Midterm

My real name is Benjamin Noble and my user name for this class is b_m_noble. The email address that I use for this class is BenMNoble@gmail.com. My website's name is Ben's Philosophy Blog and it's web address is http://benmnoble.blogspot.com/. I have done all of the reading and viewed all of the films that were required through the first five weeks. The following is all of the postings that I have done for this class:

Weeks 1 and 2 – Expert Lecture – Aldous Huxley

Aldous Huxley's description of technology in his 'Expert Lecture' is a rather stark contrast to what is commonly described today, as he points out that people don't have to be slaves to their creations. He uses the Sabbath as a good example of this as it is was created for man, man wasn't created for the Sabbath. He does, however, recognize that people have become “slaves” to their creations. People's assumption that “becoming a slave to technology” is necessary, or natural, only furthers the process.

I greatly appreciated Huxley's recognition of individuality. Despite his observations that people have been progressing towards speed and efficiency rather than progress, and mistakenly assuming that efficiency alone is progress, he still recognizes a persons difference from his/her neighbors. As efficiency naturally leads to a loss of distinguishing features in society in favor of uniform and familiar features, this particular observation is very astute. What impressed me further was that his remarks were prompted from an over-generalization of women. When one considers when this particular interview took place, that fact is doubly impressive.

I liked how Huxley pointed out that science and religion can coexist, as there is really no reason that they can't. Science, or the practical, means to answer the problems of society (amongst other things) and religion, or the metaphysical, seeks to give meaning to it.

Huxley's openness to drugs, as well as his belief in various extrasensory perceptions, are not surprising. The alteration of reality that they allow for is just one more avenue that requires studying. Perhaps they (drugs) will show us something that we are presently blind to, or maybe they will lend a certain factual basis to some areas of the speculative.

“Nothing short of everything is ever enough.” That quote by Huxley fits pretty well with this 'Expert Lecture' as Huxley gives many examples throughout the video where progress is only made if you search every possible avenue for answers. I couldn't agree more with him.

Weeks 1 and 2 – Assigned Reading – The Socratic Universe

The Socratic Universe was both highly entertaining and extremely insightful for a couple of different reasons. To begin with, it shows that we as human beings know very little, anything beyond the objectively concrete is more or less up for grabs . The responses given by these very intelligent people are often contradictory and yet there is something insightful or revelatory in most of the responses. Simply reading the different types of responses can show this, from the one or two word answers to the several paragraph long essays on a subject. Some people would even answer a question, as in Chapter Six: Does God Exist?, by asking why that question really matters to begin with. Does knowing the answer to whether God exists or not make life any easier or different? Why do people often assume that God should be capitalized, as if he were human? It is questions like these, or answers like these depending on how you look at it, that make philosophy wonderfully endearing and extremely colorful.

The general consensus amongst philosophers, according to Chapter Two: Which Philosophical Tradition Do You Disagree With Most?, appears to be that answers can only be acquired through reason. This is a simple yet important point as anything beyond reason is not really science. Various hypotheses can be made that may reach beyond reason, but that is not what science, or any form of rational thinking, is ultimately trying to accomplish. If answers can not be given using logic than they are not really answers and they have no real, substantive bearing upon the world.

Weeks 1 and 2 – Expert Lecture – Francis Fukuyama

Francis Fukuyama's views on history are very interesting. I have never considered history as anything more than a recollection of a series of events, but to look at it from the point of view of actually having a purpose is rather revelatory. One of the principal arguments that Fukuyama makes is that history is science and that the end of history is the end of science. Since we don't unlearn, deconstruct, or alter our basic understanding of things, such as Newton's laws, the ultimate goal of history is to lead us towards a greater understanding of life. His other principal argument is that history is leading us towards a greater understanding of human nature. He demonstrates this by citing things such as politics and how societies have been progressing towards certain political systems, presently that happens to be liberal, market based democracies. Societies and their political structures last when they are most conducive to human nature and we can only understand what those are over time. According to Fukuyama, that is why utilitarian and socialist regimes haven't withstood the test of time.

I appreciated Fukuyama's view on consciousness as well. Not just his belief that modern science may be looking at its existence from too simple of a standpoint, but of how it affects us as well. Things such as morality are born out of subjective experience. The example used in the video was that if you hit someone in the head, it hurts, which is why it is considered wrong to do so.

