FINAL EXAMINATION Fall 2008, Introduction to
David C. Lane
Instructions
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 NO LATER than October 18th at midnite.
3a. Each answer should be at least two paragraphs long, if not much
longer.
3b. What grade do you deserve and why? I believe that an A would be a good grade. Althought I did not understand everything that I might have read. I read them and tried to the best of my ability understand them and learn the lesson that was being taught. I tried to keep my mind open to the new ideas that we were learning about and did all the required work. ( Well except for a little of the reading, but at least I was honest about it, not that it should affect my grade but I know that I was honest in my replies.)
----------------------------------
4. What is your real name? Xotchil V.
5. What is your "user" name? Xotchil
5a. What was your midterm grade? Or, if you revised it, your revised
midterm grade? Provide a LINK to your midterm. B+ http://xotchilm.blogspot.com/2008/09/midterm-examination-fall-2008.html
6. What is your email address that you use for this class? xotchilmontenegro@gmail.com
7. Name and address for your website. PHIL 5 Blog http://xotchilm.blogspot.com/
8. Have you done all the reading for the entire class? For last 4 weeks yes, for the entire class no.
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 eight WEEKS OF POSTINGS.
Digital Baba
Quite honestly the Baba film seemed to be a film about a cult. The beginning might be used to attract people take whatever money the “followers” have. And just at the end of the film the truth is revealed that money is all that they want. Over the speaker you can hear a man requesting that money be taken from a bank and given to the office.
But really what church or religion can honestly say that in some ways they do not resemble a cult. Every religion does. Most churches or religions promise ultimate salvation and a sense of community to often times desperate and lonely people. In return they expect them to give to the church; usually what the church wants is a portion of the congregations’ annual income if not all of it. The church is lead by one leader, a savior that “saw” the true and honest way, for example the Catholic Church has the Pope, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has Joseph Smith, while Scientology has Tom Cruise, just kidding the real leader is David Miscavige. So each established religion was at one point cult, a deviation from the real savior of the popular religion of the time.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
To Be Agnostic
I was raised catholic and I think everyone has the questions that are asked in the book "To Be Agnostic". But religion is faith without faith one does not truly believe in religion. So every person comes across the questions of how did all these people write one book, and get as many things that coincide together, but also how can faith be put into a book that was written by humans and does have contradictions as well. And ultimately that is the decision of each individual to believe that there is some kind of higher being or not.
Now the questions about the Bible are rather difficult. It has been taught for as long as I knowfor the Bible to be a direct record of what occurred. I cannot say that I agree with this, I believe it is instead to be interpreted. Some things are too far fetched to take it as it is, like the mentioned conception of Eve from Adam's rib. If this had really occurred and we are direct decedents of these two people, would men not have one rib missingthen, since we are created by them and Adam had a missing rib. I know that scientifically today that just because something was removed like tonsils in your parents, it does not mean you will not have them but the Bible would makes us believe that humans would work that way.
But as I mentioned before in my other postings I see nothing wrong in the belief of God and religion. It can be used to help establish morals and a sense of reason in a seemly uncaring universe. Most people need a reason to be alive, and for some religion fufills that need, for others religion does not. So I say to those who beleive believe and those who do not, not. It is all your own personal decision and no one elses really.
Xotchil 
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
A Free Man's Worship
"Shall our God exist and be evil, or shall he be recognised as the creation of our own conscience?"
Do we believe in a God that allows, hate, war, destruction and whatever other evils of the world to have a control here. We live shortly here on a planet to which we decided to give meaning to because it makes us feel better, it makes us feel like our life spent here was for a purpose. That the suffering and pain, that the good we did was going to help us get into an imaginary afterlife.
Or will we realize that we made up this notion of living by a good or bad. The world is indeed unforgiving, unmerciful and unfair in the pain and suffering that it causes to us humans. Our lives are considerably a short period of time that compared to the rest of the universe it just a spec in time, practically meaningless to the rest of the world.
We should take time to appreciate the beauty of the world around us, acknowledge the good things, the days when the universe was not so uncaring towardus. These are the things we should worship not some false God.
Xotchil
Daniel Dennett
The interviewer and seem not to really coincide with much of their philosophical viewpoints.The interviewer wanted to prove many of the points that Daniel Dennett believed in wrong, it seemed kind of a hostile interview.
But one of the points that I myself do not agree with is that someone else could essentially know what it is to be me. I am me and no one else can be me. My life experiences and genetics shape my thoughts, emotions, actions, and every other part of me. Just because a person might know what I do, they know my patterns and could have a good guess at what I might do, does not mean they can predict everything about me. Daniel Dennett used the example of a bat and then compared it to humans. But the consciousness of a bat and of a human is extremely different. Although we are both animals the differences between a human and bat far out weight the similarities. How do we know that a bat has a thought process or memory. Does a bat use it's past experiences in daily life and if so the decisions that it makes based upon these thought process are animal basic life functions of a bat, like where to find food, or that there are tree in certain areas, and where it sleeps. Nothing compares to the process that humans go through when making decisions. Our emotions and reactions are unique to each and every individual, there are no to people who are exactly alike personality wise, not even genetic twins. So how can a person who just watches me know how to be me?? That is preposterous.
Xotchil
Ramana Maharshi
I really enjoyed this film regarding Ramana Maharshi, I can not explain why but it is probably one of my favorite lectures of the class. It described the life of a person who devoted himself to religion and expected nothing people. I think that might be why, he wanted to be treated just the same as everyone else, he was the same as everyone and everyone else was the same to him. Equality between all living things was one of his teachings, regardless of race, gender, religion, species, and social standing.
He seemed to teach by not lectures but simple quietness. His devotion to his absorption to self lead him and others to self realization. "Know who you are and all else will be known" was a quote that he would say. I believe it referred to knowing how to interpret the world or how to act in certain situations. Know who you are, know your actions, your thoughts, your vices and good and take this and put it into consideration was questions or hardship arrive in your world. Once you know who you are you, you will know what to do in every situation.
Xotchil
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Hindsight is 20/20
"Let every youth take a leaf out of my book and make it a point to account for everything that comes into and goes out of his pocket, and like me he is sure to be a gainer in the end." Wow had we only known this a few years ago before this mess that is called the
So what to do now. Do exactly what is said above by Gandhi and what other financial planners have said to do for years now. It is basic stuff, people must learn to live within their means. Know what you have, know what you are spending and acknowledge that you must stop if you have to. People must recognize what a need is and what a want is and make decisions that will secure your own financial freedom. No one else is to blame for your own spending habit but you, no one else can tell you not to buy a home that you would not be able to afford, no one told you to sign a mortgage or lease or credit card application without fully knowing what you are signing. And it is not the responsibility for the agent trying to sign you up to explain it to you. People must take charge and control of their own financial problems because there is no one else to blame.
Xotchil
End of Faith
Sam Harris believes that people should stop having complete tolerance to all religious beliefs but instead people should put religious views up against evidence. The issue he has with religions is that it has people believe and behave in certain ways that goes against most scientific truths. One example he used during the lecture was the Catholic belief that condom use is wrong. Now he specifically pointed out that priest would preach this is
The facts were not all represented. Something that Sam Harris himself preaches doing, to take the belief and hold it up against evidence in a non religious manner. Now scientifically speaking, yes, abstinence is the best prevention method one can do to not sexually transmit and receive HIV. But the best method in sexually active couples would obviously be condoms, they greatly reduce the possibility but are not 100%, like abstinence is.
Xotchil
Monday, October 13, 2008
Flame Morality
They are considered evil, morally wrong, are stripped of rights, and have been historically some of our most radical brightest thinkers. So why are they evil, morally wrong and stripped of their rights because they do not fit the ideals of our society. Many times in our world's past we criticize and haze our most innovative minds because we did not like what we where hearing. Think of Michelangelo, Socrates, Jane Addams, and Joan of Arc. What else did these people have in common other than their radical thinking, they where all homosexuals.
This issue today is everywhere, and I keep think back to the current upcoming elections. Proposition 8 concerns marriage and who is allowed to or not. Voting yes on prop 8 would take away the rights of gay , lesbian, and transgendered people to marry. Something that for decades we have been so close minded about for the past centuries. This prop is relevant to the film because one of the main concerns raised in both the film and today is the "spreading" of gay and lesbianism. In the film it quotes a psychiatrist claiming that prolonged exposure to gays and lesbians will "pervert" the youth. And in one of the campaign commercials for prop 8, it has a child which has been "perverted" who says to her mother that she had been taught in school that she can marry a girl. How outrageous to think that being gay can be caught like the a sickness, or the flu.
How long will it be before this country realizes that we cannot be so bias. We live in a country where we should have equal rights and freedom but this is yet to be completely true, the freedom of thought, freedom of action and freedom from false persecution is not enjoyed by everyone because we have yet to let them.
Xotchil
Non-Violence
"I object to violence because, when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent." One of my favorite quotes of the whole book. It speaks so much truth to me, it is so accurate.
Think about Hitler and Nazi Germany, during their murders they performed various scientific experiments. Under the direction of Dr. Edward Wirths, experiments included experiments on twins, freezing people, malaria, mustard gas, sulfonamide, sea water, sterilization, experiments with poison, incendiary bomb and high altitude. All of these providing medical information used today to save lives but at such as enormous cost. This information now saves lives but most people would agree that the means did not justify the ends. The good is temporary, is saves lives now but at the cost of pain and life of unwilling and unknowing people, who where being executed for no reason. The holocaust did not produce any good and these experiments are a part of the holocaust.
But this type of violence is not just seen in other countries but in our own. We cannot forget the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was said to be necessary because of it was preferable to invasion, a speedy end of war saved lives, part of "total war" and Japan's leaders refused to surrender. I believe all human life is precious, so saying that it was preferable to invasion and saved lives is like saying, we did not want to kill our soldiers, so we killed their soldiers and innocent bystanders. The excuse of unsurrendering leaders to attack innocents is ridiculous, and completely illogical thinking. These people if not killed by the bombings they are themselves and their entire family lineage in more danger of medical problems and abnormalities. So you might think it ended things quick but now it affects the daily lives of people whom had nothing to do with it.
So was the violence in each scenario necessary and what is remembered? No this violence was useless and often thought back to as crimes against humanity. The evils of both horrid events live on and beyond any good that came from them.
Xotchil Montenegro0 comments
Why Turn Vegetarian?
