1. Be sure to place your entire midterm on your website and when you are finished send a link of your test to your teacher directly at neuralsurfer@yahoo.com (don't send it to any other email address, except that)
2. Make sure that it is YOUR OWN work and that if you use other authors please be sure to
quote and/or cite the material appropriately. Plagiarism will not be tolerated and you will receive an "F" automatically for the examination.
3. The test is due JULY 18TH
4. What is your real name?
Grant Guillen
5. What is your "user" name?
gguillen1
6. What is your email address that you use for this class?
gguillen1@mtsac.edu
g_money_47@hotmail.com, I have used both
7. Name and address for your website.
Winners Write the History Books
http://www.blogger.com/profile/00914094238961897598
8. Have you done all the reading for the first three weeks?
Honestly, no. I have done most of it, and I'm sure I will read more before I am done with this midterm, but as of now, no I have not done all of the book reading.
9. Have you watched each of the films that were required?
Yes.
10. Please place here all of the postings you have done for this
class (you can copy and paste them)
Naturally Selected
These magazines deal with the fathers of evolution. You have Darwin who said that the strongest survive the longest, which was later modified to say the strongest survive to reproduce. Then you have Mendel who figured the genetics, which was almost like an extension of what Darwin did. And finally Wallace who kind of combined the two to put natural selection, and genetics together. Darwin of course did his most famous work with the Galapagos Finches, Mendel had his peas, and Wallace working with biogeography.
I am most interested in the relationships between these three men. First you have Mendel and Darwin, and again Mendel gives a way for Darwin's theories to work through genetics. Then you have the most interesting relationship, and that is between Darwin and Wallace. The entire reason why Darwin published On the Origin of Species was because if he didn't Wallace was going to take the credit for his findings. These men all fed off of each other and gave birth to modern biology in my opinion. "To illustrate the difference between proximate and ultimate explanations, using a non-social behavior, consider the fact that there is a strong disposition among many people to prefer sweet foods. We say that sugar tastes sweet, because we have taste receptors for sweetness and this reinforces the behavior (a proximate explanation). However, we say that we seek foods that trigger our taste receptors, because our ancestors maximized their fitness by eating sweet fruits (an ultimate explanation). As a result, we are easy targets for fast food chains, which offer us foods with lots of sugar, salt, and fat—all of which were in short supply in ancestral environments, and so we inherited our ancestor's predispositions to eat them when available. Sociobiology aims to explain the function of behavior, not its proximate causes. The assumption is that many behaviors function to enhance reproductive success in the set of environments in which they evolved. To avoid being overly simplistic or unfalsifiable, sociobiological explanations must describe the explanandum precisely and connect its functional role to plausible evolutionary histories."
I was incredibly intrigued by the sociobiology reading. I think that this is a very interesting way to look at certain traits. Previous to reading this article, I knew that certain things were selected for as far as behavior was concerned, but it seems to me that sociobiologists would consider most if not all traits to some how be related to natural selection.
I was especially interested in the explanation that I copied and pasted above. I relate it to obesity in America. What I don't like about this paragraph and the example that was chosen, is that it almost defends obesity in America. If you read this statement it says that because America has the availability of more fatty foods, biologically we want to consume them. Therefore, this biologically explains the obesity problem in America.
The Truth is that Truth Lies
The narrator in this video speaks of human beings having a mandatory intuition to create God even if he doesn't exist. This particular statement stood out to me because it was addressed in the first lecture as well. Here it is presented as an idea by Voltaire, but in the lecture, it is stated as a scientific fact that there is something in our brains that makes us create religion.
Maybe that same thing in our brains that makes us create religion, is the same thing that makes Dr. Edward Wilson of Harvard feel so good about being good. That may be where we are hard wired to do good acts. They could be the same thing manifesting themselves in different ways. This is not me questioning my faith, I still stand by Jesus Christ and God, this is merely me acknowledging that there may be another side to this story. It is a very interesting thing to possibly look into.
Richard Dawkins
I found this lecture very enjoyable. I like Dawkins approach to science in saying how "queer" it is, because I agree with him. By far my favorite part was the part about the general who thought that he could master walking through walls. I loved how personal he was especially when he talked about reading the article in playboy because he himself had something in playboy. Overall, the lecture was the most enjoyable twenty odd minutes of science that I have ever experienced.
On a philosophical level, I really liked his explanation of atoms being mostly empty space. The metaphor really put it into perspective when he compared the atoms to small masses in different stadiums. It really makes a person think about how much of this world is nothingness. He put things into perspective for me from a biological standpoint, and he found an enjoyable way to do it. So far, this has been my favorite lecture.
Professor Edward O. Wilson
If I had the opportunity to talk to Professor Wilson, I would ask him one question. What is the meaning of life? What is the purpose of living on Earth for 65-120 years? Why do you feel we are here? I was very intrigued by Professor Wilson's interview because he addresses certain issues that I think a lot of people struggle with, only he decides to take the road less traveled. Where we answer with religion, he answers with biology. A lot of people would say that they do good works because it glorifies their god, whoever that may be. Dr. Wilson would say though that he does good deeds because he is "hardwired" to do good deeds. He has a very interesting take on life.
I think that the reason why I was not insulted by Dr. Wilson's comments was because he is confident in his own beliefs, but he has a respect for the other side. I never felt like he was trying to bash Christianity, or any other religion. I simply gathered that he does not feel that is the answer for himself. He made one very strong point, if we can find a way for religion and science to come together, we could very well save this planet that is in dire need of saving. If religious folks can get excited about saving God's creations, and science people can get excited about maintaining a healthy biodiversity, together we can overcome climate change, and environmental destruction.
The Future of Information and Memory
This ties in extremely closely with the ideas of artificial intelligence, or AI, that were addressed in the Socratic Universe. What I got from this is that the entire universe can be stored in the same place on something that is probably no bigger than the houses that we occupy. And the space that these memory devices use, is becoming smaller and smaller. I like the analogy with the iPhone because if we consider it, the new iPhone 4G is thinner and takes up a smaller space than the iPhone 3G. And yet, the new iPhone can hold the same amount if not more information than can be stored on the older model.
The technological advancements are extremely fast. The iPhone 3G is not an old phone. It took Apple only about two years to make a thinner model that stores the same amount of information. I do not think that human beings are that far off from being able to create a portable device that will store everything that has ever been created. My only question to that is this: will that information be accessible, or at some point will technology enter some kind of carrying capacity as far as storing of information? Will it someday become impossible to make the access of information even faster? Or like our universe, will technology continue to advance exponentially?
Assigned Reading
For this portion I would really like to focus on the principle put forth by the articles on cosmic inflation. This to me is proof of what I have said before, the more we know the less we know. And I think that this is how science and philosophy tie in so very close. Every time we learn something knew in physics, it shows us how little we know about many other things. Scientists answer one question and then are presented with many more based on that one discovery. There is no way that we can ever unlock all of the mysteries of the universe.
Furthermore, to me, the idea of cosmic inflation tied in with the lectures, proves the existence of God. In our universe, on our planet, there have occurred far too many coincidences to even contemplate them all being coincidence. There had to be a great creator guiding the forces of nature to create our race. To me, in life there is no coincidence. There is only fate.
Gods too decompose
I found this video incredibly interesting. I have heard this quote before and have read many of the ones presented in the video and can only offer one explanation. God himself was never a physical being. The only time that he ever manifested himself as a physical being, was through Jesus Christ. It is because of this, that I am going to disagree with the statement that Gods too decompose. I would also like to address the man who ran through the streets yelling where is God. God must be found within oneself. He lives in all of us, believers and non believers alike, but in order to find him, one must look within him or herself.
When Friedrich Nietzsche first spoke those words, I don't think that he meant them literally. What I interpret it to mean, is that the mid eighteen hundreds religion had fallen apart. During this time of great struggle between science and religion, people began to realize that the church was indeed fallible. They also began to realize that the things the church had been stating as fact for many years, were not true. Things along the lines of the earth being the center of the universe. I believe that what Nietzsche was trying to say was that times are changing and what they thought was never possible, was indeed possible. God was not dead. It was simply time for a new interpretation of the bible instead of the same one that had existed for nearly two millennium.
Little Things that Jiggle
There was mainly one thing that I wanted to focus on from this video. It was the statement that technology is alchemy without superstition. I agree with this statement completely. I never thought of it that way, but it truly is that way. In the old days, alchemists were trying to turn lead into gold, and while we still haven't quite figured that out, we have learned many things through simple chemical reactions. I feel that Alchemy was the birth of modern technology. It gave us one of the most significant inventions of all time, gun powder. When gun powder was invented, the Chinese were trying to create the elixir of life, otherwise known as something that would give its holder eternal life and immortality.
The ironic thing about alchemy and technology, is that it was always fueled by necessity. Initially, it was used to try and create something to make the world better, turning lead into gold most certainly would have made the world a more interesting place. Then creating the elixir of life and instead creating gun powder. When it was discovered that these things could not be created, it was almost like a switch was flipped. They began to say to themselves, "If I cannot create it myself, I will simply create something that allows me to take it from those who have it." That is where the little things that jiggle come in. The little things that jiggle helped to create the atomic weapons which are often now used as a threat against nations to allow us to go in and take their liquid gold, or oil. It is a vicious cycle.
Expert lectures
First of all it took me a long time into the third lecture with Stephen Wolfram to understand exactly what he was saying and how it related. Then about 15 minutes in, it hit me how all of the lectures are interconnected. In the first lecture with Professor Owen Gingerich of Harvard, which was definitely my favorite, he speaks of the randomness of the universe. He talks especially about the non-existent atom with the atomic weight of five. I think that what he is trying to show here is that there is a God because it is this omission that allows for life on Earth and without it, the Earth would be a much different place. I thought that the second lecture was interesting as well. For me, Lisa Randall was really trying to put us in to the bigger picture. This was kind of a cross between the scientific side and the religious side.
