Philosophy Final
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)
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.
The test is due NO LATER than August 1st at midnight.
Each answer should be at least two paragraphs long, if not much longer.
What grade do you deserve and why? I deserve an “A” in this class because I did all of the posting on time, did all the work to my best ability and learned a great deal this past 6 weeks.
What is your real name? Stephen Chakerian
What is your "user" name? bigchak23
What was your midterm grade? Or, if you revised it, your revised midterm grade? Provide a LINK to your midterm. B, http://s-chakerian.blogspot.com/2008/07/2008-philosophy-mid-term.html
What is your email address that you use for this class?
Bigchak23@yahoo.com
Name and address for your website.
CHAKS TAKE, http://s-chakerian.blogspot.com/
Have you done all the reading for the entire class? Yes
Have you watched each of the films that were required? Yes
Please place here all of the postings you have done for this class (you can copy and paste them. ALL eight WEEKS OF POSTINGS.
RELIGION COINCIDING WITH SCIENCE
Chapter 5 of the Socratic Universe poses the question,
"Are science and religion compatible." This is a very interesting topic. I do not see how they can be compatible knowing little about science and liking to think I know about religion. I have always thought that scientists believe in evolution and some religions, such as Christianity, believe in the creation. If this is true then they don’t mix; they aren’t compatible. They could agree on other issues or topics, but if they cannot agree on how the earth was created then in my opinion they don’t agree. Science is very real. Experiments can be done to prove one thing or another. They raise the hypothesis test it with the experiment and come to a conclusion. There are steps one takes to find what they please. Religion is very different, yet close to the same. The significant difference many would say is "You can't prove that God exists." Of course there are arguments for both sides like every debate. Ultimately religion requires a great deal of faith; believing in something that you cannot see. Many say they cant see God to know if he is real, but to me God exists in our everyday lives since he is the creator of all things. God is much too big to wrap our minds around which is why scientists have a hard coping with the idea of faith.
Life is a cycle. Our economy recently has been terrible and many fear a recession or a depression ahead. I do not believe that means our economy, as a whole in the long run is bad. We are on the downside of the cycle. Mark my words; we will see better times for our economy! How do I know, because of the common cycle . . . up to the peak, down to the trough and then back up again? Progress is a cycle. You talked about homosexuality and whether or not we are progressing. I see progress as opinion. One party may look at homosexuality, for example, as progressing. Gay rights are coming along and recently in California they can now officially get married. The other party may look at homosexuality and say we are not progressing. Progress is a cycle combined with opinion of the beholder.
PROGRESS OR DEGRESS? YOU DECIDE
Although I do agree with some of the examples of progress I tend to disagree with the premises that all groups should be accepted. Accepting every cultural change isn't necessarily progress. Should we then accept bestiality and polygamy, if they become a big enough group in our culture? To one person we are progressing, but that same change to another person isn't necessarily progress. Each person has his or her ideal society in mind, but each individual utopia is different from another, so not everyone will be pleased at one time. Someone will always have something to disagree about.
"Creationism is taught by only those who cannot think." This video, http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/mentaldisease.wmv, explains why evolution is the answer and creation is a myth. It talks about how natural selection could be the single greatest idea and once you realize evolution then life seems to be easier. It also talks about how God is supposed to be compassionate but because animals kill each other for food he is proven otherwise. I guess to some the food chain is seeing as "unnatural" so God couldn’t create it? It doesn’t make sense to me.
The opening of the video says that, "What makes Darwinian evolution successful... is because it allows for so many testable avenues of investigation which lead to all sorts of surprising and unpredictable consequences." This is pretty much saying that anything can be successful or true because there are no absolutes. As long as something is not proven and it can be debated then it is truth. This is the weakest quote I’ve ever heard! People who make these types of statements appear to be open minded and searching for the truth however they are secularists at heart and even if the truth was found they would still twist it for their preconceived conclusion. "Man would have to invent God even if such a being didn't exist." Maybe because people realize that there has to be a higher power. Humans are not big idiots, we realize that life is very complex, if not too complex to understand so there much is a creator. Without truth we would all be skeptics. Could you imagine living life without being able to trust anybody? Truth is what separates good people from scumbags.
Without science there would be no philosophy. Both work hand in hand with each other. Scientists study how we got to where we are today and how the universe obeys physical laws. Science relies on human, or scientists, to gather information, test theories, experiment, so on and so forth. Science is a perceived reality on what we know about the world. Also if something happens in the world there has to be an explanation for it. Whether scientists are right or wrong they always have a reason for why a certain event took place. Although I do not believe in the big bang theory and how we evolved from tadpoles eventually to monkeys and here we are today, I do believe that humans are evolving. Many of the rules of evolution are true. I think we are the same human beings for the most part we were centuries ago, but as time progresses we do change. I think as a worldwide population our height average has increased from hundreds of years ago due to nutrition. So yes I do think that we evolve but tend to disagree with Darwin's theory of evolution.
After learning a little bit about evolution realize why many people believe in this form of creation. There were many names that are hard to understand. There is a family tree for evolution called a phylogeny, which explains what creatures evolved from the past. Clades are branches from the phylogeny, which show which animals, are related to each other.
What I don’t understand about evolution, and maybe somebody can inform me, is if we came from monkeys or chimpanzees why are both of us still here? It seems to me that one of us shouldn’t be here. If we are here the chimps shouldn’t be because they evolved into us. This is one phenomenon that I don’t understand.
Richard Dawkins: Strange Science
He poses the question, "if the universe is queerer that we can suppose, is it just because we've been naturally selected to suppose only what we needed to suppose to survive, or are our brains so versatile and expandable that we can train ourselves to break out of the box of our evolution, or finally are there some things in the universe to queer that no philosophy of beings however god like could dream them." He concludes his video with this quote, which to me made the whole movie. I think many people would take one of these sides to agree with. On the other hand I tend to agree with each one in particular. I think that we were created to only understand certain aspects of life so that we can survive. You don’t need to know the exact ingredients of the food you eat or how to rebuild an engine to drive, life is simplified so that us dumb humans can live. I also agree that we were created with very versatile creative and imaginative minds in that we can think out of the box. Also I agree that we will never be able to understand many ideas about the universe. Each question Dawkins poses, in their own way, is correct.
