MIDTERM EXAMINATION Fall 2008, Introduction to
Professor David C. Lane
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.
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.
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
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.
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 
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,
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)
² Nyaya-Vaishesika
² Samkhya-Yoga
² Mimamsa-Vedanta
§ Heterodox (Not Based on Vedas)
² Jain (550 BC)
♦ Major Influence- Lord Parsvanatha
² Buddhist (500 BC)
♦ Major Influence-Siddhartha(Buddha)
o Persian-
§ Pre-Islamic
² Zoroastrianism- Ahura Mazda was the one true God (1000-588 BC)
♦ Major Influence -Zoroaster
² Manicheism- twofold theory Light/Good and Dark/Evil (210–276A.D.)
♦ Major Influence- Mani
§ Classic Islamic
² Avicennism- combo of Aristotelianism and NeoPlatonism (800-1500 B.C.)
♦ Major Influence- Avicenna
² Illuminationist- combo Avicennaism and ancient Iranian philosophy (1100 B.C.)
♦ Major Influence- Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi
² 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
No comments:
Post a Comment