The final lecture with Stephen Wolfram, I think was trying to show that nothing is really random. I really think that his mission throughout that lecture was to try and disprove the existence of God through mathematics. In a way he very much reminds me of Pythagoras in believing that everything has its own equation. I saw a very interesting progression here throughout the lectures. They went from science and religion being compatible, to the possibility of a dimension that we cannot see, or heaven, and then to a lecture about how the entire world can be solved through mathematics. I am most inclined to believe Owen Gingerich. I believe that there are certain things in this world that will never be explained, it is part of the mystery of God.
Will Artificial Intelligence ever surpass Human intelligence?
For this particular question I am most inclined to agree with Dr. Dreyfus of UC Berkley. I do not think that Artificial Intelligence will ever surpass human intelligence in most ways. However, artificial intelligence allows us to further our intelligence because it can access information much quicker than the human mind. In a way, it supplements the human intelligence making it even stronger. I hope that it will always be impossible for artificial intelligence to equal or surpass human intelligence. I also believe that it will be difficult for artificial intelligence to equal human intelligence because humans are the ones that create artificial intelligence.
I also think that this question brings about a much more important moral question. If the technology does become available to duplicate the human brain, and the human heart in a sort of biological robot is it ethical to do so. I hope that it never becomes ethical because then we will truly lose what it means to be a human being. If biological robots can be created, then where does the cycle end? I believe that it will end in a sort of Armageddon. There is a story that was originally written in Spanish that speaks of the end of the human race. It says that human being were just outnumbered by the vast amounts of robots, and they eventually made human beings the subordinates. I am not making a prediction, I am merely posing the question, Where does it end?
Does God exist?
I firmly believe that he does. I have no proof of God existing, but that is where my faith comes in. I will always believe that my God exists until I die and pass into the next world and I see with my own eyes that God does not exist. In my eyes and in my heart, all evidence points to the existence of God, and that is something that no matter how much knowledge I gain on this earth, I will always believe. I do believe that my God is fair though, for example, if someone who had never been exposed to the bible dies, I do not think they will go to hell just because they have never heard of the bible. I think that if they are a good person they will be welcomed into the great beyond with open arms.
I would also like to examine this from a scientific point of view. There are mysteries in science, things that can not begin to be explained. I believe that some of these things will never be able to be explained and that is because of the existence of God. I believe that my God did create this world, whether that be through the big bang or any of the other number of theories that science gives us. I also believe that my God has created me in his likeness through evolution. I believe that Christianity and Science are compatible.
Are science and religion compatible?
I really don't like the way this question is phrased. The best way that I can think to answer this question is another related question. Why aren't science and religion compatible? There is no reason for me to believe that science and religion cannot coexist. However, religion is a very broad term. Dictionary.com defines religion as such, a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. To me, by this definition science is its own religion. It is a fundamental set of beliefs based on theorems and laws, it has the practices of laboratory studies, and it is followed and believed in by people all over the world. There are even different sects of science. There are people that believe in different aspects of science and therefore to me, science is its own type of religion.
That being said, I believe that there are certain things in specific religions that are not compatible with science. I will take into account my own religion, Christianity. There are certainly parts of the old and new testament which are not necessarily compatible with religion. Take the story of Noah's Ark for example, science tells us that if there had been a forty day flood, there would still be a lot of evidence of that in the fossil record. I respect science, but I do believe that there was a great flood. We often forget that story was passed down for many generations through only oral tradition before it was finally written into the old testament. It's somewhat like a game of telephone, the more the statement goes around the more it gets changed. I believe in science and in religion. But, I believe that in christianity, there are some things that are myths, there to establish certain beliefs.
What Ethical System Do you admire most?
The ethical system that I admire the most comes from the East. I admire Buddhism more than anything else. I like that it makes you separate yourself from the material world. I believe that it allows you to search within yourself for all of the answers. It takes a very strong person to be a Buddhist because it would be incredibly difficult to separate oneself from the material world especially in today's world where success is measured through material possessions.
I also of course admire Christianity for the enormous success that it has had. Christianity has been alive for 2000 years and has followers all over the world. I think that Christianity is very successful in giving a large number of people an ethical system to follow. You cant argue with success and Christianity has had an enormous amount of it.
Which Philosophers Do You Admire most?
To answer this question I must first lay out the qualities for which I would define a great philosopher. Once again however I must apologize for making an uneducated response to this question. I do not know a lot of philosophers, but there have always been a few that have peaked my interest. First of all, I would like to mention that I appreciate philosophers who I feel are or did search for answers instead of more questions. I also appreciate those that give detailed reasons for believing in what they did.
For all of the aforementioned traits, my favorite philosopher would have to be Plato. I read his book The Republic and loved it. I believe that it is a book that can be read 1,000 times and still find new things in it every time. He has reasons for what he believes, and while I do not always agree with him, I think he is fascinating. I also appreciated his tutor, Socrates. I am a fan of his philosophy as well as the way he chose to live out his days and sacrificing his life for what he believed in. And finally I enjoy Aristotle, I think that Aristotle was always searching for the truth instead of other questions. These are by far my three favorite philosophers.
Which Philosophical Tradition Do You Disagree With Most?
This is a complex question for me because it is difficult to say what philosophical tradition I disagree with most because I am not educated on all of the philosophical traditions. I think that if and when I answer this question I will have to apologize for a lack of good knowledge on the subject for which I am answering. I am not yet an educated phiolosopher so this first opinion is just that, an opinion. Through furthering my knowledge in philosophy I look forward to improving my knowledge and therefore being able to answer this question in a more thorough way at the end of this course.
I guess the part of philosophy that I disagree with the most is how in every answer there is two questions. When a philosopher gets asked a philosophical question, they answer with their views, but within that same answer are two new questions. I am guilty of this problem myself. In several of my previous posts I have answered my questions with only further questions. It is a vicious cycle and it just proves that the more we know, the less we know. Video 2
I am generally open minded when it comes to philosophy. I like to see all points of view and then come up with my own unique philosophy on things. Although my answers are not always the best, and are not always complete, my views are purely my own even if they follow the same basic principles as another philosopher. The same thing goes for history, I am a historian by nature, and I take in the considerations of other historians, but in the end my theories are my own.
That is why I did not like this video. I do not like how Pythagoras tries to relate everything back to math. There are many things in this universe that can be quantified through math. But then there are those things which cannot be quantified, and I hope that they will never be able to be quantified. I hope that the technology never exists to quantify the thoughts of the human mind. Those should always remain unquantified and private. Magazine post: God magazine
For this assignment I choose to read the God magazine. I thought that it would be a dismemberment of the Christian faith, and as a Christian I thought I would be offended by the things mentioned in this magazine. But, this magazine was more about political murder then it was about the existence and following of any god. In this particular portion though, I think there is only a slight difference.
Religion and politics are very different, but I can see the conclusions being drawn from this particular magazine. Both compare higher powers that their followers believe in with great faith. And both examples show that this higher power is viewed as a savior, but is also a killer. Personally, I feel that nothing can come without loss. The people that died because of medicinal marijuana are not to be forgotten, but I believe that they have been murdered by an imperfect system that cannot be perfected. As for me, I will continue with my faith in god as cruel but just, and I will do my best to remain on my God’s good side, and know that as long as I do that, if I should be a casualty as a result of his wrath I can be confident in knowing I will spend eternity in his kingdom. As for my government, there is no eternal resting place. That is the primary difference here. In this post I will be addressing the first video about who we are.
I believe that this is a very complex question. I think that who we are can never be defined. No matter what you ever do in your life it is always impossible to define oneself. In fact, if any one is to define me as a person, I would not leave that task up to myself. I believe that task can be best completed by the ones close to me. A person to know themselves and be able to define themselves is a daunting task.
There are several reasons for not being able to define ourselves. The first of which is that we have a biased opinion. When the common person is asked to define themselves they are of course going to list their own accolades and omit all of their shortcomings. It is also unnatural to define oneself. A person has never really analyzed them self because they "know" themselves and have always known everything about themselves for so long that there are little things that would not be told.
Finally, I must address the problem with yet another question. What is a human? What defines a human being? There is nothing that truly separates a human being from anything else. What is it that makes a human being unique? The interview conducted with Huxley was intriguing as i saw it. I think that Mr. Huxley made some very good points. I believe that he is correct in assuming that over population, over organization, and technology will one day come back to haunt our world. However, I believe that he lacks faith in the American will to preserve democracy. The proof lies within history. Simply look back in time to the things that Americans have done to preserve democracy, including the war for independence, as well as things such as the Marshall Plan during the Cold War. America and democracy have always gone hand in hand, and I do not think that is ever going to change, most certainly not in the next century.
The human individual will always remain. In the United States we are brought up on individual values and taught tolerance towards those who have other values. I believe that Huxley was right when he said that education is the way to maintain these values. In an age run by technology education is the way to maintain the individual and individual values. If the public becomes ignorant to current issues, or buys in to all of the inaccurate information fed to them by politicians then their freedoms will slowly slip away from them. If America's destiny is to become totalitarian, it will not fulfill that destiny for many years to come.
11. Why does Lisa Randall believe that there may be many more dimensions than we presently know in current physics? Is there any evidence at this stage for her beliefs?
Lisa Randall believes that there may be more dimensions than we presently know in physics because it is possible that there are. In her lecture, she also takes a bit of a religious approach when she talks about a group of people always believing in another dimension that we cannot presently communicate with. The group that she was of course referring to were the Christians and their belief of heaven and hell. She also believes that we could be living in a universe with many different dimensions because of branes. She thinks that there could be other dimensions that are constrained on different branes that we may have no knowledge of.