Lisa Randall is to the Universe as Columbus was to Exploration
Lisa Randall talks about multiple dimensions of space. The 3 dimensions we know for sure about are: left, right, forward, backward, up and down and another is time. To me I find it incomprehensible to think about how there could be more dimensions but we do not even know what they possibly would consist of. She says that we can’t picture another dimension. A two dimension world or a person living in the flatland would not be able to picture a three dimensional world and the same is true for us picturing a fourth or fifth dimension. I think that trying to discover more dimensions is a very interesting study. It’s kind of like an explorer a couple centuries ago searching for new land. They had an idea that there was something more and slowly explorers began to trickle out to find this new place. Searching for another dimension is a lot alike being an explorer. These physicists wonder what could be out in space and if there is possibly another dimension. Many people think what they are doing is crazy, but so did all the people who thought the world was flat and that ships would fall off the end of the world.
This is what I pulled from the movie, "Little Things That Jiggle". (http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/thejigglemovie.wmv) "To make a discovery is not necessarily the same as to understand a discovery." Abe Pais. As much as we hate to admit this reality, we often think we know a lot more than we really do. Just like Columbus believed he found India but he really did find the "new world", we think we discover findings but we are just barely scratching the surface. There is so much deeper we can go with our research we just need the will to want to learn more and better education. We still are not masters of the human body. How do we control diseases and sickness and cancer? Until we know cures to these problems we have not mastered our own bodies that we walk around in every day. Do we really know a lot about anything? Have we reached the ultimate knowledge to any one specific discovery or do we just discover certain things and fail to look deeper?
In the big bang theory it seems to me that every single thing had to be perfect. The universe was full of hot protons and it took 300,000 years for the universe to cool off. I guess energy had to be transmitted faster than the speed of light, which is pretty fast. Also the value of mass density and expansion rate is perfect, which seems to be highly improbable. To me it just seems that so many things had to fall exactly into place that it makes the big bang theory highly doubtful. Especially in an uncontrolled environment it doesn’t seem like these events would ever happen. This of course leads to the idea of creation and shows how religion and science are like oil and water.
Owen Gingerich: God Reveals All
He also shares his view of God. Many times we see him as an old man
white man with a beard. It is fixed by the imagery of others who think they know what God looks like. It is so far beyond comprehension that we cannot begin to wrap our minds around it. He thinks that God is so powerful that he can reveal himself in many ways depending on the person he is revealing himself to. The view we have of God is really only a fraction of who God is. God chose to reveal himself most fully in Jesus Christ. He talks about constantly running out of things and we must learn the lessons of sharing and forgiving others then we are in a dilemma in the human race. The answers are before us, but we are given the choice to put others before ourselves, as God gave his son for our sins, we must give ourselves for our neighbors.
Owen Gingerich: Purpose and Time
I totally agree with Gingerich that we are here for a reason instead of just being here by chance. He also believes that God is so complex that he just gives us little mortals to make us think that we know a lot about how life works but in reality we will never be able to comprehend the universe. He talks about there being no element on the periodic table with a mass of 5. He believes that God did this on purpose so that humans aren’t able to make life therefore concluding there was no big bang theory. He also talks about what happened before the big bang. He says that Einstein talks about time require change and motion. When there was nothing there was no change or motion so it’s impossible to wrap our minds around that idea. Everything that we do as humans deals with a time factor: our lives in the past, what we are currently doing in the present and what we will do with our lives in the future.
Although I do agree with some of the examples of progress I tend to disagree with the premise that all groups should be accepted. Accepting every cultural change isn't necessarily progress. Should we then accept bestiality and polygamy, if they become a big enough group in our culture?
To one person we are progressing, but that same change to another person isn't necessarily progress. Each person has his or her ideal society in mind, but each individual utopia is different from another, so not everyone will be pleased at one time. Someone will always have something to disagree about.
I agree. It depends how you measure intelligence. There are many things that a computer can do that would take humans a great deal longer to compute or figure out. Computers and calculators can do problems instantly, but that is only after we decide which functions along with what numbers to use. I love technology and the way our society is advancing and it will be amazing what kind of world we will live in even when I am in my late years. On the other hand I don’t believe that robots or computers will be able to make decisions and take into consideration many different variables. The human brain is an amazing decision maker that no scientist will ever be able to match. Then again I could be another doubter. There was always someone who said we would never go into space, talk on wireless phones or drive in cars without gasoline. This could be another one of those events but I'm a doubter.
Life after death is something that is both very real and somewhat confusing. Some believe that we are just physical beings and that once we die we decompose just like plants and animals. We return to the dust of the ground in which we came from. No matter what your religious belief I think we can all agree that our bodies rot and turn to nothing. For the religious person, the question is where does our soul go after we die. Does it die with our physical body or does it travel to another place for future life, or do we return to earth as another being? I feel this is where the real controversy of life after death is. There are many different beliefs, which is what makes it interesting. I believe that after I die my body will be buried, and my soul will go to heaven where I will live for eternity.
I first heard about Pythagoras as freshmen in high school when I took geometry. He has a theorem named after him called, "The Pythagorean Theorem." it is used to find theorem of a triangle, a squared + b squared = c squared. Liking mathematics I look forward to leaning more about the man who made calculating the area of 90 degree triangles easy. Reading about Pythagoras reminds me a great deal about Jesus Christ. There was a story of him watching the fisherman and he knew the exact amount of fish that were caught in the net. Highly improbable to guess that exact number. Jesus also worked with fisherman and a couple because his disciples. Like Jesus Pythagoras taught children to listen to their parents and doing so will lead to a blessed life. They both taught in parables, which isn't that uncommon because it’s a great way to relate to people. I don't know if it is a coincidence but to me these two historical figures are very similar.
