, and in this way, humour cracks the door to look at aspects of ourselves we wish to turn away from. The pleasure which accompanies laughter and humour allows us to relax and see through feelings of embarrassment or defensiveness.

Internet memes provide us with a way to laugh at ourselves and share our vulnerabilities with others. They serve as a reminder that we are human with troubles, flaws, and fears, but they also remind us that we are not alone. It’s easy to get wrapped up in our work, goals, and expectations as we compare ourselves with others and their accomplishments. As much as these aspects of life are important to some degree, we must always remember that the image others present to us is just a segment of their reality. Humour, especially when shared with others, reminds us to breathe; life is more than a to-do list of tasks.

There is a rich body of philosophical literature on humour that I have not yet had the pleasure of reading, but one day I will. As much as I would like to work on adding more to my Philosophy of Memes page, it’s a slow process because I should be focusing on school work! Until then, these considerations will be relatively uninformed and personal, and I look forward to rereading and laughing at my ramblings in 20 years from now.

The Waiting Game

Today is March 15, 2020 and this is just the beginning for North America. Luckily, I was given the green light to remain at home before the university moved online but I still don’t know whether I am carrying the virus or not, just like every other student. Even if symptoms don’t emerge in the next week, it is difficult to believe that I won’t become sick one day. While chances are low for my cohort, I’m not going to assume I am safe. At least now my worries are justified; two weeks ago I felt like I was losing my mind. To some degree I still feel this way, but the widespread lock-downs in Europe suggest M and I were on the right track this whole time. We wish we were wrong though.

I feel like I have a lot to say about this but the words won’t come. At this point, only music can describe how I’m feeling. Sorry, I don’t have a piece list yet, but I will sooner or later. Right now, it’s hard to concentrate on anything else but the virus and its impact. The struggle arises from attempts to cling to the old reality, the one where I was going to graduate in June or July, where I was going to see my grandparents again. The new reality, however, is very uncertain.

But you didn’t come here to hear about my feelings, I’m sure you’re here for my naive philosophical perspectives. Well, I’m going to give you all I got, and I think the only effective approach right now is through critical thinking and inquiry. Get ready, this is going to be a fucking bumpy ride.

Before we continue, make a promise to yourself right now: you will be honest with yourself to yourself. The only thing that might get you through this is your mindset. Granted, I am not a real philosopher, nor a therapist, nor a doctor, nor a leader. Take everything I say with a grain of salt, but I would like to offer some recommendations for others. Do not run from your mind. Listen to your thoughts, write them down, and counter them when appropriate. Find creative ways to keep yourself sane that does not involve television, internet, or Netflix. If you continue to lie to yourself, you put your life at risk.

The US is headed toward mass upheaval and violence. I don’t know about Canada, but I am becoming increasingly worried. They’re not acting because a) it’s technically too late and b) when it wasn’t, it didn’t seem appropriate. The minute this thing hit Iran the world should have halted all air travel, but isn’t that just the most hilarious wishful thinking. We are too entrenched in our economic system to do the right thing, and many have and will continue to suffer. You will be one of them unless you wake up right now and start identifying your priorities and the steps you ought to be taking to protect them.

In case you are still sceptical, let’s start brainstorming all the ways we are in existential trouble:

  • Potentially 14 days of asymptomatic transmission
  • Doesn’t play nicely with preexisting conditions
  • American healthcare systems + the overall health of the population
  • Just-in-time manufacturing, shipping, and selling
  • Dependency on other nations for producing materials or consumer goods, especially medicines
  • Cheap Saudi oil is undercutting Western outputs; Alberta is screwed
  • Russian soft power = disinformation
  • China’s influence in the UN Security Council and therefore the WHO

This is likely just the tip of the iceberg. Feel free to email me if you have a particularly hot take you’d like to add, and I will be sure to credit you.

Please be aware: the longer you wait to face this thing, the harder the slap on the face will be. Please also be aware that just because you’re ready to die, other’s aren’t ready for you to die. If you decide to give up, you’ll simply outsource the pain onto others. Never underestimate the impact you’ve made in someone’s life.

