The Mind Of A Serial Killer Essays - Murder, Crime, Psychopathy

The Mind Of A Serial Killer SERIAL MURDER: In the last three decades the USA has been troubled by an approaching problem, the serial killer. A serial killer is a person who kills a number of people, usually considered over five, with a cooling off period between each murder, usually one murder at one given time). Two murders at one time occasionally happen and these murders may go on for a period of months or years until the killer is caught. Throughout the last three decades the US serial killer rate has risen 94% and it is estimated that by the next millennium it will claim an average of 11 lives a day. Serial Murder is an epidemic; there are at least 35 serial killers active in the USA today who claim one third of the annual murder rate. The USA has 6% of the world's population yet it has three quarters of all serial killers. Not only are serial killers appearing in more numbers in the US but also all over the world countries are terrorized by serial killers, which are appearing in more numbers year and year after. KILLER TRAIT: A serial killer is a typical white male, 20-30, and most of them are usually in the USA. Their main motives are sex (even though the act of sex may or may not take place), power, manipulation, domination and control. The sex motive is usually rape for an organized killer and sadism for a disorganized killer. They act in a series of 5 or more murders with a cooling off period between each murder. Serial killers can go on for months and years before they are usually caught. The victim is usually the same for every killer - prostitute, hitchhiker etc. Their victims may also have the same or similar attributes in gender, age, race, general look, residence etc. Serial killers also stick by their modus operandi very closely and may change it with experience. Most murders occur by strangulation, suffocation, stabbing etc. Serial killers act by a sex-murder fantasy based with their control, they usually live in this dream world in their teens until they act it out for real when they get into the adult stage. As each murder occurs a serial killer may be disappointed by his murder fantasy and may act it out again to achieve it to there own satisfaction. CHARACTERISTICS OF A SERIAL KILLER: 1. Killings are separate ('serial'), occurring with greater or less frequency, often escalating over a period of time, sometimes years, and will continue until the killer is taken into custody, dies, or is himself/herself killed. 2. In common with normal homicides, killing tends to be one on one. There are instances however where a serial killer has struck down more than one victim in a single incident. 3. There is no (or very little) previous connection between the perpetrator and the victim; the persons involved rarely being related. 4. Although there may be a 'pattern' or 'victim trait', individual murders within a series rarely display a clearly defined or rational motive. 5. An increasingly greater spatial mobility (since the advent of the automobile) has enabled killers (if they wish) to move rapidly from one place to another, often before a murder has even been discovered. 6. There is usually a high degree of redundant violence, or an 'overkill', where the victim is subjected to a disproportionate level of brutality. MOTIVES: These are the motives a serial killer might display (some killers display various motives): Visionaries - Acts in response to voices and is instructed by these voices to perform the act of murder. These killers are usually schizophrenic and psychotic. Missionaries - They think it is their responsibility to rid society of unwanted elements. Hedonists - Kill because murder causes them pleasure. Lust Killers - Kill for sexual gratification with acts that are usually sadistic. Thrill Killers - Kill because of a desire for a thrill or experience. Gain Killers - Kill for personal gain. The killer premeditates the act to require financial gain or materialistic goods. While gain is not the main motive in a murder some serial killers have took the opportunity to steal from their victims for their own personal

Bracero Program essays

Bracero Program essays It was during World War II that the United States was in need of Mexico and its laborers. Americans were at war and labor was needed in order to supply the soldiers with food and keep the countries agriculture going. It was in 1942 when the United States and Mexico negotiated an agreement that was known as the bracero program. For Mexicans it was a chance to get a better life and an opportunity that could change their lives. For Americans, on the other hand, it was the help they needed to keep the country going after the war. It was the lost of manpower during World War II that stopped the deportation of Mexicans that had been going on during the prior years. The United States had done a complete turnaround. Before they had tried to stop Mexican immigrants from entering their country. Now they had open up the doors. It was a time of need for the United States. The majority of the working class was out fighting in the war or working of war related jobs. The United States had to turn to their neighbors for help. On August 14, 1942, President Manuel Avila Camacho and Frank Delano Roosevelt signed an agreement that was officially known as the bracero program. This program was to allow a controlled number of Mexican immigrants to enter the United States and work. They would be allowed in the United States when workers were needed and when their work was done, they were expected to return to Mexico. The agreement provided Mexican workers for nondiscriminatory conditions. They were to receive the same benefits that any white American had, and were supposed to be paid the same. To employers this meant they would be expending money to provide for the workers, to Mexicans it meant an opportunity for a better life. Many Mexicans sought the American dream and they thought that by going to work in the United States they would gain that life they wanted. Things didnt go as planned for the Mexicans. The protec...

