FINAL EXAMINATION
DUE AUGUST 8TH
1. Be sure to place your entire FINAL 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 AUGUST 8TH.
3a. Each answer should be at least two paragraphs long, if not much longer.
3b. What grade do you deserve and why?
I think that I deserve to be at either a B+ or an A- depending on the quality of this test. I have done all of the assigned work, and I even created my own twitter account from the extra credit. I have worked very hard throughout the last few weeks to do all of the work and do it at a quality that could be plagiarized.
While I understand how hard I have worked in this class, I understand that I also had shortcomings. I understand that my midterm was a bit late and probably could have been at a higher quality. Understanding all this, I still think that I deserve a B+ or an A- because I feel that I have produced the quality needed to get those two grades.
4. What is your real name?
Grant Guillen
5. What is your "user" name?
gguillen1
5a. What was your midterm grade? Or, if you revised it, your revised midterm grade? Provide a LINK to your midterm.
B
http://historyofwinners.blogspot.com/2010/07/midterm.html
6. What is your email address that you use for this class?
g_money_47@hotmail.com
gguillen1@mtsac.edu
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 entire class?
Yes
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. ALL SIX WEEKS OF POSTINGS.
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.
Pinker lecture
Steven Pinker believes that evolution is important in understanding human behavior because he thinks that it is important for people to know why they act the way that they do. For example, if we are not friendly to a person of the same sex, that could have been adapted a long time ago for reproductive purposes. It could be that we are defensive against people of the same sex because it was essential for passing our genes on in the previous years. He says that many of these types of traits are inbred in our system because they were selected for in an evolutionary process through natural selection.
However, he does not believe that everything has been subjected to natural selection. He says that a common misconception about his field of study is that because some things have been selected for, people think that all things have been selected for. That the way we think and the way that we act are only the results of natural selection. It is often times how this particular type of philosophy gets a bad name. It is important to realize that is not what he is saying, only that some traits have been selected for.
The theory of evolution in philosophy
The theory of evolution is helpful in doing philosophy because it can help us figure out the purpose of philosophy. Why is it that we try and figure all the things out about the universe? Why are we such a curious species? Why are we as a species always looking to further our knowledge? Why is understanding that things "just work" not enough for the human race?
All of these things can be explained through evolution. It can be shown that we are curious because that is a trait that has been selected for over thousands of years. Evolution tells us that in our particular population, stupidity is selected out. Those who were okay with the status quo did not always do well in life and therefore have been selected out. The theory of evolution can help philosophy because the two really go hand in hand. Philosophy can guess at why we do things the way that we do things and then we can figure out if that makes sense or not through the theory of evolution.
Gerald Edelman says that the brain is not a computer. He compares it to an evolutionary forest. He says that the brain has a lot of individual variation and even goes on to say that it has more variation than almost anything else. That variability comes from different neurons moving in different ways. That is what he means by Neural Darwinism. Each brain evolves differently even amongst twins.
Second Nature is the way that variation manifests itself. Different things have different habits. Even twins who share all of the same DNA have entirely different shapes and ways that the neurons work. It is unique to everyone. It is the neurons that make up the brain order which shows the biologically significant variance. This variation even occured in brains that had been built in the Darwin 10 machines. Two exact clones did not do the same thing to find their way through the "maze". The first one went to the blue wall every time and the second one did not. So variation in neurons is Neural Darwinism.
The Voyage Within
I found this magazine rather enjoyable. I thought it was a bit of a trip. For someone who has never taken a hallucinogen or any kind of illegal substance, it was kind of a good insight into that frame of mind. It was cool to me that this kind of experiment could exist. The idea of a researcher getting people to use drugs for science was really cool. I like how the researcher had a problem and went so far to find the answer and yet it was so simple.
What I found to be most interesting is how people saw the same images. After the lecture about neural darwinism I would have figured that to never be possible. I would figure that because of the differences in neurons there would be some variations in the hallucinations. It is amazing to me that two clones can figure their way through a maze in an entirely unique way and yet this group of people all had the same hallucination on different drugs. I am perplexed at the human mind and there is still much to learn.
Francis Crick does not believe in the soul. This is quite a bold statement to read as a person who bases a lot of his decisions on the idea of having a pure soul as much as possible. For me, and I feel a lot of other people as well, my conscious is contained in my soul. I do good things because I want my soul to be as pure as possible in order to pass through the gates of heaven. Crick says, "man has no soul, no spiritual self which transcends his/her physical frame. What we take to be the soul, Crick argues, is nothing more than a complex network of neurons. We are to the very core physical beings who have somehow deceived ourselves into believing that we are something more, something non-material, something transcendent." But what is his proof?
Crick believes that everything is based physically. He compares the conscious to senses such as sight at hearing. He believes that because these things occur because of physical things in the body, that the conscious comes from neurons based in the brain. He calls the fallacy that people have where they think there is a little person inside them telling them whats right and wrong "Homunculus" which is Latin for "little man". Essentially, he does not believe in a soul because he believes the conscious is contained in a group of neurons in the body.
John Searle vs. Ken Wilber
Ken Wilber's ideas differ quite a bit from John Searle's ideas. Searle believes firmly that, "Conscious states are caused by lower level neurobiological processes in the brain and are themselves higher level features of the brain." John Searle would classify him as a Cognitive Scientist, or some one who "tends to view consciousness as anchored in functional schemas of the brain/mind, either in a simple representational fashion (such as Jackendoff's `computational mind') or in the more complex emergent/connectionist models, which view consciousness as an emergent of hierarchically integrated networks." Wilber believes in a culmination of all of the ideas behind the conscious. He thinks that they can be put together in one model to explain consciousness.