Dr. Vervaeke, I might never get the chance to mail you that card I wanted to. In case you ever read this, I want to thank you for your wisdom. In class years ago, you said the philosophy department at the University of Guelph was “going through a renaissance” and if you had never said that, I might not have ended up here. You introduced me to Diogenes and shed so much light on my theory of consciousness. Thank you, I hope we meet again. Your perspectives have made a huge difference for me and countless others I’m sure. Come to think of it, I could write acknowledgements for all my professors actually. If I get sick, I probably will.

Over the next couple of weeks, more people will be complaining about a lack of transparency, but turn the question back toward yourself. What are you failing to be transparent about? Why? Can you remedy it or will it cause the house of cards to fall? If this is the case, how many cards have you been stacking, and for how long? You can avoid these questions for now, but are you sure they won’t resurface when your body is incapacitated and your mind is free to roam?

I should be working on a rough draft of a paper right now but I can’t. I’m waiting for the bottom to fall out, for the riots to start, for the news of a dead family member. I know I’m early, this won’t be happening until April, so it will be a long and painful wait. I want to let go of our old reality so my mind can be congruent with the current, but when so many people are in denial it is difficult to do so. Additionally, this transition is slower than the speed of a thought, and like a tsunami, we’ll see it approaching long before the consequences impact our lives.

So how are we to deal with this anxiety? Breathing exercises aren’t enough, stashes of toilet paper can only quell your feelings to a certain degree, and optimism is like credit card debt. I stand and stare out the window at the river beneath me, wishing time would flow as fast as the current so I can be in a new place where things make more sense. That future, though, is going to be a nightmare, so as much as epistemic comfort is desired, it will come at a cost. The realization that those in power could have done more, that their money could have gone farther, that wrong decisions were made. Anxiety will harden into depression, depression will blister into rage, and rage will sublimate into regret. Be careful of your thoughts and behaviours over the next coming weeks, they will have a profound impact on your life and the lives of others.

Email me if you want to talk. A person I love dearly once said “the only thing we really have at the end of the day are other people” and we are about to lose a lot of them.

Why Science Needs Philosophy

My peers within the department often joke about life after university, considering the whole world seems to scoff at those interested in pursuing arts and humanities (A&H) degrees. This opinion piece by Laplace, however, is an important reminder of the value of our discipline, regardless of how much money we end up making in the future. As institutional funding is reallocated to support students pursuing more profitable degrees like computer science and engineering, A&H departments are likely to suffer, unable to hire new faculty and limiting course selection for example. Unless philosophers can market their skills to assist with projects from a variety of sectors, I don’t see how society will continue to support our endeavours, perspectives and concerns. Although notions of “anti-elitism” seem to continue to grow in the United States, perhaps Canada will challenge my pessimistic attitudes on this subject and find innovative ways to support their A&H graduates, but we will see. This suggests philosophers may need to do their own advocacy demonstrating the financial value of creativity and scepticism, especially within business, science, and technology. Consider this entry as my early attempts at convincing you, dear reader, that philosophy is much more than writing about central figures such as Kant, Aristotle, or Frege.

Although Laplane discusses many important points throughout, the end of the article is quite interesting as it suggests ways to foster the relationship between science and philosophy. Now, I’m not quite sure who said this to me, but they presented the idea that philosophy and science are able to discuss the same topic in different ways. While science may prefer ‘what’ questions, philosophy tends to ask ‘why’ and perhaps even ‘how’ concepts, principles, or processes emerge. Though this generalization may oversimplify the relationship between the two, I merely wanted to point out their approximate differences. Laplane herself states “…we see philosophy and science as located on a continuum.” (3950) which suggests both an overlap and a distinction in the questions each discipline asks. It is important to remember the common ground, in addition to the diversity in perspectives, between science and philosophy as we consider new ways to unite these two fields of inquiry.