S0 I am only to number 4 reason and I am all ready opposed to this short. PETA seems criminalize people who eat meat without explaining. Reason one is that heart disease begins in child hood. But what does heart disease have to do with meat? GoVeg.com states on their page "Most heart disease is diet-related—caused by animal products. Research shows a highly significant correlation between the consumption of even small amounts of animal-based foods and the increasing prevalence of heart disease" taking it's information from a study done in 2005. I found an article written in 2008 on Reuters India site (I mention that it is the Indian site because Hinduism practiced widely in India encourages vegetarian diets) which says that "Eating two or more servings of meat a day increases the risk of suffering from a cluster of risk factors known as metabolic syndrome by 25 percent compared to those who had only two servings of meat a week, the researchers reported in the journal Circulation." So reason one given by Peta is grossly over exaggerated to scare the masses into believing that meat is bad, no, red meat is not bad, but not eating red meat or anything for that matter in moderation is bad. Reason 2, vegetarianism reverses heart disease, really any cut in meat consumption and more vegetable in take will reverse heart disease. Number three particularly made me mad, eating meat does not make you fat, over eating anything and not exercising will make you fat, and who are they marketing to, the already super self conscious teenage girls of the world, this film is suppose to attract teenagers evident because the use of edgy music, young actors and shortness of the film, do we really need more media telling us not to get fat.
I really did not want to see the rest of the film but I did. All this mud slinging reminds me of a presidential debate. Completely one sided and not completely true. PETA has the right to get their beliefs out but I would prefer the whole truth about everything not just half the truth. P.S. the images of the abused animals that is the exception not the norm, there are laws against treating animals in the manner shown and if this still bothers you, use your purchase power to buy free range animals and organic.
Xotchil Montenegro0 comments
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Why I Don't Eat Faces.
Obviously the writer is very passionate in the writings about vegetarianism, and he has the right to be but his views are not my views.
As to the taste of meat being an acquired taste, I do not believe that. I myself to not actually eat too much meat really, but it is not because I believe it is morally wrong to eat other animals but because I often times simply do not want meat and if I do eat meat it is not too much because I feel really sluggish after eating meat. But I do crave meat at times as well, I have an iron deficiency and know that other foods like beans and leafy greens can be substituted but really meat does the job most efficiently for my body and as well I grew up with a pot of beans always on the kitchen stove, so I already ate a lot of beans. It is a part of life and the food chain, we are animals and most animals eat other living animals, it is natural.
What I do have an issue with is not the fact that we kill them but the way animals are housed and treated when they are going to be killed for meat. They are often pumped with drugs for faster growth and are mutilated. This is unsafe for the them and for the consumers as well, the animals are healthier when they are treated more humanely, so safer and healthier for them means safer and healthier for us.
My response to the belief that treating animals better will lead to a less violent world, I do not think this would actually occur. I am not saying we should not treat them better but most people can differentiate the difference between an animal and a human. And the unethical treatment of people by people has occurred for centuries not just from the time of industrialization where the factory line attitude of meat production had started. Before that time animals where seen as a valued asset on farms and often times people where not feed until the animals where feed, so this mistreatment of animals has not been around for as long as the mistreatment of people has been.
Xotchil Montenegro0 comments
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
There are seven main propositions in the book Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. These main propositions are meant to be finite and basic, so the writer, Ludwig Wittgenstein, believed that no prior explanation of them was necessary. The propositions follow:
1 The world is everything that is the case.
2 What is the case, the fact, is the existence of atomic facts.
3 The logical picture of the facts is the thought.
4 The thought is the significant proposition.
5 Propositions are truth-functions of elementary propositions.
(An elementary proposition is a truth-function of itself.)
6 The general form of truth-function is: [`p, `ξ, N(`ξ)].
This is the general form of proposition.
7 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Propositions 1-3 are focused upon a theory of language. What is explained in four and five are the mechanisms of an ideal language, while proposition 6 references form of language. But proposition seven is the proposition that interests me the most but ironically the one least explained.
Proposition seven is just good advice. I believe that can apply not to just the theories of language but in while actually using language. I suppose it is very similar to the American proverb "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all", but I believe this phrase refers to something else, not just about being courteous. I think it extents to knowledge, that if one does not know or really understand a subject then do not pretend to. It is great to discuss something to learn or to teach but if not one of prior two reasons then please remain silent. Or maybe it concerns something as trivial as gossip, if you know you should not be talking about something then don't. This proposition is something that is very applicable to our everyday lives and that is why I enjoyed it the most.
Xotchil Montenegro0 comments
A Glorious Piece of Meat: An Overture on Consciousness
Often time scientific phenomena is explained by rather simple things. I think that we as people tend to make more of things then they really are, we exaggerate on several aspects of life and we have done to across the ages. For example tall tales and fables used to teach lesson, where they might have one had some truth now has not truth.
Science now is taking part in this. The organization and the functions of the body where once thought to be magical, something unexplainable except by the intervention and invention of God. But now we know that we are made up of chemical and biological process, so why would our brain and consciousness be any different. Again we are looking for some mystical answer to why we have a conscious. We need to look at the simplest and realize that it is most likely the truth.
This is the basic idea of "A Glorious Piece of Meat: An Overture on Consciousness". That our consciousness is created by the same things that create all other action in our body, neurons. And I do believe that neurons came before consciousness, something had to create consciousness. And the question posed of "why is it that when someone clubs you with a bat, your awareness ceases", to me can be answered because neurons are still connecting regardless of awareness, we know this because all action, voluntary or involuntary must go through the brain to occur, by the transportation of neurons. Our lungs still breath, our heart pumps and our digestive system still digests, the lack of consciousness when hit on the head is due to damage done caused by the hit to the head or neurons. Awareness or consciousness is a product of neuron connections.
Xotchil Montenegro0 comments
The Problem of Consciousness
Many movies like Bicentennial Man and more recently WALL-E all have machines that some how develop a consciousness but that is just that, these are movies intended to get people to spend ten dollars for an escape of reality. Because these machines with consciousness will never become reality, no matter how good an imitation is it will just be an imitation.
John Searle was right, consciousness is something that cannot be invented. It is something that is unique to humans and is something created biologically not through computer technology. The act of conversation, used in the Turing test as proof of consciousness is not enough. Conversation is basically just the exchange of knowledge or information, how does this prove something has consciousness. Consciousness in this article is defined as the state of "sentience or awareness that begin when one awakes in the morning from a dreamless sleep and continue throughout the day until one goes to sleep at night or falls into a coma, or dies, or otherwise becomes, as one would say, `unconscious'". So how could be ever prove that a machines truly recognizes any of these requirement. I believe that we cannot, everything that a computer "knows" is programmed being programmed is different than experiencing life, attaining knowledge and feeling sensations. We know when we are conscious because we experience these things but a computer never can, because it is a machine.
Xotchil Montenegro0 comments
An Integral Theory of Consciousness, Ken Wilber
Ken Wilber described a form of organization called the holon. Which states that everything is part of something bigger or smaller. For example a human tissue makes up the body and organs, but tissue is made up of cells. He believes that these holons are the basis of existence. He split up the theories of existence into 4 major categories: intentional, behavioral, cultural and social, each made up of holons that are accessed by a different type of truth, objective truth, subjective truthfulness, intersubjective justness, and inter-objective functional fit. Even though these holons are all put into their own categories they all correlate to each other, in a circular motion; one holon needs the truth or validity claim of the others for itself to work.
Everything is interconnected. The several theories of consciousness discussed in this article should all be studied to the fullest extent because we could never know the truth without exhausting all other possibilities. But as well, the truth of consciousness might not be one singular theory but a conglomeration of all the theories, regardless of how "odd" we would believe the theories to be, because many times "science is queer".
Xotchil Montenegro0 comments
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
FINALLY: The Astonishing Hypothesis
What comes to find when reading the review for "The Astonishing Hypothesis" is FINALLY. What I mean is that these past two weeks we have been learning about fascinating scientific theories of the mind and consciousness which are on the edge of technology and on the forefront thoughts of the most scientific minds but I have not understood a word of it. Or at least felt that I truly did understand it.
Now I have not read the actual book but the snippets included in the review seem readable. He seems to write and explain his ideas in a way that does not dumb down the science but makes the science attainable to people like me, who has not extensively studied philosophy and brain structure. It is refreshing to see a person who wants to make science something that everyone can understand and not just the scientific elite.
Many a times, as mentioned in the review, the simplest answer is usually the correct answer, so why makes things more difficult, for yourself and the world?
Xotchil Montenegro0 comments
Steven Pinker on Evolutionary Psychology: Morality
Some believe that morality was not something we invented but instead a truth about the universe. All though I would like to believe this that we are somewhat naturally moral thinking animals I truly doubt it. Animals are brutal, the phrase "your an animal" would never have come about if there was no truth to it. Animals act on instinct, the instinct to do whatever it takes to survive, and as humans I believe we have this same instinct.
What I do believe is that we invented morality as an alternative to chaos . That someone or some society somewhere down our ancestorial lineage decided that we should instead follow rules of engagement, that we would survive better that way. But I am not pointing towards religious like morals but to universal morals. These morals might have came about by the meme theory, it states that this behavior was in fact seen as beneficial by other people and it caught on not that it was somehow passed down from parent to offspring through genes. It is better not to kill others because you my find them as an asset later on, in group hunting, scavenging, reproduction and labor.
Xotchil Montenegro0 comments
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Steven Pinker on Evolutionary Psychology: Kin Selection
Kin selection seems both obvious and then again like a complete mystery. Steven Pinker suggests in kin selection that there has been gene selection that lead us to favor our blood relatives over strangers even at the cost of our own.. This to most people seems like common sense. That we love our family and if not love, we are obligated to like our family, and so we as people tend to act in ways that aid the reproductive success of our families over our own, in a situation of stress when the fight or flight response is activated we would most likely choose fight if family was involved and flight if not.
What makes this a mystery is the idea that what makes us favor our family is found in a gene. It makes sense that if we ourselves cannot reproduce, to ensure the survival of our gene pool we aid our family in the successful reproduction of their, because then at least a portion of the same genes would succeed. But to aid if we cannot reproduce is different then to aid in the successful reproduction of our families if we can reproduce ourselves. So what occurs when both ones own children and their siblings children are in danger, according to the kin selection theory who would you save first. What I would do and what I believe the theory would say is that the individuals with the closets gene similarities, your children, would be the first instinct to save. But then what about our nieces and nephews? I can see where kin selection would be beneficial when decision need to be made concerning family over strangers but family over other family is a difficult area.