Wow, this film was very hard to understand to me but there were a couple of ideas I took away from it. First of all at the very end when it said, "The more he knows that he is unknowing, the more learned he will be." To me this is saying that if someone thinks they know everything they will not attempt to gain more knowledge. So if somebody knows they don’t know enough then they will always be striving to learn more. To me this is a good quote to keep in mind!
I'm a really big quote guy. I love hearing quotes from different famous people about life. In this short film there were meaningful quotes and some made me think more than others. There was one by Jean Paul Sartre that talked about living life, "Everything has been figured out except how to live." This quote is very true, there are so many different directions one may go with their life. Ultimately I think people should do things that make them happy. Someone gave me some advice and it was, "You need someone to love, something to do and something to look forward to." As long as you follow these three steps you will be happy. The other interesting part of the video was where they talked about being cool in college. This idea is so true. Fads are what run our society. If the mainstream is doing something then others will follow it just to fit in. Years ago recycling wasn’t really a big deal and now all of the sudden celebrities and the media are making recycling the cool thing to do and now it’s the fad to recycle and be more habitats friendly. In my high school everyone had a car and nobody rode their bikes even though they lived right down the block. Of course everyone has their own situations and you cant judge people, but a majority of people do things just to be "cool".
Nicolas of Cusa writes in, "Learned Ignorance" that we see the gift of God in all things. We have an innate sense of judgment, which serves the condition of knowing. He concludes that every inquiry deals with the means of comparative relation sense we have to go back to compare it to something else, so infinity is incomparable because we cannot compare it to anything. He says we have desire in us, which is not in vain therefore we desire to know what we do not know. He is saying that there is so much in the world that we know; yet there are many things that we are not aware of. If a man considers himself the most learned then he is compared to all people who know something instead of being compared to that which he knows, for does not know what he does not know. However if a man knows that he does not know something then he is more learned because he will strive to learn it instead of just being content knowing what he knows. He talks about one who is seeking knowing something, which is unknown that they must raise their intellect above what can be understood. So in order for them to explain their new idea or finding they must give examples or illustrations to put it into easier terms to understand. This is a very interesting idea about knowingness. I think I now know why philosophers are so confusing, because many try to find things that are unknown to everyone and most of them lack the skills required to relay information in a way that can be understood by the masses.
Ramani Maharshi was sitting at his home and a violent fear of death overcame him. He was normal and didn’t have anything wrong with him. He wondered what death meant and what happens when one dies. After this sudden revelation he began to be different. He lost interest in school and friends and began to devote all his time to find out about death and life after. He had many followers and was much like Pythagoras or some of the other famous philosophers who had disciples. He was a very modest man who never really wanted attention or never admitted that he was above anyone else. I thought it was odd that he had such a revelation at such an early stage of his life. All the time people come to sudden realizations, but for him to devote his life to it from such an early time of his life is quite unique.
The interview with Daniel Dennett was more of a debate where the interviewer argued viewpoints with the Daniel Dennett. They disagreed on nearly every topic from consciousness to morality and life after death. Dennett calls himself a bright, who is a term used to mean that he is a naturalistic, free from supernatural and mystical powers. Since he has this viewpoint it would be interesting to know how he thinks we as complicated humans came to be from simple cells. I'm sure he has a Darwinist view of how the world came to be. Since he doesn't believe in a higher power he doesn't believe in an after life. He says that believing in a heaven is a safety net that makes children feels more at ease if they lose their parents early in life. So in essence he is saying that believing in an afterlife is more of a mystical belief much like the Santa clause, the tooth fairy or the Easter bunny. Like most children who find out that these fantasies aren't real they also come to the realization that heaven is also not true. This video was pretty interesting to listen to as different views were talked about and refuted time after time. And of course he only began to talk about being a "bright" an hour into the hour and ten minute video.
Inner Visions and Running Trains
Can my reality and the things I believe in actually occur at an alternative place and time? That is what I think this movie entails. It was a story of Baba was in a war and they needed supplies before the enemy attacked. A vision came to him and told him when the enemy came that they wouldn’t attack then only wanted to rescue their dead. So that’s what happened and they ended up getting their supplies after the enemy came and they war finally ended after some time. He went back home and other troops were worshipping him and he didn’t understand why. They said that Baba came to them in a similar vision telling them how to win the battle. This came as a realization to him that he could in fact help affect others through his actions. What if this was true, I could just be thinking of what to write on this topic and it could influence other class members what to write about. My thoughts and ideas could be translated to other people’s words and their posts would be my posts. This class would be so much easier if I could just think about what to write and be seen in a vision to help someone else know what to write. Wow, I think this will be my new philosophy for doing homework in this class.
Gandhi believes in peace. He wants people to stop fighting. He says that evil begets more evil and good begets good. By fighting with other countries it really only makes the situation more complex in the end. If everyone had the notion of peace then the world would be so much better of a place to be. Gandhi wants us to use what we have made for war for good causes, which will help humanity instead of harm, it. He gives the example of an incendiary using a fiery furnace as a means of destruction, but a housewife uses that same fire to cook food, which helps humans.
Yes I would love to live in a world with no fighting, but is it really realistic. There are so many diverse people on the face of the earth with so many different values. I don’t see a way where everyone can live happily with no fighting. Religions cause a great deal of problems in the Middle East. Our country got bombed on 9/11 because we flat our aren't liked by certain groups of people. Now what Gandhi would say is non-violence in the answer, but if you are put in our president’s shoes would you listen to Gandhi or would you go after the very people who killed thousands of innocent American civilians? Yes I think it would be wonderful if there were no violence in our world but I question how realistically it would work out.
The movie "flame on" talks about homosexuality in our past. Homosexuality has been prevalent throughout our history. Many famous artists and philosophers were in fact homosexuals and they were looked down upon because of that. The irony in the movie is that when those people came out of the closet they were all shunned, but now we see them as heroes. What they did in their careers and what they did for society carried a much greater weight than them being gay. I think this is a very relevant idea in our world. Many times when people die their lives are looked back upon by people still living. There are few times when someone dies and what he or she is remembered for is something negative.