At this point, her beliefs cannot be proved. That is what she is working on in her research. Previous to this kind of work, it was believed that Physics was a kind of dead science. And now, she is on the cutting edge of physics trying to figure and prove that there are other dimensions which would of course thrill string theorists. String theorists believe that there are many different dimensions. Again, this is where physics has had a kind of rebirth. There is this desire to figure out just how many dimensions we are dealing with and that is what fuels modern physics.
12. What are Pythagoras' philosophical views in a nutshell?
Pythagoras believed that everything could be solved through math. Philosophically, he believed that there was an equation to explain everything in this World. He thought that all of the mysteries of the world would eventually be solved through an equation. He did not believe that anything was random.
I could compare him to an old day Stephen Wolfram. Wolfram believes that all random things in the universe can be explained through complex math. In a sense, Pythagoras has really been reborn in Wolfram. The only difference is that Wolfram actually has solved a lot of randomness through different mathematical models. So I would say that Wolfram and Pythagoras have very similar views.
13. Do you think science and religion are compatible? Be sure to explain your answer by GIVING
THE EXPLANATIONS given by philosophers who side with your position from the Socratic Universe (cite and quote when appropriate).
I really don't like the way this question is phrased. The best way that I can think to answer this question is another related question. Why aren't science and religion compatible? There is no reason for me to believe that science and religion cannot coexist. However, religion is a very broad term. Dictionary.com defines religion as such, a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. To me, by this definition science is its own religion. It is a fundamental set of beliefs based on theorems and laws, it has the practices of laboratory studies, and it is followed and believed in by people all over the world. There are even different sects of science. There are people that believe in different aspects of science and therefore to me, science is its own type of religion.
That being said, I believe that there are certain things in specific religions that are not compatible with science. I will take into account my own religion, Christianity. There are certainly parts of the old and new testament which are not necessarily compatible with religion. Take the story of Noah's Ark for example, science tells us that if there had been a forty day flood, there would still be a lot of evidence of that in the fossil record. I respect science, but I do believe that there was a great flood. We often forget that story was passed down for many generations through only oral tradition before it was finally written into the old testament. It's somewhat like a game of telephone, the more the statement goes around the more it gets changed. I believe in science and in religion. But, I believe that in Christianity, there are some things that are myths, there to establish certain beliefs.
The three main philosophers that I agree with on this subject are McGray, Schwyzer, and Adams. McGray says, "I fail to see any real conflict. The questions are different. Schwyzer believes, "They can be compatible. A good Christian can still believe in science. He can believe in Genesis as a myth. I don't believe that religion can swallow the evolutionist theory, just as I don't believe that science disproves religion. Religion has a different origin than science; it is not from an intellectual motivation. They both answer different questions. They have different realms of inquiry. Religion deals with the fate of mankind and is not straightforward curiosity as is science. And finally Adams vies are that, "They are compatible. There's a lot of scientists who are religious. Science is a human activity which proceeds on certain principles, has certain institutions, and serves certain functions of human life. It has produced a large body of beliefs which are widely held among our society. There are also some beliefs on the frontiers of research that are more controversial. And religion is a very different sort of set of practices, institutions, and beliefs. The religious beliefs and practices have obviously quite different functions from those of the scientific beliefs and practices. They have, generally speaking, different subject matter. There are different motives involved in pursuing the subject. The beliefs and practices have different relevance in human life. I'm not sure if a one level answer is desired to that question. There are all sorts of ways in which one can compare religion and science. All three of these beliefs go hand in hand with my own.
14. Why was Socrates put on trial? How did Socrates defend his position?
Socrates was put on trial for teaching his students in such a way that the Athenians disagreed with. At the time, Athens had just been defeated by Sparta in the Polynesian War, and it was a time of great dissent. For years and years, Athens and Sparta had been the two main powerhouses amongst the Greek City-States and when Athens was defeated by the Spartans, they began to have questions about their government. Many people in the government believed that was because of Socrates and that he was the problem and teaching people to question everything made him a perfect person to scapegoat for their problems.
Socrates' defense was that he was the wisest man in Athens. Initially, he was not convinced of this, and he set out to disprove it, but in doing so he found out that he was indeed the wisest person in Athens. He was a thorn in the side of the Athenian government and he was convicted of poisoning the minds of the youths in Athens. He was sentenced to death by drinking poison. His students begged him to flee the city, but he refused. He was willing to die for what he believed.
15. Give a brief history of philosophy using just 300 words (no more). You may use an outline format, but be sure to cram as many "factoids" (facts) as possible (key names, ideas, dates, etc.). Remember, it must be your own words and not merely a series of quotes.
The history of philosophy can really be broken up into four main categories. The first of which is ancient philosophy. In modern day, I believe this is the most known period in philosophy. When someone thinks of philosophy you think of such great names as Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates. There are interesting ideas involved such as Aristotle being told by the oracle that he was indeed the wisest man in Athens. And then you have Plato and his world of forms in which he believed that we were like people in caves only able to see out to this world of shadows. And the final of the big three, Aristotle who attempted to come up with flawless arguments based on logic.
Then you have medieval philosophy with such great minds as Thomas Aquinas. The main idea during this time was to use philosophy to prove the existence of God. This was a very religious time, and philosophy and religion went hand in hand during this time.
Modern Philosophy came next. It was said to be the “Age of Reason”. This included such people as Erasmus, and Machiavelli. This is really when science and philosophy began to intertwine themselves. Galileo was a philosopher of this time, just one clear example of a person who was both a scientist and a philosopher. This is really the time when people began to ask why about everything, and they got more than just a philosophical answer, they got a legitimate scientific answer.
And finally, contemporary philosophy when people began to really throw old knowledge out the window to find new and better answers. There were such great minds as, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Martin Heidegger, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Edmund Husserl. These are the people who rejected everything that they knew and started with a clean slate.
Then there is the less known eastern philosophy. Eastern philosophy has always been a little bit taboo to people in the west. These people often searched inside for answers. This was led by such people as the Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, or “the enlightened one.” It also includes Confucius. Both of whom searched for answers within themselves.
16. Explain the big bang and the inflationary universe. Why is it important to know astronomy in order to do philosophy?
The big bang theory is the theory that there was a big bang and then from there the universe expanded exponentially. The interesting part about this is the inflationary universe. The theory is that the universe is forever expanding on itself. It continues to get larger and larger as time goes on. Ever since the big bang, the universe has been expanding and that will never end.
It is important to know and understand astronomy in order to do philosophy because of how the two have always been intertwined throughout history. For hundreds of years philosophers have guessed at the origins of the universe. It is the basis for the question, "why are we here?" In order to understand current philosophy, which is still intertwined with the various different theories of physics and astronomy, we must understand current astronomy. Philosophers are always looking for science to prove their theories.
17. How do Heisenberg's views on philosophy and science DIFFER from Einstein's? How are they similar?
Heisenberg was very young when Einstein came out with his theory of special relativity. Einstein was much like a role model to Heisenberg as it was Einstein who led Heisenberg to quantum physics. They agreed on many things, but Heisenberg did not like Einstein's idea that everything has some quantities which cannot be measured. This is where their differences started.
Heisenberg believed that everything could be measured and his uncertainty relation came true. Just before that happened he was speaking in Germany, and Einstein was present and this was their first meeting. Although Heisenberg was initially inspired by Einstein, he always aimed to separate himself through his idea that everything could be measured.
18. What is meme theory and do you find it plausible? Explain your reasoning.
Meme theory is the idea that cultural ideas can be carried on through writing and learning. They are comparted to genes which are transmitted through generations on chromosomes. It is believed that the memes can be passed on from person to person with certain cultural ideas. Those who believe in memes believe that they are subject to natural selection just like genes are.
I find this plausible, but at the same time, I'm not sure that it is probable. I believe that such cultural traditions, and symbols are maintained in the brain. I think this because "memes" would be able to be changed in the course of a lifetime. I am currently a Christian, but that doesn't mean that I can't be a Buddhist tomorrow. I do not think they are like genes because they can be changed throughout the course of a lifetime whereas genes cannot be changed except through reproduction. However, I do find it plausible that cultural ideas are subject to natural selection. If an idea or a symbol is disproved, then it can fall out of popularity, but like genes it takes a long time for ideas to ever be selected out of the "meme" pool.
19. Why is understanding biological evolution so important in understanding human thought and behavior. Be sure to cite Wilson and Dawkins and Darwin when appropriate.
Biological evolution is much like physics in that early philosophers only guessed at how they happened. It was during modern philosophy when people like Darwin really began to prove biological evolution. Biological Evolution can help us to understand why things are the way they are, which is often a main philosophical question. Such as the example in the sociobiology reading that we did, "To illustrate the difference between proximate and ultimate explanations, using a non-social behavior, consider the fact that there is a strong disposition among many people to prefer sweet foods. We say that sugar tastes sweet, because we have taste receptors for sweetness and this reinforces the behavior (a proximate explanation). However, we say that we seek foods that trigger our taste receptors, because our ancestors maximized their fitness by eating sweet fruits (an ultimate explanation). As a result, we are easy targets for fast food chains, which offer us foods with lots of sugar, salt, and fat—all of which were in short supply in ancestral environments, and so we inherited our ancestor's predispositions to eat them when available. Sociobiology aims to explain the function of behavior, not its proximate causes. The assumption is that many behaviors function to enhance reproductive success in the set of environments in which they evolved. To avoid being overly simplistic or unfalsifiable, sociobiological explanations must describe the explanandum precisely and connect its functional role to plausible evolutionary histories." This example as I said in my post, gives a biological reason for America's obesity. The idea of sociobiology was introduced by Wilson.
