Her

answer the questions

Which activities are performed by Theodore and not by OS1? 
Feeling because the OS1 is just a physicalistic thing, all real can be watch and touch, feelings can not be watch or touch, the intelligence is through cabless and circuitry, touch can be made by sensor , but reacted with joy at any situation with which it is made?, I can say that Theodor interpret the dualism in the movie.

Which activities are performed by OS1 and not by Theodore?
The unique thing that  OS can do and Theodore  does not is have all that information by interconnecting cables and simulate neurons to have logical answares, but never will be natural.

What could be a physical description of the OS1?

It does not have a definite shape, it is an operating system which can behave in any electronic device and take "physical form"

Without physically describing him, which mind events are more important about Theodore?
Disgust and resentment that he has towards life in the world where he is. 

In which way this hypothetical machine is changing Theodore´s ideas?
Theodoro is falling in love for someone who is not real, an operating system extremely curious that wants to know how a human lives, she  revived Theodoro in the sense of appreciation, hope and joy to live.

Why, by the end of the film, the OS1 is not held by any moral responsability of her actions?

Because she is unable to become attached to anyone, she wan only an operating system programmed to please the person, however, she did not feel any love or remorse becaise is artificial.

What are the fundamental diferences between artificial intelligence and humans?
human intelligence is also formed by emotional aspects that allow a moral judgment and achieve a good function  in a social structure, Artifiacial intelligence.would never have a moral judgment

According to the metaphysics, why is it possible that Theodore confuses the OS1 with realityit self?

when someone finally could understand and help he fell in love forgetting that a Operating system has no feelings, and love must be mutual, so he get confused when she told him that she  must  go.

Story

Create a story in which we can see conscious and unconscious activities.

One day a couple decided to go fishing so they walked to the lake, once being in the boat threw their fishing rods,  they waited until  feel tension in the rod and then they removed the fish from the water.

 




Physicalism
Conscious activities are:
Take the decision.
Walk
Wait
Feel the tension of the road
Remove the fish from the water

Unconscious activities:
Breathe
Smell
Feel the road

Dualism:
Mental events:
Take the decision
Think on wait themoment in which remove the fish form the water
Watch the lake and think if there are a lot of fishes or not.

Physical events:
Stand in the boat balancing
Hold the rod
Strength to pull the fish
To be awake

Agree or disagree?

Read the sentences and chose if you are agree or disagree.

Results:

A1	B	A2
Agree	Disagree
	Agree	Disagree
Agree	Disagree
	Agree	Disagree
Agree	Disagree
	Agree	Disagree
Agree	Disagree
	Agree	Disagree
Agree	Disagree
	Agree	Disagree
3	7	0

A1+A2= 3      B=7             Dualism

Make the same activity to 2 classmates of second grade.

Results: both they have a dualistic thinking.

Explain if the next phrases are dualistic o physicalistic ideas. 

1. The physical world is the only kind of reality there is

physicalism because is the ontological thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical,or that everything supervenes on the physical.

2. The mind is something nonphysical yet real

dualism because is the position that mind is non-physical, it compares a set of views about the relationship between mind and matter,  mind is something non physical but is truth that it exists and is not physical because its job is to process things that are not tangibles, so for  that do not have to be something physical.

3. The mind is nothing more than a word that refers to the sum of those cognitive activities produced by the brain

physicalism because dualism says that reality contains both mental and material things, brain is the physic part and mind is the mental part, but physicalism see those partsas one and the phrase take the brain and mind as the same thing and that is against dualism

4. The mind and the brain interact even though they are different entities

dualism because as I have said before, for dualism the physical part and mental conform the reality, so eventough both are different, together make real all the things.

5. When I make a decision the immediate cause of this event is the physical events occurring in my brain

physicalism because the doctrine says  "matter is the sole reality" and  we can infer that,if the resulting action is real, that means that is physical, then the event which makes that possible have to be also a physical event . If the result exists, the thing which originate that result hae to be real too.

6. The act of making a mental decision is not a physical event,nor does it have a physical cause

dualism, reality is caused by the mental actions that gives rise to phisical actions

7. A physical event can be caused only by another physical event

physicalism Definitely  the only reality that exists is that one which is caused by another which exists so if it exists it is physical, because then we can touch that, , the things we are able to touch are the only ones which are real.

8. An act of my will is not a physical event, but it can cause my body to perform some physical action

Dualism, mental events cause physical evets because first the information must be process in the mental zone and then they are executed by the physical part.