One example of someone who hasn’t died is Pete Rose. He was the great Cincinnati baseball player who holds more records than fingers and toes on his body. Now when I said "Pete Rose" did you think of the man who could arguably be the best hitter in baseball history, or did you think of the man who bet on his team during the 80's, which was against league rules? Most people think of the latter when Pete Rose is mentioned, which is very unfortunate. People leave legacies behind and most of the time their legacy is something that has been contributed to society instead of a personal choice or private matter, such as homosexuality.
The question brought up in the video really makes you think about how you're living your life. He says that you would have to live the same life over and over again. The same hurts you feel along with the joys and they would be in the same order as you previously experienced. It would be the exact same life over and over again. I've never thought of this idea before and it makes you want to live better. If we do have to live our same lives again then wouldn’t it make sense that we should make the best of every situation and try to be happy as much as possible. Really this is a good philosophy to live by. Of all of the different philosophy stuff we've read this is really the most relative and easy applicable to our lives. I don’t want to live my same life over complaining, worrying, being upset with people, act. I want to be happy and always have something to look forward to and my life will be so much more enjoyable for me and the people who are in contact with me.
In the video there are about 15 reasons to become a vegetarian. I am not a vegetarian and I love eating burgers, steaks, chicken, sushi, bacon and sausage and when I saw the video it does make you feel bad for what you eat. I guess I try not to think about the suffering animals, their screaming howls and the fact that mothers, fathers and siblings are being slaughtered daily and being taken away from their families.
Watching this was like seeing an infomercial about starving children in a third world country and how they tug at your heart to help. I disagree with what some of these people believe. I think that these people are extremists in a sense and they are trying to place an animal’s life at the same level as a human being. Yes I love animals and the way they are shown in this video is sickening. Like any good persuasive speech, idea or video they show the extreme cases. They want to make you believe that every animal that is slaughtered is tortured and mishandled. Also the video showed a fact that animals drink twice the water as humans. Then they said that the grain used to feed the animals should be given to staving nations.
Think about it though, we feed and water this animal and when they are killed we get more than we lost feeding and watering them. It just makes sense. Say we take 5 food units to feed the animal, when they are killed if we receive at least 6 food units then it was a good investment. We put a little in and get more out. If you could put $1 in the bank for 6 months and at the end of the period you went to get it out and you received $10 wouldn’t that be worth it?
Sam Harris is an anti religious speaker who thinks that religion is outdated and absurd. It was actually very entertaining to listen to, both funny and pretty short compared to the other videos. He first talks about how there are different religions that believe in God, however their writings contradict each other. He points out how scary it is that over 40% of people believe that Jesus is going to come down from the clouds and save the world within the next 50 years.
He then talks about how when a conversation is taking place and it gets to the point of faith then the talk stops. Many people don't feel comfortable hearing about religion so they just stop talking about it. He says there is this invisible taboo that is surrounding religion. He then says there is a double standard with religion and gives a humorous example. He said what if I had a diamond in my backyard that was as big as my fridge and I told people that it makes fulfilled and life wouldn't be worth living if it weren’t for my huge diamond. This sounds crazy and that is what he is trying to convey about religion. Although I do not agree with Sam's views I did find it kind of like a stand up comedy routine.
Ms. Lane talks about evolution and natural selection. She has the same view as the majority of scientists/philosophers, although I have to say she puts it in a way, which is very interesting. She shares Mr. Lanes example of cola lids. In the 50's and 60's they had to be opened with a can opener, but they have EVOLVED and now we have the pop-top lids. This evolution was compared to how humans evolved. However I don’t think I agree because we are talking about two totally different things. The soda lid is a technology, which has been improved by humans. There is no science or biology to deal with creating a soda pop lid. On the other hand humans evolving is science and natural selection.
There is another misconception that she talks about later in her book, "Creationists do not understand the connection between randomness at the DNA level and natural selection." Yes there may be many who don’t fully understand DNA, but if God made everything wouldn’t he have made DNA strands. This is where many people try to make you pick sides; either religion or science. I think this is where they both come together. Yes DNA can prove who we are, where we came from, and whom we are related to but couldn't God have created that and couldn't that just be another piece of the puzzle to proving religion to coincide with science rather than disagree with it? Why can't they both be right?
Gerald Edelman on Neural Darwinism
Gerald Edelman is a biologist who talks about how the brain functions and looks at the mind to see if there are any biological or material processes. He thinks the mind is a very complex part of our body and says that it’s a highly cellular process within the brain. He does agree with Darwin's theory of natural selection and evolution. In the introduction in the movie "Gerald Edelman on Neural Darwinism" the opening speaker says this about our mind, "Our mind is a tightly intertwined connection of processes of perception, memory, language, learning, intelligence, and consciousness. With mind we make the world." He is basically saying that our mind is the key to life. The only question left remains is our mind a conscious state related to our brain or is our mind in fact also biologically set up. Edelman says that, "The brain is the most extraordinary variable structure." He experiments with both mice and a robot to test memory. They are put in an area with a hidden platform and they must find that platform. The first time it takes both a while but they begin to realize where the platform is and they take a more direct route than previous times. This shows how our memory works; when we do not know something we must search for the answer but once we find that answer the next time we need it the answer will be much easier to remember. Edelman also says that every consciousness theory must be consistent with evolutionary theories; which is the reason he agrees with Darwin’s neural theories. This movie was very long and at times hard to follow but it was interesting . . . I think.
Indeed our brain is a glorious piece of meat. We are physical beings and since we are physical our consciousness won’t change. The title of the movie gives off a negative connotation, our brain is a very sophisticated part of our body, yet it makes our brains seem like a mere piece of meat ready to be devoured. We eat because our bodies tell us we're hungry and we sleep for the same reason. The reality is even though our bodies perform such amazing tasks such as digestion and the beating of our heart we really don't control these things; they happen subconsciously. Everything has to do with consciousness. Without this we would no be learning philosophy, going to college, working and having fun in our daily lives. He asks the question of what came first, or what is more important neurons or consciousness? I think that one without the other would be impossible. They work together. http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/churchlandmovie5.wmv
The Problem Of Consciousness: Searle
Searle sees consciousness as being aware form when someone wakes up in the morning until they lose consciousness by going to sleep or dying. He gives the example of someone asking him what is was like to speak to an audience. He can answer this question because he has had experience in public speaking, but if he was asked what it was like being a shingle on a roof or a stone there would be no answer because those physical items are not conscious. He talks about a cause and effect situation. He teaches that there is a lower part of the brain and a higher part. This is how we are biologically created. We get information from our senses and our brain decides what to do with it. Our brains are not like computers, but are spontaneous and we can unconsciously decide what to do and when. He also talks about his conscious field and how we can feel so many things yet we feel these things only once at a time. We have the capacity to feel an innumerable amount of things at one time but we can only pat attention to one at a time until that feeling is put on the back burner and another feeling is brought to the forefront.