I am more inclined to believe Ken Wilber. I think that his model makes more sense because it is all inclusive. While I am more inclined to believe Ken Wilber over John Searle, that does not mean that I am ready to accept his idea. I still believe in a soul, whereas I do not feel that these two men feel that way. I will also agree with what it says in Wilber's article in that this is something that needs to be further studied. We are still extremely far away from understanding all of the intricacies of the human mind.
The major issues behind the neuro-ethical argument for vegetarianism are very scientific. The idea is centralized around the idea of the central nervous system and pain. The idea is that the more evolved the species is, the less likely we are to eat it. The essay mentions such things as dolphins and how we would not eat it because it seems wrong to eat something that is so advanced. He also compares eating meat to eating humans. Why don't we eat other humans? It is because of pain. We cannot imagine causing that much pain to another human being or highly developed animal. This author makes some very logical points, but in order to change a lifestyle such as this, you must make a very strong argument that does not contain any flaws.
As an essay, this is a very good piece of writing. However, I do not think it is the best persuasive essay. This is an argumentative piece, but not necessarily persuasive. It has strengths in logic, and examples. However, I think there are some weaknesses in the delivery of the paper if it is indeed intended to be persuasive. I think the major weakness in this paper is that it does not evoke emotion. Until the very last part of this essay, there is no emotion in the paper. In order to make someone change such a fundamental part of their lifestyle, a writer MUST evoke a lot of emotion. I also think that this argument would better be presented in a speech, because the author could evoke emotion through their delivery. So I think that the information in the argument was good and valid, but I think the weakness was that it did not evoke enough emotion for the reader.
The theme behind a Glorious Piece of Meat is that we are only a series of firing neurons, or are we? The idea here is that our brain controls everything in our body and yet we still think that we run things. The true theme here is a question, are we more then just a set of firing neurons, or is that the entire purpose of life. If it is true that we are just firing neurons, then what is the purpose of life? Why are we here if we are only supposed to be be a set of firing neurons?
I believe that a religious person would argue against this like this. Why did God put us here if we were only meant to be a series of firing neurons. It is impossible that our entire existence as a species is only to be here and exist and fire and die. There is no purpose if we can be boiled down entirely to firing neurons carried out by a nearly empty shell of neutrons, protons, and electrons. This statement argues with the very fundamental piece of all religions, so what if there is no soul?
We turn to vegetarianism in order to respect the world that we live in. People turn to vegetarianism because they put themselves in the lives of a cow that is to be slaughtered to make a hamburger. They refuse to eat things with a face because they themselves have a face and how would we like it if there was something larger then ourselves raising and slaughtering us for food. There is also the environmental question of how much acreage is needed for one hamburger. How much methane is put into the atmosphere for the double double sitting in front of you. It is a ethical question, as well as a question of environmental consciousness.
A few arguments against vegetarianism might be that we cannot get the amount of nutrients we need from eating just plants. This however is not true. As long as we are smart about what we eat, we can get all of the nutrients and amino acids necessary for life. Another argument is that if everyone eats nothing but plants, the demand for crops will increase therefore increasing the need for agricultural land thus hurting our environment. Personally, I think that the world could not survive on all of one or all of the other. We must find a way to live sustainably within nature. We have a role as top predators and while we need to minimize that role to smaller then it is now, we will always need to be the top predators for the sake of all species. We have over stepped our bounds, but we cannot forget our role as the top of the food chain.
"To say my consciousness is merely the result of a bundle of neurons is neither enlightening nor useful. What we really want to know is how such a set of tiny physical on and off points could produce self reflective awareness. This is a technical problem, not a philosophical one." I feel that this is really the entire essay in a small group of sentences. This is the main problem that I have with this idea of consciousness being just a bunch of neurons is that I don't want to believe that.
The main thesis here is that it is very difficult for one to study consciousness because there are certain parts of consciousness that only applies to the individual. The sound grenade gives an excellent example of just that. It would be difficult for some people to study the sound grenade app or the sound waves given off, because they cannot hear it for themselves. It is very difficult to study consciousness and things above that such as the manifestation of Gods in dreams and visions because most people simply do not see that. That is why further studies must be done on the actual brain. However it is very difficult to study things like neurons because as Dr. Edelman pointed out in his lecture, neurons are unique to each individual, including twins. So it is incredibly difficult to study and test theories on this idea of consciousness because there is no status quo.
You can sum up the reason for Sam Harris being so critical of religion in the first few minutes of the lecture. He essentially says that we are fighting a 19th century religious war with deadly technology. He does not think that religion has any boundaries. The religious leaders make their rules about certain things and no one questions it. No one can question it because everyone would be afraid to challenge the Vatican or Muslim religious leaders. He makes a good point about the Catholic church saying that using contraception is a sin when there are millions of people dying in Africa from AIDS. He is critical of religion because it goes too far sometimes and is not always looking out for the best situation for its believers.
I think that the strongest part of his argument is when he talks about religious moderation. He says, "Either you have good reasons for what you believe or you don't." Harris points out that we do not see any Tibetan suicide bombers because they are religiously moderate. They are under just as bad if not worse control through the Chinese. He goes on to say that religiously moderate people are somewhat okay because they aren't the ones doing the killing. However, he says that they give cover to fundamentalism and they try to protect faith. The weakest part of his argument were his comparisons. He compares religious tolerance to people who would come out and worship Poseidon, or those that believe that we can't do Stem Cell research because we have to kill a three day old embryo. These are arguments that won't get him to convince others to convert to his ideas. I think that they are slightly offensive and useless in his argument. Overall, he does make valid points.
Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals was a bit difficult for me to understand. He says in his final chapter of this book, "If this writing is incomprehensible to someone or other and hurts his ears, the blame for that, it strikes me, is not necessarily mine." I would agree with him, because he presents some difficult ideas, but it is not necessarily his fault that those ideas cannot be understood. With that, I will give my best understanding of his ideas.
I believe what Nietzsche is trying to say is that some of our morals are innate within us. We are taught to feel pity, and yet he asks why. He questions his morals in order to affirm his own beliefs. I gather from his essay that he believes that everything should be questioned. We should not merely accept things because we are told to accept them. We should ask why and if we have a good answer then we can affirm our own beliefs.
I was not able to find this magazine on the website so instead I would like to make a proposal. I would like to propose that the msac magazine website be reorganized. It has been very difficult for me over the last six weeks to find the magazines that I was looking for. Several times I have had to go over the list at the bottom more then once just to go through and have to click on several different ones to try and find the one that I was looking for. There have even been a few occasions when I could not find the magazine that I was looking for at all. I hope that this is not just my problem.
I think that a better way to organize it would be one of two things. Either have the picture of the magazine be a link to the PDF file, or rename the PDF files to match the names of the magazines. I am not a technological genius, but I know that the professor Dr. Lane is very experienced. I think that the first option given was the better idea, because then you could just eliminate the links on the bottom of the page all together. I also understand that it may not be possible to do that. That is why I presented the alternative idea of renaming the PDF files to match the name of the magazine. They already are in alphabetical order which would make finding them an easy task. Dr. Lane comes off to me as a person who takes great pride in his websites and I have a feeling that he is going to do whatever it takes to make them as good as possible. This is just a suggestion for how to make the website even better then it is.
The ironic theme in the movie Flame On is that we really don't know what our best and worst traits are. The narrator says, "We don't know what is our best or worst qualities, we simply know the varying reactions we get at different times. Including, our own reactions to it and our reactions can dramatically change over time. What could have been seen as a horrible sin at one time could be nothing but a past time at a different time.
The film uses the example of homosexuality. While it was viewed as horrible 150 years ago, it has now come to be more accepted. During ancient times, homosexuality was a common thing. It was not rare to find a tutor having a love affair with his student. In ancient Sparta, it was common for friends in battle to be lovers. There is a part of the movie 300 where two men are fighting back to back and killing off Persian after Persian, each one protecting the back of the other. In the real ancient Sparta, those two men were probably lovers. The video says that our education system is based on ideas put forth by Socrates, who was a homosexual. But the real purpose of this video is to show us how little we really know of ourselves. We do not know what our best and worst qualities are.
Nietzsche's notion of the myth of eternal recurrence is that if we acted like we had to relive things over and over, we might live life a little differently. The myth says that what if a demon were to appear to you and tell you that you had to live your life over and over again countless times? Would you praise this demon, or would you go after him for this curse that he revealed to you? In other words, would you really want to live your life countless times?
I do not think that anyone of my age can successfully answer this question. I believe that to answer this question takes great wisdom. Life could suck for the first 25 years, and then you could meet the person of your dreams and have children and find true joy in life. Would that make the first 25 years worth it? My initial reaction was to say emphatically no. I do not want to live this life again, but it could be that with age I will find more happiness and the last 19 years could be worth it. It is also possible to go the opposite way. There are those that would embrace this with open arms. And yet twenty five years later they may think that the first 20 good years were not worth the last 25 bad ones. To respond to this takes great wisdom. Wisdom that only comes through experience.
Daniel Dennett fits the definition of being a "bright". The definition of a bright is in reference to somone who refuses to believe in supernatural explanations. This could be either Agnostics, or Atheists. When asked if Dennett would call himself an atheist he says that he feels atheists have a negative connotation. He says, "of course there is not a God, but so what?" What he means is that he does not believe that there is a God, but he does not make a big deal out of it.
Furthermore, Dennett goes on to say that he cannot prove that there is no god. The first reason for that is that no two people mean the same thing by "god". Some people believe that nature is a kind of god, and Dennett says that he believes in nature. The biggest problem with proving or disproving "god" is that no one believes the same thing about "god". There is no consensus for what god is or isn't. Everyone has their own definition. He also says that most people don't believe in god, they only believe in the belief that there is a god. All of these are reasons why he doesn't believe in God and therefore refers to himself as a bright.
The Cerebral Wave
This was a very interesting magazine. It was by far my favorite. I think it speaks to religious tolerance. It is about men in a coffee house who all have different beliefs. They begin to fight over who's god is the best and who has the best religion. In the end, it is a Confucius man who speaks up and tells the story of the sun. The idea is that no one god is any better than another, because it is ignorant to believe that one was better than another.
While I will always believe that my God is the one true God, I also believe in religious tolerance. I understand that there is no winning a religious debate. If I believe one thing and you believe another, that is an argument that cannot be won. It doesn't matter what two people are fighting, if they have different beliefs and they truly believe them, there is no persuading them to change. They will always think that you are wrong and they are right. Until there is physical proof that there is or is not a god, there will be no mass conversions.
The Zahir was an interesting film. The Zahir is a being that can discretely place its image in the mind of the individual that views it. After that it can come back to haunt you forever. In this situation it was a coin. A coin with the markings of a few letters and the year 1929. It was given as change to the author and sure enough he was haunted by the image. He had to go to a psychiatrist and get professional in order to remove the image from his head. And finally the thing that worked was to think about it so much that it dulled the image.
I think this speaks to the idea that if you believe in something it can happen. If someone who had no idea what the Zahir was would not be haunted by the image. It has to do with belief. If you believe in God, then there are things that you might see that someone else will not. Beliefs can shape the consciousness.
