For the paper portion of our final project, I chose to make an argument about the meaning of Ted Chaing’s “Understand”.  Through this text, I argue that empirical analysis of intuitional ideas, feelings, and experiences limits and objectifies knowledge as a whole. Greco’s attempts to do this through languages and eventually an artificial brain exemplify how intuitional knowledge is holistic. To contrive empirical truths of a subjective perspective only abstracts parts from the whole of knowledge, therefore limiting it. Greco is blind to the reality that data cannot be constructed empirically, but requires subjectivity in order to take a desired form capable of expressing knowledge.

I chose to apply these theoretical concepts to the format of a magazine article. I modeled my article after an article on that is attached to this post. I chose a method of writing because physically demonstrating this concept is the antithesis of my argument (even though writing is too). My argument is more about what data cannot fully mean rather than what it does mean. I argue that data can only hold restricted meaning due to the limiting factors objectification introduces. I used an article because I am able to tell a story through reporting that illustrates the points of my arguments. It also enables me to offer theoretical (yet practical) uses objectifying subjective knowledge may possess if it were possible in its full extent. I focus on Greco’s desire to create an artificial brain and take this concept into fruition in my article titled “American Scientists Claim They Can Download People’s Minds With An Artificial Brain. Is This Possible?”