While I agree with all six recommendations on page 3951, the fourth and fifth stood out to me as the most important especially when it comes to developing this program in the future. The marriage of science and philosophy can only be as good as its thinkers, where education serves a central role for this relationship to be harmonious and fruitful. From primary school to post secondary, it will become increasingly important to teach both arts and sciences of various types to foster the integration of the two. I say ‘arts’ rather than ‘philosophy’ because developing a love for the arts may inspire individuals in ways philosophy is unable. Artistic expression, regardless of medium, allows one to improve their sense of self, and when combined with educational goals, is likely to facilitate personal and professional growth more effectively than either alone. Whether it is sculpting, poetry, or dance, artistic expression provides mechanisms for new approaches within the sciences as one remains in touch with their creative side. Although it might be difficult to understand how theatre may inspire work in civil engineering, the human brain is quite powerful in its abilities to “fill in the blanks” and synthesize concepts, if the opportunity arises. Most exciting of all is how access to information via the internet and online relationships can further assist individuals in their efforts.

Returning to philosophy though, Laplane makes an important point about why philosophical inquiry is so appropriate for science. On page 3950 after the excerpt mentioned above, she states:

“Philosophy and science share the tools of logic, conceptual analysis, and rigorous argumentation. Yet philosophers can operate these tools with degrees of thoroughness, freedom, and theoretical abstraction that practicing researchers often cannot afford in their daily activities.”

It is exactly this freedom which inspired me to move away from studying psychology to studying philosophy of mind. Of course, too much of a good thing can lead one astray, which is why empirical evidence and the methodologies which produce it must never be overlooked by philosophers. The ability to defer to experts is a powerful bidirectional tool which carries so much potential for the future, and maybe one day those interested in A&H subjects will find their niche within capitalistic economies.

Works Cited

Laplane, Lucie, et al. “Opinion: Why science needs philosophy.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116.10 (2019): 3948-3952.

Democratic Privacy Reform

If you aren’t familiar with the issues surrounding personal data collection by corporate tech giants and online privacy, I recommend you flip through Amnesty International’s publication Surveillance Giants: How the Business Model of Google and Facebook Threatens Human Rights. I would also suggest reading A Contextual Approach to Privacy Online by Helen Nissenbaum if you are interested in further discussions on the future of data collection. Actually, even if you are familiar with these issues, read them anyway because they are very interesting and you may learn something new.

Both articles offer interesting suggestions for governments and corporations to ensure online privacy is protected, and it is clear top-down approaches are necessary for upholding human rights. Substantial effort will be required for full corporate compliance however, as both law and computer systems need updating to better respect user data. While these measures ensure ethical responsibilities are directed to the appropriate parties, a complementary bottom-up approach may be required as well. There is great potential for change if citizens were to engage with this issue and help one another better understand the importance of privacy. A democratic strategy for protecting online human rights is possible, but it seems quite demanding considering this work is ideally performed voluntarily. Additionally, I fear putting this approach into practice is an uphill epistemic battle; many individuals aren’t overly bothered by surveillance. Since the issue is complex and technological, it is difficult to understand resulting in little concern due to the lack of perceived threat. Thus, there will always be a market for the Internet of Things. Moreover, advertising revenue provides little incentive for corporations to respect user data, unless a vocal group of protesters is able to substantially threaten their public image. Enacting regulatory laws may be effective for addressing human rights issues but the conflict between governments and companies is likely to continue under the status quo. Consumers who enjoy these platforms and products face a moral dilemma: is this acceptable if society and democracy is negatively impacted? Can ethical considerations regarding economic externalities help answer this question? If not, are there other analogous ethical theories which may be appropriate for questions regarding the responsibilities of citizens? If activists and ethicists are interested in organizing information and materials for empowering voters and consumers, these challenges will need practical and digestible answers.

Works Cited

Amnesty International. Surveillance Giants: How the Business Model of Google and Facebook Threatens Human Rights. Research article, amnesty.org/en/documents/pol30/1404/2019/en/, 2019.

Nissenbaum, Helen. “A contextual approach to privacy online.” Daedalus 140.4 (2011): 32-48.