Nicolas of Cusa believed that the wise man was a man of learned ignorance. His doctrine of learned ignorance says, a wise man, "is a man who has become aware of his ignorance regarding what the Divine Nature is and what the precise essence of any given finite thing is." Nicolas believed that the human mind was ignorant of God. That the human mind could never come to understand God because God was not a physical Being, but a spiritual one. Learned ignorance is knowing that one cannot understand God, or all of the reasons why God does the things that he does.
I believe that Nicolas was right. I think that there are certain things in this universe that will never be able to be explained, and I think that proves the existence of God. However, this is not a widely held idea by those in the field of science. Scientists believe that everything can be and eventually will be figured out. I personally believe and hope that there are things such as the human brain which will never be able to be solved.
At the age of 18 Leo Tolstoy dropped out of his university and lost his faith. He had been raised in an Eastern Orthodox home, but had never really believed what he had been taught about God. When he was 11 a friend came to his house and told him that they had discovered that everything that they had ever learned about God was an invention. When he and his brothers talked about it they discovered that it could be a possibility. This was the first major turning point for Leo Tolstoy.
His conversion occurred because religion simply seemed to thaw away with knowledge. When he gained new knowledge, religion seemed less and less important. Tolstoy figured that this was a very normal thing. He even says that religion begins to thaw away for most people as they get older. The wiser that Tolstoy became the less religious he became. That is why he turned away from religion.
11. Why does Steven Pinker believe that evolution is important in understanding human behavior? Be specific in your answer.
Steven Pinker believes that evolution is important in understanding human behavior because he thinks that it is important for people to know why they act the way that they do. For example, if we are not friendly to a person of the same sex, that could have been adapted a long time ago for reproductive purposes. It could be that we are defensive against people of the same sex because it was essential for passing our genes on in the previous years. He says that many of these types of traits are inbred in our system because they were selected for in an evolutionary process through natural selection.
However, he does not believe that everything has been subjected to natural selection. He says that a common misconception about his field of study is that because some things have been selected for, people think that all things have been selected for. That the way we think and the way that we act are only the results of natural selection. It is often times how this particular type of philosophy gets a bad name. It is important to realize that is not what he is saying, only that some traits have been selected for.
12. In addition, why is the theory of evolution helpful in doing philosophy?
The theory of evolution is helpful in doing philosophy because it can help us figure out the purpose of philosophy. Why is it that we try and figure all the things out about the universe? Why are we such a curious species? Why are we as a species always looking to further our knowledge? Why is understanding that things "just work" not enough for the human race?
All of these things can be explained through evolution. It can be shown that we are curious because that is a trait that has been selected for over thousands of years. Evolution tells us that in our particular population, stupidity is selected out. Those who were okay with the status quo did not always do well in life and therefore have been selected out. The theory of evolution can help philosophy because the two really go hand in hand. Philosophy can guess at why we do things the way that we do things and then we can figure out if that makes sense or not through the theory of evolution.
13. Explain why Francis Crick does NOT believe in a soul.
Francis Crick does not believe in the soul. This is quite a bold statement to read as a person who bases a lot of his decisions on the idea of having a pure soul as much as possible. For me, and I feel a lot of other people as well, my conscious is contained in my soul. I do good things because I want my soul to be as pure as possible in order to pass through the gates of heaven. Crick says, "man has no soul, no spiritual self which transcends his/her physical frame. What we take to be the soul, Crick argues, is nothing more than a complex network of neurons. We are to the very core physical beings who have somehow deceived ourselves into believing that we are something more, something non-material, something transcendent." But what is his proof?
Crick believes that everything is based physically. He compares the conscious to senses such as sight at hearing. He believes that because these things occur because of physical things in the body, that the conscious comes from neurons based in the brain. He calls the fallacy that people have where they think there is a little person inside them telling them whats right and wrong "Homunculus" which is Latin for "little man". Essentially, he does not believe in a soul because he believes the conscious is contained in a group of neurons in the body.
14. What are some of the major issues behind a neuro-ethical argument for vegetarianism? What are its strengths? What are its weaknesses?
The major issues behind the neuro-ethical argument for vegetarianism are very scientific. The idea is centralized around the idea of the central nervous system and pain. The idea is that the more evolved the species is, the less likely we are to eat it. The essay mentions such things as dolphins and how we would not eat it because it seems wrong to eat something that is so advanced. He also compares eating meat to eating humans. Why don't we eat other humans? It is because of pain. We cannot imagine causing that much pain to another human being or highly developed animal. This author makes some very logical points, but in order to change a lifestyle such as this, you must make a very strong argument that does not contain any flaws.
As an essay, this is a very good piece of writing. However, I do not think it is the best persuasive essay. This is an argumentative piece, but not necessarily persuasive. It has strengths in logic, and examples. However, I think there are some weaknesses in the delivery of the paper if it is indeed intended to be persuasive. I think the major weakness in this paper is that it does not evoke emotion. Until the very last part of this essay, there is no emotion in the paper. In order to make someone change such a fundamental part of their lifestyle, a writer MUST evoke a lot of emotion. I also think that this argument would better be presented in a speech, because the author could evoke emotion through their delivery. So I think that the information in the argument was good and valid, but I think the weakness was that it did not evoke enough emotion for the reader.
15. How do John Searle's views differ from Ken Wilber's? Who do you
find more persuasive and why?