This really goes along the lines of philosophy becoming science. They have further intertwined especially in this idea of sociobiology which I think is very possible. It gives reasons for why people act the way that they do. It further goes along the conversation between nature vs nurture. I think it is very important to understand evolution, if we are to understand why we do the things that we do.
20. In one of the films you were required to see, the narrator argued that fundamentalism was a mental disease. Why? Do you agree or disagree and please detail your rejoinder.
Fundamentalism is a mental disease. It is like not asking why. A person should always ask why. It is essential to natural selection. Those that do not ask why and to not question the fundamentals really have no idea why they do what they do. This is very much a mental disease because if you have no knowledge of the fundamentals, then you can have no true knowledge of life.
I agree with this idea that fundamentalism is a mental disease. I believe that especially because of the competitive world that we live in, one must always question the fundamentals in order to discover why they are the fundamentals. You can no longer accept the null. In order to get ahead in an extremely competitive world, you must excel and you cannot excel by just going through the motions. You have to know why in order to go beyond.
21. Where do you think Owen Gingerich "parts company" (fundamentally disagrees with) Edward O. Wilson? Who do you think is more persuasive in their reasoning about religion, Owen or Edward? Explain.
They fundamentally disagree on the idea of randomness. They both explain randomness in different ways. Gingerich leaves room for religion where as Wilson does not. Gingerich says that there are so many elements of randomness that make life on earth possible, that there could not possibly be a chance that it is all coincidence.
I am more inclined to believe Gingerich because I feel the same way about our universe. Of course I don't have as much knowledge about science and all of the random things, but those that I do have knowledge of just seem to perfect for life on earth to exist without some kind of supreme being. I also have a slight biased because I am a Christian and Gingerich supports that.
22. What does Francis Fukuyama mean by the "end of history." Do you agree or disagree? Explain.
What he means by the end of history is where we are all going to end up governmentally. He speaks of Marx and how Marx believed that we would one day end history in a state of communism or socialism. Fukuyama says that it clearly not where we are headed any more. Clearly we have avoided the red scare and we are heading away from Communism and socialism as they are no longer prevalent government ideas. He also says that life will be kind of boring and sedate and stable.
I will agree with him partially. I do believe that we are heading to a world where capitalism rules. At the same time though, people are most certainly not going to agree. That is what will keep like from being boring. People are always going to disagree on something, and not everyone will move to capitalism, because it just may not work in certain areas of the world. He says that the world is peaceful because none of the big powers are fighting against each other. But it has only been about 75 years since we have been fighting bloody wars. It has also been less then 50 years since we were fearful of nuclear war. Historically, that is not a long time.
23. Explain Nicholas of Cusa's philosophy of "unknowingness."
Nicoholas of Cusa's philosophy of "unknowingness" was presented in learned ignorance. He states that while we know a lot, there are certain things that we don't know because of this learned ignorance. We have this learned sense of judgement that guides us to what we need to know.
He contends that this unknowingness is about God. It is because we cannot fully understand God that we will never hold all of the knowledge in the World. Nicolas of Cusa believed that we would always have this learned ignorance and because of that, there will always be things that are not meant to be understood.
24. According to Nietzsche, how did we actually "kill" God? Think before you leap on this one.
I have heard this quote before and have read many of the ones presented in the video and can only offer one explanation. God himself was never a physical being. The only time that he ever manifested himself as a physical being, was through Jesus Christ. It is because of this, that I am going to disagree with the statement that Gods too decompose. I would also like to address the man who ran through the streets yelling where is God. God must be found within oneself. He lives in all of us, believers and non believers alike, but in order to find him, one must look within him or herself.
When Friedrich Nietzsche first spoke those words, I don't think that he meant them literally. What I interpret it to mean, is that the mid eighteen hundreds religion had fallen apart. During this time of great struggle between science and religion, people began to realize that the church was indeed fallible. They also began to realize that the things the church had been stating as fact for many years, were not true. Things along the lines of the earth being the center of the universe. I believe that what Nietzsche was trying to say was that times are changing and what they thought was never possible, was indeed possible. God was not dead. It was simply time for a new interpretation of the bible instead of the same one that had existed for nearly two millennium.
25. In the movie, Little Things that Jiggle, physics is explained by a series of slogans. Why, then, is physics important in the study of philosophy? Substantiate your answer.
Physics is important within philosophy because it has to do with the history of philosophy. In the past, philosophers have only guessed at how physics worked. It was those initial ideas that gave rise to the first physical theories. And I think those same questions that were asked hundreds of years ago still fuel modern physics today.
Physics remains to be important in the study of philosophy because the goal of philosophy is to become science. If something that a philosopher says eventually gets into the mind of a physicist and they can find a way to prove it, then philosophy has been proved true. And the main idea of philosophy is to find truth in the world. To find truth in the world, one must find proof through science.
26. How do you explain the following line, "To have freedom OF religion one must also have freedom FROM religion."
I really like this quote. Although, I am not sure who said it, that person was a very wise person. It is true that in order to have freedom of religion one must also have freedom from religion. What I think this person means is that in order to be able to make the conscious choice of whether or not to be a part of certain religion they must feel like they can leave that religion without negative consequences. Take for example, Professor Wilson of Harvard University. He has the right to choose his religious affiliations, and he has chosen to believe there is no God. In order for him to have made that decision, he had to free himself from his past of being a southern baptist. I'm sure that it took a lot of scientific proof in his mind, to make him reject that and believe that there would be no negative consequences.
Then you have other philosophers especially during the ancient and medieval philosophy period who did not necessarily believe in God, but they remained religious because they felt it was a safety net. These philosophers did not have freedom from religion, therefore they never had the freedom of religion. They always felt tied to Christianity mostly because of being fearful of negative consequences from God.
27. Why does Dawkins believe that believing in God is delusional?
Dawkins believes that believing in God is delusional because science is so queer. He thinks that because there are so many weird quirks in science, there could not have been a great creator because he believes that no great creator would have done that. He has an excellent piece on atoms. He says that atoms are mostly empty space and so we should be able to walk through walls which is of course impossible.
In one of my posts I talked about science being a kind of religion. And I think this plays in big time here. Dawkins looks at the queer things in science and says that no God could have created this. Whereas you have Professor Owen Gingerich who looks at the same evidence as evidence that God does exist. It is a set of beliefs that must have faith for conclusions.
28. Can science offer a sense of mystery comparable to what certain religions offer?
Yes and no. Science offers a sense of mystery in the things that it has not yet discovered. The mystery of physics is what keeps Lisa Randall so excited about being a physist. There is an excitement about not knowing exactly how many dimentions this universe contains. So there is some mystery in science, but it is not intended mystery. The mystery in religion is intended mystery and there will always be that mystery.
Science cannot offer mystery in the way that religion does because the goal of science is to figure everything out so there is not mystery. If scientists had it their way, they would have figured out all there is to know about science and there would be no mystery. So in this sense, science does not offer a sense of mystery comparable to what certain religions offer.
29. How does an understanding of celluar automata suggest a "new kind of science".... according to Stephen Wolfram.
Celluar automata suggests a new kind of science through removing the wonder of nature. It is unfortunate that science has gotten to a place where it can explain exactly how the water in a stream will will move around a protruding rock. If one can understand celluar auromata, then they can understand all the randomness in the world, because Wolfram suggests that this new science will be able to predict things like how a snow flake will be shaped when it falls.
This type of science for me takes it way too far. I think there should be things in nature that should just be the way that they are. The beauty of snowflakes is that no two are alike. If science can predict all the ways that a snowflake can look, I think it just ruins the beauty of nature. I know that there are many people in this world who disagree with me, but I would like to be able to enjoy a river running through a wooded area hitting rocks and creating a beautiful scene without thinking about the reasons one water molecule is traveling one way and the one next to it going the other.
30. What were the key turning points in Darwin's life?
I think there were two main turning points in Darwin's life. The first of which was his voyage on the HMS Beagle. This is obviously the trip that he took where he discovered the Galapagos finches and what would inspire his book On the Origin of Species. But I think this had more signifigance other then just the obvious scientific reasons. It is believed to be that this trip is what made Darwin so sick and therefore led to some of his decisions later in life.
The second major turning point in Darwin's life was his publishing On the Origin of Species. Darwin sat on this book for several years before finally deciding to publish it. He was not even sure that he wanted to publish it because of some of the ground breaking ideas that were presented in this book. Darwin was a religious man and that's really why he struggled with it so much. He did not want his book to be cause for people to say he was not a pious man. It wasn't until someone was going to publish his theories and take credit away from him that he decided to publish his book. He was ridiculed in the public for it. They made fun of him and even posted pictures such as this one http://www.artintheage.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/darwin2.gif. He could hardly go out in public without being humiliated. His theory of natural selection was by no means widely accepted.
31. What is spooky physics? And who do you think won the Einstein/Bohr debate? Explain your reasoning.
Spooky physics is quantum theory. Einstein believed that there are certain things which were governed by strict rules. Bohr felt differently. He believed that there were certain small things that were more random than previously thought. Quantum theory is called spooky physics because it really questions things that we know and makes us question everything.
As far as the Einstein and Bohr debate, I am inclined to agree with the author of the book Spooky Physics, Andrea Diem-Lane when she says, "As for an ultimate winner in the Einstein-Bohr debate, it may well be that the answer to that question is as indeterminate as the position of a single photon." That is where I am going to leave my answer. I am no where near educated enough in quantum theory to even make a guess as to who is right. If after nearly 100 years physicists cannot decide who is right between the two, then I will not throw an uneducated guess into the loop.