Monarch PLC Airlines Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Monarch PLC Airlines - Essay Example Monarch Airline operates in an environment that has appreciated the advantages of technology, innovation, and rapid changes in their trading environment (Doganis 2006). Its customers have diverse interests and satisfaction levels hence serving as the main drive for change. In addition, the airline faces a lot of competition from other airlines operating within the same locality and destinations. With such a diverse and demanding environment, the airline has had to make major improvements to continue meeting the market demands. For example, to continue meeting the high demands on bookings by customers, the organization had to change from making bookings over the internet to using open skies by Navitaire. This has seen the company grow to handle large systems of operations within small timelines. It has also favored the company in protecting its information while changing swiftly to the ever-changing demands in the airline market. The survival of any business depended on how the manage ment will handle the risks since they are inevitable but manageable. Challenges and opportunities keep on changing making it hard for any company to operate in a highly competitive area. Therefore, for any business to grow, risk taking is a practice to embrace (Flouris & Yilmaz 2011). Monarch airline is not exempted in this and thus has had to face many risks. Overcoming and managing the risks has seen the company grow to where it is today. Managing risks involve balancing between rewards and losses. It entails minimizing bad outcomes and enhancing good outcomes (Thomas 2002). It comes with a preparedness to handle any misfortunes that will take place in the cause of operation. It has been proved that everybody would play on the safe side of life. This provides a shield against unplanned events that endanger the running of a company or any part in the society (Flouris & Yilmaz 2011). However, some risks are inevitable and uncertain to happen. When they happen, it is only prudent to learn how to cope with them. Uncertainties and ignorance stands as major challenges in coping with the situations. Through the authorities, the balancing act should be approached from an open point of view that will accommodate all parties involved. Risk management in any organization is perceived to be the responsibility of specific individuals. However, this should not be true since every human being by nature is a risk manger. Every person by nature is responsible to handle the nature of risk created by his or her behavior (Douglas & Wildavsky 1983). The only thing that the authority can do is to ensure that every individual within the operations of the organization are well informed of the risks involved and the possible ways out of the risks. In every organization, risk experts and safety regulators stands out as very important part in the daily running of the institution. They identify risk issues early before everybody else does that (Thomas 2002). Risk authorities estimate t he magnitude of risk and therefore advise the parties involved accordingly. However, there has been cases where many people insist in taking much risk than can be handled (Douglas & Wildavsky 1983). One could be because of ignorance and two could be lack of knowledge on how much such risks could cost the organization. Risk is

What Is Electrical Engineering Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

What Is Electrical Engineering - Research Paper Example Electrical engineers are continuously putting their efforts to improve communication between people by designing easy to use communication technologies, such as, cell phones and notebooks. Electrical engineering not only facilitates long distance communication but also serves the world in many other areas related to technology. Therefore, we can say that electrical engineering is one of the major fields of engineering which is playing a considerable role in technological progress all over the world. What Do Electrical Engineers Do? In the present world, electrical engineers are putting their efforts in solving electricity shortage problems by identifying and designing new electricity generating systems. â€Å"Electrical engineering mainly deals with the generation and distribution of power and maintenance of large power systems† (Dhulipala). Some of the major fields related to renewable energy systems in which electrical engineers have really shown their potential, knowledge, and skills include generation of hydropower energy, wind energy, and geothermal energy.Electrical engineers design new electronics, which they also test for quality and reliability. â€Å"The engineer is often responsible for overseeing the installation of the product to ensure it is installed properly and safely† (Partington). ... Electrical engineers mainly deal with the production of electricity by designing circuits. â€Å"An electrical engineer has many potential job functions but most work on designing products that are powered by or produce electricity† (Partington). â€Å"One of the tasks of an electrical engineer would be to develop electrical system products for household uses or for business uses† (Shipway). Electrical engineers design different electricity-based products, which serve people as well as countries. Electric products, such as, televisions, radios, computer systems, mobile phones, laptops, audio and video systems all involve the input of electrical engineers. Let us now get an overview of some of the major technological developments, which could have been impossible without input of the efforts electrical engineers. Electric Cars Electric car is one of the major developments related to the field of electrical engineering. An electric car is a vehicle that makes use of batte ries and electric motors instead of gasoline engines. The batteries are rechargeable and control the main parts of the cars. Some of the most considerable features of electric cars include more reliability, convenience, less noise, up to 500 hundred percent more efficiency as compared to internal combustion engines, regenerative breaking system, and no emission production. There is no emission of fuels from electric cars because they do not use gas for any purpose. Compared to the internal combustion engines, electric cars provide up to three times more stored energy to the wheels. It is due to these benefits that today electric cars are becoming more and more popular in

Risk Analysis And Vulnerability Information Technology Essay

Risk Analysis And Vulnerability Information Technology Essay The term risk management has been established in the last twenty years as an evolution of the term insurance management. The field of risk management includes a huge variety of activities and responsibilities than does insurance management. Risk management is now a widely accepted description of a discipline within most large organizations. Common risks such as building catastrophes, personnel injuries, and automobile accidents, as well as more major threats like product liability, environmental impairment, and employment practices, are the fields of the risk management department in a typical corporation. Although risk management has usually to do with property and loss, nowadays it is considerate to include financial risk management, such as interest rates, foreign exchange rates, and derivatives, but also new types of risks that businesses expose themselves in E-commerce. As the role of risk management has increased, some large companies have begun invest in large-scale programs k nown as enterprise risk management. Risk management involves identifying, analyzing, and taking measures to decrease the exposures to threats towards organization. Risk management uses many techniques, to manage a multiple risks. Every business faces risks, some of which are easy to predict and under special managers control, and others which are apart from unpredictable, are also uncontrollable. Risk management is important for all kind of businesses. More specific, for small businesses, there are many types of threats, such as theft, fire, flood, legal liability, injury, or disability, which can cause serious economical