3/1/2013 Meaning Like We Mean It

by Benny Mattis

       An inspection of the multiple facets of Searle's "Chinese Room" argument against the possibility of Strong Artificial Intelligence reveals that his thought experiment fails to show a relevant difference between the intentionality of a human being and the operations of a digital computer.  Searle argues that digital computers are incapable of semantic understanding, and thus lack mentality resembling our own; I will show that digital computers do have semantic understanding and may in additional respects have mentality resembling our own.

2/22/2013 Stoic Space

by Benny Mattis

The Stoics of ancient Greece were known for their corporealist metaphysics--the Stoics held that only bodies existed, bodies being characterized by extension and resistance (or 'capacity to act or be acted upon').  However, while bodies were the only thing that existed for the Stoics, there were also incorporeals, namely, place, time, void and lekta (or "sayables;" Vanessa de Harven likens these to "the meanings of our words"), which merely subsisted, yet, as proper objects of discourse, were not quite nothing and respectively considered "Something" in the Stoic metaphysical framework.

"Place" and "Void" are distinct incorporeal entities, but a common conception interprets the evidence we have from the Stoics as indicating that "Place" is space occupied by a body, whereas "Void" is space that is empty.  For the Stoics, for whom the world is a void-less continuum, Void is that which is outside the world (in modern terms, what lies beyond the edge of the universe of causally potent bodies).

But what lies outside the universe?  More specifically, how might various Stoics have answered this question?  Some interpret the Stoic void as stretching to infinity, like empty space with no matter as we conceive it; a less orthodox view indicates that the Void may have been neither infinite nor finite, but merely indeterminate or undefined.  This week, we will discuss which of these conceptions of void are more plausible, whether that was actually what the Stoics may have thought, and what implications these theories would have on one's view of the universe as a whole (or, as the Stoics called it, "The All").

One Love, Many Parts

by Benny Mattis

        Are you in a romantic relationship with someone? Do you feel that caress of the transcendent, that pain of desire between the rapturous encounters to which your otherwise-unoccupied hours are inevitably dedicated? Is this beloved similarly enchanted by a divinized vision of your own otherwise-ordinary ways of being? If the reader does, in fact, partake of the ancient mystery that is wild Romance, I have only one request this Valentine's Day: Do not spend any time alone together on February 14th.

        St. Valentine's Day is usually designated as a celebration of what C.S. Lewis called Eros, or romantic love (distinct from mere sexual appetite), in The Four Loves. But should not every day be a celebration of romance, between those who share it? Indeed, an avalanche of popular songs and screenplays make it nearly impossible not to see just how grand life might be with the right kind of person by your side. Valentine's Day, as it stands, resembles a spotlight set up to illuminate the Sun itself, functioning primarily in blinding those who remain earthbound (by telling singles that they are not as happy as they might be) and absurdly implying that the Sun needs artificial illumination in the first place (as if romance were actually enhanced by the reduction of its gifts, one day out of the year, to the status of mere custom). Valentine's day is missing something, namely, love itself.

        This Valentine's Day, I suggest celebrating not Eros necessarily, but rather love, as such. There is more to love than the specific subtype Eros. There are also, most notably, friendship and charity; I think these loves ought to be considered just as important as Eros on the upcoming holiday. Thus, I suggest those enthralled by romance might best celebrate by taking a break and chilling with some old friends. For those who already spend their free time 'bro-ing out on the Xbox, Valentine's Day might be well-celebrated by making some extra time to help at a soup kitchen or the like. Finally, the champion of human solidarity may find rejuvenation in temporary shared secession (with friends or a romantic interest) from the active struggle for social justice.

        "Blasphemy!" cries the stubborn romantic. Well, okay, maybe nobody will take me that seriously. In any case, have no fear: this suggestion is by no means an attempt to foist that dreaded "Puritanism" upon an unsuspecting readership. On the contrary, I hope that the passions excited by this experiment might strengthen the various manifestations of Eros on this campus into such that they will support and be supported by the other types of love. If you were overwhelmed by the passion of sharing yourself with a beloved, imagine how the sparks will fly when the two of you share that newfound energy, through friendship and charity, with the communities you find yourselves in! This goes for the Friends and champions of solidarity, too: How can you fully enjoy chilling with your 'bros (a term which has evolved into gender-neutrality in my own circles), if they don't allow you some away-time to pursue that person of interest in your Chemistry class? How can you truly love "humanity" if you treat the individual humans around you as mere means to an end (however well-intentioned that end may be)? Aristotle suggested that there was a "Unity of the Virtues": no given particular virtue can be attained without allowing the totality of the remaining virtues to develop as well. Maybe this Valentine's Day can be spent in recognition of the unity of the loves.

2/15/2013 Modern Hedonism

by Kyle VanderWerf

What does modern American society value? I believe the answer is “pleasure.” This Friday, I will present my theory that the majority of modern Americans are hedonists, and therefore value pleasure above all else. I will back this up with evidence given by social status, marketing techniques, and governments' attempts to measure so-called “quality of life.” Then you all can argue with the validity of my theory, discuss the logical conclusion of such a society, and decide whether or not structuring a society hedonistically is a good thing.

This discussion will be held on Friday, February 15, at 4:30 PM in Campus Center room 903.