Wilber's view of consciousness is composed of the strengths of 12 different schools or theories of consciousness. He believes in the "three worlds" theory, which is the reference to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd person, or "I", "we" and "it". He believes that each quadrant has for the most part evolved over the years. We can find something different or take something new from each of the 12 theories of consciousness and looking at each quadrant we cannot look at one and find the answer to what consciousness it. We must look at all four quadrants to see the overall picture then come to the conclusion. I really like how Wilber looks at everything and takes something different from each part to come to his conclusion. I think there is a lot of scientists who come up with something intelligent that they think are right but it has to be different from what others say. Wilber doesn’t do this, he finds the strengths in the other theories and comprised them to make his own.
Crick says that what we think to be a soul is merely a complex of neurons. He believes that we are simply physical beings and nothing more. We lie to ourselves and try to make ourselves something that we are not. He asks why consciousness shouldn’t or couldn’t be a physical thing because hearing and seeing are both physical. Crick is another one of the many scientists who sees everything as physical. Also souls are many times put in the same sentence as religion and I don’t know for a fact, but I would bet a lot of money that Crick doesn’t believe in religion. I think what he is calling a soul is our conscience. When we do right or wrong our conscience is the "little man" inside of us letting us know if we did the "right” or moral thing. I believe a soul is the morals of a person and their belief system and the "soul" part of a person is what lives after death.
EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY: STEVEN PINKER
Pinker is an evolutionary psychologist, which means he believes that we can better deal with our problems because of what our ancestors have gone through before us. In other words we wouldn't be the same people today if it weren’t for our ancestors who went through it already. We are now bettering equipped because of them. He talks about kin selection, which explains why we care more about the people we are related to rather than just strangers. Trimmers said that we care about our brothers, sisters and parents because we share 50% of our genes with them. Each person shares 100% of their genes only with themselves and 50% with blood relatives. This is what makes human relationships unique. I don't want for myself what my brother wants for himself. This is what makes us different. If we did share 100% with blood relatives then would we be the same people we are today? Would we be better off or worse? How would that make us different in how we interact with others?
Zahir
In the movie Zahir there were a couple words the spoke to me. He states that money; more specifically the coin stands for the future and possibilities. This is very true. Money is just a means of trading. If you had a pile of money and you could not trade that money for anything that money would be purposeless. But that is not the case, money is the very means of trading and without it we would be like the olden days were we just traded the goods that I made for the goods that you made. I might raise some chickens and trade you a dozen eggs for a lantern.
The future possibilities of money are fairly unlimited. The more money you have the more things and the wider range of things you can buy. In reality we spend so much money and we live such great lives and without the currency it would not be at all possible.
Why does Steven Pinker believe that evolution is important in understanding human behavior? Be specific in your answer.
Pinker is an evolutionary psychologist, which means he believes that we can better deal with our problems because of what our ancestors have gone through before us. In other words we wouldn't be the same people today if it weren’t for our ancestors who went through it already. We are now bettering equipped because of them. He talks about kin selection, which explains why we care more about the people we are related to rather than just strangers. Trimmers said that we care about our brothers, sisters and parents because we share 50% of our genes with them. Each person shares 100% of their genes only with themselves and 50% with blood relatives.
This is what makes human relationships unique. I don't want for myself what my brother wants for himself. This is what makes us different. If we did share 100% with blood relatives then would we be the same people we are today? Would we be better off or worse? How would that make us different in how we interact with others? I think that being different makes this world unique. Each individual is different, much like our country we can all aspire to do what we want with our lives. There would be no creativity because everyone would think and act the same way. In high school I read a book called “A Brave New World” where the people were cloned and conditioned when they were young. Everyone had the same morals and enjoyed the same things in life. This is how I think it would be if we were 100% related to one another.
In addition, why is the theory of evolution helpful in doing philosophy?
Without science there would be no philosophy. Both work hand in hand with each other. Scientists study the physical laws and how we got to where we are today. Science relies on human, or scientists, to gather information, test theories, experiment, so on and so forth. Science is a perceived reality on what we know about the world. Also if something happens in the world there has to be an explanation for it. Whether scientists are right or wrong they always have a reason for why a certain event took place. Evolution takes god or a higher power of creation out of the picture. It enables theories from philosophers and scientists who come up with calculations of how the world was made. Evolution talks about the human race and how we started out and how we have changed over the years to become what we are today. Philosophy in essence looks at how we think the world came to be.
Explain why Francis Crick does NOT believe in a soul.
Crick says that what we think to be a soul is merely a complex of neurons. He believes that we are simply physical beings and nothing more. We lie to ourselves and try to make ourselves something that we are not. He asks why consciousness shouldn’t or couldn’t be a physical thing because hearing and seeing are both physical.
Crick is another one of the many scientists who sees everything as physical. Also souls are many times put in the same sentence as religion and I don’t know for a fact, but I would bet a lot of money that Crick doesn’t believe in religion. I think what he is calling a soul is our conscience. When we do right or wrong our conscience is the "little man" inside of us letting us know if we did the "right” or moral thing. I believe a soul is the morals of a person and their belief system and the "soul" part of a person is what lives after death.
What are some of the major issues behind a neuro-ethical argument for vegetarianism? What are its strengths? What are its weaknesses?