Xotchil Montenegro0 comments
Neural Darwinism
The concept that I received from the video is that each individual's brain, when experiencing the same sensation that end at a similar conclusion , creates different neurological connection paths. That even genetically identical organisms, twins or clones, create different connections. Our the possible trails for connections are firstly decided anatomically, secondly through the experiences of infancy and as time progresses the other possible trails of connection that are not used are then no longer available for use.
What came to my mind almost immediately was dissociative identity disorder (DID) or multiple personality disorder. Since every individual has different trail in which different neurons connect how would the path of an individual with DID appear from one personality to another. Would the different personalities each have their own distinct trails as if they where completely different people. Or because they share the same physical brain would the paths be the same?
Xotchil Montenegro0 comments
Darwin's DNA
"You can't handle the truth", so instead you lie. I couldn't count the times that I have lied because truthfully I have lost count. We lie about almost everything and sometimes for absolutely no reason. But why do we do this?
The book "Darwin's DNA" suggest that we lie in order to survive. That our brain lies to us. That our brains manipulate our perceptions of the world in a manner that would mostly likely cause us to survive. One of the examples used in the book is that of the blind spot where the optic nerves attaches to the eye, the brain constructs an image that we would believe belongs there based upon the surrounds we are in. The brain basically makes up a part of the world we think are seeing, I think it does this because we like to perceive the world or what we are looking at as a whole not with a hole. Our brain create scenarios that are very unlikely because it could help us survive. As children our imaginations where rather active, and we would create monsters under the bed and in the closet that we would think eat us, so we always checked before we went to bed. As adults we monitor the areas around the house, setup light and security systems to avert predators. The habit of checking areas where things or people can hide helps us by making us aware of our surroundings, making sure we are safe from the imaginary monsters and the real predators of humans and animals.
Xotchil Montenegro0 comments
Thursday, September 18, 2008
MIDTERM EXAMINATION Fall 2008, Introduction to Philosophy
MIDTERM EXAMINATION Fall 2008, Introduction to Philosophy
Professor David C. Lane, Ph.D.
DUE: September 20th at midnite.
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 NO LATER than September 20th.
----------------------------------
4. What is your real name? Xotchil V. Montenegro Vega
5. What is your "user" name? Lhbum05
6. What is your email address that you use for this class? xotchilmontenegro@gmail.com
7. Name and address for your website. Phil 5 blog http://xotchilm.blogspot.com/
8. Have you done all the reading for the first three weeks? Yes
9. Have you watched each of the films that were required? No
10. Please place here all of the postings you have done for this class (you can copy and paste them)
Survival of the Sufficient
To me the message "of survival of the sufficient" and the Darwinian theory of survival of the fittest sound like the same concept. The editing he lists off of "reprints, new versions, remainders, dust bin copies and discards" are the same as offspring, mutations, and those who do not survive. These are all the same concepts and ideas that were represented in survival of the fittest but just stated differently. For example the quote "if you remain you have been edited to some degree" is just another way of, if survive and thrive you have been passed down genes or yours own genes mutated that are best fit in the environment. So I do not see the difference.
Now had they said that the ''survival of the sufficient" was true today but based upon the fact that modern medicine cure and aids in the survival of humans that would have otherwise dies, then it would have made more sense. Because biologically speaking every time we enter a doctors office or hospital for treatment or get some kind of medication, we are cheating death. Had we lived in a more natural world
Fundamentalism is a Mental Disease: And I Kinda Like It
I believe that we came to be the living creators we are today through evolution, there is too much scientific proof to ignore the theory of evolution. And to those who adapt the concept of creationism are searching too far to hold onto an antiquated idea. Religion was just to explain the phenomena of the world but now we understand more clearly how the systems of the natural world work. And those who deny this scientific truth are indeed foolish.
But I like to believe there is a God because I like to believe that there is some sort of afterlife, where karma catches up with people, that when we die, we don’t simply decompose. It is a rather selfish belief; I do realize that and the only reason I rely on it is to make me feel better. And that is fine, let me enjoy me disillusionment, as long as I know and understand the truth of our existence.
Queerness of Science
The "Strangeness of Science" you might think is about science but everything he explains or describes is about our world. Our world is filled with oddities and phenomena and we find new and stranger happenings everyday. Richard Dawkins explain these events with a sense of marvel in his lecture "Queer Universe".
But what he is trying to convey in his message other than the oddities of science is the that there is still so much to learn, that so much of our world is always around us but because of our concept of the world, the "middle world", we are blindfolded and unable to see all the other worlds around us. We must "think outside the box" to try to really understand all of the systems and complexities that occur all around us everyday but we are blind to. Even still we might believe that we understand something but in reality we do not, every science is interconnected to create this world, so unless we know all there is to know we will never really understand.
Sociobiology
The example used with the people who prefer sweet food and the conclusion that we are biologically programed to over indulge in these food because of an ancestral lack of sweet foods is quite odd. But what is even more odd is that I have heard something very similar to it before. I thought of the advice, eat what you crave.
I have been told that when you crave something it is your body's natural way of telling you that you need a certain nutrient that can be found in that particular food. But what scientific proof is there of this actual crave busting nutrient. Or can we now say that it is because I am sociobiologically programmed to want these foods. Or even in a broader sense I am the way because it is how genetics and the current environment has programmed me.
I understand the bases of traits and maybe even personality being passed genetically but is this all an excuse to find out why we are who we are, instead of using free will? Do not get me wrong I do believe in the theory that behaviors can be passed but I am a strong believer in the meme theory, that ideas, concepts, behavior are passed down but by the process of imitation not through genetics.
Edward O. Wilson and Consilience: Synthesize
Edward O. Wilson believes that in the upcoming years we would be able to synthesize life even if it is simple life. He believes that this can and will occur through the understanding of all science and understanding the connects within the different areas of science.
This concept of synthesizing life even if simple life, I believe is very dangerous. The creation of life should be left to nature instead of science. Science should be used to explain and understand life, to aid the already existing but not to create. The discussion of synthesizing life to cure other is a balancing act. Who are we to create life to then destroy to aid another life, I suppose my issues in this area of science is ethical. I do not believe that it is ethically correct and the issues will often result in "gray areas" The effects of creating life could be disastrous and unseen, just as Isidor Rabi felt when creating the atomic bomb that the equilibrium of life had been upset, I too believe we would feel like this after the possibility of synthesizing life is reality.
Pre-Big Bang: Who Knew?
So the concept of what was there before the before the big bang theory never occurred to me before reading the assigns on cosmic inflation. But it does make sense that something had to be there before the big bang to lead up to the big bang because as we know the big bang had to come from somewhere.
That somewhere is called inflationary universe theory. This theory states that the universe was indeed extremely small at its beginning but it grew exponentially over a matter of tens of seconds and it created a vacuum that brought in energy. All of this occurring so quickly that it overcame gravity. That energy vacuum later decayed to make up the matter the universe.
Inflationary universe theory explains many of the problems that the Big bang theory had. These problems being the horizon problem, the flat problem and the monopole problem. The horizon problem was that both ends of the universe look similar to each other, this is solved by cosmic inflation because at the beginning the universe was a lot smaller and it's ends where possibly close enough together to share the same properties. The issue of flatness of the universe is fixed by two possible situations that the rapid expansion flattened the curve of the universe enough that it just looks flat but it really is not or the expansion had occurred so quickly that it did actually flatten the universe. And finally the monopole issue is that there "should" be magnetic poles in our universe but there is not. The theory here is that during the expansion it evenly distributed the magnetic field to cover the universe.
It seems to me that such a theory makes very much sense in the questions we have in regard to the big bang theory. It answers the biggest concerns that we had. And is actually remarkable that these events might have actually occurred, the chances are so slim for all of this to have taken place, but indeed they might have.
Spooky Physics: Objective Reality
So if a tree falls in the middle of the woods but there is no one to hear it fall does it make a sound? So goes the well known philosophical question, but who knew that it was also a part of physics. Obviously we know that it would because regards if anyone was there to hear it, the wood cracking of trees and the falling onto other trees or the ground would make sound.
But according to "Spooky Physics", quantum mechanics and to objective reality, no. If there is no one there to "measure" the sound of the falling tree by hearing it then it does not exist. And even though we might say "well there is always a noise" a physicist might reply with, there is always the probability that it will make a noise but not always 100 percent certainty. Einstein was deeply troubled by this theory. He had believed that the way the world is perceived is the way that it has always been perceived and will all be perceived, of course unless something drastic happened that changes the face of the planet. But essentially he thought that the world he lived in was just that the same to all and the possibility that it could change because perception is a probability instead of a concept was something he could not embrace. As he said, "He (God) does not throw dice", it is not a matter of ifs, ands or buts, it just is.
And although current science might believe in objective reality, I cannot agree. Because everything that has ever been studied and everything that we know is for the most part based upon observations and our senses telling us that things are constant. That rain will be wet, above me is the sky and below me is Earth, how can I believe that it can be different, if it is always the same thing I see and experience. And that would mean that everything I ever learned might be wrong.
Einstein and Mystery
You are dead. It stands for "true art" and "science" and without it you are dead. Einstein spoke these words not about physics or a religion but of the human experience of mysteries. He was a "religious man" and his religion was that mystery. Einstein was taken by knowing the unknown, he was striven to learn more about nature and "the marvelous structures of existence".
I suppose that without a need for wonder a person is symbolically dead. He or she no longer seeks the mysteries of life, and to Einstein the mysteries lead to a pursuit of knowledge. And with no seeking of knowledge a person might as well not be alive. When it is no longer important to grow as an individual the individual begins to die. Many have shared this need for understanding mystery and without it many of the things that we have today would not exist. It is this need for knowledge that is the source for improvement in not only our society but for the most part the civilized world. It pushes people further to think and test what we know and find better truths.
Richard Feynman "Little Things That Jiggle"
"Things are made of littler things that jiggle" is Richard Feynman's famous quote. This simplification of physics is what made him a favorite upon his students. He knew that if physics, and all science for that matter, could not b understood in a freshman lecture then no one else could understand it. And the film "Little Things That Jiggle" takes this idea and puts it to use.