damage, even bankruptcy. These kinds of losses and liabilities can affect companys operations and decrease its profits at very low even to zero level. On the other hand, many large companies are able to hire a risk manager to predict risks and execute a plan to protect the firm against them; unlikely to smaller companies, they dont include a risk manager in their annual budget. Instead, the handling of the threat probably will come from small business owner. ANALYSIS Risk assessment involves the integration of threat, vulnerability, and consequence information. Risk management involves deciding which protective measures to take based on an agreed upon risk reduction strategy. Many models/methodologies have been developed by which threats, vulnerabilities, and risks are integrated and then used to inform the allocation of resources to reduce those risks. Threat Assessment A threat assessment is the first thing to examine in a risk management plan. A variety of threats are being considered in a threat assessment considers such us natural, criminal, terrorist, accidental, etc. for specific facility or location. In order to evaluate the possibility of occurrence for each threat, the assessment should examine all types of information needed. For natural threats, a risk manager should determine the credibility of the given threat by using historical data concerning frequency of occurrence for given natural disasters such as tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, fire, or earthquakes. For criminal threats, the facility maybe is threatened from many types of criminal activities and that is why a risk manager should examine the crime rates in the surrounding area. Of course, the type of assets and activity which are taking place in the facility may also increase the possibility of a criminal attack by external or even internal aggressors. Furthermore the type of assets and activity which are taking place in the facility will also relate directly to the possibility of different types of accidents. For example, if heavy industrial machinery are utilized by employees, then they will be at higher risk for serious or life-threatening accidents than employees in a typical office building. For terrorist threats, the attractiveness of the facility as a target is a major consideration. In addition, the type of terrorist act may vary based on the potential adversary and the method of attack most likely to be successful for a given scenario. In general, the likelihood of terrorist attacks cannot be quantified statistically since terrorism is, by its very nature, random. Hence, when considering terrorist threats, the concept of developing credible threat packages is important. To determine vulnerabilities, use the matrix to interview personnel, review previous security incidents, and examine audit and system records and system documentation. Contact vendors for reports of known system vulnerabilities, check advisory Web sites and look for security issues by using automated tools. Then, evaluate the vulnerabilities while considering their number and nature and any countermeasures in place (discussed further next week). Using the matrix, what vulnerabilities exist in the organizations physical areas as applied to information security? Analyze findings from your observations and personnel interviews, risk assessment and historical site surveys, reviews of written and informal procedures and audit trail data, and any other research, like diagrams, practice drills, etc. Using these findings, determine what vulnerabilities exist in the organizations administration, policies and documentation area, and in the organizations personnel practices. Consider the organizations communications/network connectivity and in the computer system itself. Once the threat levels have been identified and quantified, evaluate the vulnerability. B. Vulnerability Assessment After identifying all existing threats, we have to perform a vulnerability assessment. Vulnerability assessment evaluates the impact of loss that any pre reported threat can cause after a successful attack. The evaluated degree of the damage that emanatates from such an attack is determined by Impact of loss. For achieving the properly definition of the impact of loss a threat is able to cause, a key component is needed. Each facility must be examined on its owned definitions. Below we can see some definitions for impact of loss in a company that serves the public. Devastating: In this case the facility is damaged and there is a need of repair in most of its items or assets. For that reason, the organization is forced to reduce the number of visitors in a certain degree for several period of time. Severe: In this case a part of the facility has been damaged or partially contaminated because of several events such as fire, extreme rain, smoke etc. Examples include partial structure breach resulting in weather/water, smoke, impact, or fire damage to some areas. Some items/assets in the facility are damaged beyond repair, but the facility remains mostly intact. The entire facility may be closed for a period of up to two weeks and a portion of the facility may be closed for an extended period of time (more than one month). Some assets may need to be moved to remote locations to protect them from environmental damage. The number of visitors to the facility and others in the organization may be reduced by up to 50% for a limited period of time. Noticeable: The facility is temporarily closed or unable to operate, but can continue without an interruption of more than one day. A limited number of assets may be damaged, but the majority of the facility is not affected. The number of visitors to the facility and others in the organization may be reduced by up to 25% for a limited period of time. Minor: The facility experiences no significant impact on operations (downtime is less than four hours) and there is no loss of major assets. C. Risk Analysis Vulnerability A combination of the impact of loss rating and the vulnerability rating can be used to evaluate the potential risk to the facility from a given threat. Vulnerability is defined to be a combination of the attractiveness of a facility as a target and the level of deterrence and/or defense provided by the existing countermeasures. Target attractiveness is a measure of the asset or facility in the eyes of an aggressor and is influenced by the function and/or symbolic importance of the facility. Sample definitions for risk ratings are as follows: Very High: This is a high profile facility that provides a very attractive target for potential adversaries, and the level of deterrence and/or defense provided by the existing countermeasures is inadequate. Countermeasures recommended to mitigate these risks should be implemented as soon as possible. High: This is a high profile regional facility or a moderate profile national facility that provides an attractive target and/or the level of deterrence and/or defense provided by the existing countermeasures is inadequate. Countermeasures recommended to mitigate these risks should be implemented as soon as possible. Moderate: This is a moderate profile facility (not well known outside the local area or region) that provides a potential target and/or the level of deterrence and/or defense provided by the existing countermeasures is marginally adequate. Countermeasure implementation should be planned in the near future Low: This is not a high profile facility and provides a possible target and/or the level of deterrence and/or defense provided by the existing countermeasures is adequate. Countermeasure implementation will enhance security, but is of less urgency than the above risks. The vulnerability assessment may also include detailed analysis of the potential impact of loss from an explosive, chemical, or biological attack. Professionals with specific training and experience in these areas are required to perform these detailed analyses. A sample of the type of output that can be generated by a detailed explosive analysis can also be shown graphically. A graphic representation of the potential damage to a facility from an explosive attack allows a building owner to quickly interpret the results of the analysis, although