CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Parental "Cyber-Spying" - Is it necessary?
In today's technology-filled world, it is impossible for our children to stay off the internet (unless you live out in the middle of nowhere or you keep your kid in a bunker, in which case this debate isn't for you). Because of this, many parents have taken it upon themselves to monitor their child's online activity -- from what cat video they Googled at 11PM last night to who they're texting right now.
I'm here to ask what your opinion is. Should parents crack down on kids' online activity, or should they be more lenient and trustworthy?
Here are some possible topics of discussion: device ownership, child age, child maturity, parental familiarity with technology, mistrust, parent-child relationships, internet safety talks, etc.
For me kids are allowed spend way too much time on the internet and leaving aside how much time and what they're being exposed to for a minute ; over indulgence is leading to other issues as in the physical health of the child .
Obesity levels in children are getting higher by the year as kids come home from school and slump in front of the internet for a few hours ;my generation of classmates were all thin and fit and indeed an obese child was a rarity in my schooldays , look at it now overweight kids are the new norm it's rare I see kids partaking in sports in any of my local parks as it eats up valuable internet time .
Either way kids need to have age restrictions when on the internet and indeed time limits .
I see that you strongly oppose overuse of the internet, and your prime excuse is child obesity.
I believe that, with sufficient discussion, parents can teach their kids healthy living habits that they can then use in their own lives. For some, this may seem unattainable, however I know that this worked out fine for me as a child.
I think that you are only looking at the negative as well. Well over half of my high school participates in some form of physical activity, most of them participating in the sports programs we have, while still maintaining interest and activity on the internet.
For some, it may consume their daily lives, however I do think that that is representative of the parents teaching skills (there are exceptions to this, such as kids knowing its not good but being involved in online groups or programs that require extended access. This can be discussed as well.)
Anyways, bottom line, too many limits and "laws" begins to feel authoritarian and overruling, rather than building trust. I know that this is, stereotypically, a very "liberal" thing to do (in reference to "limiting the limits"), however I think that integrating this form of trust is essential to a healthy parent-child relationship in the age of technology.
Thank you for your thoughts on this topic it's an interesting question and it's great to hear differing viewpoints .
I agree when you say ....I believe that , with sufficient discussion parents can teach their kids healthy living habits .....
The problem is are most parents in fact doing this ?
If they are in fact doing this how come so many children are indeed overweight ?
Over here our kids are starting to hit un precedented levels regarding weight because of poor diet and lack of exercise .
Parents over here mostly both work as two incomes are really a necessity certainly if one lives in the capital city , time is of the essence people spend less time with kids and less time in family activities ; fast food and more indoor time for the kids and indeed adults who seem to spend a fair proportion of time also on social media .
You say I'm only looking at the negative ?
Well yes because I'm telling you the way it is over here and I'm concerned .
I hear what you say about your high school but what about nationwide are kids more or less active than 30 - 40 years ago ?
Are kids heavier than 30 - 40 years ago ?
I know for fact all my classmates were thin and fit and indeed the entire school mostly were thin ; obese kids were a rarity so what's going on ?
Again I get your points and it's all down to the parents unfortunately most parents do what other parents do , after a stressful day at work they want time to themselves a quick meal and TV or internet .
I'm 54 now when I was a kid every meal was sitting down with the family which to us was great , all meals were home cooked and we were all healthy and happy ( mostly ) I still set a table and sit for meals ; everything now is the fast and easy option which isn't always the best .
I'm also not proposing limits and laws I'm stating what it's actually like over here , if parents do not have set rules and guidelines regarding the health of their children well that's sad ; tragically they rarely over feed their dogs and make sure the animal gets regular exercise do you not find that strange to say the least ?
It depends on the kid. Their age, maturity, behavioral trends, friends, enemies, social life, lack of social life, free time, all play in to whether they're likely to become victims or predators on the web. Indeed there are some who are at high risk for multiple reasons and in those cases i agree with parents keeping a close eye on them.
My daughter is only three, so I dont have that problem yet. I do believe in privacy even for children, so I will try to kill my curiosity when the time comes.
I would rather ban certain sites, like porn sites and other of the kind, that way she doesnt see or engage in things she isnt supposed to without me snooping around.
I do realize this isnt a bulletproof plan. I havent made up my mind yet. It also depends on what kind of person she grows up to be, some children are rebels, others are not.