"Little Things That Jiggle" is a visual introduction to physics. We start off with an alien visitation of some sort, which might be explained in the thought that life and existence is so patterned that it must have been created by someone, an "alien" perhaps not of this world? The image of A. Einstein with the equation E=MC2. Alluding that Einstein is the father of physics, that the work he had done is still the bases for much of the new discoveries today. Newton's law of gravity is then presented following with the other basic forces nuclear interactions, weak or strong and then electromagnetism. The invention of the atom bomb is shown, followed by the quote "Now I have become both Brahma and Shiva, creator and destroyer of the world", this I interpret as the command that man has taken over science in creating a weapon that only creates mass destruction, R. Feynman believed that the Earth was doomed after he helped create the atom bomb, that man was eventually going to destroy himself. Then the discovery of hydrogen bomb brings along more fear of man made destruction. "To make a discovery is not necessarily the same as to understand a discovery " is the future of science, even though we make these discoveries we have no way of understanding what they will bring for the future.
Edward O. Wilson: Creation
The protection of the planet in something that should cross all political, scientific and religious borders. The planet and our need for it, unites all of mankind in a manner that I believe nothing else could. The loss of biodiversity that not caring for the planet could be catastrophic, not only in the loss of wild and plant life, which in itself is a reason to go green, but as well as the loss of the potential good that those plants and animals could have brought into such fields as medicine, the loss of wildlife could lead to the down fall of the ecosystem that lies in a delicate balance; where each animal contributes to the balance of it all, that is each animal except us humans.
As stated by E.O. Wilson if we do not make changes today or in the very near future global warming could cause the loss of one-quarter of all life on the planet. And if not fix the planet could eventually lose fifty percent of all life in the next century. I find it remarkable that in the 3.5 billion years on Earth when life has existed on it, it took humans only about 200 years to deplete and destroy it. The effects of humans before was minimal but not until more recently have we taken so much and destroyed so much, with pollution, over population, over harvesting, and the introduction of animals outside of their proper ecosystem, with little regard to what we are doing.
The call to action from Edward O. Wilson is specifically towards Evangelicals but I believe should should all stand up together and take action as mankind to care for the planet we call home.
The Duty of a Citizen Socrates
Socrates believed very much so in leading by example, which in our time is very refreshing to read about. He decided to rather than escape his imminent death to instead stay and except his fate. He made this decision on being a good role model and being a good citizen.
He believed that the opinion of others, especially the "ignorant masses", did not matter. This today would apply to every person imaginable. The application goes from children to adolescents and adults would be that peer pressure is not an informed group to be taking advice, what is "in" or perceived as normal is probably not.
He believed that it would be unjust to escape. He had agreed to a social contract, in which he released some of his personal freedoms for the protection by the state. And to escape would be to violate his end of the contract. Socrates believed he would be a better role model to his children and the citizens of Athens by obeying the law than believing he was above them.
These beliefs are standards by which we should live by today. A person takes on the role of many things in his/her life, he or she should be responsible to act in the appropriate manner, the honorable and noble actions should be taken
Pythagoras
I must admit the admiration that was bestowed upon Pythagoras was indeed deserved. It was prophetized that he was to be a great man, so his father decide he was to be well educated and he traveled to learn what he could from the best for most of his life, which was a supposed long life of about 100 years. His major contributions where to the mathematical realm. He believed that the world could be understood through the study of numbers. His most famous contribution was the Pythagorean Theorem.
The chapter that stood out most to me is the chapter regarding friendship. At the beginning I couldn't tell if he was referring to politics, mathematics, or friendship, but I came to the conclusion it was applicable to politics and friendship, possibly mathematics as well but it would have to be interpreted differently. I understood that he believed that friendship is something that is to be honored and by no circumstance other than hatred should a friendship be broken. He valued friendship as a divine relationship that connects people and keeps people together. I think more people and countries should see the relationship between people in this manner, friendship as more than a convenience on what one can get out of the other but more on what a person can give to another. It would really help the way that people interact with one another and see each other.
History of (Western) philosophy
The article on the history of philosophy follows a grouping of cultures that ties together similar waves of thought. These cultures include Eastern, Western, Abrahamic and African philosophy. But even with all these different schools of thought, the one the article had focused the most upon was that of the Western philosophy. I understand that much of the teaching of introductory philosophy will concentrate on western philosophers like Socrates and his student Plato. But why is it that we concentrate so much to this culture?
"The Indian or Hindu schools of philosophy can be considered the oldest schools of philosophy" but then why are we not learning about these cultures if they are the history of philosophy, the beginnings? It is important to learn several types of philosophy to be able to discuss the different schools of thought efficiently and in a manner that would evoke good discussion. For example, in debate one must be prepared to argue both side and know the points of both sides to properly discuss an issue, I believe the same should be done in philosophy and taught to philosophy students.
1b. Nicolas of Cusa: On Learned Ignorance
The second concept that I learned which is included in the title and perhaps the more important of the two concept is that of learned ignorance. As stated before everything is understandable regardless of human recognition or knowledge of it. So then not knowing is then knowing in itself. Socrates claimed that he knew nothing except that he knew nothing. He recognized that he could in no way ever know everything that was possible because of him being human, so instead he said that compared to all the possible knowledge in the world, he knew very little of it.
Solomon said that not everything can be put into terms that we as humans could understand, because not everything simple enough of a concept and putting the concept into the restrictions if word one might then restrict and somewhat water down the concept, making it lose value. For example the concept of love, we have indeed given this emotion a word that corresponds but what other words can truly and honestly describe it in such a way that does not take meaning away. Have you ever tried to explain love, it is very difficult, and so Solomon had the same idea that some concepts cannot be explained.
Learned ignorance is the notion that we will never know everything so don't claim to and once you don't claim you know everything you will be able to learn.
1a. Nicolas of Cusa: On Learned Ignorance
I understood there where two main concepts in the Nicolas of Cusa: On Learned Ignorance film. The one which I will discuss here is the concept that everything in nature in somehow is related to everything else, we need only to regress. When the regression is only a few steps back it is easy to see how things are related but once it is more than just a few it becomes harder for us to understand. The example used was mathematics, that it is easy to see how things are related when the subject is easy but once the math problem is harder the harder it is for us to see it how it relates back something simpler.
The film then goes into the subject of the way that unknown things are related to everything. And basically everything is related even if we don't see the relation to the rest of the world. That everything is related for a reason or simply by some "accident". So everything is traceable and understandable regardless of human recognition or knowledge of it.
Java Philosophy
To be honest I received that the film Java Philosophy was about existentialism from it's title. So I did a little research and came up with my own interpretations of each quote within the film. They are nothing but my humble opinion and in no way am I learned in the theories and concept of existentialism but they are nonetheless my interpretations. I will not state every quote but a few the ones I believe I had a better grasp upon.
"Who are you?" is based upon the main theory of existentialism that man is defined by what he has done and only he is responsible for his actions, this quote is asking who had you shown yourself to be.
"I see it all perfectly; there are two possible situations - one can either do this or that. My honest opinion and my friendly advice is this: do it or do not do it - you will regret both. "-Soren Kierkegaard. This quote speaks about that one must face his freedom and responsibility that what he choses will always define who he is, ad because of this man will always think about these decision and wonder if he had made the right or wrong decision and what had happened if he made the other decision.
"Everything has been figured out, except how to live"- Jean Sartre, it is that there are social norms which are expected to follow, so theoretically everything is figured out but how will you decide to live your own life, for example what you do for a living is often an outcome of your parent's career and whatever sources they where able to provide you with, but it is your final decision in deciding what career to pursue.
Posted by Xotchil Montenegro at 11:17 PM 0 comments 
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
2. Expert Lecture: Francis Fukuyama
The concept that the reason that we have a market-based liberal democracy is very interesting. It does make sense that we are governed in a manner that is derived from our most basic characteristics, the want or greed for more explains our capitalist society and desire to govern ourselves explains the democratic system; we are most comfortable with what is familiar.
But if our wants change and instead do move towards a more socialist point of view, how long would it take for the government to follow through with the change. Or would it even change? The established government would be very difficult to overthrow, even with the impeachment process, which itself is a very difficult process to actually get started. The concept of democracy has been around for centuries but not has been put into practice around the world until a few hundreds years ago. So will it take that long for socialism to follow if that is what we wanted? And how likely is it that human nature would change to a different form of government/culture?
What Do You Thinks Happens To Us After Death?
The question was "What Do You Thinks Happens To Us After Death?" and many of the philosophers interpreted the question quite literally, stating things like “Nothing. We're dead" (Matson, U.C. Berkeley) and "Other than fertilizer--nothing" (Neumann, Claremont Scripps College) but I thought it was a good question that most seemed not to appreciate.
Paul Churchland, U.C. San Diego, said “I think that structures which make up our consciousness and mind and our moral consciousness. . . these can survive in a sense that they are recreated to a degree in our children, or in our friends or in our students…” and I agree with him in the sense that what we are while living proceeds us and lives but I as well believe in the after life or reincarnation of some sort. We do not simply just end, I believe in a soul that lives on even after the physical body dies.
I believe the professors where to hasty and did not give much consideration to this question.
1b. Expert Lecture: Aldous Huxley
Yet another thing that stood out to be in Aldous Huxley's interview was his understanding of the economic and politics that even still told stand to be true, for him to almost foretell the concerns we have now in the 1950's or 1960's is quite remarkable. The inability to industrialize developing countries, the need for concern of the ecosystem, and the power of politics has in our world, were all mentioned then and still not ameliorated fifty years later.
These issues are issues that will be here for years to come and without the action of powerful countries nothing will be done. And once as progress has started to fix them how will we know that they can be fixed.
The inability that developing countries have to industrialize is based upon the greed of the powerful countries, which pillage and destroy whatever natural resources the subordinate country has only to increase the rich country's wealth. Our ecosystem is supporting so many people now that it can only continue for so much longer, the Earths resources are not a replenishable, once they are gone they are gone, what we have to do now is conserve whatever we can. But like it was said most of our energy will not go into fixing the fore mentioned issues but will go to establishing and keeping world power.
1a. Expert Lecture: Aldous Huxley
I agree with concept that culture makes and restricts the human being. It gives us the knowledge of how to be a functional human in that given society. Society teaches culture, language and social behavior; which are all very important in developing a personality and sense of self.
But it also teaches bias and corruption as well. For example our society it has taught things like ethnic bias, and more recently the love and greed of money, self centeredness and instant gratification. To some these traits might not be negative attributes but to me they are. As Aldous Huxley said we must have both “intelligence” and “goodwill”, only with both do I believe a society will thrive. One with out the other leaves a society lacking, intelligence without the want to do good will only breed a mechanical world with no sense of morality. And goodwill with out intelligence leads to mismanagement.