9. Even if we can not accomplish this as yet, everything that a person does or thinks or feels is capable of a scientific explanation

physicalism because even without knowing the whole brain, it could be understood by the physical part, like connections of neurons or studing the parts of the brain

10. The mind and its activities will never be completely explained by the science of the brain

dualism because a mental activity can not be study with scientific aparats, mental parts can not be watch and can not be touch.

Complete the table

A1  Books  Potaotes  Shoes  Chair  Candy	B1  Love  Believes  Feelings  Hope Memories
A2  Red  Big (2 m)  Thin  5kg  Smelly	B2  Smart Optimistic Passive Persistent  Curious
A3  Walking  In front of  Under  Traveling  Surffing	B3  Reflecting Learning Asking Analyzing Remember

A2 are words which help us to describe what we see.

B2 are words that describe people´s mind.

A2 is objective, physical (body)

B2 is subjective, mind (abstract)

Taking word from  A2, B1 and A3 make sentences

 Smelly feelings under me.

 Thin memories walking.

 Big believes traveling.

 Red hope surfing.

 5 kg love in front of me.

Taking word from B2, B3 and A1 make sentences

Smart remember potatoes.

Optimistic analyzing books.

Curious reflecting shoes.

Passive asking candy.

Why is the language of physical events so different from that of mental events?

Because mental are things happening in an abstract way and we cannot describe abstract things in the same way of the physical things. The mind is a world in which the ideas are codificated  and the physical world are things that are happening and those things cannot be reply.

Activity

Which it is the goal of the activity?
To think about the existence of the sences, things and the moral and compare our conclusions with other, noting that everything is subjective.

What were the differences between talking to people I know and those who do not?
Talking with those who I  know, I just note that our answares were similar and I can see the same things since an other point of view, but when I talk with a person that I do not know so much, I could see that we defered in some things and that everyone is influenced with experiences and the people which is around, I think there is not a general law for what is real or not, it is just a way in which we watch the universe.

Which  question I can not  resolved?
Is there something that really can be experienced objectively?

Results

We analyze the group of economics and administrative sciences which was formed by 6 students.
The experiment was made successfully but I found a little drawback, we could not get everyone involved.
I realized that only three students were interested in the activity, two just watched  and one was in another world.
We needed to ask some questions which were the clue so they could achieve the goal, for the fist clue  all the group was involved and they could  get  it because of an apriory knowledge which they have experience last year on a electronic class, and with that clue Quetzali could choose the correct material, then just she and two students were trying to turn on the LED, I think that if Quetzali would not be there the students could not achieve the goal because despite they had the apriory knowledge they could not join the previous experience (know and experience how a LED turn on and what is that thing which permit turn it on) with the materials they had, Quetzali told to her classmates:  "the motor can generate energy, because of that a motor moves things" and afther all of them, except one, began to tell Quetzali that connected the LED and it turn on, once achieve the goal we asked to twisk the motor bakwards and they note that the LED did not turn on, Jonathan saw that the metalic part of the LED stick to the motor and asked us if the motor had magnets (he knew that a magnet attracts metals because he had an experience), we answered yes and Quetzali said: maybe is because of the polarity.
They could construct the new knowledge (a motor can turn on a LED) because of previous experiences, so that is the reason of why we consider that this was a way of constructivism.

Constructivism

Group`s aim: that our classmates learn who the energy is suministred to a led and that no just a battery can suminist energy

Description: the activity consist in give some materials, including a motor and a LED, then, ask the LED light, once students have achieved that we will question why the motor can light the LED and after we will help them so taht they can construct the knowlwdge which will be the reason of why a motor can turn on a LED.

Instructions:

1) Deliver 3 cables, one motor, one LED and  aluminum

2) Ask to choose materials that they think can turn the LED

3) Ask them to explain why they believe that the material they have chosen, can turn on the LED.

4) Once they have told us, tell them to use the material and try turning on the LED

6) If they can’t turn on the led explain them why

5) If the LED lights up tell them to complete their conclusion on why it lights up with the material they have chosen

 • The motor is the only material that can turn on the LED.

The method by which our classmates are learning is constructivism because they are absorbing knowledge throught the experience. 

Before can have a conclussion they needed to do it, relate it to what they have experienced before and linking that with what they are experimenting in that moment building new knowledge.