I think that your current decision to not snoop around too much is a good one. It builds trust with your child, in my opinion.
However, I also think that there is a point where kids should be allowed to discover that kind of stuff too. If kids grow up believing that it is horrible and bad and they're ignorant of it, then that could result in unintended outcomes. My opinion is that there should be a discussion and, if they can demonstrate maturity online, I don't really mind if they decide to look at that.
As far as the kind of people our kids grow up to be, that's largely in the hands of the parents. Kids tend to adopt many of the actions and beliefs that their parents have, unless they're attempting to be rebellious.
And yes children should be able to discover things for themselves, but they start using the internet way before I think it is appropriate for them to see such things. My nephew uses the internet and he's seven, I would hate for my daughter to stumble across something disgusting at that age. When she's 13 she can take it but .. yeah, not when this young.
I happened across it at a very young age, but it didn't have a negative effect on me. If anything, it had a positive effect and allowed me to mature more efficiently. I know this isn't the case for many people, however.
I think that another interesting topic is parents letting their children view acts of terror and violence online. Although I have done fine with it and discovered it at a similar age, I find it interesting that parents see fit for their children to view this before porn. I believe that it has a much longer lasting effect on their mental health and view of the world.
(Don't get me wrong -- if there are discussions about it, just as any other sensitive topic, then it can be okay, but many children accept it as "normal" just as they do with porn without sufficient discussion. For some reason, parents are much more afraid of talking about sexual intercourse than violence, and I think that should say something about our society.)
It is hard to believe the passage of time - that you've now lost your every being in the past, and all that remains is a collection of memories that might not even be real. That's why, though your being can feel it passing, what is passed does not seem so easily acceptable.
You are getting at the myth of the persistent self, no? I'm sympathetic to that take. Out of curiosity, are you familiar with David Parfit or any Buddhist philosophy?
Yes, it was a reference to the persistent self problem. Things get really confusing in factoring the nature of being - my current reading list begins at Plato and Aristotle, contains quite a bit of variation, and ends at Sartre and Heidegger. Due to how I use my lists (I have a number of lists and read as inspiration strikes), it will take long to end.
The philosophy of self is an area of strong interest for me. I found Parfit a rather interesting read. Buddhism isn't exactly about the myth of the persistent self so much as the myth of self at large. Anatman is the key word, if you're interested in looking into that at all. So many good things to read though; I hear you there.
Looking into it, Anatman = An + Atman (non soul). (From search)
Well, I'm familiar enough with Hindu philosophy to understand what the description means. Strange, that I came at roughly the same conclusions over the illusion of self (and I have much more data available to do so, when then they didn't know what a neuron is).
I'll be getting to it soon, then. (Following a religion would be a different matter.) After going through Hindu philosophy, which is on one of my lists right now.
Part of my interest in Eastern philosophy stems from how much earlier their thinkers arrived at some of the ideas I've appreciated in Western philosophy. I don't see it as any sort of superiority, but as a possibility for their having more discourse around the ideas over a longer period of time and with broader acceptability (no-self theory hasn't exactly caught on in the West, as I'm sure you're aware).
From a thinker to another, anything you've found of interest lately in your readings you might recommend my way?
In the east, philosophy was mainly about religion, or related to it. In fact, in ancient India, brahmins (the caste which did things like philosophy) were held quite high. There have been various perks for them during those times based on the achievements.
While in the west, things couldn't catch up until after 15th century, when religion lost much of its monopoly. It's been almost a pause from the fall of Rome to the Renaissance - around the time christianity had been popular. Sometimes I wonder whether we humans are doing everything wrong, whether we have (or can) got right anything at all.
Right now, on ancient western philosophy, I'm reading the Complete Works of Plato, which I'll follow by (or read with) Complete Works of Aristophanes. On eastern philosophy (Hindu), there's the Rigveda (OUP translation, 2014), though I'd recommend reading first some introductory texts to Hinduism (there's a reading list on r/Hinduism) if you are not familiar with it. Then there is Mathematics (by A.D. Aleksandrov and a number of Soviet authors), Principia Mathematica (the one by Newton and its namesake by Russell) and Feynman Lectures on Physics. (Reminds me, I could give you a more complete list on my Goodreads profile.)
I prefer to do whatever it takes to stand on the shoulders of the highest giants and see further. Though I wish there was a way to directly transfer things to brain. I have some ideas on how that might happen, but many complexities arise there, the main one being the problem of connecting.