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?
She believes that there could be extra dimensions because gravity as a force in our dimension should be much stronger than it is; she believes that because it is not strong in our dimension that possibly it could be a stronger force in another. String theory suggests that there are 11 or 10 dimensions, but there are issues with string theory. Although string theory is mathematically believable, there have not been any physical experiments proving it is true.
12. What are Pythagoras' philosophical views in a nutshell?
Pythagoras’ most famous view was that “everything was numbers”. He believed that the world worked and could be explained by numbers. One of his other views is that the soul is recycled and leaves one animal to enter another animal, or plant at death. He viewed his religious and scientific/mathematical views as interrelated philosophies.
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).
Science and religion are not compatible, “they answer the same questions, but in a different way” but are completely different and often they compete contradict each other (Sircello). Science looks for facts that can be experimented with and conclude the same results, in a restrained manner. While religion is based on a system of faith and there is no real why of knowing if it true or not. Especially when speaking about the specific areas of science, like genetics and creation, both science and religion compete with each other, in regards to morality and ethics of such scientific research.
14. Why was Socrates put on trial? How did Socrates defend his position?
Socrates was put on trial for not worshipping the states Gods but instead creating his own and corrupting the youth. He firstly claims to not know the “correct” manner of speech that is usually heard in the courts, he is in fact telling the jurors that he not trained to be a politician, to speak confidence lies, that he will speak improvised and only the truth. He then begins to state that he is not a Pre-Socratic philosopher, whom did indeed look for scientific answers instead of the religious beliefs regarding the phenomena of Earth, that never had never taught to claimed to be such a philosopher that instead his teaching revolved around ethics and virtue. He claimed that he believed in the supernatural and if he believed in the supernatural he must believe in the Gods that make the supernatural occur. He then denies being a sophist, that he had never charged his students for a conversation and had not taught the youth how to take weaker arguments and have them win stronger arguments, thus not corrupting the youth. Also if the laws and men who uphold the laws like jurymen, which is open to all of the citizens, are good influences then why is Socrates who is a citizen a bad influence, And anyone who does intentionally teach evil or do evil should not be punished but instead be taught instead how to behave.
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.
Philosophy-the study of “existence, knowledge, truth, justice, beauty, validity, mind, and language...” (Wikipedia).
Western
o Ancient (6th B.C. to 4th century A.D.)
Four Major Ages- Pre-Socratics (Naturalism), Plato & Aristotle (Ethical period), Hellenistic (Metaphysical)
Major influences - Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle
o Medieval (500 A.D. to 1500 A.D.)
Major Categories- Christian and Islamic Philosophy (“faith over reason” (Wikipedia.))
Major Influences - Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, John Duns Scotus, Alkindus, Alfarabi, and Averroes
o Modern (1600-1800)
Major Categories- Early Modern( relations between mind/body, free will/God) and Nineteenth Century (Physics and Metaphysics)
Major Influences- Montaigne, Hobbes, Descartes, Locke, Spinoza, Leibniz, Berkeley, Hume, and Kant
o Contemporary (1900-present)
Major Category- Analytic and Continental
Major Influences- G.E. Moore, Wittgenstein Kierkegaard Bertrand Russell, G.E. Moore and Nietzsche
Eastern
o Chinese – Philosophy coincided with the current government but no previous school of thought was ever censored. Many times evolution of thought was based upon a previous school of thought.
Major influences- Confucianism, Taoism, Mohism, and Legalism
o Indian- Most was based upon best dharma (best path to life).
Orthodox (Based Upon Vedas, 6 concepts grouped based on framework)
Nyaya-Vaishesika
Samkhya-Yoga
Mimamsa-Vedanta
Heterodox (Not Based on Vedas)
Jain (550 BC)
♦ Major Influence- Lord Parsvanatha
Buddhist (500 BC)
♦ Major Influence-Siddhartha(Buddha)
o Persian-
Pre-Islamic
Zoroastrianism- Ahura Mazda was the one true God (1000-588 BC)
♦ Major Influence -Zoroaster
Manicheism- twofold theory Light/Good and Dark/Evil (210–276A.D.)
♦ Major Influence- Mani
Classic Islamic
Avicennism- combo of Aristotelianism and NeoPlatonism (800-1500 B.C.)
♦ Major Influence- Avicenna
Illuminationist- combo Avicennaism and ancient Iranian philosophy (1100 B.C.)
♦ Major Influence- Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi
Transcendent- similar existentialism (1600 B.C)
♦ Major Influence- Mulla Sadra
16. Explain the big bang and the inflationary universe. Why is it important to know astronomy in order to do philosophy?
The inflationary universe and big bang are theories in regards to the creation of the universe. The inflationary universe, the first extremely high energy expansion of the universe that occurred in a matter of seconds which created or supplied the universe with matter, is a theory which covers the gaps in the big bang theory, the continual expansion of the universe as well as the cooling of the matter to create cosmological structures. It is important to know astronomy in order to do philosophy because many of the societies that either embraced or allowed philosophy based a lot of their teachings on their existing religious belief system, which for most part religions where intertwined with the phenomena of astronomy, for example constellations, eclipses, the rising and setting of the sun and moon and used it to explain the reason for existence, metaphysics.
17. How do Heisenberg's views on philosophy and science DIFFER from Einstein's? How are they similar?
Heisenberg said that quantum theory has an ontology, which incorporated Copenhagen duality thesis. But Einstein did not believe that there was enough evidence to be able to use the Copenhagen duality thesis. Both physicists believed in the ability to reveal the universe through mathematics.
18. What is meme theory and do you find it plausible? Explain your reasoning.
Meme theory is the movement of ideas from one brain to another brain by word of mouth or reading, in which memes, the ideas, chance of surviving based upon durability, productiveness, and the ability to duplicate it. The theory does make sense that the ideas that better adapt or are easier understood will spread through different cultures and continue to exist until some kind of mutation of the idea or a completely new idea takes its place. For example religion was used to theorize where we came from and certain phenomena that we could not understand, that was until the technology and science came about that showed scientifically the answer to those questions. Religion as a meme still survived because it took on a new role, it mutated, of instead how are we but why are we here.
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.
The manner in which biological evolution occurs so does human thought and behavior. Darwinism, specifically natural selection is the process in which living species survive; the living species with the genes that are most adaptable to the current environment survive to pass their genes further down, while the “weak” die. So is seen human thought and behavior, which behavior and thought that best adapts to the current environment/situation best survive. It is believed that the human brain has no only physical but physiological adaptations that keep humans from behaving in a manner that could weaken the race, such as incest prevention mechanism and intelligence and gender-specific breeding preferences. Meme theory believes that memes evolve by natural, through deviation, mutation, struggle, and inheritance affecting a living things reproductive achievement. So some memes will not spread and die out, while others will survive and spread, or in other words natural selection. So to understand natural selection is to understand evolutionary psychology and the meme theory.
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.
The narrator stated that fundamentalism was a mental disease because it required a person to look past all the facts, all the truth to believe in a creator and overseer of the universe; to have blind faith in a God that there is no way of proving to be true. Yes I comply with the narrator, to believe in something that has no scientific or mathematical proof when there is another explanation is crazy.
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.
Owen Gingerich believes that science and religion are indeed are untied, that science looks for the answer to how do things work on Earth and religion answers why we are here, that without the religion aspect the scientific aspect would not to so sought after. On the other hand Edward O. Wilson believed that the “mind and traits of humanity, passions and values”, typically traits that religions claim and teach, could have been evolved biologically. He believes in no soul only matter and energy. I believe that Edward O. Wilson is more persuasive in his reasoning simply because we know that genes evolve and we pass them down to generation and so why not behaviors. The meme theory might explain for the behaviors passed down better than religion because the earliest humans probably did not have an organized religion but somehow we survived and recognized essential actions that would lead to our survival.
22. What does Francis Fukuyama mean by the "end of history." Do you agree or disagree? Explain. When referring to the “end of history” Francis Fukuyama refers to the end of a period of history. For example there was an end of the Renaissance Era and this end to which he refers to is the end of the world war era.
23. Explain Nicholas of Cusa's philosophy of "unknowingness."
The philosophy of “unknowingness” is that humans have a limitation on what they know and a even smaller limitation on what they truly understand.
24. According to Nietzsche, how did we actually "kill" God? Think before you leap on this one.
God was used as a means of explanation for all of the wonders of the world but we killed God because modern science replaced God as the explanation of things.
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 and philosophy are intertwined and because they are intertwined it is that physics is important to philosophy. For example the area of metaphysics, which is the philosophy of reality, to investigate such philosophical questions one must know something about physics. Science and philosophy used to be considered one and the same by the ancient philosophers, so these philosophers ideas where the bases for much of the science today.
26. How do you explain the following line, "To have freedom OF religion one must also have freedom FROM religion."
Well most religions tell its followers that other religions are wrong and belief in those other “wrong” religions results in damnation. So to really to be able to choose a religion that one identifies with most, they have to study other religions.
27. Why does Dawkins believe that believing in God is delusional?
He believes that believing in God is delusional because there is so much science that can explain what God is supposedly the creator of.
28. Can science offer a sense of mystery comparable to what certain religions offer?
With religion the world is explained, everything is the way it is because a God wanted to be that way but with science, the workings of the world are unknown and thus mysterious.
29. How does an understanding of cellular automata suggest a "new kind of science".... according to Stephen Wolfram.
Cellular automata is used to mimic the natural world in a sense that it starts with one cell or cause and then sees the effects, when speaking strictly about cellular automate the effect would be on the neighboring cells but in the natural world it would be the effects of the first cause, so it is a system of cause and effect. To study cellular automata, Stephen Wolfram proposes that we introduce a tradition of systematic to the already established traditions of engineering and mathematics, so this tradition of systematic would be the “new science”.
30. What were the key turning points in Darwin's life?
His time at Cambridge was rather important; his acquaintance of Henslow influenced and interested him to the world of natural science. The event that Darwin says if his most important was his position of naturalist on the ship the Beagle, he received most of his early education in natural biology on this expedition.
Work Cited
"Philosophy." Wikipedia. Sept. 2008. 16 Sept. 2008 .