32. What is evolutionary philosophy and how can it best explain the emergence of self-reflective awareness?
Evolutionary philosophy is the philosophy behind evolution. It is integrating science and philosophy by showing how people have changed due to evolution in the ways that they think. It is trying to figure out why people think the way that they do today because of things that have happened in the past. For example, we have failed to learn everything there is to learn despite a long quest to figure out all of the knowledge, therefore we look at that as impossible.
We reflect on ourselves because of this evolutionary philosophy. There is something from that past that will always make us reflect upon ourselves. Such as the idea that when we did not have the technology to figure certain things out scientifically, we turned to self reflection for the answer. Evolutionary philosophy fills in all of the gaps. In a way, it is similar to sociobiology. Attempting to tell us why we do the things that we do. A bad example is from one of my favorite movies, Men in Black. In the second movie, Agent K wants to know why he stares at the stars. That is why he goes back to rejoin the MIB. He is searching for the answer to why he stares at the stars and evolutionary philosophy would be like Agent J in holding the answer for why he stares at the stars.
33. Give a review of the 3 required magazines listed above that you were required to read.
For this assignment I choose to read the God magazine. I thought that it would be a dismemberment of the Christian faith, and as a Christian I thought I would be offended by the things mentioned in this magazine. But, this magazine was more about political murder then it was about the existence and following of any god. In this particular portion though, I think there is only a slight difference.
Religion and politics are very different, but I can see the conclusions being drawn from this particular magazine. Both compare higher powers that their followers believe in with great faith. And both examples show that this higher power is viewed as a savior, but is also a killer. Personally, I feel that nothing can come without loss. The people that died because of medicinal marijuana are not to be forgotten, but I believe that they have been murdered by an imperfect system that cannot be perfected. As for me, I will continue with my faith in god as cruel but just, and I will do my best to remain on my God’s good side, and know that as long as I do that, if I should be a casualty as a result of his wrath I can be confident in knowing I will spend eternity in his kingdom. As for my government, there is no eternal resting place. That is the primary difference here.
The Future of Information and Memory
This ties in extremely closely with the ideas of artificial intelligence, or AI, that were addressed in the Socratic Universe. What I got from this is that the entire universe can be stored in the same place on something that is probably no bigger than the houses that we occupy. And the space that these memory devices use, is becoming smaller and smaller. I like the analogy with the iPhone because if we consider it, the new iPhone 4G is thinner and takes up a smaller space than the iPhone 3G. And yet, the new iPhone can hold the same amount if not more information than can be stored on the older model.
The technological advancements are extremely fast. The iPhone 3G is not an old phone. It took Apple only about two years to make a thinner model that stores the same amount of information. I do not think that human beings are that far off from being able to create a portable device that will store everything that has ever been created. My only question to that is this: will that information be accessible, or at some point will technology enter some kind of carrying capacity as far as storing of information? Will it someday become impossible to make the access of information even faster? Or like our universe, will technology continue to advance exponentially?
Naturally Selected
These magazines deal with the fathers of evolution. You have Darwin who said that the strongest survive the longest, which was later modified to say the strongest survive to reproduce. Then you have Mendel who figured the genetics, which was almost like an extension of what Darwin did. And finally Wallace who kind of combined the two to put natural selection, and genetics together. Darwin of course did his most famous work with the Galapagos Finches, Mendel had his peas, and Wallace working with biogeography.
I am most interested in the relationships between these three men. First you have Mendel and Darwin, and again Mendel gives a way for Darwin's theories to work through genetics. Then you have the most interesting relationship, and that is between Darwin and Wallace. The entire reason why Darwin published On the Origin of Species was because if he didn't Wallace was going to take the credit for his findings. These men all fed off of each other and gave birth to modern biology in my opinion.
EXTRA CREDIT: make your own 3 minute movie on meme theory and post
it on google.com VIDEO. Be sure to provide me with a link.
DOUBLE EXTRA CREDIT: Take your favorite movie that you saw listed on
the syllabus and give your own interpretation of its meaning (200
words minimum).
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Week 3 Post 5
Naturally Selected
These magazines deal with the fathers of evolution. You have Darwin who said that the strongest survive the longest, which was later modified to say the strongest survive to reproduce. Then you have Mendel who figured the genetics, which was almost like an extension of what Darwin did. And finally Wallace who kind of combined the two to put natural selection, and genetics together. Darwin of course did his most famous work with the Galapagos Finches, Mendel had his peas, and Wallace working with biogeography.
I am most interested in the relationships between these three men. First you have Mendel and Darwin, and again Mendel gives a way for Darwin's theories to work through genetics. Then you have the most interesting relationship, and that is between Darwin and Wallace. The entire reason why Darwin published On the Origin of Species was because if he didn't Wallace was going to take the credit for his findings. These men all fed off of each other and gave birth to modern biology in my opinion.
These magazines deal with the fathers of evolution. You have Darwin who said that the strongest survive the longest, which was later modified to say the strongest survive to reproduce. Then you have Mendel who figured the genetics, which was almost like an extension of what Darwin did. And finally Wallace who kind of combined the two to put natural selection, and genetics together. Darwin of course did his most famous work with the Galapagos Finches, Mendel had his peas, and Wallace working with biogeography.
I am most interested in the relationships between these three men. First you have Mendel and Darwin, and again Mendel gives a way for Darwin's theories to work through genetics. Then you have the most interesting relationship, and that is between Darwin and Wallace. The entire reason why Darwin published On the Origin of Species was because if he didn't Wallace was going to take the credit for his findings. These men all fed off of each other and gave birth to modern biology in my opinion.
Week 3 Post 4
"To illustrate the difference between proximate and ultimate explanations, using a non-social behavior, consider the fact that there is a strong disposition among many people to prefer sweet foods. We say that sugar tastes sweet, because we have taste receptors for sweetness and this reinforces the behavior (a proximate explanation). However, we say that we seek foods that trigger our taste receptors, because our ancestors maximized their fitness by eating sweet fruits (an ultimate explanation). As a result, we are easy targets for fast food chains, which offer us foods with lots of sugar, salt, and fat—all of which were in short supply in ancestral environments, and so we inherited our ancestor's predispositions to eat them when available. Sociobiology aims to explain the function of behavior, not its proximate causes. The assumption is that many behaviors function to enhance reproductive success in the set of environments in which they evolved. To avoid being overly simplistic or unfalsifiable, sociobiological explanations must describe the explanandum precisely and connect its functional role to plausible evolutionary histories."
I was incredibly intrigued by the sociobiology reading. I think that this is a very interesting way to look at certain traits. Previous to reading this article, I knew that certain things were selected for as far as behavior was concerned, but it seems to me that sociobiologists would consider most if not all traits to some how be related to natural selection.
I was especially interested in the explanation that I copied and pasted above. I relate it to obesity in America. What I don't like about this paragraph and the example that was chosen, is that it almost defends obesity in America. If you read this statement it says that because America has the availability of more fatty foods, biologically we want to consume them. Therefore, this biologically explains the obesity problem in America.
I was incredibly intrigued by the sociobiology reading. I think that this is a very interesting way to look at certain traits. Previous to reading this article, I knew that certain things were selected for as far as behavior was concerned, but it seems to me that sociobiologists would consider most if not all traits to some how be related to natural selection.
I was especially interested in the explanation that I copied and pasted above. I relate it to obesity in America. What I don't like about this paragraph and the example that was chosen, is that it almost defends obesity in America. If you read this statement it says that because America has the availability of more fatty foods, biologically we want to consume them. Therefore, this biologically explains the obesity problem in America.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Week 3 Post 3
The Truth is that Truth Lies
The narrator in this video speaks of human beings having a mandatory intuition to create God even if he doesn't exist. This particular statement stood out to me because it was addressed in the first lecture as well. Here it is presented as an idea by Voltaire, but in the lecture, it is stated as a scientific fact that there is something in our brains that makes us create religion.
Maybe that same thing in our brains that makes us create religion, is the same thing that makes Dr. Edward Wilson of Harvard feel so good about being good. That may be where we are hard wired to do good acts. They could be the same thing manifesting themselves in different ways. This is not me questioning my faith, I still stand by Jesus Christ and God, this is merely me acknowledging that there may be another side to this story. It is a very interesting thing to possibly look into.
The narrator in this video speaks of human beings having a mandatory intuition to create God even if he doesn't exist. This particular statement stood out to me because it was addressed in the first lecture as well. Here it is presented as an idea by Voltaire, but in the lecture, it is stated as a scientific fact that there is something in our brains that makes us create religion.
Maybe that same thing in our brains that makes us create religion, is the same thing that makes Dr. Edward Wilson of Harvard feel so good about being good. That may be where we are hard wired to do good acts. They could be the same thing manifesting themselves in different ways. This is not me questioning my faith, I still stand by Jesus Christ and God, this is merely me acknowledging that there may be another side to this story. It is a very interesting thing to possibly look into.
Week 3 Post 2
Richard Dawkins
I found this lecture very enjoyable. I like Dawkins approach to science in saying how "queer" it is, because I agree with him. By far my favorite part was the part about the general who thought that he could master walking through walls. I loved how personal he was especially when he talked about reading the article in playboy because he himself had something in playboy. Overall, the lecture was the most enjoyable twenty odd minutes of science that I have ever experienced.
On a philosophical level, I really liked his explanation of atoms being mostly empty space. The metaphor really put it into perspective when he compared the atoms to small masses in different stadiums. It really makes a person think about how much of this world is nothingness. He put things into perspective for me from a biological standpoint, and he found an enjoyable way to do it. So far, this has been my favorite lecture.