a more fully detailed and quantitative engineering response would be required to design a retrofit upgrade. In addition, similar representations can be used to depict the response of an upgraded facility to the same explosive threat. This allows a building owner to interpret the potential benefit that can be achieved by implementing various structural upgrades to the building frame, wall, roof, and/or windows. D. Upgrade Recommendations Based on the findings from the risk analysis, the next step in the process is to identify countermeasure upgrades that will lower the various levels of risk. If minimum standard countermeasures for a given facility level are not currently present, these countermeasures should automatically be included in the upgrade recommendations. Additional countermeasure upgrades above the minimum standards should be recommended as necessary to address the specific threats identified for the facility. The estimated capital cost of implementing the recommended countermeasures is usually provided in the threat/vulnerability assessment report. The estimated installation and operating costs for the recommended countermeasures are also usually provided in the threat/vulnerability assessment report. All operating costs are customarily estimated on a per year basis. E. Re-Evaluation of Risks The implementation of the recommended security and/or structural upgrades should have a positive effect on the impact of loss and/or the vulnerability ratings for each threat. The final step in the process is to re-evaluate these two ratings for each threat in light of the recommended upgrades. Using an exterior explosive threat as an example, the installation of window retrofits (i.e., security window film, laminated glass, etc.) will not prevent the explosive attack from occurring, but it should reduce the impact of loss/injury caused by hazardous flying glass. Therefore, the impact of loss rating for an explosive threat would improve, but the vulnerability rating would stay the same. CONCLUSION A Generic Model for Assessing and Integrating Threat, Vulnerability, and Risk Many models/methodologies have been developed by which threats, vulnerabilities, and risks are integrated and then used to inform the cost-effective allocation of resources to reduce those risks. For this report, CRS reviewed vulnerability assessment models or methodologies, including some developed and used, to varying degrees, in certain selected sectors SUGGESTIONS Using Assessments to Identify and Prioritize Risk Reduction Activities. Identify Ways to Reduce Risk. Risks can be reduced in a number of ways: by reducing threats (e.g. through eliminating or intercepting the adversary before he strikes); by reducing vulnerabilities (e.g. harden or toughen the asset to withstand the attack); or, by reducing the impact or consequences (e.g. build back-ups systems or isolate facilities from major populations). For each potential countermeasure, the benefit in risk reduction should also be determined.26 More than one countermeasure may exist for a particular asset, or one countermeasure may reduce the risk for a number of assets. Multiple countermeasures should be assessed together to determine their net effects. The analyst should also assess the feasibility of the countermeasure. The cost of each countermeasure must also be determined. Costs, too, are multidimensional. There may be up-front financial costs with associated materials, equipment, installation, and training. There are also longer term operational costs of the new protective measures, including maintenance and repair. There may also be operational costs associated with changes to overall operations. Costs also include time and impact on staff, customers, and vendors, etc. Expenditures on the protection of assets also results in opportunity costs, i.e. costs associated with not being able to invest those resources in something else. Prioritize and Decide In What to Invest. Once a set of countermeasures have been assessed and characterized by their impact on risk, feasibility, and cost, priorities may be set. Decision makers would have to come to a consensus on which risk reduction strategy to use to set priorities. Most of the methods reviewed suggest a cost-effective selection process (i.e. implementation of the risk-reduction method(s) should not cost more than the benefit derivedby the reduced risk). Cost-effectiveness could also imply that the country invest in risk reduction to the point where the marginal cost to society equals the marginal benefit. Alternatively, given a fixed budget, cost-effectiveness might imply investing in protections that maximize the benefits for that investment. Countermeasures that lower risk to a number of assets may prove to be most cost-effective. Also, focusing attention on those assets associated with the highest risks may yield the greatest risk reduction and be one way to implement a cost effective approach. While cost-effectiveness is usually the recommended measure for setting priorities, decision makers may use others. For example, decision makers may be risk averse. In other words, even if the chance of an attack is small, or the potential target is not particularly vulnerable, the consequences may be too adverse to contemplate. In this case, decision makers may wish to bear the costs of additional protection that exceed the expected reduction in risk. Roper notes, however, that, in general, protection costs should not exceed a reasonable percentage of the total value of the asset.2 Another measure by which to select protective actions might be to favor maximizing the number or geographical distribution of assets for which risks are reduced. Alternatively, decision makers might want to focus efforts on reducing a specific threat scenario (e.g. dirty bombs) or protecting specific targets (e.g. events where large numbers of people attend). The electric utility checklist states that the ultimate goal of risk management is to select and implement security improvements to achieve an acceptable level of risk at an acceptable cost. The concept of acceptable risk is mentioned in a number of methodologies, and it needs to be determined by decision makers After selecting which protective measures to pursue, programs, responsibilities, and mechanisms for implementing them must be established. Many of the reviewed methodologies conclude with the recommendation to revisit the analysis on a regular basis.

John Searle’s Argument on Strong Artificial Intelligence

John Searle in his paper â€Å"Minds, Brain and Programs† presented the strong critics of the strong intelligence. First of all in the paper Searle differentiates between different types of artificial intelligence: weak AI, which is just a helping tool in study of the mind, and strong AI, which is considered to be appropriately designed computer able to perform cognitive operations itself. Searle conducted Chinese room experiment, the primary goal of which is to prove that machines cannot posses the states of conscious awareness, like perceiving, understanding or knowing (Searle, 1980).According to Stevan Harnad, in his research Searle actually does not argue about artificial intelligence at all but in fact he attacked the main positions of computationalism, â€Å"a position (unlike ‘Strong AI') that is actually held by many thinkers, and hence one worth refuting† (Harnad, 2001). Shortly, Chinese Room thought experiment can be described the following way. Searle p laces himself on the place of the computer. He supposed that he had to process a batch of Chinese characters with the help of the definite program and produce the output.Searle is completely unfamiliar with Chinese; he can’t even differentiate Chinese characters from Japanese ones. He could only distinguish them by their shapes. Searle was able to process those symbols due to the fact that the rules were given in English. That enabled him to operate with the Chinese characters. In some time as the person learns the rules better, processing the Chinese words becomes easier and the answers are more correct.So, people who ask questions in Chinese and receive answers are sure that the person knows the language as the answers are just undistinguishable from the answers of native