The regional differences in the relationship between religion and other philosophies (I regard all religion as philosophy) is interesting to me, although I think it is perhaps not so pronounced as it is commonly perceived to be. I am admittedly less familiar with Eastern religions, but from what I do know they have created intellectual monopolies of their own at the expense of other perspectives (e.g. Indian Emperor Ashoka banned certain Vedic practices when he converted his empire to Buddhism). I also think there was some interesting philosophy that came out of the West even when Christianity retained a tight grip on intellectual thought, though its stifling influence was nevertheless remarkable.
What I have read in ancient Western philosophy has tended to underwhelm me, but there certain ideas I find interesting and I nevertheless appreciate them for the early contributions they provided to Western thought. I'm not especially familiar with Hindu philosophy, so introductory texts would be in order for me. Buddhism has received more of my attention. I'm not very familiar with Goodreads, but if there's a convenient way to share that list I'm always looking for good adds.
I have a somewhat unusual motivation in studying philosophy. I don't see it as a progressive thing, and my end is not to advance it or anything along those lines. I think philosophy necessarily builds from non-rational premises, and so is ultimately an individuated conclusion that reflects back upon our preferences. I read others to understand others, and in the event that they inform my own premises differently and thereby affect the conclusions I draw. At any rate, I certainly agree - it'd be nice to just be able to transfer information directly! I'm dubious that it's possible, though, and I think a further consideration for me would be how this impacts perception and ontology of self.
Perception of self... That shouldn't be a problem. Your being is perceived only by you at any given time, and you is what perceives it.
But yes, it'd be interesting if you suddenly also begin to feel conscious for the machine. That could happen, at best, only till the connection lasts, after which the being you perceive separates from the machine.
Yeah, it's still a few decades, at least, before psychology advances enough for that purpose. Though for that, I'd recommend you read C. G. Jung. He did a rather fine job on it (still, nowhere close to perfect).
On my goodreads profile, well, some tags/categories seem rather messed up (ideally, the import should have gone better than that.) I'll be editing the errors sometime soon (some books I've read are in the 'to read' shelf).
Consciousness is experienced only by that consciousness, but I'm not sure that consciousness is necessarily interchangeable with self. My conception of it certainly extends beyond that constraint. I think if one began to feel conscious for the machine, it would simply be that you had become a single consciousness together. What is interesting there is the shared consciousness split between two autonomous bodies. That would have incredible implications beyond the immediate context of transferring information.
Well, self comprises only of consciousness and contains it entirely (or does it? The free will problem concludes that we are partially conscious at best.)
The more disturbing part is that the design I have in mind isn't an orthodox computer system, but more of a virtual brain. So, your consciousness can actually copy on it. Then, as a machine is more stable than an organic brain, while your brain will recreate a consciousness, changing with its structure and experiences, the machine will keep it intact. What happens to the being?
That's the reason I don't associate being with a constance of consciousness, but as a collection of flux, or thoughts. (Reminds me somewhat of Descartes) A being never stays constant, and thus a machine can not preserve it.
What if we further the concept to make an artificial intelligence that could actually sustain a being? In that case, I wonder what being conscious for inorganic objects feels like.
It can be defined by 2 things - the host, which we talked about; and the composition.
The composition would be one of flux, or the thoughts and ideas. From my materialistic viewpoint, that'd amount to a set of processes inside the host that lead to the flux which creates the (perception of) being.
One problem that arises is: Is there any distinction between a being and its perception? Take yes, and you arrive at a soul, which'd probably be immortal. Take no, and you arrive at an illusion of self, as in materialism. Take partially, and you arrive at a cosmic consciousness, as in various religions (of which I'm not sure enough to name).
Monitoring anyone is an expression of distrust in their ability to make informed, intelligent decisions for themselves. It is the supposition that you are a more credible authority on their well-being than they are. If you're a parent and feel the need to spy on your child, then that's a reflection on your own confidence in how well you've done teaching them to be self-sufficient.
In general, it is bad. Ultimately, the child is responsible for any effects of his actions, so he should be allowed to make his own decisions.
The only exception would be when there is sufficient reason to believe that something will be harmful for the ignorant child, in which case you have the responsibility to keep him from making terrible decisions. But without any sort of grounding or monitoring as much as possible - restriction isn't a real solution.