Some philosophers

Si sabemos que la mayoría vive en un error, ¿podemos basar el rumbo de la sociedad en sus deseos?
No porque quien viven en un error actúa con error y por consiguiente sus pensamientos y deseos son un error, en ocasiones el mas fuerte es quien domina el mundo y si esta dominando erróneamente al resto de la sociedad, esta estará  pasando por situaciones basadas en un deseo errado.

¿Debemos otorgar el poder a aquellos que mas lo merecen?
Si quien lo merece es una persona con humildad y deseo por apoyar a la sociedad, sí, pero si con  "quien mas lo merece" se refiere al mas débil, entonces no, porque al obtener poder la sociedad tomaría papeles invertidos donde quien menos lo merecía pasa a ser el alienado y el que mas lo merecía se transforma en capataz.

¿Los intereses individuales dependen de los intereses que la sociedad opina que son mas importantes?
   Es cierto cuando la integridad del individuo no esta siendo afectada,  la gente sigue tendencias, modas y estilos, sin embargo cuando la integridad se ve amenazada es todo lo contrario porque es entonces cuando el individuo puede notar que la sociedad esta actuando de una manera injusta, incorrecta o no necesaria y esto va contra sus propios intereses.

¿Podemos decir que el Estado regula la forma bajo la cual todos vivimos?
No, seria imposible tener a mas de un millón de gente vigilada para saber si esta actuando de la forma que la ley dicta.

¿Cómo podemos dejar de oponer el hecho de que cada individuo tiene la libertad de elegir lo que hace y que la sociedad tiene intereses legítimos en regular las acciones de cada individuo?
Sabiendo que la libertad total no existe porque cada individuo tiene libertad y entonces esa libertad puede cortar la libertad de su prójimo, pero de ser posible esta libertad seria cortada cuando los lideres de una sociedad pueden controlar las acciones supuestamente libres, que dejan de ser libres al ser vigiladas, escritas o dictaminadas por alguien mas.

¿Existen concepciones alternativas al cómo debemos vivir?
Si, aunque a veces no las vemos, y al conocer otras podemos saber si funcionan observando la forma de vida de quien las emplea.

Knowledge?

Objetive: to represent with photos the next:

The majority can often be wrong.

We represent like that because people always will think that what they are doing is good and we walk been sure that our way is the correct, but sometimes exists the possibility that we can be mistaken and just one can be in the correct way

There can be a difference between human opinion and true knowledge.

That image represents the true knowledge in the book and the person explaining what she read is the opinion, because  when we are explaining or counting what the book says,  people  add or says that giving a personal  interpretation, what she/ he understand.

The truth is not always what is obvious or what is directly in front of our eyes

 The truth is represented in this image as the cahir, one person sees a blue chair that fisically exists, and the other person is looking at ohter chair completely different, both are in front of the spectator`s eyes but, which is the truth? We can see both chairs and are there, but the way we persive that not always is what it is the real chair can be the white one, even if it is nothing more than an image because reality is not always materialized.

Be wary of obvious knowledge

We need to be wary with what we consider obviouos knowledge because the perseption of our position can affect the reality, in the image the  girl on the left side thiks that what she  is watching is  a 100% truth, and the girl on the right thiks the same because is what she is watching, both see through the same organ, the eye, but one sees the world from another perseption, other position.

A danger for society

Forever in the history of humanity  have been problems in the increasing formation of society. Now a days a danger for this formation is the absolute loss of values.
I consider that respect is the most important value for better relations between us and our environment, disrespect towards our own nation has caused the loss of our natural resources and territory, lack of respect for life causes killings and lack of respect for others cause conflicts.
I found sad that we as living beings do not respect life, since the life of a person to a flower and that is a danger  because it is not possible that we  kill a human being while we are humans in the same way it is not possible that we finish with the animal and plant´s life when we live from those.
Loss of values is a danger for the society in a cultural, political and human way because corrupts,  disarms an order implanted by society and also the order implanted by nature.
The type of education and training that people get can be a hazard when they are not  mould with the basis of the values morally correct and accepted.

Interview to a wise person

 Gabriel Cervates Bello

Chess player and mathematician with a doctorate and two masters. He was born in Puebla, his father is a private accountant and his mother a housewife.

He started playing chess at the age of 15, he went to many chess tournaments and because of win some tournaments he has international ranking.

He studied at BUAP, and did a master in statistics and other in mathematical reasoning at the University of Texas with a grant.

At Tecnologico de Monterrey he studied the doctorate in statistics, he has done and is doing projects at Chile, Canada and USA with the support of the Tecnologico de Monterrey.

He has done many acts of charity towards animal life.
Now a days is 46 years old.