Sircello, Guy. Interview. Introduction to Philosophy. Course page. Fall 1991. Dept. of Philosophy, Mount San Antonio College. 16 Sept. 2008 .
Xotchil Montenegro0 comments
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Survival of the Sufficient
To me the message "of survival of the sufficient" and the Darwinian theory of survival of the fittest sound like the same concept. The editing he lists off of "reprints, new versions, remainders, dust bin copies and discards" are the same as offspring, mutations, and those who do not survive. These are all the same concepts and ideas that were represented in survival of the fittest but just stated differently. For example the quote "if you remain you have been edited to some degree" is just another way of, if survive and thrive you have been passed down genes or yours own genes mutated that are best fit in the environment. So I do not see the difference.
Now had they said that the ''survival of the sufficient" was true today but based upon the fact that modern medicine cure and aids in the survival of humans that would have otherwise dies, then it would have made more sense. Because biologically speaking every time we enter a doctors office or hospital for treatment or get some kind of medication, we are cheating death. Had we lived in a more natural world
Xotchil Montenegro0 comments
Fundamentalism is a Mental Disease: And I Kinda Like It
I believe that we came to be the living creators we are today through evolution, there is too much scientific proof to ignore the theory of evolution. And to those who adapt the concept of creationism are searching too far to hold onto an antiquated idea. Religion was just to explain the phenomena of the world but now we understand more clearly how the systems of the natural world work. And those who deny this scientific truth are indeed foolish.
But I like to believe there is a God because I like to believe that there is some sort of afterlife, where karma catches up with people, that when we die, we don’t simply decompose. It is a rather selfish belief; I do realize that and the only reason I rely on it is to make me feel better. And that is fine, let me enjoy me disillusionment, as long as I know and understand the truth of our existence.
Xotchil Montenegro0 comments
Queerness of Science
The "Strangeness of Science" you might think is about science but everything he explains or describes is about our world. Our world is filled with oddities and phenomena and we find new and stranger happenings everyday. Richard Dawkins explain these events with a sense of marvel in his lecture "Queer Universe".
But what he is trying to convey in his message other than the oddities of science is the that there is still so much to learn, that so much of our world is always around us but because of our concept of the world, the "middle world", we are blindfolded and unable to see all the other worlds around us. We must "think outside the box" to try to really understand all of the systems and complexities that occur all around us everyday but we are blind to. Even still we might believe that we understand something but in reality we do not, every science is interconnected to create this world, so unless we know all there is to know we will never really understand.
Xotchil Montenegro0 comments
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Sociobiology
The example used with the people who prefer sweet food and the conclusion that we are biologically programed to over indulge in these food because of an ancestral lack of sweet foods is quite odd. But what is even more odd is that I have heard something very similar to it before. I thought of the advice, eat what you crave.
I have been told that when you crave something it is your body's natural way of telling you that you need a certain nutrient that can be found in that particular food. But what scientific proof is there of this actual crave busting nutrient. Or can we now say that it is because I am sociobiologically programmed to want these foods. Or even in a broader sense I am the way because it is how genetics and the current environment has programmed me.
I understand the bases of traits and maybe even personality being passed genetically but is this all an excuse to find out why we are who we are, instead of using free will? Do not get me wrong I do believe in the theory that behaviors can be passed but I am a strong believer in the meme theory, that ideas, concepts, behavior are passed down but by the process of imitation not through genetics.
Xotchil Montenegro0 comments
Edward O. Wilson and Consilience: Synthesize
Edward O. Wilson believes that in the upcoming years we would be able to synthesize life even if it is simple life. He believes that this can and will occur through the understanding of all science and understanding the connects within the different areas of science.
This concept of synthesizing life even if simple life, I believe is very dangerous. The creation of life should be left to nature instead of science. Science should be used to explain and understand life, to aid the already existing but not to create. The discussion of synthesizing life to cure other is a balancing act. Who are we to create life to then destroy to aid another life, I suppose my issues in this area of science is ethical. I do not believe that it is ethically correct and the issues will often result in "gray areas" The effects of creating life could be disastrous and unseen, just as Isidor Rabi felt when creating the atomic bomb that the equilibrium of life had been upset, I too believe we would feel like this after the possibility of synthesizing life is reality.
Xotchil Montenegro0 comments
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Pre-Big Bang: Who Knew?
So the concept of what was there before the before the big bang theory never occurred to me before reading the assigns on cosmic inflation. But it does make sense that something had to be there before the big bang to lead up to the big bang because as we know the big bang had to come from somewhere.
That somewhere is called inflationary universe theory. This theory states that the universe was indeed extremely small at its beginning but it grew exponentially over a matter of tens of seconds and it created a vacuum that brought in energy. All of this occurring so quickly that it overcame gravity. That energy vacuum later decayed to make up the matter the universe.
Inflationary universe theory explains many of the problems that the Big bang theory had. These problems being the horizon problem, the flat problem and the monopole problem. The horizon problem was that both ends of the universe look similar to each other, this is solved by cosmic inflation because at the beginning the universe was a lot smaller and it's ends where possibly close enough together to share the same properties. The issue of flatness of the universe is fixed by two possible situations that the rapid expansion flattened the curve of the universe enough that it just looks flat but it really is not or the expansion had occurred so quickly that it did actually flatten the universe. And finally the monopole issue is that there "should" be magnetic poles in our universe but there is not. The theory here is that during the expansion it evenly distributed the magnetic field to cover the universe.
It seems to me that such a theory makes very much sense in the questions we have in regard to the big bang theory. It answers the biggest concerns that we had. And is actually remarkable that these events might have actually occurred, the chances are so slim for all of this to have taken place, but indeed they might have.
Xotchil Montenegro0 comments
Spooky Physics: Objective Reality
So if a tree falls in the middle of the woods but there is no one to hear it fall does it make a sound? So goes the well known philosophical question, but who knew that it was also a part of physics. Obviously we know that it would because regards if anyone was there to hear it, the wood cracking of trees and the falling onto other trees or the ground would make sound.
But according to "Spooky Physics", quantum mechanics and to objective reality, no. If there is no one there to "measure" the sound of the falling tree by hearing it then it does not exist. And even though we might say "well there is always a noise" a physicist might reply with, there is always the probability that it will make a noise but not always 100 percent certainty. Einstein was deeply troubled by this theory. He had believed that the way the world is perceived is the way that it has always been perceived and will all be perceived, of course unless something drastic happened that changes the face of the planet. But essentially he thought that the world he lived in was just that the same to all and the possibility that it could change because perception is a probability instead of a concept was something he could not embrace. As he said, "He (God) does not throw dice", it is not a matter of ifs, ands or buts, it just is.
And although current science might believe in objective reality, I cannot agree. Because everything that has ever been studied and everything that we know is for the most part based upon observations and our senses telling us that things are constant. That rain will be wet, above me is the sky and below me is Earth, how can I believe that it can be different, if it is always the same thing I see and experience. And that would mean that everything I ever learned might be wrong.
Xotchil Montenegro0 comments
Friday, September 12, 2008
You are dead. It stands for "true art" and "science" and without it you are dead. Einstein spoke these words not about physics or a religion but of the human experience of mysteries. He was a "religious man" and his religion was that mystery. Einstein was taken by knowing the unknown, he was striven to learn more about nature and "the marvelous structures of existence".
I suppose that without a need for wonder a person is symbolically dead. He or she no longer seeks the mysteries of life, and to Einstein the mysteries lead to a pursuit of knowledge. And with no seeking of knowledge a person might as well not be alive. When it is no longer important to grow as an individual the individual begins to die. Many have shared this need for understanding mystery and without it many of the things that we have today would not exist. It is this need for knowledge that is the source for improvement in not only our society but for the most part the civilized world. It pushes people further to think and test what we know and find better truths.
Xotchil Montenegro0 comments
Richard Feynman "Little Things That Jiggle"
"Things are made of littler things that jiggle" is Richard Feynman's famous quote. This simplification of physics is what made him a favorite upon his students. He knew that if physics, and all science for that matter, could not b understood in a freshman lecture then no one else could understand it. And the film "Little Things That Jiggle" takes this idea and puts it to use.
"Little Things That Jiggle" is a visual introduction to physics. We start off with an alien visitation of some sort, which might be explained in the thought that life and existence is so patterned that it must have been created by someone, an "alien" perhaps not of this world? The image of A. Einstein with the equation E=MC2. Alluding that Einstein is the father of physics, that the work he had done is still the bases for much of the new discoveries today. Newton's law of gravity is then presented following with the other basic forces nuclear interactions, weak or strong and then electromagnetism. The invention of the atom bomb is shown, followed by the quote "Now I have become both Brahma and Shiva, creator and destroyer of the world", this I interpret as the command that man has taken over science in creating a weapon that only creates mass destruction, R. Feynman believed that the Earth was doomed after he helped create the atom bomb, that man was eventually going to destroy himself. Then the discovery of hydrogen bomb brings along more fear of man made destruction. "To make a discovery is not necessarily the same as to understand a discovery " is the future of science, even though we make these discoveries we have no way of understanding what they will bring for the future.
Xotchil Montenegro0 comments
Edward O. Wilson: Creation
The protection of the planet in something that should cross all political, scientific and religious borders. The planet and our need for it, unites all of mankind in a manner that I believe nothing else could. The loss of biodiversity that not caring for the planet could be catastrophic, not only in the loss of wild and plant life, which in itself is a reason to go green, but as well as the loss of the potential good that those plants and animals could have brought into such fields as medicine, the loss of wildlife could lead to the down fall of the ecosystem that lies in a delicate balance; where each animal contributes to the balance of it all, that is each animal except us humans.
As stated by E.O. Wilson if we do not make changes today or in the very near future global warming could cause the loss of one-quarter of all life on the planet. And if not fix the planet could eventually lose fifty percent of all life in the next century. I find it remarkable that in the 3.5 billion years on Earth when life has existed on it, it took humans only about 200 years to deplete and destroy it. The effects of humans before was minimal but not until more recently have we taken so much and destroyed so much, with pollution, over population, over harvesting, and the introduction of animals outside of their proper ecosystem, with little regard to what we are doing.
The call to action from Edward O. Wilson is specifically towards Evangelicals but I believe should should all stand up together and take action as mankind to care for the planet we call home.
Xotchil Montenegro0 comments
Sunday, September 7, 2008
The Duty of a Citizen Socrates
Socrates believed very much so in leading by example, which in our time is very refreshing to read about. He decided to rather than escape his imminent death to instead stay and except his fate. He made this decision on being a good role model and being a good citizen.