speakers of Chinese. The conclusion is that obeying definite rules Searle can process Chinese questions and give correct answers to them without even knowing a word in Chinese. â€Å"Nobody just looking a t my answers can tell that I don't speak a word of Chinese†, Searle writes (Searle, 1980). The same thing is with computers. They are in fact in the same position as Searle.Computers don’t have mind, they don’t think in Chinese, but they are manipulating with symbols just as Searle did. That’s why people might have the impression that computers can possess intelligence. However, this work of Searle was not a complete explanation on the problem of artificial intelligence. It was just a beginning and it raised the wave of critics and argument. On the one hand almost all researchers couldn’t but agree with the Searle’s statement that he was able to give correct answers to the questions without knowing the word in Chinese.But still there were a number of people who considered that Searle’s experiment couldn’t be judged as a valid critics of the artificial intelligence. All the replies can be roughly divided into the following main g roups (Cole, 2004). The first group argued the Searle’s experiment by identifying, who it is who speaks Chinese. The second group of critics researches the way how meaningless symbols can become meaningful. The third group of scholars believes that there is a need to redesign the Chinese room along the lines of a brain.Finally the last group of scholars considers that there are numerous points which testify to the fact that Searle’s argument is completely misleading. So, as it was already mentioned the first argument was concerned with the mind source. This group of researchers was interested in the question where the mind was since the person in the room wasn’t speaking Chinese. The main issues under research were main ontological controversies of mind and body and simulation and reality (Cole, 2004; Hauser, 2005; Hearn, 2007). The group of the researchers attempting to answer this question fell into several categories.The first category proposed systems reply (Searle, 1980; Cole, 2004, Hauser, 2005; Russel & Norvig, 2003; Dennett, 1991; Hearn, 2007, Crevier, 1993), which believes that since the person is not the one who possesses the knowledge of Chinese but the answers are still correct, it is the system, comprising the man, batch of words and rules for processing the words, which comprehends Chinese. The person in the room is just a part of this â€Å"understanding† system, which implies that the fact that the person does not understand and does not know the Chinese language is completely irrelevant.However, Searle was able to answer this critical response saying that the man can be the whole system in case he memorizes all the rules for processing the Chinese words and will keep them in his mind. However, this won’t change the fact that he does not understand Chinese (Searle, 1980). The other point on which Searle argued this response was that critics are in fact missing the point as they on the one hand were trying to f ind the mind, but on the other hand point that it belongs to some â€Å"system†, which is a room.But this doesn’t make sense as the room itself has nothing to do with the mind. It can be true only on the point when the critics explain this from the metaphysical point of view, which means that the mind is something that appears or â€Å"emerges† in the room and continues to exist there (Harnad, 2005; Searle, 1980; Crevier, 1993). The other response, which belongs to the group of â€Å"mind finders†, is virtual mind reply (Cole, 2004). This seems to be a more correct reply, which sticks to the idea that there is some Chinese-speaking mind in the room but it is virtual.It was argued that computing machinery possesses the ability to â€Å"implement† another computer, which implies that any computer can simulate other machines step-by-step, performing the functions of both. Cole even argues that a program can be created, which in fact is able to impleme nt two minds at once. So, despite the fact that there exists only one man in the room and one system, the number of â€Å"virtual minds† can be unlimited (Cole, 2004).However, Searle’s response was that such a mind is nothing but a simulation by itself: â€Å"No one supposes that computer simulations of a five-alarm fire will burn the neighborhood down or that a computer simulation of a rainstorm will leave us all drenched†(Searle, 1980). This statement was argued by the supporter of the virtual mind idea, Nicholas Fearn, in the following way: â€Å"When we call up the pocket calculator function on a desktop computer, the image of a pocket calculator appears on the screen. We don’t complain that â€Å"it isn’t really a calculator†, because the physical attributes of the device do not matter† (Fearn, 2007).Anyway, the following conclusion can be made: on the one hand these scholars were able to argue the Searle’s statement that â€Å"strong artificial intelligence† is false due to the fact that the man in the room doesn’t understand Chinese, which implies that nothing in the room understands Chinese (Cole, 2004). On the other hand the scholars still failed to prove the existence of the strong AI as they couldn’t prove that the system or virtual mind understands Chinese. Searle maintains that â€Å"the systems reply simply begs the question by insisting that system must understand Chinese† (Searle, 1980).The other groups of scholars, who argue Searle’s work, were concerned with finding the meaning. Their replies are generally referred to as robot and semantics replies. The main concern of these scholars is to argue the Searle’s work at the point of intentionality and syntax-semantics controversy. For the person in the room Chinese characters are just meaningless â€Å"squiggles†, however, if the Chinese room can really comprehend Chinese words, there should b e the source of the meaning. Thus, this group of scholars was trying to find the connection between the symbols and the items they symbolize.According to the proposed replies to these questions, several categories could be differentiated. First one is robot reply (Searle, 1980; Cole, 2004; Hauser, 2006; Hearn, 2007), which states that if the program is placed in the robot instead of the room nobody would doubt that he understands what he’s doing due to the establishment of the â€Å"causal connection† between the symbols and things, which are represented by them. According to Hans Moravec â€Å"If we could graft a robot to a reasoning program, we wouldn't need a person to provide the meaning anymore: it would come from the physical world† (in Crevier, 1993).However, Searle argued this idea by stating that there is no difference who operates the words, as the person in the room is just following the rules without understanding what the words actually mean. Searle further says that â€Å"he doesn’t see what comes into the robots eyes† (Searle, 1980). The second group proposed derived meaning theory (Hauser, 2006; Cole, 2004), which there is a connection between the room and the world through Chinese speakers and programmers, which implies that the symbols the person works with are already meaningful in general, which does not necessarily mean that they should be meaningful to him.However, Searle argues that symbols can only possess derived meaning, which depends on the conscious comprehension of Chinese speakers and programmers outside the room, which does not at all mean that the room by itself possesses the ability to understand by itself (Cole, 2004). The other semantic replies were concerned with the commonsense knowledge idea (Dennett, 2007), which states that the meaning of symbols could be derived from the background of the commonsense knowledge, which serves as a â€Å"context† providing meaning for the symbols.S earle argument was based on the idea that although the background does exist, still it can’t be built in programs. So, it is obvious that Searle supports the viewpoint that there is no difference in the amount of knowledge written into the program and the connection of the later with the world. Still the person is the only one, who operates in the room and his actions is purely syntactic, which do not provide him with the