In the video there are about 15 reasons to become a vegetarian. I am not a vegetarian and I love eating burgers, steaks, chicken, sushi, bacon and sausage and when I saw the video it does make you feel bad for what you eat. I guess I try not to think about the suffering animals, their screaming howls and the fact that mothers, fathers and siblings are being slaughtered daily and being taken away from their families.
Watching this was like seeing an infomercial about starving children in a third world country and how they tug at your heart to help. I disagree with what some of these people believe. I think that these people are extremists in a sense and they are trying to place an animal’s life at the same level as a human being. Yes I love animals and the way they are shown in this video is sickening. Like any good persuasive speech, idea or video they show the extreme cases. They want to make you believe that every animal that is slaughtered is tortured and mishandled.
Also the video showed a fact that animals drink twice the water as humans. Then they said that the grain used to feed the animals should be given to staving nations. Think about it though, we feed and water these animals and when they are killed we get more than we lost feeding and watering them. It just makes sense. Say we take 5 food units to feed the animal, when they are killed if we receive at least 6 food units then it was a good investment. We put a little in and get more out. If you could put $1 in the bank for 6 months and at the end of the period you went to get it out and you received $10 wouldn’t that be worth it?
What is the theme behind the little movie, a GLORIOUS PIECE OF MEAT? How would a religious person argue against it?
Indeed our brain is a glorious piece of meat. We are physical beings and since we are physical our consciousness won’t change. The title of the movie gives off a negative connotation, our brain is a very sophisticated part of our body, yet it makes our brains seem like a mere piece of meat ready to be devoured. We eat because our bodies tell us we're hungry and we sleep for the same reason. The reality is even though our bodies perform such amazing tasks such as digestion and the beating of our heart we really don't control these things; they happen subconsciously. Everything has to do with consciousness. Without this we would no be learning philosophy, going to college, working and having fun in our daily lives. He asks the question of what came first, or what is more important neurons or consciousness? I think that one without the other would be impossible. They work together.
I think a religious argument would say that God created us with both a physical body and a spirit. The ability to function subconsciously with neurons working, our bodies digesting food and our heart beating would be completely consistent with a religious perspective of how God created the human body. The spiritual, awareness, conscious, perceptive or insightful elements of our person are also just as important in helping us to cope. Many would say that the spiritual part of your body is more important because your body is just a temporary skin that we live in for under a hundred years, yet our soul will live for eternity.
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 an anti religious speaker who thinks that religion is outdated and absurd. It was actually very entertaining to listen to, both funny and pretty short compared to the other videos. He first talks about how there are different religions that believe in God, however their writings contradict each other. He points out how scary it is that over 40% of people believe that Jesus is going to come down from the clouds and save the world within the next 50 years.
He then talks about how when a conversation is taking place and it gets to the point of faith and belief in God then the talk stops. Many people don't feel comfortable hearing about religion so they just refrain from talking about it at all. He says there is this invisible taboo that is surrounding religion. There is a double standard with religion and he gives a humorous example. Harris said what if I had a diamond in my backyard that was as big as my fridge and I told people that it makes my life fulfilled and life wouldn't be worth living if it weren’t for my huge diamond. This sounds crazy and that is what he is trying to convey about religion. What makes it funny is that it’s partially true. Although I do not agree with Sam's views I did find it kind of like a stand up comedy routine.
Explain the essence of Nietzsche's genealogy of morals. You can outline your answer here.
″ ❑ We don’t know ourselves
• ❑ We've never tried to find out who we are.
• ❑ People are just concerned about fame
• ❑ We are not serious about experience
• ❑ We remain strangers to ourselves
″ ❑ Moral prejudices
• ❑ From within clarity is spoken
• ❑ "We are not permitted to make isolated mistakes or to run into isolated truths."
• ❑ All questions are related and interlinked amongst each other
″ ❑ Morality
• ❑ Came by nature as a doubt
• ❑ Separate theological prejudices from moral ones.
• ❑ How did man condition himself to value judgments of good and evil
″ ❑ Origin of morality
• ❑ The value of morality was a key
• ❑ The morality of pity was seizing more around which gripped philosophers and made them sick
″ ❑ Morality of pity
• ❑ We need a critique of moral values
″ ❑ Searching for morality
• ❑ Morality has existed and has not changed
• ❑ There are no issues worth taking seriously
• ❑ Cheerfulness is a lengthy reward which is not for everyone
Why does Gandhi believe in ahimsa?
Gandhi believes in peace. He wants people to stop fighting. He says that evil begets more evil and good begets good. By fighting with other countries it really only makes the situation more complex in the end. If everyone had the notion of peace then the world would be so much better of a place to be. Gandhi wants us to use what we have made for war for good causes that will help humanity instead of harm it. He gives the example of an incendiary using a fiery furnace as a means of destruction, but a housewife uses that same fire to cook food, which helps humans.
Yes I would love to live in a world with no fighting, but is it really realistic? There are so many diverse people on the face of the earth with so many different values. I don’t see a way where everyone can live happily with no fighting. Religions cause a great deal of problems in the Middle East. Our country got bombed on 9/11 because we flat out aren't liked by certain groups of people. Now what Gandhi would say is non-violence is the answer, but if you are put in our president’s shoes would you listen to Gandhi or would you go after the very people who killed thousands of innocent American civilians? Yes I think it would be wonderful if there were no violence in our world but I question how realistically it would work out.
What is Nietzsche’s notion of the myth of eternal recurrence? Be sure to use the film as your guide.
The question brought up in the video really makes you think about how you're living your life. He says that you would have to live the same life over and over again. The same hurts you feel along with the joys and they would be in the same order as you previously experienced. It would be the exact same life over and over again. I've never thought of this idea before and it makes you want to live better. If we do have to live our same lives again then wouldn’t it make sense that we should make the best of every situation and try to be happy as much as possible. Really this is a good philosophy to live by.
Of all of the different philosophy stuff we've read this is really the most relative and easy applicable to our lives. I didn’t take what Nietzsche said literally, although he leaves it up to interpretation. I doubt that he believes that after we die we will relive our lives over and over. I think he just wanted to live his life to the extent that if we did have to relive our lives then he wouldn’t have any regrets. I don’t want to live my same life over complaining, worrying, being upset with people, ect. I want to be happy and always have something to look forward to and my life will be so much more enjoyable for both me and the people who I am in contact with. I think that is what Nietzsche meant for us to think about when he came up with this philosophy.