I found this lecture very enjoyable. I like Dawkins approach to science in saying how "queer" it is, because I agree with him. By far my favorite part was the part about the general who thought that he could master walking through walls. I loved how personal he was especially when he talked about reading the article in playboy because he himself had something in playboy. Overall, the lecture was the most enjoyable twenty odd minutes of science that I have ever experienced.
On a philosophical level, I really liked his explanation of atoms being mostly empty space. The metaphor really put it into perspective when he compared the atoms to small masses in different stadiums. It really makes a person think about how much of this world is nothingness. He put things into perspective for me from a biological standpoint, and he found an enjoyable way to do it. So far, this has been my favorite lecture.
Week 3 Post 1
Professor Edward O. Wilson
If I had the opportunity to talk to Professor Wilson, I would ask him one question. What is the meaning of life? What is the purpose of living on Earth for 65-120 years? Why do you feel we are here? I was very intrigued by Professor Wilson's interview because he addresses certain issues that I think a lot of people struggle with, only he decides to take the road less traveled. Where we answer with religion, he answers with biology. A lot of people would say that they do good works because it glorifies their god, whoever that may be. Dr. Wilson would say though that he does good deeds because he is "hardwired" to do good deeds. He has a very interesting take on life.
I think that the reason why I was not insulted by Dr. Wilson's comments was because he is confident in his own beliefs, but he has a respect for the other side. I never felt like he was trying to bash Christianity, or any other religion. I simply gathered that he does not feel that is the answer for himself. He made one very strong point, if we can find a way for religion and science to come together, we could very well save this planet that is in dire need of saving. If religious folks can get excited about saving God's creations, and science people can get excited about maintaining a healthy biodiversity, together we can overcome climate change, and environmental destruction.
If I had the opportunity to talk to Professor Wilson, I would ask him one question. What is the meaning of life? What is the purpose of living on Earth for 65-120 years? Why do you feel we are here? I was very intrigued by Professor Wilson's interview because he addresses certain issues that I think a lot of people struggle with, only he decides to take the road less traveled. Where we answer with religion, he answers with biology. A lot of people would say that they do good works because it glorifies their god, whoever that may be. Dr. Wilson would say though that he does good deeds because he is "hardwired" to do good deeds. He has a very interesting take on life.
I think that the reason why I was not insulted by Dr. Wilson's comments was because he is confident in his own beliefs, but he has a respect for the other side. I never felt like he was trying to bash Christianity, or any other religion. I simply gathered that he does not feel that is the answer for himself. He made one very strong point, if we can find a way for religion and science to come together, we could very well save this planet that is in dire need of saving. If religious folks can get excited about saving God's creations, and science people can get excited about maintaining a healthy biodiversity, together we can overcome climate change, and environmental destruction.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Week 2 Post 5
The Future of Information and Memory
This ties in extremely closely with the ideas of artificial intelligence, or AI, that were addressed in the Socratic Universe. What I got from this is that the entire universe can be stored in the same place on something that is probably no bigger than the houses that we occupy. And the space that these memory devices use, is becoming smaller and smaller. I like the analogy with the iPhone because if we consider it, the new iPhone 4G is thinner and takes up a smaller space than the iPhone 3G. And yet, the new iPhone can hold the same amount if not more information than can be stored on the older model.
The technological advancements are extremely fast. The iPhone 3G is not an old phone. It took Apple only about two years to make a thinner model that stores the same amount of information. I do not think that human beings are that far off from being able to create a portable device that will store everything that has ever been created. My only question to that is this: will that information be accessible, or at some point will technology enter some kind of carrying capacity as far as storing of information? Will it someday become impossible to make the access of information even faster? Or like our universe, will technology continue to advance exponentially?
This ties in extremely closely with the ideas of artificial intelligence, or AI, that were addressed in the Socratic Universe. What I got from this is that the entire universe can be stored in the same place on something that is probably no bigger than the houses that we occupy. And the space that these memory devices use, is becoming smaller and smaller. I like the analogy with the iPhone because if we consider it, the new iPhone 4G is thinner and takes up a smaller space than the iPhone 3G. And yet, the new iPhone can hold the same amount if not more information than can be stored on the older model.
The technological advancements are extremely fast. The iPhone 3G is not an old phone. It took Apple only about two years to make a thinner model that stores the same amount of information. I do not think that human beings are that far off from being able to create a portable device that will store everything that has ever been created. My only question to that is this: will that information be accessible, or at some point will technology enter some kind of carrying capacity as far as storing of information? Will it someday become impossible to make the access of information even faster? Or like our universe, will technology continue to advance exponentially?
Week 2 Post 4
Assigned Reading
For this portion I would really like to focus on the principle put forth by the articles on cosmic inflation. This to me is proof of what I have said before, the more we know the less we know. And I think that this is how science and philosophy tie in so very close. Every time we learn something knew in physics, it shows us how little we know about many other things. Scientists answer one question and then are presented with many more based on that one discovery. There is no way that we can ever unlock all of the mysteries of the universe.
Furthermore, to me, the idea of cosmic inflation tied in with the lectures, proves the existence of God. In our universe, on our planet, there have occurred far too many coincidences to even contemplate them all being coincidence. There had to be a great creator guiding the forces of nature to create our race. To me, in life there is no coincidence. There is only fate.
For this portion I would really like to focus on the principle put forth by the articles on cosmic inflation. This to me is proof of what I have said before, the more we know the less we know. And I think that this is how science and philosophy tie in so very close. Every time we learn something knew in physics, it shows us how little we know about many other things. Scientists answer one question and then are presented with many more based on that one discovery. There is no way that we can ever unlock all of the mysteries of the universe.
Furthermore, to me, the idea of cosmic inflation tied in with the lectures, proves the existence of God. In our universe, on our planet, there have occurred far too many coincidences to even contemplate them all being coincidence. There had to be a great creator guiding the forces of nature to create our race. To me, in life there is no coincidence. There is only fate.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Week 2 Post 3
Gods too decompose
I found this video incredibly interesting. I have heard this quote before and have read many of the ones presented in the video and can only offer one explanation. God himself was never a physical being. The only time that he ever manifested himself as a physical being, was through Jesus Christ. It is because of this, that I am going to disagree with the statement that Gods too decompose. I would also like to address the man who ran through the streets yelling where is God. God must be found within oneself. He lives in all of us, believers and non believers alike, but in order to find him, one must look within him or herself.
When Friedrich Nietzsche first spoke those words, I don't think that he meant them literally. What I interpret it to mean, is that the mid eighteen hundreds religion had fallen apart. During this time of great struggle between science and religion, people began to realize that the church was indeed fallible. They also began to realize that the things the church had been stating as fact for many years, were not true. Things along the lines of the earth being the center of the universe. I believe that what Nietzsche was trying to say was that times are changing and what they thought was never possible, was indeed possible. God was not dead. It was simply time for a new interpretation of the bible instead of the same one that had existed for nearly two millennium.
I found this video incredibly interesting. I have heard this quote before and have read many of the ones presented in the video and can only offer one explanation. God himself was never a physical being. The only time that he ever manifested himself as a physical being, was through Jesus Christ. It is because of this, that I am going to disagree with the statement that Gods too decompose. I would also like to address the man who ran through the streets yelling where is God. God must be found within oneself. He lives in all of us, believers and non believers alike, but in order to find him, one must look within him or herself.
When Friedrich Nietzsche first spoke those words, I don't think that he meant them literally. What I interpret it to mean, is that the mid eighteen hundreds religion had fallen apart. During this time of great struggle between science and religion, people began to realize that the church was indeed fallible. They also began to realize that the things the church had been stating as fact for many years, were not true. Things along the lines of the earth being the center of the universe. I believe that what Nietzsche was trying to say was that times are changing and what they thought was never possible, was indeed possible. God was not dead. It was simply time for a new interpretation of the bible instead of the same one that had existed for nearly two millennium.
Week 2 Post 2
Little Things that Jiggle
There was mainly one thing that I wanted to focus on from this video. It was the statement that technology is alchemy without superstition. I agree with this statement completely. I never thought of it that way, but it truly is that way. In the old days, alchemists were trying to turn lead into gold, and while we still haven't quite figured that out, we have learned many things through simple chemical reactions. I feel that Alchemy was the birth of modern technology. It gave us one of the most significant inventions of all time, gun powder. When gun powder was invented, the Chinese were trying to create the elixir of life, otherwise known as something that would give its holder eternal life and immortality.
The ironic thing about alchemy and technology, is that it was always fueled by necessity. Initially, it was used to try and create something to make the world better, turning lead into gold most certainly would have made the world a more interesting place. Then creating the elixir of life and instead creating gun powder. When it was discovered that these things could not be created, it was almost like a switch was flipped. They began to say to themselves, "If I cannot create it myself, I will simply create something that allows me to take it from those who have it." That is where the little things that jiggle come in. The little things that jiggle helped to create the atomic weapons which are often now used as a threat against nations to allow us to go in and take their liquid gold, or oil. It is a vicious cycle.
There was mainly one thing that I wanted to focus on from this video. It was the statement that technology is alchemy without superstition. I agree with this statement completely. I never thought of it that way, but it truly is that way. In the old days, alchemists were trying to turn lead into gold, and while we still haven't quite figured that out, we have learned many things through simple chemical reactions. I feel that Alchemy was the birth of modern technology. It gave us one of the most significant inventions of all time, gun powder. When gun powder was invented, the Chinese were trying to create the elixir of life, otherwise known as something that would give its holder eternal life and immortality.