meaning of the words, thus, the main Searle’s statement is that â€Å"syntax is insufficient for semantics†(Searle, 1984; Searle, 1989).However, it should be admitted that there is some sense in the virtual mind theory, saying that even though the symbols mean nothing to Searle, they acquire their meaning from the virtual mind, which is connected with the outside worlds through Chinese speakers and programmers, which implies that it is irrelevant whether these symbols mean anything to Searle. The third group of scholars argued Searle’s w ork on the point that it the system needs to be redefined.Thus, according to brain simulator reply (Searle, 1980; Cole, 2004; Hauser, 2006; Churchland & Churchland, 1990.) the program is sure to understand Chinese in case it is a simulation of the interaction of the neurons in the brain of a speaker of the Chinese language. Searle argues this reply saying that this type of simulation is unable to reproduce such basic features of the brain as its causal and intentional states, saying that â€Å"human mental phenomena are dependent on actual physical-chemical properties of actual human brains† (Searle, 1980). He further states that only brains can cause mind (Hauser, 2006).According to the brain replacement scenario (Russell Norvig, 2003; Cole, 2004; Moravec, 1988; Kurzweil, 2005; Crevier, 1993,) the scholars maintain that in case one small computer is able to simulate the work of one individual neuron, this won’t cause that much difference to the system in general, howe ver, in case all the neurons are replaced, we would create digital computer stimulating the brain. This means that if we support Searle’s point of view this will lead to the disappearance of the whole conscious awareness (Searle, 1992; Russell & Norvig, 2003).Combination reply (Searle, 1980; Hauser, 2006) supported the idea that in case there is a robot created on the basis of brain simulation, which is linked to the world in the way that it has the causal power of the real brain, it is able to think. Connectionist reply (Cole, 2004 Hauser, 2006) has much in common with the brain simulator reply and believes that the real comprehension is possible in case there is a massively parallel connectionist architecture. So, basically these arguments can be divided into two main groups.The first one believes that Searle is true in this Chinese room experiment, however, in case some changes are made in the room or the program, it can acquire mind and consciousness (Cole, 2004). The sec ond group considers that redesigning should be made in order to see at which point Searle is wrong. Searle argues that machines still are unable to understand anything even if they are redesigned. The other argument is that in case there is a need of a robot body or a connectionist architecture are necessary, this would mean that we can’t speak any longer of strong AI (Searle, 1980; Harnad, 2001).According to Searle â€Å"I thought the whole idea of strong AI was that we don't need to know how the brain works to know how the mind works† (Searle, 1980) So, as far as we can see Searle’s argument of the strong artificial intelligence has its grounds. It is thoroughly based and well-considered. There was a lot of argument on his Chinese room experiment, however, hardly any critic was able to prove that Searle was completely wrong at some point.References:1. Churchland, Paul and Churchland, Patricia. (January 1990). Could a machine think?. Scientific American 262: 32 -39.2. Cole, David. (Fall 2004). The Chinese Room Argument, in Zalta, Edward N. , The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.3. Crevier, Daniel. (1993), AI: The Tumultuous Search for Artificial Intelligence. NY: BasicBooks.4. Dennett, Daniel. (1991). Consciousness Explained. The Penguin Press.5. Fearn, Nicholas. (2007). The Latest Answers to the Oldest Questions: A Philosophical Adventure with the World's Greatest Thinkers. New York: Grove Press.6. Harnad, Stevan. (2001). What’s Wrong and Right About Searle’s Chinese Room Argument. in M. & Preston, J., Essays on Searle’s Chinese Room Argument, Oxford University Press.7. Harnad, Stevan. (2005). Searle's Chinese Room Argument, Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Macmillan.8. Hauser, Larry. (1997). Searle's Chinese Box: Debunking the Chinese Room Argument. Minds and Machines, 7: 199-226.9. Hauser, Larry. (2006). Searle's Chinese Room, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.10. Kurzweil, Ray. (2005). The Singularity is Near. Viki ng Press.11. Moravec, Hans. (1988). Mind Children. Harvard University Press.12. Russell, Stuart J. and Norvig, Peter. (2003). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River. NJ: Prentice Hall.13. Searle, John. (1980). Minds, Brains and Programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3 (3): 417-457.14. Searle, John. (1983). Can Computers Think? , in Chalmers, David, Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings, Oxford.15. Searle, John. (1984). Minds, Brains and Science: The 1984 Reith Lectures. Harvard University Press.16. Searle, John. (January 1990). Is the Brain's Mind a Computer Program? Scientific American 262: 26-31.17. Searle, John. (1992). The Rediscovery of the Mind. Massachusetts: M. I. T. Press.

The Validity of Knowledge

Lia Thompson Mr. Faria HZT 4U1 Wednesday January 18, 2012 The Validity of Knowledge This paper will explain the validity of John Locke’s Theory of Knowledge. Epistemology has been the topic of discussion for many philosophers over the centuries. The study of knowledge is important because as humans, it is necessary to understand where the basis for our knowledge originates. Locke, like many philosophers believed that all knowledge about the world is derived from sensory perceptions.Empiricists such as Locke believe this â€Å"posteriori† view of knowledge. He explains in his theory that we are born with â€Å"blank slates† or Tabula Rasa, the term used in Locke’s theory in his writing, â€Å"An Essay Concerning Human Understanding† (Locke 163). Philosophical arguments are as varied as the philosophers who construct them. For each theory, there is an opposing view. Rationalists, such as Rene Descartes would argue against Locke and his empiricist view of knowledge, believing knowledge to be innate.Descartes believed that all humans are innately born with these truths without the aid of our senses as argued in his first, second and third Meditations (Descartes 3). Locke’s theory goes against not only Descartes views but Plato’s as well. But Despite the arguments against Locke’s empiricist view, he is most reasonable. I agree with John Locke’s theory of sensory perception because we would not be able to survive without our senses. John Locke was born on August 29, 1632 in a village in Somerset, England (John Locke-Biography).He wrote several major works that have made a big impact on today’s view of the world, but his major theory on knowledge was in his book, â€Å"An Essay Concerning Human Understanding†, where he outlined his views as well as argued against rationalist’s view on innate knowledge. He wrote his book based on his belief that true knowledge is gained through experien ce, â€Å"a posteriori† (Velasquez 330). â€Å"Locke holds that the mind is a tabula rasa or blank sheet until experience in the form of sensation and reflection provide the basic materials — simple ideas — out of which most of our more complex knowledge is constructed† (Uzgalis).Reflection and sensory experiences go hand in hand because in order for our senses to be used, we must experience the world around us. Once we have experienced, for example the sweet taste of an apple, from eating it, we are able to reflect on what our senses were able to establish about it and gain truths about what we experienced. â€Å"Reason is our intellect, our power to think and make judgments based on our sensory experience† (Locke 59). Locke does agree that we as humans have reason but our senses are paired up with reason, as we are to reason what our senses are experiencing.Locke created the theory of â€Å"Primary and Secondary Qualities† to explain his i deas about the differences between our perception of the world and what the world really is. Based on scientific research, humans are aware that not