Fukuyama's views on religion are possibly the most complete that I have yet heard. He describes it in a very sociological way, due to the purpose and cohesiveness tat it allows for. It gives people a sense of shared morality that is sometimes lacking from science. He also comments upon the adaptability of religion as science has demystified some traditionally religious concepts and yet still exists and to most people is still relevant. He also talks of religious tolerance and how too much tolerance will eventually remove any meaning from your beliefs.

Fukuyama's views on a universal morality are also interesting as morality is often liked with something else, such as religion. While he doesn't delve into any real detail on what constitutes this idea of morality, it is not without merit. The subjective experience of consciousness and the general path that human nature has followed definitely suggest that certain basic feelings and beliefs could be shared between all people.

Weeks 1 and 2 - Assigned Reading - Apology by Plato

I particularly liked this line form the introduction, “Nothing evil can happen to the good man either in life or death, and his own death has been permitted by the gods, because it was better for him to depart; and therefore, he forgives his judges because they have done him no harm, although they never meant to do him any good.” This describes Socrates general indifference to his trial. Life and death are equal to him. Since he does no know what death will bring, he is not afraid of it. He also does not wholly refute any charges brought against him for the same reason. He defends his position only in a somewhat joking manner, as represented by hi statement that he must believe in the gods, if he believes in the sons of the gods. It all shows how generally unafraid Socrates was of the unknown. Where as most fear what they don't understand or know, Socrates knows that he knows nothing and is thus accepting of it.

Overall, this is a beautifully written defense of a man who only claimed to know nothing and was crucified for it. The description of Socrates's search for wisdom is an eloquent testament to the beauty of a child's mind. The desire to know more and the eventual revelation that there is nothing you can really know. The description of Socrates's defense against his crimes shows the importance of logic, and the weakness and fear that emanate from those who are afraid of the unknown or arrogantly assume that they, themselves are wise.

All of these things proclaimed by Socrates, as reported and/or imagined by Plato, might sound arrogant as well were it not for his refusal to pander to the court. He understands that he is a good man who will be put to death by bad men and that is enough for him.

All told, this is one of the most beautiful things I have ever read and a glorious tribute to a magnificent man.

Weeks 1 and 2 - Philosophy Films - Java Philosophy

The short film Java Philosophy is one of those films where the obvious answer to its meaning is almost too obvious and feels inaccurate. That answer would be that we, as human beings, have no idea why we are here, what we are supposed to do with our lives, or what will happen to us after we die. It's a point, or points, that really can't be stressed enough, and is the starting point for virtually any way of thinking. There were two things that I noticed about the films construction that intrigued me and demonstrated these points. First, was the somewhat Eastern feel to the film that was most noticeable to me through the music. It had an almost dreamy, metaphysical tone throughout, one that signified an out-of-body like experience where life is nothing more that one small part of a much larger journey. The second thing that I noticed was the college/university like atmosphere, a place that has traditionally taught more complex ways of thinking (this course is a good example) and is where most people begin to look beyond the simple and ordinary aspects of everyday of life.

Weeks 1 and 2 - Philosophy Films - Nicholas of Cusa

Numbers, Life, and Comparative Relation. That about sums up the basic ideas presented in the short film Nicholas of Cusa. It is simply one more examination of why we don't really know anything, and once we understand this our ignorance then becomes learned ignorance. This particular film demonstrates this point by using the field of mathematics and logic, an area I can highly relate to as logic is one of the only things that makes sense to me in this world. The film points out that inquiries are made by comparing situations (comparative relation) and that closely related things are easy to judge, but when this relation is not so close things become difficult and “hard work is required.” The number comes into play because it is what demonstrates the comparative relation between things. The film states that “...Pythagoras deemed all things to be constituted and understood through the power of numbers.” which I find to be a wise assessment, however it only applies to the simple and concrete. The infinite, for instance, cannot be understood through numbers as it cannot be related to anything; it is limitless. The same can be said of “...the precise combinations in corporeal things and the congruent relating of known to unknown...,” which effectively surpass human reason. Socrates understood this which is why he claimed to only know that he did not know. At its core, the film merely reiterates that life is a mystery which we do not, and perhaps cannot ever, know the answer to.