He believed that the opinion of others, especially the "ignorant masses", did not matter. This today would apply to every person imaginable. The application goes from children to adolescents and adults would be that peer pressure is not an informed group to be taking advice, what is "in" or perceived as normal is probably not.
He beleived that it would be unjust to escape. He had agreed to a social contract, in which he released some of his personal freedoms for the protection by the state. And to escape would be to violate his end of the contract. Socrates believed he would be a better role model to his children and the citizens of Athens by obeying the law than believing he was above them.
These beliefs are standards by which we should live by today. A person takes on the role of many things in his/her life, he or she should be responsible to act in the appropriate manner, the honorable and noble actions should be taken
Xotchil Montenegro0 comments
Saturday, September 6, 2008
I must admit the admiration that was bestowed upon Pythagoras was indeed deserved. It was prophetized that he was to be a great man, so his father decide he was to be well educated and he traveled to learn what he could from the best for most of his life, which was a supposed long life of about 100 years. His major contributions where to the mathematical realm. He believed that the world could be understood through the study of numbers. His most famous contribution was the Pythagorean Theorem.
The chapter that stood out most to me is the chapter regarding friendship. At the beginning I couldn't tell if he was referring to politics, mathematics, or friendship, but I came to the conclusion it was applicable to politics and friendship, possibly mathematics as well but it would have to be interpreted differently. I understood that he believed that friendship is something that is to be honored and by no circumstance other than hatred should a friendship be broken. He valued friendship as a divine relationship that connects people and keeps people together. I think more people and countries should see the relationship between people in this manner, friendship as more than a convenience on what one can get out of the other but more on what a person can give to another. It would really help the way that people interact with one another and see each other.
Xotchil Montenegro0 comments
Friday, September 5, 2008
History of (Western) philosophy
The article on the history of philosophy follows a grouping of cultures that ties together similar waves of thought. These cultures include Eastern, Western, Abrahamic and African philosophy. But even with all these different schools of thought, the one the article had focused the most upon was that of the Western philosophy. I understand that much of the teaching of introductory philosophy will concentrate on western philosophers like Socrates and his student Plato. But why is it that we concentrate so much to this culture?
"The Indian or Hindu schools of philosophy can be considered the oldest schools of philosophy" but then why are we not learning about these cultures if they are the history of philosophy, the beginnings? It is important to learn several types of philosophy to be able to discuss the different schools of thought efficiently and in a manner that would evoke good discussion. For example, in debate one must be prepared to argue both side and know the points of both sides to properly discuss an issue, I believe the same should be done in philosophy and taught to philosophy students.
Xotchil Montenegro0 comments
1b. Nicolas of Cusa: On Learned Ignorance
The second concept that I learned which is included in the title and perhaps the more important of the two concept is that of learned ignorance. As stated before everything is understandable regardless of human recognition or knowledge of it. So then not knowing is then knowing in itself. Socrates claimed that he knew nothing except that he knew nothing. He recognized that he could in no way ever know everything that was possible because of him being human, so instead he said that compared to all the possible knowledge in the world, he knew very little of it.
Solomon said that not everything can be put into terms that we as humans could understand, because not everything simple enough of a concept and putting the concept into the restrictions if word one might then restrict and somewhat water down the concept, making it lose value. For example the concept of love, we have indeed given this emotion a word that corresponds but what other words can truly and honestly describe it in such a way that does not take meaning away. Have you ever tried to explain love, it is very difficult, and so Solomon had the same idea that some concepts cannot be explained.
Learned ignorance is the notion that we will never know everything so don't claim to and once you don't claim you know everything you will be able to learn.
Xotchil Montenegro0 comments
1a. Nicolas of Cusa: On Learned Ignorance
I understood there where two main concepts in the Nicolas of Cusa: On Learned Ignorance film. The one which I will discuss here is the concept that everything in nature in somehow is related to everything else, we need only to regress. When the regression is only a few steps back it is easy to see how things are related but once it is more than just a few it becomes harder for us to understand. The example used was mathematics, that it is easy to see how things are related when the subject is easy but once the math problem is harder the harder it is for us to see it how it relates back something simpler.
The film then goes into the subject of the way that unknown things are related to everything. And basically everything is related even if we don't see the relation to the rest of the world. That everything is related for a reason or simply by some "accident". So everything is traceable and understandable regardless of human recognition or knowledge of it.
Xotchil Montenegro0 comments
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Java Philosophy
To be honest I received that the film Java Philosophy was about existentialism from it's title. So I did a little research and came up with my own interpretations of each quote within the film. They are nothing but my humble opinion and in no way am I learned in the theories and concept of existentialism but they are nonetheless my interpretations. I will not state every quote but a few the ones I believe I had a better grasp upon.
"Who are you?" is based upon the main theory of existentialism that man is defined by what he has done and only he is responsible for his actions, this quote is asking who had you shown yourself to be.
"I see it all perfectly; there are two possible situations - one can either do this or that. My honest opinion and my friendly advice is this: do it or do not do it - you will regret both. "-Soren Kierkegaard. This quote speaks about that one must face his freedom and responsibility that what he choses will always define who he is, ad because of this man will always think about these decision and wonder if he had made the right or wrong decision and what had happened if he made the other decision.
"Everything has been figured out, except how to live"- Jean Sartre, it is that there are social norms which are expected to follow, so theoretically everything is figured out but how will you decide to live your own life, for example what you do for a living is often an outcome of your parent's career and whatever sources they where able to provide you with, but it is your final decision in deciding what career to pursue.
Xotchil Montenegro0 comments
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
2. Expert Lecture: Francis Fukuyama
The concept that the reason that we have a market-based liberal democracy is very interesting. It does make sense that we are governed in a manner that is derived from our most basic characteristics, the want or greed for more explains our capitalist society and desire to govern ourselves explains the democratic system; we are most comfortable with what is familiar.
But if our wants change and instead do move towards a more socialist point of view, how long would it take for the government to follow through with the change. Or would it even change? The established government would be very difficult to overthrow, even with the impeachment process, which itself is a very difficult process to actually get started. The concept of democracy has been around for centuries but not has been put into practice around the world until a few hundreds years ago. So will it take that long for socialism to follow if that is what we wanted? And how likely is it that human nature would change to a different form of government/culture?
Xotchil Montenegro0 comments
What Do You Thinks Happens To Us After Death?
The question was "What Do You Thinks Happens To Us After Death?" and many of the philosophers interpreted the question quite literally, stating things like “Nothing. We're dead" (Matson, U.C. Berkeley) and "Other than fertilizer--nothing" (Neumann, Claremont Scripps College) but I thought it was a good question that most seemed not to appreciate.
Paul Churchland, U.C. San Diego, said “I think that structures which make up our consciousness and mind and our moral consciousness. . . these can survive in a sense that they are recreated to a degree in our children, or in our friends or in our students…” and I agree with him in the sense that what we are while living proceeds us and lives but I as well believe in the after life or reincarnation of some sort. We do not simply just end, I believe in a soul that lives on even after the physical body dies.
I believe the professors where to hasty and did not give much consideration to this question.
Xotchil Montenegro0 comments
1b. Expert Lecture: Aldous Huxley
Yet another thing that stood out to be in Aldous Huxley's interview was his understanding of the economic and politics that even still told stand to be true, for him to almost foretell the concerns we have now in the 1950's or 1960's is quite remarkable. The inability to industrialize developing countries, the need for concern of the ecosystem, and the power of politics has in our world, were all mentioned then and still not ameliorated fifty years later.
These issues are issues that will be here for years to come and without the action of powerful countries nothing will be done. And once as progress has started to fix them how will we know that they can be fixed.
The inability that developing countries have to industrialize is based upon the greed of the powerful countries, which pillage and destroy whatever natural resources the subordinate country has only to increase the rich country's wealth. Our ecosystem is supporting so many people now that it can only continue for so much longer, the Earths resources are not a replenishable, once they are gone they are gone, what we have to do now is conserve whatever we can. But like it was said most of our energy will not go into fixing the fore mentioned issues but will go to establishing and keeping world power.
Xotchil Montenegro0 comments
1a. Expert Lecture: Aldous Huxley
I agree with concept that culture makes and restricts the human being. It gives us the knowledge of how to be a functional human in that given society. Society teaches culture, language and social behavior; which are all very important in developing a personality and sense of self.
But it also teaches bias and corruption as well. For example our society it has taught things like ethnic bias, and more recently the love and greed of money, self centeredness and instant gratification. To some these traits might not be negative attributes but to me they are. As Aldous Huxley said we must have both “intelligence” and “goodwill”, only with both do I believe a society will thrive. One with out the other leaves a society lacking, intelligence without the want to do good will only breed a mechanical world with no sense of morality. And goodwill with out intelligence leads to mismanagement.
Xotchil Montenegro0 comments
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
11. Why does Steven Pinker believe that evolution is important in understanding human behavior? Be specific in your answer.
It was believed that human behavior was something that was leaned throughout life. And although the sophistication of the brain is due to evolution the sophistication of our actions are learned behaviors. But Steven Pinker believes that there are basic human emotions or behaviors that are somehow passed along through genes and survived evolution because they where beneficial to our survival. His example would be that people often choose people in their family over people not in their family; he proposes that this decision to choose family is genetically based.
12. In addition, why is the theory of evolution helpful in doing philosophy?
Philosophy and evolution have until recent history been joined together. Since the conception of philosophy the origins of life have plagued the minds of philosophers. So the theory of evolution helps answer our questions about who we are and why we are the way we are, which are based upon philosophical inquires.
13. Explain why Francis Crick does NOT believe in a soul.
Francis Crick believes that a soul is an imaginary thing, that our brain was developed through evolution to the brain we have now. And that all behaviors including that of a sense of morality developed along with the brain. The soul is an imaginary thing that was established by religion as something that would outlive the physical world that if we behaved according to religion would pass on to a better place.
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 issue behind the neuron-ethical argument for vegetarianism is that the animals feel pain, that if there was a more intelligent species, we would not to be eaten and we eat meat to fit in and because we do not think about what we are doing.
The strengths behind the arguments is that yes I do believe people eat with out thinking, but I do not think they think about anything when it comes to food other than it tastes good. Yes most people do not realize what they eat and often just go with that someone else is having.