Interview:

Which are your priorities in life?

My priorities are my daughters , my health and learn something new every day, try to give an example and find a way of interpreting life

Do you have a personal mission?

I think my mission is to live life so that when you die can be remembered as a person who lived as I thought it was worth living

Have you ever done an unselfish act of kindness?

I have rescued stray dogs , and sometimes this is dangerous and sometimes very sad

How do you feel when you do that?

I feel I contributed a little to the construction of a better place to leave our children , and I feel that although no one sees me , somehow it makes me be consistent between what I think and what I do

What experiences you have lived, that change your opinion about life?

Perhaps the death of my brother makes me think that you should never live in a hurry

Do you think that if you have not lost your brother you never would have learned that?

I think so

What is wisdom for you?

It is recognizing your own limitations and your ability to change or to encourage others to change. It is not knowledge , it is a way of living

How can you know that a person is wise?

I think that being a simple person is a good way to express wisdom

Name 2 people you consider wise

Mandela and Gandhi

What have  you learned from them?

I have learned that we must learn when to act and when we find situations that cannot be changed, but push hard to change whenever it is possible

Do you think that a president must be wise?

A president must be wise enough to surround himself with honest people

The Death of Socrates

To analyze the picture.

The Death of Socrates, is a magnificent work of the neoclassical painter Jacques-Louis David, is located at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. It was made in 1787

  Around 399 BC. BC Socrates, with 70 years old was sentenced to die by drinking hemlock for speaking publicly against the ancestral gods,  'corrupt' their wards and criticize authority.         The painting depicts the great philosopher Socrates, when he drank from the cup of hemlock. David delete some characters that were when  Socrates died and adds others. With him are his disciples. Crito, his friend and disciple, the one who puts his hand on the Socrate´s thigh.

       Plato, although he was not that day due to illness, is at the left showing his grief. The author was represented Plato old when in fact he was young when Socrates died, perhaps to show maturity and the ability to face frustation.

      In the scene the jailer who gives the cup is afflicted and turns to not see death. Socrates is at the center as the teacher who was always with his disciples, strong and without fear of what the future holds for him.

The white color in Socrates represent the purity and tranquility of the good man he was, we can note that the light is on Socrates and extends over his disipulos, representing that Socrates is the light of wisdom.

      The background is dark because it represents darkness left at his death and  the sadness.

                                                      

From Plato apology

To read the passage and answare the questions:

• In the passage you just read, what did the god say about Socrates through the voice of the prophetess?

The philosopher was surprised very much because he thought he knew nothing, in fact one of his most famous maxims is just know that I know nothing.
After dialogue with those who listened to him, we can observe that the others do not  know what they thought they knew, they ignored their own ignorance, while Socrates knew he did not know, and being aware of his tremendous ignorance was wiser.

• How does Socrates propose to disprove the god’s statement?

Saying that he does not know nothing and taht exisits other person who is wisest

Socrates is still convinced that he is ignorant and has nothing to teach, but now he knows why the god said he was wiser than anyone else in Athens.

• In what way is he wise?

 Socrates is wise in the way that he recognize his lack of wisdom, because while he knew more he realized that he did not know many things, abd he question all.

In the next passage, Socrates anticipates that the court may let him go free on the condition that he cease to do philosophy and stop asking his annoying questions.
• What is his response to this potential offer of a plea bargain?

Socrates says that if he is acquitted, he will not fail to ask and question; proclaims the right of freedom of expression. He decided never  stop philosophizing because his life was that, and if he could not live he will get close to the unknown death.

• What does Socrates see as his mission?

Walk trought the streets of Athens talking to people on how "I think I've been placed on the city by order of God to alert you and correct you, while encoraginar anyone wandering all day in the streets and plazas."

• What does he say is the mistake that the citizens of Athens are making?

Believe that a man with a minimum of courage should be concerned about these potential risks of death before the honesty of their actions. The fear of death is believed without being wise: presume to know something that is unknown, no one knows what death is, or if it is ultimately the greatest good that can happen to a human, and the citizens of Athens hardly find someone like me, the mistake is that they will be always in the ignorance because they are putting away the wisdom and preffering the politics.

• In the next passage, why do you think that Socrates says that a bad person cannot harm a good person?  Do you agree with this statement? Why?

Because a bad person can damage a good one here, in a civil way, physically   but beyond no, spiritually evil can not touch a man, someone bigger than evil. 
I agree with that because you can take the life of someone but never his ideals and his wisdom

• Why does Socrates think that his accusers (Meletus and Anytus) are harming them- selves by prosecuting him?