Ken Wilber's ideas differ quite a bit from John Searle's ideas. Searle believes firmly that, "Conscious states are caused by lower level neurobiological processes in the brain and are themselves higher level features of the brain." John Searle would classify him as a Cognitive Scientist, or some one who "tends to view consciousness as anchored in functional schemas of the brain/mind, either in a simple representational fashion (such as Jackendoff's `computational mind') or in the more complex emergent/connectionist models, which view consciousness as an emergent of hierarchically integrated networks." Wilber believes in a culmination of all of the ideas behind the conscious. He thinks that they can be put together in one model to explain consciousness.
I am more inclined to believe Ken Wilber. I think that his model makes more sense because it is all inclusive. While I am more inclined to believe Ken Wilber over John Searle, that does not mean that I am ready to accept his idea. I still believe in a soul, whereas I do not feel that these two men feel that way. I will also agree with what it says in Wilber's article in that this is something that needs to be further studied. We are still extremely far away from understanding all of the intricacies of the human mind.
16. What is the theme behind the little movie, a GLORIOUS PIECE OF MEAT? How would a religious person argue against it?
The theme behind a Glorious Piece of Meat is that we are only a series of firing neurons, or are we? The idea here is that our brain controls everything in our body and yet we still think that we run things. The true theme here is a question, are we more then just a set of firing neurons, or is that the entire purpose of life. If it is true that we are just firing neurons, then what is the purpose of life? Why are we here if we are only supposed to be be a set of firing neurons?
I believe that a religious person would argue against this like this. Why did God put us here if we were only meant to be a series of firing neurons. It is impossible that our entire existence as a species is only to be here and exist and fire and die. There is no purpose if we can be boiled down entirely to firing neurons carried out by a nearly empty shell of neutrons, protons, and electrons. This statement argues with the very fundamental piece of all religions, so what if there is no soul?
17. Why is Sam Harris so critical of religion? Give his strongest arguments and where do you think his argument fails? Or, if it doesn't fail, where does it succeed?
You can sum up the reason for Sam Harris being so critical of religion in the first few minutes of the lecture. He essentially says that we are fighting a 19th century religious war with deadly technology. He does not think that religion has any boundaries. The religious leaders make their rules about certain things and no one questions it. No one can question it because everyone would be afraid to challenge the Vatican or Muslim religious leaders. He makes a good point about the Catholic church saying that using contraception is a sin when there are millions of people dying in Africa from AIDS. He is critical of religion because it goes too far sometimes and is not always looking out for the best situation for its believers.
I think that the strongest part of his argument is when he talks about religious moderation. He says, "Either you have good reasons for what you believe or you don't." Harris points out that we do not see any Tibetan suicide bombers because they are religiously moderate. They are under just as bad if not worse control through the Chinese. He goes on to say that religiously moderate people are somewhat okay because they aren't the ones doing the killing. However, he says that they give cover to fundamentalism and they try to protect faith. The weakest part of his argument were his comparisons. He compares religious tolerance to people who would come out and worship Poseidon, or those that believe that we can't do Stem Cell research because we have to kill a three day old embryo. These are arguments that won't get him to convince others to convert to his ideas. I think that they are slightly offensive and useless in his argument. Overall, he does make valid points.
18. Explain the essence of Nietzsche's genealogy of morals. You can outline your answer here.
Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals was a bit difficult for me to understand. He says in his final chapter of this book, "If this writing is incomprehensible to someone or other and hurts his ears, the blame for that, it strikes me, is not necessarily mine." I would agree with him, because he presents some difficult ideas, but it is not necessarily his fault that those ideas cannot be understood. With that, I will give my best understanding of his ideas.
I believe what Nietzsche is trying to say is that some of our morals are innate within us. We are taught to feel pity, and yet he asks why. He questions his morals in order to affirm his own beliefs. I gather from his essay that he believes that everything should be questioned. We should not merely accept things because we are told to accept them. We should ask why and if we have a good answer then we can affirm our own beliefs.
19. Why does Gandhi believe in ahimsa?
What is ahisma? Ahisma is non-violent protest. Gandhi used it in the 1940's in order to free India and Pakistan from the rule of the British. In 1947 Pakistan and India gained their independence from the British. Gandhi never intended for the two nations to be separate because he believed in religious tolerance and the two nations are divided due to religious reasons. Gandhi was assassinated in 1948 by a member of his own religion because of his idea of religious tolerance.
But why Ahisma? Why did Gandhi choose to lead the Indians against the British through non-violence? The first most obvious reason is that the British army was still one of the most powerful armies in the world despite WWII. There was no way for any kind of Indian uprising to defeat the powerful British army. Gandhi also felt that because life existed despite destruction, there must be a higher law than destruction. So while it was an intelligent decision, there were also religious implications behind it as well.
20. What is Nietzsche's notion of the myth of eternal recurrence? Be sure to use the film as your guide.
Nietzsche's notion of the myth of eternal recurrence is that if we acted like we had to relive things over and over, we might live life a little differently. The myth says that what if a demon were to appear to you and tell you that you had to live your life over and over again countless times? Would you praise this demon, or would you go after him for this curse that he revealed to you? In other words, would you really want to live your life countless times?
I do not think that anyone of my age can successfully answer this question. I believe that to answer this question takes great wisdom. Life could suck for the first 25 years, and then you could meet the person of your dreams and have children and find true joy in life. Would that make the first 25 years worth it? My initial reaction was to say emphatically no. I do not want to live this life again, but it could be that with age I will find more happiness and the last 19 years could be worth it. It is also possible to go the opposite way. There are those that would embrace this with open arms. And yet twenty five years later they may think that the first 20 good years were not worth the last 25 bad ones. To respond to this takes great wisdom. Wisdom that only comes through experience.