Epistemic Responsibility Today

Section 6 of Miller and Record’s Justified Belief in a Digital Age provides suggestions for responsible belief formation given the role and influence algorithms possess in today’s society. The notions they present, however, are vague and appear to be shortsighted. They suggest “subjects can use existing competencies for gaining information from traditional media such as newspapers to supplement internet-filtered information and therefore at least partly satisfy the responsibility to determine whether it is biased or incomplete” (130), except the nature of ‘traditional media’ (TM) has shifted. Since the widespread adoption of social media platforms and online news streaming, TM has seen an increase in competition as small and independent news websites are also shared between users. Importantly, expectations for endless novel content has pressured TM to keep up by increasingly producing editorials, commentary, and speculation. Pundits receive as much airtime as journalists due to the nature of consumer demand, subsequently influencing belief formation. The notion of political bias in TM is also a large concern, where journalistic integrity and credibility ranges drastically between companies. Additionally, TM is more likely to be subsumed under an umbrella corporation with an agenda of its own, whether political, financial, or religious. Deference to TM has always been associated with epistemic risks, and reasons to be sceptical of stories and information are growing as technology modifies our consumption habits.

Further down on page 130, it is recommended one explore outside their personalized feed by investigating others’ posting history: “Instead he can casually visit their Facebook profiles and see whether they have posted an interesting story that the automatically generated news feed missed.”. While this does improve chances of being exposed to diverse content, it is most effective when one reads the feeds of contrasting personalities. Close friends and family members may hold similar attitudes, values, or perspectives which do not adequately challenge one’s suspicions or beliefs. Opposing views, however, may not be justified or well-formed, and ‘opposing’ is open for interpretation. On page 131 the authors state: “… suggests, internet sites, such as political blogs, may refer their readers to alternative views, for example, by linking to opposing sites, out of a commitment to pluralism.” If this program were to be followed, it would suggest religious individuals with dogmatic beliefs are epistemically irresponsible. This may be an unexciting verdict to a philosopher, but it is difficult to determine whether this normative approach to belief formation is suitable for all humans.

Epistemic justification is complicated in the digital age, and it is unclear how much research is required to fulfill one’s epistemic responsibilities. If one stumbles across a scientific claim, it seems reasonable that one ought to determine whether the news headline matches the outcome of the study. Considering the replication crisis has further complicated this process, how much scientific scrutiny is required at this point? If a reader has an understanding of scientific methodology and access to the article, is it irresponsible if one does not examine the methods section? As ideal as epistemic responsibility seems, it might be unattainable due to the nature of the internet and human emotion. Our ability to access such a wealth of knowledge, even when curtailed by algorithms, generates an infinite regress of duties and uncertainty, a fact unlikely to sit well with the average voter.

Works Cited

Miller, Boaz, and Isaac Record. “Justified belief in a digital age: On the epistemic implications of secret Internet technologies.” Episteme 10.2 (2013): 117-134.

AI and the Responsibility Gap

This week we are talking about the responsibility gap that arises from deep learning systems. We read Mind the gap: responsible robotics and the problem of responsibility by David Gunkel along with Andreas Matthias’ article The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata.

It seems the mixture of excitement and fear surrounding the rise of autonomous agents may be the result of challenges to our intuitions on the distinction between objects and subjects. This new philosophical realm can be analyzed from a theoretical level, involving ontological and epistemological questions, but these issues can also be examined through a practical lens as well. Considering there may be a substantial amount of debate on the ontological status of various robots and AIs, it might be helpful to consider issues on morality and responsibility as separate to the theoretical questions, at least for now. The reason for this differentiation is to remain focused on protecting users and consumers as new applications of deep learning continue to modify our ontological foundations and daily life. Although legislative details will depend on the answers to theoretical questions to some degree, there may be existing approaches to determining responsibility that can be altered and adopted. Just as research and development firms are responsible for the outcomes of their products and testing procedures (Gunkel 12), AI companies too will likely shoulder the responsibility for unintended and unpredictable side-effects of their endeavours. The degree to which the organization can accurately determine the responsible individual(s) or components will be less straightforward than it may have been historically, but this is due to the complexity of the tools we are currently developing. We are no longer mere labourers using tools for improved efficiency (Gunkel 2); humans are generating technologies which are on the verge of possessing capacities for subjectivity. Even today, the relationship between a DCNN and its creators seems to have more in common with a child-parent relationship than an object-subject relationship. This implies companies are responsible for their products even when they misbehave, as the debacle surrounding Tay.ai demonstrates (Gunkel 5). It won’t be long, however, before we outgrow these concepts and our laws and regulations are challenged yet again. In spite of this, it is not in our best interest to wait until theoretical questions are answered before drafting policies aimed at protecting the public.