Because they will not see never the light of wisdom, privation of liberty is what they make and for that  themselves do not know the reason.

• In the next passage, Socrates says to the jury that he is arguing not for his sake but for theirs. Why does he think that it is the citizens of Athens who are really being judged by the outcome of this trial and not him?

He said that because they are condening themselves to the ignorance

• What evidence does he give that his intentions were to unselfishly serve the people of Athens?

Poverty was his sufficient witness


Glossary
Bodly 1. Fearless and daring, courageous
          2.Requiring or exhibiting caourage or daring

Gadfly 1. A persistent irritating critic, a nuisance
            2.One that acts as a provocative stimulus, a goad 

To create a collage representing the next study fields based on "What do philosophers study?

Logic, politics, ethic, religion, metaphisics and epistemology.

Logic: those numbers are because for the philosophers distiguishing correc from incorrect reasoning is the logic, when you can associate the numbers you are having a reasoning activity, when you see a half of an eye your brain construc the image trought the reasoning and then you can know what is the complete image.

Epistemology: philosophers ask about the meaning of truth, how you can know what is true or not, and  if truth is relative or not, because of that we put some question marks, they also ask: What is knowledge ? we represent the knowledge with the book because there you find it.

Methaphysics: philosophers ask if the behavior is casually determetated or if it can not be explained, is concerned with questions about the nature of reality, are we free? and the relationship between the mind and the body, those images in the collage represent the suposed freedom in the universe, the man has the legs and the arm in that position because represent the unique space in the world that humans can reach, the abstract image represents taht the relation between the mind and the body is abstract.

Religion: the philosopher asks is the existence and nature of the universe self-explanatory, or it need a divine creator that is outside? the images represent the divine creator and the universe which is his creation, but they asks if something else was the creator.

Ethics: are they objetively correct ethical values? are they relative? the images represent the values that are correct and incorrect, but are they relative? the values are implnted by the society or they are simpely relative?

Political: they ask what is justice and the limits of governmental authority and what is individual freedom. The image of the flag of the United Nations because represent the justice and the world represent the freedom  a human can be in all the world because is free, but is it relative? which are the limits? id you are free you can know that why there are books, the animals are in their natural environment because represent also the freedom 

Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes

To create a comic story in which Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes explain which is the origin of the living beings.

This 3 philosophers explained that the world was created with one of the things taht they can saw in their environments and what they percieved through the sences.
Thales thought that water was the source of  all things, maybe he said that all kind of life has its origin in the water, probably when he was in Egypt he observed that everything around the river Nile grows or that after the rain worms and frogs appeared, I think he was not far of the reality because now a days we know that the origin of the life was in the water, and after taht the organisms evolved and form new, he needed to explain how was the transformation of the water into everithing he knew.
Anaximander tought that our world is one of the many worlds taht born and die for something he called the indefinite, maybe he thought that the thing taht created other things had to be different to the created thing.
He was correct in the part that what makes a thing is different to the created thing but is the union of many "indefinite" things there is not just one, and there are some matterials that are the base of everyting, he needed to investigate what was that "indefinite" thing.
Anaximenes tought that the base of everything was the air, and when it get condensed formed new things, maybe he watched that the ground and sand were from the ice melted, also thouhgt taht the fire must be diluted air, so he shared with Thales the idea that there is one prime material which form everything, is true that all  needs the air because there we can found oxygen, but also we need someting more to exist and to be in the world with live, is true also that the fire comes from oxygen but just dilutd air do not make fire.
I think that for the knowledge of that epoch their thinkins were excellent.

The creation of the world

In the past pleople invented stories trying to explain how the world and man were created
Here my story

At the beginning of time a supreme being created a place where an other kind of life can live putting ground, water, oxygen, day, night and food. Then with parts of his body created the human, one man and one woman, he gave them mercy, feelings, reproduction capacity, intelligence and could be ill. But the bodies were so perfect that if they got sick the body could heal itself  and if they suffered any cuts could regenerate too. So they could stay connected to their world he gave them vision, touch, smell, ears to hear and a tongue to taste.

 And to be sure that the humans he created were a live the human´s body could be old to death with the passage of time.

This story is  religious because they talk about a supreme being known as God who gave us a body, an habitable place and the ability to relate with the world through the senses, it has also a part of science which tells us that the body has the ability to heal without intervention of God and that with the passage of time we die.