21. What is the ironic theme in the movie Flame On? Hint: what is the movie REALLY trying to say?
The ironic theme in the movie Flame On is that we really don't know what our best and worst traits are. The narrator says, "We don't know what is our best or worst qualities, we simply know the varying reactions we get at different times. Including, our own reactions to it and our reactions can dramatically change over time. What could have been seen as a horrible sin at one time could be nothing but a past time at a different time.
The film uses the example of homosexuality. While it was viewed as horrible 150 years ago, it has now come to be more accepted. During ancient times, homosexuality was a common thing. It was not rare to find a tutor having a love affair with his student. In ancient Sparta, it was common for friends in battle to be lovers. There is a part of the movie 300 where two men are fighting back to back and killing off Persian after Persian, each one protecting the back of the other. In the real ancient Sparta, those two men were probably lovers. The video says that our education system is based on ideas put forth by Socrates, who was a homosexual. But the real purpose of this video is to show us how little we really know of ourselves. We do not know what our best and worst qualities are.
22. Why does Daniel Dennett favor calling himself a "bright"?
Daniel Dennett fits the definition of being a "bright". The definition of a bright is in reference to somone who refuses to believe in supernatural explanations. This could be either Agnostics, or Atheists. When asked if Dennett would call himself an atheist he says that he feels atheists have a negative connotation. He says, "of course there is not a God, but so what?" What he means is that he does not believe that there is a God, but he does not make a big deal out of it.
Furthermore, Dennett goes on to say that he cannot prove that there is no god. The first reason for that is that no two people mean the same thing by "god". Some people believe that nature is a kind of god, and Dennett says that he believes in nature. The biggest problem with proving or disproving "god" is that no one believes the same thing about "god". There is no consensus for what god is or isn't. Everyone has their own definition. He also says that most people don't believe in god, they only believe in the belief that there is a god. All of these are reasons why he doesn't believe in God and therefore refers to himself as a bright.
23. Outline Bertrand Russell's a FREE MAN'S WORSHIP.
Bertrand Russell's piece was extremely enjoyable. First he says that God was created by man because man had to have something to get forgiveness from. He goes on to say that the only true religion and salvation can be found when man realizes that it, like everything else, will eventually go extinct. Despite religion, man has an innate desire for power and this hunger to achieve power that religion cannot suppress. And then there is the split, between those that believe in power and fact, and those that believe that fact and ideals are harmonious. Then comes of the question of is God real or is he just a manifestation of our consciousness? He then goes on back and forth between this religious argument of whether or not religion is real.
I thoroughly enjoyed this piece. It shows the evolution of Free Man's Worship. When I read the title I was not expecting what I got. It's kind of a history of how religion has evolved. How Russell feels that it came about and through the current questions that we have revolving around religion. We are at a turning point in history, and it is my estimation that religion will become smaller and smaller as our knowledge becomes greater and greater. But, a force like religion, can never and will never die.
24. What is the overall theme of the movie INNER VISIONS AND RUNNING TRAINS?
The overall theme of the movie is that people are always willing to worship other people if they feel they have kept them mortal. Faqir Chand was not a very religious person person, he was no guru until he saved the people from eminent doom. If he had not done this, he would have never been looked upon as a religious guru.
I think what this movie makes your realize is the possibility of gurus only "speaking to God" for their own power gains. There can be an impure desire behind saying that you have had a connection with the metaphysical. I am not suggesting that anyone was like that in biblical times, but I am just saying that it could have happened. What if somehow people found out that Muhammad was not a prophet but merely someone who said that he was and made people believe it for the power that came with it. I am not suggesting that Muhammad or Jesus Christ were liars, simply because they put their own lives on the line for their beliefs. What I am saying is that in a common world, it is possible for a guru to be nothing more then a glorified politician.
25. What does Nicholas of Cusa mean by "learned ignorance"? What are its implications for your own life?
Nicolas of Cusa believed that the wise man was a man of learned ignorance. His doctrine of learned ignorance says, a wise man, "is a man who has become aware of his ignorance regarding what the Divine Nature is and what the precise essence of any given finite thing is." Nicolas believed that the human mind was ignorant of God. That the human mind could never come to understand God because God was not a physical Being, but a spiritual one. Learned ignorance is knowing that one cannot understand God, or all of the reasons why God does the things that he does.
I believe that Nicolas was right. I think that there are certain things in this universe that will never be able to be explained, and I think that proves the existence of God. However, this is not a widely held idea by those in the field of science. Scientists believe that everything can be and eventually will be figured out. I personally believe and hope that there are things such as the human brain which will never be able to be solved.
26. What does Gerald Edelman mean by Neural Darwinism and Second Nature?
Gerald Edelman says that the brain is not a computer. He compares it to an evolutionary forest. He says that the brain has a lot of individual variation and even goes on to say that it has more variation than almost anything else. That variability comes from different neurons moving in different ways. That is what he means by Neural Darwinism. Each brain evolves differently even amongst twins.
Second Nature is the way that variation manifests itself. Different things have different habits. Even twins who share all of the same DNA have entirely different shapes and ways that the neurons work. It is unique to everyone. It is the neurons that make up the brain order which shows the biologically significant variance. This variation even occured in brains that had been built in the Darwin 10 machines. Two exact clones did not do the same thing to find their way through the "maze". The first one went to the blue wall every time and the second one did not. So variation in neurons is Neural Darwinism.
27. Why turn vegetarian?---according to the film you saw. What arguments are there against vegetarianism? You may need to do a google search here.
We turn to vegetarianism in order to respect the world that we live in. People turn to vegetarianism because they put themselves in the lives of a cow that is to be slaughtered to make a hamburger. They refuse to eat things with a face because they themselves have a face and how would we like it if there was something larger then ourselves raising and slaughtering us for food. There is also the environmental question of how much acreage is needed for one hamburger. How much methane is put into the atmosphere for the double double sitting in front of you. It is a ethical question, as well as a question of environmental consciousness.