What is the ironic theme in the movie Flame On? Hint: what is the movie REALLY trying to say?
The movie "flame on" talks about homosexuality in our past. Homosexuality has been prevalent throughout our history. Many famous artists and philosophers were in fact homosexuals and they were looked down upon because of that. The irony in the movie is that when those people came out of the closet they were all shunned, but now we see them as heroes. What they did in their careers and what they did for society carried a much greater weight than them being gay.
I think this is a very relevant idea in our world. Many times when people die their lives are looked back upon by people still living. There are few times when someone dies and what he or she is remembered for is something negative. One example of someone who hasn’t died is Pete Rose. He was the great Cincinnati baseball player who holds more records than fingers and toes on his body. Now when I said "Pete Rose" did you think of the man who could arguably be the best hitter in baseball history, or did you think of the man who bet on his team during the 80's, which was against league rules? Most people think of the latter when Pete Rose is mentioned, which is very unfortunate.
People leave legacies behind and most of the time their legacy is something that has been contributed to society instead of a personal choice or private matter, such as homosexuality.
Why does Daniel Dennett favor calling himself a "bright"?
The interview with Daniel Dennett was more of a debate where the interviewer argued viewpoints with the Daniel Dennett. They disagreed on nearly every topic from consciousness to morality and life after death. Dennett calls himself a bright, which is a term used to mean that he is a naturalistic, free from supernatural and mystical powers. Since he has this viewpoint it would be interesting to know how he thinks we as complicated humans came to be from simple cells. I'm sure he has a Darwinist view of how the world came to be.
Since he doesn't believe in a higher power he doesn't believe in an after life. He says that believing in a heaven is a safety net that makes children feels more at ease if they lose their parents early in life. So in essence he is saying that believing in an afterlife is more of a mystical belief much like the Santa clause, the tooth fairy or the Easter bunny. Like most children who find out that these fantasies aren't real they also come to the realization that heaven is also not true.
Outline Bertrand Russell's a FREE MAN'S WORSHIP.
❑ A FREE MANS WORSHIP
❑ Worship
• ❑ "For countless ages the hot nebula whirled aimlessly through space."
• ❑ "Man was born, with the power of thought, the knowledge of good and evil, and the cruel thirst for worship."
• ❑ "And Man stood aside from the struggle, resolving that God intended harmony to come out of chaos by human efforts."
❑ Nature
• ❑ "Man is yet free, during his brief years, to examine, to criticize, to know, and in imagination to create."
• ❑ "To him alone, in the world with which he is acquainted, this freedom belongs; and in this lies his superiority to the resistless forces that control his outward life.
• ❑ "Pathetic and very terrible is the long history of cruelty and torture, of degradation and human sacrifice, endured in the hope of placating the jealous gods."
❑ Morality
• ❑ "Such also is the attitude of those who, in our own day, base their morality upon the struggle for survival, maintaining that the survivors are necessarily the fittest."
• ❑ "others...will adopt the position which we have become accustomed to regard as specially religious."
• ❑ "Man creates God, all-powerful and all-good, the mystic unity of what is and what should be."
❑ Naturally Evil
• ❑ "There is an element of slavishness from which our thoughts must be purged."
• ❑ "When we have realized that Power is largely bad, he choice is again presented to us to worship force or worship goodness."
❑ Worship of force
•❑ "The result of failure to maintain our own ideals against a hostile universe.
• ❑ Let us admit that, in the world we know, there are many things that would be better otherwise, and that the ideals to which we do and must adhere are not realized in the realm of matter.
• ❑ Let us preserve our respect for truth, for beauty, for the ideal of perfection which life does not permit us to attain, though none of these things meet with the approval of the unconscious universe
❑ Christianity
• ❑ shown a wisdom exceeding that of the Promethean philosophy of rebellion
❑ Renunciation
• ❑ "For the young, there is nothing unattainable."
• ❑ "By death we must realize the world was not made for us, and however beautiful may be the things we crave, fate forbids them."
❑ Rules of Fate
• ❑ "The non human world is unworthy of our worship."
• ❑ 'The more evil the material with which it deals, the more thwarting to untrained desire.'
❑ Life
• ❑ "Life of man is but a small thing in comparison with the forces of nature."
• ❑ 'Slaves are doomed to worship Time and Fate and Death.'
• ❑ 'Abandoned struggle for private happiness for it is temporary, but burn with the passion for eternal things.'
What is the overall theme of the movie INNER VISIONS AND RUNNING TRAINS?
Can my reality and the things I believe in actually occur at an alternative place and time? That is what I think this movie entails. It was a story of Baba was in a war and they needed supplies before the enemy attacked. A vision came to him and told him when the enemy came that they wouldn’t attack then only wanted to rescue their dead. So that’s what happened and they ended up getting their supplies after the enemy came and they war finally ended after some time. He went back home and other troops were worshipping him and he didn’t understand why. They said that Baba came to them in a similar vision telling them how to win the battle.
This came as a realization to him that he could in fact help affect others through his actions. What if this was true, I could just be thinking of what to write on this topic and it could influence other class members what to write about. My thoughts and ideas could be translated to other people’s words and their posts would be my posts.
What does Nicholas of Coosa mean by "learned ignorance"? What are its implications for your own life?
Nicolas of Cusa writes in, "Learned Ignorance" that we see the gift of God in all things. We have an innate sense of judgment, which serves the condition of knowing. He concludes that every inquiry deals with the means of comparative relation sense we have to go back to compare it to something else, so infinity is incomparable because we cannot compare it to anything. He says we have desire in us, which is not in vain therefore we desire to know what we do not know. He is saying that there is so much in the world that we know; yet there are many things that we are not aware of. If a man considers himself the most learned then he is compared to all people who know something instead of being compared to that which he knows, for does not know what he does not know. However if a man knows that he does not know something then he is more learned because he will strive to learn it instead of just being content knowing what he knows.