The ironic thing about alchemy and technology, is that it was always fueled by necessity. Initially, it was used to try and create something to make the world better, turning lead into gold most certainly would have made the world a more interesting place. Then creating the elixir of life and instead creating gun powder. When it was discovered that these things could not be created, it was almost like a switch was flipped. They began to say to themselves, "If I cannot create it myself, I will simply create something that allows me to take it from those who have it." That is where the little things that jiggle come in. The little things that jiggle helped to create the atomic weapons which are often now used as a threat against nations to allow us to go in and take their liquid gold, or oil. It is a vicious cycle.
Week 2 Post 1
Expert lectures
First of all it took me a long time into the third lecture with Stephen Wolfram to understand exactly what he was saying and how it related. Then about 15 minutes in, it hit me how all of the lectures are interconnected. In the first lecture with Professor Owen Gingerich of Harvard, which was definitely my favorite, he speaks of the randomness of the universe. He talks especially about the non-existent atom with the atomic weight of five. I think that what he is trying to show here is that there is a God because it is this omission that allows for life on Earth and without it, the Earth would be a much different place. I thought that the second lecture was interesting as well. For me, Lisa Randall was really trying to put us in to the bigger picture. This was kind of a cross between the scientific side and the religious side.
The final lecture with Stephen Wolfram, I think was trying to show that nothing is really random. I really think that his mission throughout that lecture was to try and disprove the existence of God through mathematics. In a way he very much reminds me of Pythagoras in believing that everything has its own equation. I saw a very interesting progression here throughout the lectures. They went from science and religion being compatible, to the possibility of a dimension that we cannot see, or heaven, and then to a lecture about how the entire world can be solved through mathematics. I am most inclined to believe Owen Gingerich. I believe that there are certain things in this world that will never be explained, it is part of the mystery of God.
First of all it took me a long time into the third lecture with Stephen Wolfram to understand exactly what he was saying and how it related. Then about 15 minutes in, it hit me how all of the lectures are interconnected. In the first lecture with Professor Owen Gingerich of Harvard, which was definitely my favorite, he speaks of the randomness of the universe. He talks especially about the non-existent atom with the atomic weight of five. I think that what he is trying to show here is that there is a God because it is this omission that allows for life on Earth and without it, the Earth would be a much different place. I thought that the second lecture was interesting as well. For me, Lisa Randall was really trying to put us in to the bigger picture. This was kind of a cross between the scientific side and the religious side.
The final lecture with Stephen Wolfram, I think was trying to show that nothing is really random. I really think that his mission throughout that lecture was to try and disprove the existence of God through mathematics. In a way he very much reminds me of Pythagoras in believing that everything has its own equation. I saw a very interesting progression here throughout the lectures. They went from science and religion being compatible, to the possibility of a dimension that we cannot see, or heaven, and then to a lecture about how the entire world can be solved through mathematics. I am most inclined to believe Owen Gingerich. I believe that there are certain things in this world that will never be explained, it is part of the mystery of God.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Week 1 Post 10
Will Artificial Intelligence ever surpass Human intelligence?
For this particular question I am most inclined to agree with Dr. Dreyfus of UC Berkley. I do not think that Artificial Intelligence will ever surpass human intelligence in most ways. However, artificial intelligence allows us to further our intelligence because it can access information much quicker than the human mind. In a way, it supplements the human intelligence making it even stronger. I hope that it will always be impossible for artificial intelligence to equal or surpass human intelligence. I also believe that it will be difficult for artificial intelligence to equal human intelligence because humans are the ones that create artificial intelligence.
I also think that this question brings about a much more important moral question. If the technology does become available to duplicate the human brain, and the human heart in a sort of biological robot is it ethical to do so. I hope that it never becomes ethical because then we will truly lose what it means to be a human being. If biological robots can be created, then where does the cycle end? I believe that it will end in a sort of Armageddon. There is a story that was originally written in Spanish that speaks of the end of the human race. It says that human being were just outnumbered by the vast amounts of robots, and they eventually made human beings the subordinates. I am not making a prediction, I am merely posing the question, Where does it end?
For this particular question I am most inclined to agree with Dr. Dreyfus of UC Berkley. I do not think that Artificial Intelligence will ever surpass human intelligence in most ways. However, artificial intelligence allows us to further our intelligence because it can access information much quicker than the human mind. In a way, it supplements the human intelligence making it even stronger. I hope that it will always be impossible for artificial intelligence to equal or surpass human intelligence. I also believe that it will be difficult for artificial intelligence to equal human intelligence because humans are the ones that create artificial intelligence.
I also think that this question brings about a much more important moral question. If the technology does become available to duplicate the human brain, and the human heart in a sort of biological robot is it ethical to do so. I hope that it never becomes ethical because then we will truly lose what it means to be a human being. If biological robots can be created, then where does the cycle end? I believe that it will end in a sort of Armageddon. There is a story that was originally written in Spanish that speaks of the end of the human race. It says that human being were just outnumbered by the vast amounts of robots, and they eventually made human beings the subordinates. I am not making a prediction, I am merely posing the question, Where does it end?
Week 1 Post 9
Does God exist?
I firmly believe that he does. I have no proof of God existing, but that is where my faith comes in. I will always believe that my God exists until I die and pass into the next world and I see with my own eyes that God does not exist. In my eyes and in my heart, all evidence points to the existence of God, and that is something that no matter how much knowledge I gain on this earth, I will always believe. I do believe that my God is fair though, for example, if someone who had never been exposed to the bible dies, I do not think they will go to hell just because they have never heard of the bible. I think that if they are a good person they will be welcomed into the great beyond with open arms.
I would also like to examine this from a scientific point of view. There are mysteries in science, things that can not begin to be explained. I believe that some of these things will never be able to be explained and that is because of the existence of God. I believe that my God did create this world, whether that be through the big bang or any of the other number of theories that science gives us. I also believe that my God has created me in his likeness through evolution. I believe that Christianity and Science are compatible.
I firmly believe that he does. I have no proof of God existing, but that is where my faith comes in. I will always believe that my God exists until I die and pass into the next world and I see with my own eyes that God does not exist. In my eyes and in my heart, all evidence points to the existence of God, and that is something that no matter how much knowledge I gain on this earth, I will always believe. I do believe that my God is fair though, for example, if someone who had never been exposed to the bible dies, I do not think they will go to hell just because they have never heard of the bible. I think that if they are a good person they will be welcomed into the great beyond with open arms.
I would also like to examine this from a scientific point of view. There are mysteries in science, things that can not begin to be explained. I believe that some of these things will never be able to be explained and that is because of the existence of God. I believe that my God did create this world, whether that be through the big bang or any of the other number of theories that science gives us. I also believe that my God has created me in his likeness through evolution. I believe that Christianity and Science are compatible.
Week 1 Post 8
Are science and religion compatible?
I really don't like the way this question is phrased. The best way that I can think to answer this question is another related question. Why aren't science and religion compatible? There is no reason for me to believe that science and religion cannot coexist. However, religion is a very broad term. Dictionary.com defines religion as such, a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. To me, by this definition science is its own religion. It is a fundamental set of beliefs based on theorems and laws, it has the practices of laboratory studies, and it is followed and believed in by people all over the world. There are even different sects of science. There are people that believe in different aspects of science and therefore to me, science is its own type of religion.
That being said, I believe that there are certain things in specific religions that are not compatible with science. I will take into account my own religion, Christianity. There are certainly parts of the old and new testament which are not necessarily compatible with religion. Take the story of Noah's Ark for example, science tells us that if there had been a forty day flood, there would still be a lot of evidence of that in the fossil record. I respect science, but I do believe that there was a great flood. We often forget that story was passed down for many generations through only oral tradition before it was finally written into the old testament. It's somewhat like a game of telephone, the more the statement goes around the more it gets changed. I believe in science and in religion. But, I believe that in christianity, there are some things that are myths, there to establish certain beliefs.
I really don't like the way this question is phrased. The best way that I can think to answer this question is another related question. Why aren't science and religion compatible? There is no reason for me to believe that science and religion cannot coexist. However, religion is a very broad term. Dictionary.com defines religion as such, a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. To me, by this definition science is its own religion. It is a fundamental set of beliefs based on theorems and laws, it has the practices of laboratory studies, and it is followed and believed in by people all over the world. There are even different sects of science. There are people that believe in different aspects of science and therefore to me, science is its own type of religion.
That being said, I believe that there are certain things in specific religions that are not compatible with science. I will take into account my own religion, Christianity. There are certainly parts of the old and new testament which are not necessarily compatible with religion. Take the story of Noah's Ark for example, science tells us that if there had been a forty day flood, there would still be a lot of evidence of that in the fossil record. I respect science, but I do believe that there was a great flood. We often forget that story was passed down for many generations through only oral tradition before it was finally written into the old testament. It's somewhat like a game of telephone, the more the statement goes around the more it gets changed. I believe in science and in religion. But, I believe that in christianity, there are some things that are myths, there to establish certain beliefs.
Week 1 Post 7
What Ethical System Do you admire most?
The ethical system that I admire the most comes from the East. I admire Buddhism more than anything else. I like that it makes you separate yourself from the material world. I believe that it allows you to search within yourself for all of the answers. It takes a very strong person to be a Buddhist because it would be incredibly difficult to separate oneself from the material world especially in today's world where success is measured through material possessions.
I also of course admire Christianity for the enormous success that it has had. Christianity has been alive for 2000 years and has followers all over the world. I think that Christianity is very successful in giving a large number of people an ethical system to follow. You cant argue with success and Christianity has had an enormous amount of it.
The ethical system that I admire the most comes from the East. I admire Buddhism more than anything else. I like that it makes you separate yourself from the material world. I believe that it allows you to search within yourself for all of the answers. It takes a very strong person to be a Buddhist because it would be incredibly difficult to separate oneself from the material world especially in today's world where success is measured through material possessions.