A few arguments against vegetarianism might be that we cannot get the amount of nutrients we need from eating just plants. This however is not true. As long as we are smart about what we eat, we can get all of the nutrients and amino acids necessary for life. Another argument is that if everyone eats nothing but plants, the demand for crops will increase therefore increasing the need for agricultural land thus hurting our environment. Personally, I think that the world could not survive on all of one or all of the other. We must find a way to live sustainably within nature. We have a role as top predators and while we need to minimize that role to smaller then it is now, we will always need to be the top predators for the sake of all species. We have over stepped our bounds, but we cannot forget our role as the top of the food chain.
28. What was the turning point in Ramana Maharshi's life?
The turning point in Ramana Maharshi's life came when he was sixteen years old. Three years previous, his father had died. He and his brother were sent to live with his uncle and his sister and younger sister and brother were sent to live in a neighboring town with other relatives. He showed a lot of neglect towards his studies and was more interested in athletics than learning. Had it not been for his amazing memory he likely would have done much worse in school. At sixteen an elder relative came to visit and when asked where he came from he said that he had come from Aronauctcha which was a very sacred place. This peaked Ramana's interest because he knew it was a very sacred place, but he did not know that it could be visited. Then his uncle borrowed of the 63 tamal saints in which was a story of great faith. Then a while later while he was in his uncle's house he had a violent fear of death despite being in very good health. Maharshi would be changed forever.
He discovered that the body dies, but the spirit cannot be touched by death. The I or self focused its attention on itself. This consumed Maharshi's life. He focused on himself. He focused on making his spirit equal with God. He no longer enjoyed playing games or eating food. He rejected his studies as well. He focused all of his time on his religious beliefs. He spent all of time at the temple. Maharshi spent his life searching for religious peace.
29. What was Gandhi's double shame? If Gandhi lived during our era would he have a different view of that event? Why? Why not?
Gandhi's double shame occurred while his father was very sick. He was doing most of the caring for his father and would stay by his bed side doing everything for him. He would massage him, as well as help him do anything and everything he needed to do. He would only retire when his father told him to go to bed, or when his father had gone to sleep. The only thing he did between school and caring for his family, was take an evening walk when his father gave him permission to do so. His double shame was that his wife was pregnant during the time and that he was not able to hold off lust until after school was over. The night that his father died, his uncle had come into town and had offered to take over the duties for the night. Gandhi agreed and went to his bed room and his father died that night, while he was having intercourse with his wife. So instead of being the one who was with his father when he passed, he was instead having sexual intercourse with his wife.
I do not think his reaction would have been the same in today's world. Especially in America. Unfortunately, young people in today's America do not have a lot of respect for their elders. I think that in today's world Gandhi's father would have been seen as a burden more so than an honor. Plus, he would have probably been in a hospital as opposed to home. I think that in today's world there would have been some shame, but certainly not as much as Gandhi felt that night.
30. List Four distinct passages from Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and explain what you think they mean.
1) I believe what this first one means is that the world is made up of facts. And people are apart of the world. So they can either be apart of the facts, or they can be blind to the facts and stray to create different beliefs, but in the end, the world is still facts.
2) This one is trying to say that everything is made up of atoms. Therefore, those things that are not made up of atoms, are not facts. Anything that is not made of an atom, is not apart of facts and therefore is not true.
3)Thoughts are comprised of things that are made of atoms. Therefore, it it can be thought, it exists. The pictures in our heads can be made up of atoms. The thought creates the image that is made up of the atoms.
4) The totality of thoughts are made up of languages. Languages themselves, are variable. Therefore, the pictures can be different and variable.
This reading was very confusing. I am not a big fan of logic like this because there are certain things which cannot be proved through logic. I do not think that logic holds all of the answers. Through logic we can prove that 1=2, but we know that in real life, 1 cannot equal 2.
31. In the booklet IS MY I-PHONE CONSCIOUS what is the author's overall thesis? Why does he use the sound grenade application on the i-Phone as an illustrative example? What he is trying to demonstrate?
"To say my consciousness is merely the result of a bundle of neurons is neither enlightening nor useful. What we really want to know is how such a set of tiny physical on and off points could produce self reflective awareness. This is a technical problem, not a philosophical one." I feel that this is really the entire essay in a small group of sentences. This is the main problem that I have with this idea of consciousness being just a bunch of neurons is that I don't want to believe that.
The main thesis here is that it is very difficult for one to study consciousness because there are certain parts of consciousness that only applies to the individual. The sound grenade gives an excellent example of just that. It would be difficult for some people to study the sound grenade app or the sound waves given off, because they cannot hear it for themselves. It is very difficult to study consciousness and things above that such as the manifestation of Gods in dreams and visions because most people simply do not see that. That is why further studies must be done on the actual brain. However it is very difficult to study things like neurons because as Dr. Edelman pointed out in his lecture, neurons are unique to each individual, including twins. So it is incredibly difficult to study and test theories on this idea of consciousness because there is no status quo.
32. In the booklets IS CONSCIOUSNESS PHYSICAL? and the PHYSICS OF AWARENESS the author champions a materialistic understanding of our "I" awareness. Present a detailed outline of his arguments. Present a critique of it (pro and con).
Our I awareness is how aware we are of ourselves. And yet, what does it mean to be yourself. We think of everything in terms of the I awareness. We are quick to think of how things in this world affect us but not how they will affect others.
I liked this argument because I think it is important to be aware of the I awareness. whether agreed with or not, it is important to be aware of awareness of ourselves as well as the awareness of others.