Works Cited

Gunkel, David J. “Mind the gap: responsible robotics and the problem of responsibility.” Ethics and Information Technology (2017): 1-14.

Is Opacity a Fundamental Property of Complex Systems?

While operational opacity generated by machine learning algorithms presents a wide range of problems for ethics and computer science (Burrell 10), one type in particular may be unavoidable due to the nature of complex processes. The physical underpinnings of functional systems may be difficult to understand because of the way data is stored and transmitted. Just as patterns of neural activity seem conceptually distant from first-person accounts of subjective experiences, the missing explanation for why or how a DCNN arrives at a particular decision may actually be a feature of the system rather than a bug. Systems capable of storing or processing large amounts of data may only be capable of doing so because of the way nested relationships are embedded in the structure. Furthermore, many of the human behaviours or capacities researchers are trying to understand and copy are both complex and emergent, making them difficult to fully trace back to the physical level of implementation. When we do, it often looks strange and quite chaotic. For example, molecular genetics suggests various combinations of nucleotides give rise to different types of cells and proteins, each with highly specialized and synergistic functions. Additionally, complex phenotypes like disease dispositions are typically the result of many interacting genotypic factors in conjunction with the presence of certain environmental variables. If it turns out to be the case that a degree of opacity is a necessary component of convoluted functionality, we may need to rethink our expectations of how ethics can inform the future of AI development.

Works Cited

Burrell, Jenna. “How the machine ‘thinks’: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms.” Big Data & Society 3.1 (2016).

Addiction by Design: Candy Crush et al.

For class this week, we read the first four chapters of Natasha Schull’s book Addition by Design. I think the goal was to consider the similarities and differences between slot machines and gaming applications on handheld devices.

While the two addictions are comparable despite their differences in gameplay format, apps like Candy Crush have found profitable solutions to their unique problems. Developers expect players to “leave their seats” as cellphone use generally orbits around other aspects of daily life. While “time on device” (58) is surely an important part of app design, creating incentives for users to return are also significant. Though this may be accomplished in a number of ways, a common strategy is to generate frequent notifications to both remind and seduce users back to their flow state (49). Overall, the approach may seem less inviting than sounds and lights but its ability to display explicit directions may be effective. Text has the ability to specify rewards if the user opens the app right then and there. A pay structure involving varying wait times may also push users to pay for the ability to return to “the zone” (2). This may take the form of watching an advertisement or being disallowed to play for intervals from an hour to a day, sufficiently frustrating users to pay to continue playing. Similarly to embedding ATMs in slot machines (72), app stores with saved credit card information allow developers to seamlessly lead users to the ‘purchase’ button, quickly increasing revenue. Financial transactions thinly disguised as a part of the game offer a new way to siphon money from vulnerable individuals, especially parents of children with access to connected devices. Additionally, gaming apps are typically weakly associated with physical money like bills and coins, unlike slot machines from mid 20th century (62), perhaps making it easier for consumers to pay without drawing their attention to the movement of money. This brief analysis suggests the nature of gambling is evolving by modifying existing modes of persuasion and adapting to new technological environments.

One large concern, however, arises from where this money goes; while governmental agencies oversee regulations (91) and collect revenue (5) to fund programs and projects, private companies simply collect capital. This carries severe implications for individuals, communities and economies as this alternative stream of income dries up. Therefore, it could be suggested that state and provincial legislators should consider addressing this issue sooner than later.

Works Cited

Schüll, Natasha Dow. Addiction by design: Machine gambling in Las Vegas. Princeton University Press, 2014.

Algorithmic Transparency and Social Power

This term I’m taking the course Science and Ethics, and this week we read Langdon Winner’s 1980 article “Do Artifacts have Politics?” along with a paper from 2016 published by Brent Daniel Mittelstadt and colleagues titled “The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate.” We are encouraged to do weekly responses, and considering the concerning nature of what these articles are discussing, thought it should be presented here. There is definitely a lot that could be expanded upon, which I might consider doing at a later time.