I also of course admire Christianity for the enormous success that it has had. Christianity has been alive for 2000 years and has followers all over the world. I think that Christianity is very successful in giving a large number of people an ethical system to follow. You cant argue with success and Christianity has had an enormous amount of it.
Week 1 Post 6
Which Philosophers Do You Admire most?
To answer this question I must first lay out the qualities for which I would define a great philosopher. Once again however I must apologize for making an uneducated response to this question. I do not know a lot of philosophers, but there have always been a few that have peaked my interest. First of all, I would like to mention that I appreciate philosophers who I feel are or did search for answers instead of more questions. I also appreciate those that give detailed reasons for believing in what they did.
For all of the aforementioned traits, my favorite philosopher would have to be Plato. I read his book The Republic and loved it. I believe that it is a book that can be read 1,000 times and still find new things in it every time. He has reasons for what he believes, and while I do not always agree with him, I think he is fascinating. I also appreciated his tutor, Socrates. I am a fan of his philosophy as well as the way he chose to live out his days and sacrificing his life for what he believed in. And finally I enjoy Aristotle, I think that Aristotle was always searching for the truth instead of other questions. These are by far my three favorite philosophers.
To answer this question I must first lay out the qualities for which I would define a great philosopher. Once again however I must apologize for making an uneducated response to this question. I do not know a lot of philosophers, but there have always been a few that have peaked my interest. First of all, I would like to mention that I appreciate philosophers who I feel are or did search for answers instead of more questions. I also appreciate those that give detailed reasons for believing in what they did.
For all of the aforementioned traits, my favorite philosopher would have to be Plato. I read his book The Republic and loved it. I believe that it is a book that can be read 1,000 times and still find new things in it every time. He has reasons for what he believes, and while I do not always agree with him, I think he is fascinating. I also appreciated his tutor, Socrates. I am a fan of his philosophy as well as the way he chose to live out his days and sacrificing his life for what he believed in. And finally I enjoy Aristotle, I think that Aristotle was always searching for the truth instead of other questions. These are by far my three favorite philosophers.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Week 1 Post 5
Which Philosophical Tradition Do You Disagree With Most?
This is a complex question for me because it is difficult to say what philosophical tradition I disagree with most because I am not educated on all of the philosophical traditions. I think that if and when I answer this question I will have to apologize for a lack of good knowledge on the subject for which I am answering. I am not yet an educated phiolosopher so this first opinion is just that, an opinion. Through furthering my knowledge in philosophy I look forward to improving my knowledge and therefore being able to answer this question in a more thorough way at the end of this course.
I guess the part of philosophy that I disagree with the most is how in every answer there is two questions. When a philosopher gets asked a philosophical question, they answer with their views, but within that same answer are two new questions. I am guilty of this problem myself. In several of my previous posts I have answered my questions with only further questions. It is a vicious cycle and it just proves that the more we know, the less we know.
This is a complex question for me because it is difficult to say what philosophical tradition I disagree with most because I am not educated on all of the philosophical traditions. I think that if and when I answer this question I will have to apologize for a lack of good knowledge on the subject for which I am answering. I am not yet an educated phiolosopher so this first opinion is just that, an opinion. Through furthering my knowledge in philosophy I look forward to improving my knowledge and therefore being able to answer this question in a more thorough way at the end of this course.
I guess the part of philosophy that I disagree with the most is how in every answer there is two questions. When a philosopher gets asked a philosophical question, they answer with their views, but within that same answer are two new questions. I am guilty of this problem myself. In several of my previous posts I have answered my questions with only further questions. It is a vicious cycle and it just proves that the more we know, the less we know.
Week 1 Post 4
Video 2
I am generally open minded when it comes to philosophy. I like to see all points of view and then come up with my own unique philosophy on things. Although my answers are not always the best, and are not always complete, my views are purely my own even if they follow the same basic principles as another philosopher. The same thing goes for history, I am a historian by nature, and I take in the considerations of other historians, but in the end my theories are my own.
That is why I did not like this video. I do not like how Pythagoras tries to relate everything back to math. There are many things in this universe that can be quantified through math. But then there are those things which cannot be quantified, and I hope that they will never be able to be quantified. I hope that the technology never exists to quantify the thoughts of the human mind. Those should always remain unquantified and private.
I am generally open minded when it comes to philosophy. I like to see all points of view and then come up with my own unique philosophy on things. Although my answers are not always the best, and are not always complete, my views are purely my own even if they follow the same basic principles as another philosopher. The same thing goes for history, I am a historian by nature, and I take in the considerations of other historians, but in the end my theories are my own.
That is why I did not like this video. I do not like how Pythagoras tries to relate everything back to math. There are many things in this universe that can be quantified through math. But then there are those things which cannot be quantified, and I hope that they will never be able to be quantified. I hope that the technology never exists to quantify the thoughts of the human mind. Those should always remain unquantified and private.
week 1 post 3
Magazine post: God magazine
For this assignment I choose to read the God magazine. I thought that it would be a dismemberment of the Christian faith, and as a Christian I thought I would be offended by the things mentioned in this magazine. But, this magazine was more about political murder then it was about the existence and following of any god. In this particular portion though, I think there is only a slight difference.
Religion and politics are very different, but I can see the conclusions being drawn from this particular magazine. Both compare higher powers that their followers believe in with great faith. And both examples show that this higher power is viewed as a savior, but is also a killer. Personally, I feel that nothing can come without loss. The people that died because of medicinal marijuana are not to be forgotten, but I believe that they have been murdered by an imperfect system that cannot be perfected. As for me, I will continue with my faith in god as cruel but just, and I will do my best to remain on my God’s good side, and know that as long as I do that, if I should be a casualty as a result of his wrath I can be confident in knowing I will spend eternity in his kingdom. As for my government, there is no eternal resting place. That is the primary difference here.
For this assignment I choose to read the God magazine. I thought that it would be a dismemberment of the Christian faith, and as a Christian I thought I would be offended by the things mentioned in this magazine. But, this magazine was more about political murder then it was about the existence and following of any god. In this particular portion though, I think there is only a slight difference.
Religion and politics are very different, but I can see the conclusions being drawn from this particular magazine. Both compare higher powers that their followers believe in with great faith. And both examples show that this higher power is viewed as a savior, but is also a killer. Personally, I feel that nothing can come without loss. The people that died because of medicinal marijuana are not to be forgotten, but I believe that they have been murdered by an imperfect system that cannot be perfected. As for me, I will continue with my faith in god as cruel but just, and I will do my best to remain on my God’s good side, and know that as long as I do that, if I should be a casualty as a result of his wrath I can be confident in knowing I will spend eternity in his kingdom. As for my government, there is no eternal resting place. That is the primary difference here.
Week 1 Post 2
In this post I will be addressing the first video about who we are.
I believe that this is a very complex question. I think that who we are can never be defined. No matter what you ever do in your life it is always impossible to define oneself. In fact, if any one is to define me as a person, I would not leave that task up to myself. I believe that task can be best completed by the ones close to me. A person to know themselves and be able to define themselves is a daunting task.
There are several reasons for not being able to define ourselves. The first of which is that we have a biased opinion. When the common person is asked to define themselves they are of course going to list their own accolades and omit all of their shortcomings. It is also unnatural to define oneself. A person has never really analyzed them self because they "know" themselves and have always known everything about themselves for so long that there are little things that would not be told.
Finally, I must address the problem with yet another question. What is a human? What defines a human being? There is nothing that truly separates a human being from anything else. What is it that makes a human being unique?
I believe that this is a very complex question. I think that who we are can never be defined. No matter what you ever do in your life it is always impossible to define oneself. In fact, if any one is to define me as a person, I would not leave that task up to myself. I believe that task can be best completed by the ones close to me. A person to know themselves and be able to define themselves is a daunting task.
There are several reasons for not being able to define ourselves. The first of which is that we have a biased opinion. When the common person is asked to define themselves they are of course going to list their own accolades and omit all of their shortcomings. It is also unnatural to define oneself. A person has never really analyzed them self because they "know" themselves and have always known everything about themselves for so long that there are little things that would not be told.
Finally, I must address the problem with yet another question. What is a human? What defines a human being? There is nothing that truly separates a human being from anything else. What is it that makes a human being unique?
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Huxley interview
The interview conducted with Huxley was intriguing as i saw it. I think that Mr. Huxley made some very good points. I believe that he is correct in assuming that over population, over organization, and technology will one day come back to haunt our world. However, I believe that he lacks faith in the American will to preserve democracy. The proof lies within history. Simply look back in time to the things that Americans have done to preserve democracy, including the war for independence, as well as things such as the Marshall Plan during the Cold War. America and democracy have always gone hand in hand, and I do not think that is ever going to change, most certainly not in the next century.
The human individual will always remain. In the United States we are brought up on individual values and taught tolerance towards those who have other values. I believe that Huxley was right when he said that education is the way to maintain these values. In an age run by technology education is the way to maintain the individual and individual values. If the public becomes ignorant to current issues, or buys in to all of the inaccurate information fed to them by politicians then their freedoms will slowly slip away from them. If America's destiny is to become totalitarian, it will not fulfill that destiny for many years to come.
The human individual will always remain. In the United States we are brought up on individual values and taught tolerance towards those who have other values. I believe that Huxley was right when he said that education is the way to maintain these values. In an age run by technology education is the way to maintain the individual and individual values. If the public becomes ignorant to current issues, or buys in to all of the inaccurate information fed to them by politicians then their freedoms will slowly slip away from them. If America's destiny is to become totalitarian, it will not fulfill that destiny for many years to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