everything we perceive is the same as how other living creatures perceive it. Animals in comparison to humans may experience the same things as humans do, but the way they are perceived can be totally different. For example, it is scientifically proven that dogs cannot see in colour, so to them everything is in black and white.Dogs still use their sight, but are unable to see the same colour humans can. Primary Qualities are measurable qualities by size, weight, shape etc. and will stay the same regardless of our perception. Secondary Qualities are the hidden powers an object has that can produce in us a sensory experience such as the colour we see in the sky. (Velasquez 333) We can understand his theory on Primary and Secondary Qualities because scientists are able through research to study other living things and their perceptions of senses.Locke’s theories are a clear explanation to the many things we experience as human beings. Descartes was born on March 31st, 1596 in Touraine. After finishing school in 1612, it left him feeling unsettled and dissatisfied. He felt the need to travel, so he could discover new surroundings and he joined the army at the age of seventeen. He was in search of discovering more truth than he had found at school. Descartes lived in a time of great uncertainty as to what truth was, and what it wasn’t.There were new scientific discoveries being made which were unheard of at that time, as well as the new protestant branch of Christianity that went against the old traditional religious beliefs. With everything around Descartes changing, he began to doubt all his prior knowledge (Velasquez 320). Descartes began to search for true knowledge, which was the beginning of Descartes’ first meditation on Doubt. He questioned the idea that we may all be unaware of our state o f mind; are we dreaming, or are we awake?Descartes concluded that there are no ways to tell whether or not we are awake or dreaming. So where did this idea come from? He went on to say that there must be something of a higher power deceiving him, an â€Å"evil genius† of deceiving nature creating this illusion for all to get caught up in. Descartes reasoned that, if this were the case, we couldn’t trust our senses at all because our senses are illusions. With this mindset, Descartes believed that the only basic truths are those that cannot be doubted. The undeniable truth he discovered was â€Å"I think, therefore I am† which he reasoned that even if he was being deceived about everything else, he could not be deceived that he was thinking he was deceived, therefore he exists† (Velasquez 321). In order for Descartes to rule out sensory perceptions, he would need to rely on another basis for our knowledge. Based on his inner reflection, he believed that kno wledge is not learned, ideas are present in the mind at birth. â€Å"We have a priori knowledge – we are born with knowledge and truths without the aid of sense perceptions†¦Ã¢â‚¬ (Velasquez 324).Descartes would argue against Locke’s sensory perceptions theory because to Descartes, our senses are invalid. In Descartes† second meditation, he uses an example of a piece of wax to prove our senses wrong. â€Å"Let us take, for example this piece of wax: it has been taken quite freshly from the hive, and it has not yet lost its sweetness of the honey which it contains; it still retains somewhat of the odor of the flowers from which it has been culled; its colour, its figure, its size are apparent; it is hard, cold, easily handled, and if you strike it with a finger, it will emit a sound† (Descartes 190-191).Here Descartes explains, in every respect all physical aspects of the wax that is experienced with our senses. â€Å"But notice that while I speak a nd approach the fire what remained of the taste is exhaled, the smell evaporated, the colour alters, the figure is destroyed, the size increases, it becomes liquid, it heats, scarcely one can handle it, and when one strikes it, no sound is emitted†¦What then did I know so distinctly of this piece of wax? It could certainly be nothing of all that the senses brought to my notice, since all hese things which fall under taste, smell, sight, touch, and hearing, are found to be changed, and yet the same wax remains†¦ it is mind alone which perceives†¦this piece of wax† (Descartes 190-191). Descartes explains that because the wax can transform, leaving us with different sense perceptions than before, it cannot be trusted as knowledge. Descartes was unable to grasp Locke’s concepts of sensory experiences and therefore rejects everything but the knowledge we are innately born with.Although Descartes gives an adequate theory, his views do not stand up to Locke and other philosopher’s criticisms. To Locke, Descartes’ whole argument on innate knowledge and the ideas behind his meditations are weak, not only invalid because of their opposing views on how humans attain knowledge, but invalid in regards to his reasoning behind his theories. There are many things to point out about Descartes, based on Locke’s ideas. Locke understood the ideas of innate knowledge, but disagreed because he believes we are too much a part of this world to doubt its existence.If innate knowledge were the only true way to have knowledge, people would not be having arguments of what is right and what is wrong. â€Å"[Descartes ideas of doubt are invalid] because there are none to which all mankind give a universal assent† (Uzgalis). Descartes’ explanation of existence of things states that because Descartes can think, and because thinking things exist, Descartes therefore exists. But this argument is invalid because this is the same as saying, â€Å"I am walking, hence I am the walking. The author, William Benton in the book, â€Å"Descartes/Spinoza† objected to Descartes’ second meditation on doubt by saying, â€Å"this is an assumption on Descartes part to say that which one understands is the same exercise of understanding†¦for the entity of understanding itself, is one thing and the essence is another† (Benton 135). This relates back to Descartes invalid argument because Descartes defense can be restated as a claim that he is thought.One may think, but can never be the â€Å"entity† or the actual action of thinking. All of Descartes meditations on knowledge surround the main idea of innate knowledge and thought, â€Å"but whence comes our knowledge of this proposition, I think? †¦ we cannot think of leaping, apart from that which leaps, of knowing apart from a knower, of thinking without a thinker† (Benton 135). Descartes has no explanations of how we are able to c ome to thoughts on actions.Actions can relate to the idea of innate knowledge because they both are thought, but are unseen to the senses, at least until the thought or action is indeed physically done. â€Å"But for example, willing fearing and denying always go hand in hand with something physical as the subject of those thoughts, you cannot have the knowledge of what scares you without experiencing it in some way† (Hutchins 138). Locke also expresses his opinion not on emotions that derive from experiences but with the nature of this world. For I imagine any one will easily grant that it would be impertinent to suppose the ideas of colours innate in a creature to whom God hath given sight, and a power to receive them by the eyes from external objects: and no less unreasonable would it be to attribute several truths to the impressions of nature, and innate characters† (Uzgalis). If we know what the term â€Å"colour† means, that is some sort of knowledge, and s o we are unable to identify colour unless we use our senses. We cannot believe we know the term colour, without actually experiencing it.Just as the author in the book â€Å"Descartes/Spinoza† explains that one is unable to know what an actual angel looks like, but from our experiences through visual senses, we are able to construct ideas of what one might look like based on our visual surroundings. (Hutchins 136) Now this goes against Descartes ideas of thought and innate knowledge because, â€Å"Notice that in order for Descartes to doubt his beliefs, he needs a language in which to express his doubt. But then, if Descartes were to doubt his beliefs about what words mean, then he could not formulate any