33. Explain Leo Tolstoy's confession and religious conversion. What do you think were the key elements in his radical change in philosophy? Be specific.
At the age of 18 Leo Tolstoy dropped out of his university and lost his faith. He had been raised in an Eastern Orthodox home, but had never really believed what he had been taught about God. When he was 11 a friend came to his house and told him that they had discovered that everything that they had ever learned about God was an invention. When he and his brothers talked about it they discovered that it could be a possibility. This was the first major turning point for Leo Tolstoy.
His conversion occurred because religion simply seemed to thaw away with knowledge. When he gained new knowledge, religion seemed less and less important. Tolstoy figured that this was a very normal thing. He even says that religion begins to thaw away for most people as they get older. The wiser that Tolstoy became the less religious he became. That is why he turned away from religion.
34. What was your favorite expert film lecture this term?
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.
35. What was your favorite movie this term?
My favorite movie from this term would have been little things that jiggle. I like how it goes to show that even the smallest little thing can have a huge effect on the world. I think that it really presents the idea of be careful because things that can be looked over can cause a lot of damage. It also focuses on a connection between the past and the present, and being a history major, that always peaks my interest.
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.
36. What was your favorite reading?
The Socratic Universe was my favorite reading. I really enjoyed reading this because I liked how it gave an overview of the current philosophical ideas and view points. I thought that this class would be somewhat like a history class and be an overview of philosophy from people like Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, and Nietzche, but after reading this it really modernized philosophy for me and showed me that it is never dead.
The other thing that was really cool about this reading was that it was almost like a symposium. I could really see all of the different view points. It shows that the basics of philosophy are still involved in philosophy. When I think of ancient philosophy I think of a symposium or a gathering of people arguing about different view points. And its good to see that modern philosophy has not gone away from that. Philosophy is a kind of gathering of ideas.
37. Most unusual thing you learned this term
I would say that the most unusual thing that I learned from this term was about the brain. Gerald Edelman and his Darwin 10 machines were the most fascinating thing to me. It was cool to me to see that neurons are different in ever one, even identical twins and it was even cooler to see that randomness translate into the machinery world. I thought it was cool when he told the story of the two machines that were exactly alike and yet one always went to the blue wall of the maze and the other never did that.
I think that the brain is a fascinating thing and I always have felt that way. It is good to see that it still stuns scientists. I hope that there will always remain mysteries of this world that science can never solve. For me, that is the excitement in learning. What is there to learn if we figure everything out. The brain has perplexed us for many years, and my hope is that it will continue to do so because I think there are some things in this universe that are meant to be unsolved.
38. Give a review of the 3 required magazines listed above that you were required to read.
The Voyage Within
I found this magazine rather enjoyable. I thought it was a bit of a trip. For someone who has never taken a hallucinogen or any kind of illegal substance, it was kind of a good insight into that frame of mind. It was cool to me that this kind of experiment could exist. The idea of a researcher getting people to use drugs for science was really cool. I like how the researcher had a problem and went so far to find the answer and yet it was so simple.
What I found to be most interesting is how people saw the same images. After the lecture about neural Darwinism I would have figured that to never be possible. I would figure that because of the differences in neurons there would be some variations in the hallucinations. It is amazing to me that two clones can figure their way through a maze in an entirely unique way and yet this group of people all had the same hallucination on different drugs. I am perplexed at the human mind and there is still much to learn.
What would Errol Do?
I was not able to find this magazine on the website so instead I would like to make a proposal. I would like to propose that the msac magazine website be reorganized. It has been very difficult for me over the last six weeks to find the magazines that I was looking for. Several times I have had to go over the list at the bottom more then once just to go through and have to click on several different ones to try and find the one that I was looking for. There have even been a few occasions when I could not find the magazine that I was looking for at all. I hope that this is not just my problem.
I think that a better way to organize it would be one of two things. Either have the picture of the magazine be a link to the PDF file, or rename the PDF files to match the names of the magazines. I am not a technological genius, but I know that the professor Dr. Lane is very experienced. I think that the first option given was the better idea, because then you could just eliminate the links on the bottom of the page all together. I also understand that it may not be possible to do that. That is why I presented the alternative idea of renaming the PDF files to match the name of the magazine. They already are in alphabetical order which would make finding them an easy task. Dr. Lane comes off to me as a person who takes great pride in his websites and I have a feeling that he is going to do whatever it takes to make them as good as possible. This is just a suggestion for how to make the website even better then it is.
The Cerebral Wave
This was a very interesting magazine. It was by far my favorite. I think it speaks to religious tolerance. It is about men in a coffee house who all have different beliefs. They begin to fight over who's god is the best and who has the best religion. In the end, it is a Confucius man who speaks up and tells the story of the sun. The idea is that no one god is any better than another, because it is ignorant to believe that one was better than another.
While I will always believe that my God is the one true God, I also believe in religious tolerance. I understand that there is no winning a religious debate. If I believe one thing and you believe another, that is an argument that cannot be won. It doesn't matter what two people are fighting, if they have different beliefs and they truly believe them, there is no persuading them to change. They will always think that you are wrong and they are right. Until there is physical proof that there is or is not a god, there will be no mass conversions.
39. BONUS QUESTIONS WILL BE ADDED SHORTLY.
Twitter Account: twitter.com/gmoney4777
About Me
- gcubed
- To describe oneself in such a small amount of space is like trying to define love. It cannot be contained to a limited number of characters. To get to know someone can take 500 years, and can never be contained to 500 characters. So if you want to try and get to know me then go ahead, I'm always willing to welcome new people into my life. As for summing myself up in a paragraph, I like to think I am not so describable.
No comments:
Post a Comment