But I certainly to not think that I would ever think Uncle Tom would taste good. I do not believe any animal eats its own species, but other animals eat other animals, so why would we be different. We are not thinking about eating meat because we have been genetically program to need it. We need nutrition that we find most easily in meat. Our teeth have been changed over evolution to be able to eat meat, we survived because we ate whatever was necessary to sustain life and meat was a part of that. Yes can we live without meat now, but we survived to be the most intelligent species by doing what we have been doing, so why change something so trivial as eating meat because some people believe it is wrong. And yes these animals feel pain and no we do not at animals that are perceived to be “intelligent” creatures but that does not mean that other animals do not. We are a part of the food chain, we have been for centuries.
15. How do John Searle's views differ from Ken Wilber's? Who do you find more persuasive and why?
Ken Wilber has a broad belief in all theories about consciousness and essentially believes that all are correct at least in part and that they together form the correct theory. While John Searle concentrates more upon the brain as the source of consciousness or the Top Right Quadrant in Ken Wilber Theory.
I believe that the brain is the source of all consciousness and it makes more sense to me when Searle says that consciousness is the higher secondary result of lower brain processes. It seems to me that the truth is usually what is simpler process.
16. What is the theme behind the little movie, a GLORIOUS PIECE OF MEAT? How would a religious person argue against it?
The theme of the film is that our brain is a complicated muscle in our body but it’s complexity has nothing to do with religion or some God creating the brain in that manner. But instead it is the product of survival of the fittest and evolution.
A religious person might argue this because they have religion as bases for their beliefs. They would argue that God gave us our sense of consciousness by giving us a soul. That our soul is real not a neurological network but instead the soul pre-exists our life and will exist after we out live our physical life.
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?
Sam Harris is critical of religion because he believes that those who practice religion and faith in a God do not critically think about what they have faith in. They ignore the truth and common sense to be able to believe in this God. And he believes that often times the rules of religion itself will obstruct a person’s ability to achieve true spiritually and ethics. That the rules of religion are hypocritical, they call for love and tolerance but breed hate and war.
His strongest argument is his call to attention the religious dogma has in our society. For example the use of embryonic cells in curing diseases is stopped by the federal government because it was label as morally wrong due to the fact that the cells have the potential to become a human. Religion comes into play because of the belief that a person exists at the moment of conception. This religious belief is impeding federally funded scientific research, our government and the ruling it creates over the country is supposed to separate religion and government but here it is not. There could be cures for the worst of our current disease.
But what I do see in his arguments though is understanding or communication of the religious belief and the bases for it. For example he mentions the catholic belief that condoms are morally wrong and this is being taught to people in Africa where HIV is widespread. But he fails the mention the reason why condoms are bad and that is because all sex is supposed to be only for reproductive purposes. So he does not represent all the truth in exposing the wrongs of religion.
18. Explain the essence of Nietzsche's genealogy of morals. You can outline your answer here.
The first essay is labeled “Good and Evil, Good and Bad”. It concentrates on the morality by calling by contrast between the master morality of good and bad verses the slave morality of good and evil. The master morality is based upon that those with strength, power, health, wealth, and happiness are thought to be "good”. While those who do did not have these attributed were considered inferior or bad. The slave mentality of morality is that the masters take advantage of the slaves’ weakness and because they do they are evil and by contrast the slaves are good. Also that the master is essentially a person who lives in the present and is happy and simple, while the slave lives in resentment for the master, this resentment eventually leading to evil. It then leads to free will and he says that one of is independent of its will and that justice is for the weak who cannot occur their own justice, we should be accountable for ourselves.
The second easy, Guilt, Bad Conscience, and Related Matters, focuses on conscious and guilt. Their important is great to us and he believes that it’s origin was slow and evolutionary. Guilt according to Nietzsche simply that a debt needed to be paid and if the debt is not paid there it must be received some other way, punishment. Will to power is the want to have power over someone else and kindness is basically just a showing of power but an incurring of debt for the receiver of the kindness. And the words "good," "conscience," "guilt," or "justice" are historically old words but are interpreted differently by the user. This slave morality has lead to something better though a more complex inner self that is always in a struggle to overcome resentment or bad conscious, in which he would want to overcome to become a better god-like person.
“What Do Ascetic Ideals Mean?” is the idea to will nothing. The act of ascetic among the population is having a sick will, not having the strength to endure life’s hardships, to power. Nietzsche even says that ascetic ideals are damaging. But the herds did not have the strength to be strong so it is better to will nothingness than nothing at all. But the herd mentality is bad because it has taken some people that otherwise would have been strong enough to have power to will.
19. Why does Gandhi believe in ahimsa?
Gandhi believes in ahimsa because he believes that violence leads to more creating then solving problems, it creates hatred and resentment. He chooses ahimsa over violence not because he had no other option but because he believed that it was correct.
20. What is Nietzche's notion of the myth of eternal recurrence? Be sure to use the film as your guide.
According to the film the myth of eternal recurrence is that a person has one single life that he or she relives for eternity. Everything is exactly the same and you would live this cycle of life forever. What would you say to something like this, condemn the thought or be marveled that someone could tell you this. Would life have no meaning then since it is all the same and your actions now would not affect the actions of other since we are all in this never changing and ending cycle.
21. What is the ironic theme in the movie Flame On? Hint: what is the movie REALLY trying to say?
What the film is really trying to say is that most of the great thinkers of our time are gay and their thoughts are the bases of our thinking today. So in reality we all think like gay men and women because we use them as a base for our ideals.
22. Why does Daniel Dennett favor calling himself a "bright"?
He calls himself a bright because he believes that atheist has a negative connotation and gives the appearance that he is a bad person because he does not believe in god. So he calls himself a bright because it sounds positive.
23. Outline Bertrand Russell's a FREE MAN'S WORSHIP.
Science has revealed the mystery of how the universe works making us realize that the world is the product of uncalculated, uncaring forces. This world and our existence was an accident that would eventually be destroyed. Although we are created, we where not created with intention but we do have the abilities beyond those of many, we have the ability to think and experience a sense of free will, to think, to dream to know good and evil. We are more advanced than our ancestors whose knowledge was limited and so believed in gods of nature. They do not question the world around; they dare not anger their gods. But we are intelligent creatures we understand the unfairness of the world and imagine a world of peace, fairness where truth and beauty are worshiped. We do not always get what we want like we do as children and this realizing will liken our survival and growth as an individual.
After we realize that the pain and suffering we experience is not purposely but unintended, we should no longer feel like victims, we must triumph over the universe. Death is as well something we cannot escape. The savage person fears the world as it an animate person. Our knowledge of our doom brings us together as we know our time is limited. We need to appreciate the good that comes our way.
24. What is the overall theme of the movie INNER VISIONS AND RUNNING TRAINS?
That even though he had seen God or his guru in his vision, he did not really know who he saw. It could have been God, his guru or just snippets of his life coming together in a moment of deep distress. He wonders about himself after his death and what will happen to him or if something at all will happen to him.
25. What does Nicholas of Cusa mean by "learned ignorance"? What are its implications for your own life?
Nicholas of Cusa meant that one must realize that neither he nor she can ever learn everything there is to know about everything. It is impossible to know it all. And once one has realized this by have learned ignorance.
People above us or people with some type of authority tend to have a manner that they know all there is to know regarding whatever it relevant to their superiority over you. For example teachers tend to know everything about whatever subject they teach and although they maybe knowledgeable there is no way that they can know absolutely everything.
26. What does Gerald Edelman mean by Neural Darwinism and Second Nature?
When referring to Neural Darwinism Edelman is talking about the ability the mind has to remember patterns that are repeated while others are removed in a procedure that is similar to evolution. Second nature refers to the learned patterns.
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.
Firstly they state various health reason that you would benefit if you became a vegetarian, Then it follows into the cruelty of killing animals for food, and ethical reasons and finally even mention an impact on the environment.
Firstly any well planed diet is healthy regardless if it contains meat or not. The cruelty of life in the wild is probably worse than that of the famr. In the wild they are under stress and fear for being eaten by other animals, on the farm they are supposed to be killed in a more painless manner. I would imagine being eating alive is more painful then being killed and then eaten. The ethical reasons are individual reason behind doing things, so each individual has the right to choose for themselves. And the environmental issue, about using water to feed the animals, I am sure a large amount of water is also being used to water whatever plants we farm as well.
28. What was the turning point in Ramana Maharshi's life?
About his adolescence he turned his thinking to death and this affected his life forever. He lay perfectly still as to mimic death and during this he first achieved self absorption. From here forward he concentrated on mostly self absorption denying himself the lively and active childhood he once had.
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?
His double shame was his inability to restrain himself while he still was a student by getting his wife pregnant and still had obligation towards to his parents. I believe that getting his wife pregnant would still be taboo today, not as bad but it would be regarded as a negative thing. The obligation to the parents would not be though; he did what most people today would not do. Our generation is very concentrated on ourselves, so he taking care of his parents is no usual today.
30. List Four distinct passages from Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and explain what you think they mean.
2.02 The object is simple.- I particularly like this quote because I believe that the simplest explanations are most often correct. That we tend to complicate life for no reason but to make it complicated.
2.063 The total reality is the world.- Everything we know about the world is not the whole world. There is always more to learn about everything. And there is probably never going to be a time when we know everything.
5.63 I am my world. (The microcosm.)- At the center of my world, is where I lay. Everything revolves around me and what I think, believe, want and feel. Everything I experience is unique to me because no one else will experience the world just like I did.
7 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.- One of the golden rules, if you do not know or understand do not speak. Do not spread rumors or uncertified news like gossip it does no good for anyone.
31. What was your favorite expert film lecture this term?
My favorite expert lecture was “Ramana Maharshi and Indian philosophy” his movie spoke the most to me. I suppose it was his devotion to his religion at such a young age. His attitude towards equality as well he seemed to show a respect for all living things that I can appreciate, even if I am a meat eater.
32. What was your favorite movie this term?
I think that Java Philosophy had the best sounds clips, they where catchy, I can still remember them and play them in my head. The meaning behind the film it’s self is still a little blurry but this was an introductory class and I cannot be expected to know everything.
33. What was your favorite reading?
My favorite reading would probably Gandhi's Experiments with Truth. His writing seemed real, not obscure and distant from the reader but something I could apply to my everyday life.
34. Most unusual thing you learned this term
Was that people tend to be very one sided when speaking about whatever subject they are passionate about. A person should be able to argue both sides but choose one side ultimately. It would make their argument much stronger.