doubts at all.He would be totally incapable to express his doubts. Thus the attempt to doubt anything would be necessarily self defeating† (Albert). Descartes’ arguments on doubt are self-defeating because Descartes does not believe anything exists but his mind , ruling out all language and terms used and formulated in this world. The example of wax used by Descartes to validate his view that sensory knowledge is the only knowledge, can be looked at differently to validate sensory experiences.From an empiricist’s point of view, one would indeed gain knowledge by putting the wax near the fire because in doing so, one would understand what happens to wax when it is being scorched. By using the senses to experience the wax in a different form, one is able to reflect and learn from the experiment. Descartes theories have many flaws, therefore making his arguments invalid. Although there are many other rationalists that oppose the views of empiricism, Plato was another great philosopher who developed the very foundations of innate knowledge based on Socrates dialogue with the slave boy.Socrates, being one of the significant founders of western philosophy, along with his student Plato was famous for imposing difficult thought-provoking in quiries to the fellow Athenian citizens. Although Socrates did not record any of his philosophical discussions or inquiries, his student Plato explains to us the works of Socrates. Plato, like Descartes believed that there was only one way to have knowledge. He believed knowledge was not acquired through the use of our senses, but merely obtained before we were born.Plato went farther than Descartes by believing that our souls must have lived in another universe before being born in this one. This other universe would have been perfect where we would have been able to experience perfect objects and were able to experience all that was perfect in the prior universe. The reason we would have innate knowledge would be because when we were born into this imperfect world, according to Plato, all the perfect concepts of the previous world would still be within our souls. â€Å"Most rationalist philosophers have rejected Plato’s claim that before we were born we existed in another perfect universe.But many rationalists have accepted Plato’s more basic insight: we do not acquire the basic truths of math and science by observing the world around us†(Velasquez 326). Although his beliefs about how we attained innate knowledge were not much accepted, he uses a dialogue between Socrates and Meno, the slave boy’s master to explain his beliefs on innate knowledge. â€Å"In Meno, Plato tells us how Socrates once made a slave boy â€Å"remember† his knowledge of geometry by showing him some imperfect figures drawn on the ground.Socrates shows the slave boy a square that is supposed to be two feet by two feet in size. Socrates asks the boy to draw a second square that is exactly twice the size of the first square†¦the boy initially realizes that his first answer is wrong. If you double the length of each side of the square, you will get a new square that is exactly four times as big as the first square. Yet the boy knows this without mak ing exact measurements†¦ and even if the boy had measured the squares, they would probably not have turned out to be exactly the right sizes. So where did this boy’s knowledge come from? (Velasquez 324) In this summary of the dialogue, Plato argues that the boy’s knowledge of the Pythagorean theorem could not have come from observing the imperfect figures drawn on the ground. This proves that it must be knowledge that is already in our minds then, because Plato explains that the knowledge of mathematical theorems are not obtained through sensory experiences. It is impossible to rely on our senses to give us knowledge of math because there is no physical experience to go hand in hand them. This belief is the total opposite of Locke’s views because Plato denies any thing that relies on the senses.In Plato’s dialogue involving the slave boy, there is some questionable material that can relate back to Locke’s beliefs of relying on our senses. Even though the slave boy was able to answer Socrates’ geometrical question, the dialogue stated that the boy hesitated and also made a mistake before arriving at the correct answer. â€Å"At first the boy says that if you double the length of each side of the first square, you will get a second square that is exactly twice the size of the first square†¦the boy quickly realizes that his first answer is wrong. (Velasquez 324) His knowledge was based on observation not innate knowledge. The boy was able to use his visual perception to determine the measurements of the squares. As Locke would say, â€Å"Reason is our intellect, our power to think and make judgments based on our sensory experience† (Locke 59). It merely takes reason and reflection to first observe the dimensions of square and then come to a realization about how to double the square. Although he was answering a question, Socrates used an example of an imperfect square and then asked him to solve the ques tion.The answer was discovered through trial and error. It was clearly not based on innate knowledge but visual senses. I agree with Locke’s theory because it is the most reasonable approach to the idea of gaining knowledge. With out sensory perception feeding us, we have nothing to base our knowledge on. We have been born with blank slate, but are still equipped with reason as human beings. One can relate scientific discoveries to sensory perceptions because all scientific knowledge comes from observations.One cannot call something a scientific discovery if it does not have evidence to back up their hypotheses. The evidence used does not come from innate knowledge, but from observation, touching, hearing, smelling, tasting. If, according to Plato and Descartes, basic science and math were innately known, then science would not improve. If science were innate, scientists would not have a job, and everyone wouldn’t be arguing about their beliefs. Science is constantly d iscovering something new, constantly realizing that something once thought as true, turned out to be false.For example, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is based on mathematical structures and therefore is valid in the eyes of a rationalist. But if this knowledge were innate it would automatically have to be true. Scientists just recently have discovered subatomic particles that defy the theory of relativity, as these particles move faster than the speed of light. If this is the case, it is impossible to say that innate knowledge is the only truth. The whole world would have to be in agreement and collectively accept things as they are, and the world is nothing like that.We can all agree to this because we have all gained knowledge through the use of our senses. Knowledge itself is something that we as humans are still discovering, questioning and experiencing in our own way. John Locke helps us to see that knowledge is something gained individually, in our own ways, in our ow n time. We all have something in common and that is our ability to use our senses in such ways that we have been able to create magnificent pieces of art, unravel the mysteries of the universe, invent new and convenient strategies for the human race and so on.All this made possible by the pursuit of knowledge. Works cited Books Hutchins, Robert Maynard// Rene Descartes// Baruch Spinoza. Great Books of the Western World: Descartes Spinoza. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952. Print. Locke, John. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Ed. Kenneth Winkler. Hackett Publishing Company, 1996. Velasquez, Manuel. â€Å"Chapter 5: The Source of Knowledge. † Philosophy. 10th ed. Belmont: Thomas Wadsworth, 2008. 320-33. Print. Websites Albert. â€Å"Criticisms to Descartes’ Cogito  « Albert’s PHI101/103 Weblog. Albert’s PHI101/103 Weblog. 1 Apr. 2008. Web. 20 Jan. 2012. . â€Å"John Locke – Philosopher – Biography. † The European Graduat e School – Media and Communication – Graduate & Postgraduate Studies Program. 2010. Web. 20 Jan. 2012. . Uzgalis, William, â€Å"John Locke†, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta  (ed. ), URL = .