He talks about one who is seeking knowing something, which is unknown that they must raise their intellect above what can be understood. So in order for them to explain their new idea or finding they must give examples or illustrations to put it into easier terms to understand. This is a very interesting idea about knowingness. I think I now know why philosophers are so confusing, because many try to find things that are unknown to everyone and most of them lack the skills required to relay information in a way that can be understood by the masses.
What does Gerald Edelman mean by Neural Darwinism and Second Nature?
Gerald Edelman is a biologist who talks about how the brain functions and looks at the mind to see if there are any biological or material processes. He thinks the mind is a very complex part of our body and says that it’s a highly cellular process within the brain. He does agree with Darwin's theory of natural selection and evolution. In the introduction in the movie "Gerald Edelman on Neural Darwinism" the opening speaker says this about our mind, "Our mind is a tightly intertwined connection of processes of perception, memory, language, learning, intelligence, and consciousness. With mind we make the world." He is basically saying that our mind is the key to life. The only question left remains is our mind a conscious state related to our brain or is our mind in fact also biologically set up. Edelman says that, "The brain is the most extraordinary variable structure."
He experiments with both mice and a robot to test their second nature and memory. They are put in an area with a hidden platform and they must find that platform. The first time it takes both a while but they begin to realize where the platform is and they take a more direct route than previous times. This shows how our memory works; when we do not know something we must search for the answer but once we find that answer the next time we need it the answer will be much easier to remember. Edelman also says that every consciousness theory must be consistent with evolutionary theories; which is the reason he agrees with Darwin’s neural theories.
Why turn vegetarian? ---According to the film you saw. What arguments are there against vegetarianism? You may need to do a goggle search here.
I did a little research to find what are the negative effects of the vegetarian diet. There are many people who say that the arguments against vegetarianism are weak, but what do you know, their vegetarians. Many people argue that meats just have protein, which you can find in soybeans and other vegetables, which are high in protein. One post on a blog that I read said that the human body requires certain fats. These fats are found in meat and are not found in veggies.
Another argument states that our teeth are made to rip and tear flesh. If we were made to eat only vegetables then we wouldn’t have cuspids, which are made for tearing food. Birds by nature are made to eat worms. Think of a vegetarian bird, they would probably die because their bodies are made to live off of worms. The same is true for humans we are made to eat meat. Does anybody feel sorry for the worms that birds eat? I don’t think so. A cow, or chicken or any other type of meat is a way of survival for humans just as the worm is to the bird. We only kill animals and eat them as means of survival, not of cruelty.
What was the turning point in Ramona Mahesh’s life?
Ramani Maharshi was sitting at his home and a violent fear of death overcame him. He was normal and didn’t have anything wrong with him. He wondered what death meant and what happens when one dies. After this sudden revelation he began to be different. He lost interest in school and friends and began to devote all his time to find out about death and life after.
He had many followers and was much like Pythagoras or some of the other famous philosophers who had disciples. He was a very modest man who never really wanted attention or never admitted that he was above anyone else. I thought it was odd that he had such a revelation at such an early stage of his life. All the time people come to sudden realizations, but for him to devote his life to it from such an early time of his life is quite unique.
What was Gandhi's double shame? If Gandhi lived during our era would he have a different view of that event?
Why? Why not?
When Gandhi was a young teenager his father became very ill. H cared for his father night and day. At one point when he was caring for his father his uncle came into the room. He came in to relieve Gandhi for a while and he obliged. Shortly after a servant came and told him that his father had just died. He felt terrible and very guilty that his father died when he left him. I think it all depends as to if Gandhi would react the same way. He was raised in a culture to where there was much more family dedication. Our culture is not the same today and we are much more selfish in our desires. Yes, we still care for our family and parents, but many times we only see parents and family members a couple times a year for holidays. So it all depends to how he was raised. I believe in our culture it is still possible to be raised with morals, where the family is the center focus. On the other hand if he was raised, or got caught up in how most Americans live, he would react to the situation differently. He would probably say that his father was going to die no matter if he was there or if he wasn’t there so he wouldn’t feel shame.
List Four distinct passages from Wittgenstein's Tractates Logico-Philosophicus and explain what you think they mean.
“It would then be impossible to form a picture of the world.” Yes is think this is a very true quote. Lisa Randall talked about how there could be many more dimensions to our universe. In reality we really do not know what our world looks like. A map is just somebody’s idea of what the measurements of the earth look like. Many say that we don’t even know who we are, if that is true then there is no way we will ever know what the world looks like.
“The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.” This is a very applicable statement. Our world and more specifically our country revolve around communication. If you cant speak the language you start out at a disadvantage. On the other side if you can speak multiple languages you are considered very versatile and can communicate with a great deal more people. Also the bigger vocabulary you have the more interesting it is to listen to you talk and the more educated it makes you seem.
“I am my world.” This quote is how many people live their lives. Most people live like the world revolves around them. Especially in our materialistic world people buy things to make themselves look better. We buy things to fit in and appear to be successfully by the things we own. Your world starts when you are born and your world ends when you die so with that in mind you are your world.
“The world is independent of my will.” Now this is the opposite of the last quote, yet it is still true.
The world will continue without me. Nothing would change if I died or wasn’t born. We would still have 365 days in a year and the sun would still rise and set every day. The difference between this quote and the last one is the ownership of the world. No matter what I want to happen the world will remain the same and we have to work around it instead of it revolving around us.
What was your favorite expert film lecture this term?
I like Sam Harris a lot. He made the film enjoyable to watch and
listen to and had very good observations of how most people view religion.
What was your favorite movie this term?
I liked the movie little things that jiggle.
What was your favorite reading?
I liked Darwin’s DNA by Andrea Lane, I thought it was well written and I enjoyed the reading.
Most unusual thing you learned this term?
This whole class was interesting. I opened my mind a great deal in this class. I guess you can say I have either been sheltered my whole life, or I just have never come across most of these dilemmas and philosophies. The most unusual thing I learned was hearing about more dimensions by Lisa Randall.