Overall, the two articles suggested risks of discriminatory outcomes are an aspect of technological advancements, especially when power imbalances are present or inherent. The paper The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate focused particularly on algorithmic design and its current lack of transparency (Mittelstadt 6). The authors mention how this is an epistemic concern, as developers are unable to determine how a decision is reached, which leads to normative problems. Algorithmic outcomes potentially generate discriminatory practices which may generalize and treat groups of people erroneously (Mittelstadt 5). Thus, given the elusive epistemic nature of current algorithmic design, individuals throughout the entire organization can truthfully claim ignorance of their own business practices. Some may take advantage of this fact. Today, corporations that manage to successfully integrate their software into the daily life of many millions of users have little incentive to change, due to shareholder desires for financial growth. Until the system which implicitly suggests companies can simply pay a fee, in the form of legal settlements outside of court, to act unethically, this problem is likely to continue to manifest. This indeed does not inspire confidence for the future of AI as we hand over our personal information to companies and governments (Mittelstadt 6).

Langdon Winner’s on whether artifacts have politics provides a compelling argument for the inherently political nature of our technological objects. While this paper may have been published in 1980, its wisdom and relevance can be readily applied to contemporary contexts. Internet memes even pick up on this parallel; one example poses as a message from Microsoft stating those who program open-source software are communists. While roles of leadership are required for many projects or organizations (Winner 130), inherently political technologies have the hierarchy of social functioning as part of their conceptual foundations, according to Winner (133). The point the author aims to stress surrounds technological effects which impede social functioning (Winner 131), a direction we have yet to move away from considering the events leading up to and following the 2016 American presidential election. If we don’t strive for better epistemic and normative transparency, we will be met with authoritarian outcomes. As neural networks continue to creep into various sectors of society, like law, healthcare, and education, ensuring the protection of individual rights remains at risk.

Works Cited

Mittelstadt, Brent Daniel, et al. “The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate.” Big Data & Society 3.2 (2016): 1-21.

Winner, Langdon. “Do artifacts have politics?.” Daedalus 109.1 (1980): 121-36.

Update: Phil of Bio

The University of Guelph has a Philosophy of Biology course and it was everything I was hoping it would be. Jointly taught by Dr. Stefan Linquist and Dr. Ryan Gregory, our focus on arguments surrounding epigenetics led many to agree there isn’t really a lot of new information. The book Extended heredity: a new understanding of inheritance and evolution turned out to be hilariously contradictory, as many of the concepts it presented can be easily explained by existing biological theories. I had an opportunity to receive feedback on ideas I have about Chalmers’ “bridging principles” and how biological processes produce subjective feelings. As I suspected, an incredible amount of work needs to be done to get these ideas together, but I have a direction now. The project is being placed on the back burner though and so is my attempt to work on consciousness at school. I’m not too worried, I’ll get to it later.

For now, I’m going to work on an argument for an upcoming need to reconsider our conception of robots and our relationships with them, particularly as they begin to resemble subjects rather than objects. There is a growing demand for robotic solutions within the realm of healthcare, suggesting certain functionality must be incorporated to achieve particular outcomes. Information processing related to social cues and contexts such as emotional expression will be important to uphold patient dignity and foster well-being. Investigating Kismet‘s architecture suggests cognition and emotion operate in tandem to orient agents toward goals and methods for obtaining them. The result of this functional setup, however, is it requires humans to treat Kismet like a biological organism, implying a weak sense of subjectivity. I’m also interested in considering objections to the subjectivity argument and reasons why our relationships with robots will remain relatively unchanged.

My original post on the philosophy of biology cited the entry from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which is authored Paul Griffiths. I learned earlier this term that Dr. Linquist studied under Dr. Griffiths, a fact that should not be surprising but is still quite exciting.

I’m looking forward to working on this project and the outcome of the feedback and learning, but I am going to get knocked down many levels over the next six months or so. I mean, that’s why I am here.

Works Cited

Bonduriansky, Russell, and Troy Day. Extended heredity: a new understanding of inheritance and evolution. Princeton University Press, 2018.