Weeks 1 and 2 - Assigned Reading - Survey of Philosophy

Wikipedia's History of Philosophy is a nice introduction to the basic time periods and important figures in philosophy. While it doesn't delve into too much detail, it doesn't really need to, that's what Hyperlinks are for. I was relatively unfamiliar with most of this information prior to reading the article, save for a few historical figures and one particular era in philosophy. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle perhaps interest me the most, if for no other reason than they're laying of the groundwork for all of philosophy. To look at the world from a logical and skeptical point of view in an era where that was very uncommon is praiseworthy and classifies these men as geniuses in my book. The other people and the particular time period that I was most familiar with, and am thus most knowledgeable about, is the Enlightenment period featuring such influential people as John Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau. I have a great deal of respect for these men since their work heavily influenced American Revolutionary concepts.

I have always been intrigued by Eastern Philosophy and Religion as well, as both are closely linked and essentially the same in many cases. Eastern philosophies/religions are more a way of life then they are theistic, as opposed to Western religions. I find it interesting how the philosophical and spiritual are so closely linked in Eastern countries, while in the West there is often a dichotomous view to them. That is not to say they are mutually exclusive or inclusive in either the West or the East, but that each stresses one over the other.

Weeks 3 and 4 - Assigned Reading - Cosmic Inflation

The article on Wikipedia about Cosmic Inflation is way over my head on a science and math level. I have always had an affinity for both and have taken a calculus and physics course or two, but that is nowhere near the level that this article approaches. As I understand it, however, that was not really the point behind reading this article. I noticed, as I was reading, two key things: 1) science works for us, and 2) we are slaves to science.

My first point is demonstrated through our understanding of the universe (or anything, for that matter). We know that the universe exists since we can see and touch it; therefore, we can try to understand it. In order to do so we create certain principles and theories that are tested and proven to be accurate. Much the same way that Newton invented calculus (along with some other fellow) which allowed for our development of physics, various scientists and mathematicians create certain principles that allow for our understanding of the universe. This, in effect, is how science works for us. We know that things follow basic patterns and our methods to understand them (calculus, etc.), allow for us to understand and use these scientific principles to our advantage (even if no apparent advantage exists).

My second point is, ironically, almost the same as my first. The basic idea is that everything we can and cannot do is limited by science. The same principles that we grow to understand cannot be broken; in other words, 2+2 will always equal 4. More accurately, that should be described as something we assume to be true because it has yet to be proven false, but that isn't really relevant to the meaning of my point. What all of this means is that science both allows for us to understand and adapt to our world, but it also constrains us to those very same parameters. These two points are like the Yin and Yang of science, not opposites as is commonly believed, but two separate yet equal halves of one unified whole.

Weeks 3 and 4 - Philosophy Films - Gods Too Decompose

“God is Dead,” an interesting concept from the short film Gods Too Decompose. A phrase that was never mean to be taken literally, but I suppose that it could and still maintain some of its meaning. Nietzsche, I believe, meant it more figuratively. The very basic idea is that man created God and then stopped believing in him, thus killing him. In this short film, the madman, who is perhaps considered mad due to his belief that “God is dead,” tells a group of atheists that he is looking for God. It is appropriate that he tells this particular group of people as it is they who are the ultimate cause for God's death, figuratively speaking. The description of the earth moving away from the sun, the act of perpetually falling, and a progressive increase in night all describe a sort of chaos (maybe one that would potentially ensue from such a travesty?). They could also be metaphors for the act itself as they are very difficult to accomplish as well as extremely unlikely to occur.

I particularly like the line, “What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to seem worthy of it?” It suggests that the magnitude of such an event is too great for people to have accomplished it themselves and is almost written in an approving tone. It does have an inflated sense of importance to it as well as if the people who “murdered” God have a grand ego, perhaps suggesting that the creation of God to begin with was somewhat egotistical. It is also said that “Lightening and Thunder require time, deeds require time after they have been done before they can be seen and heard.” This suggests that the effects for this act will increase as time progresses or may not be felt at all for a great deal of time. This creates somewhat of a loophole in the idea that “God is dead” meaning that people need to have “faith” that these events will eventually play out, not knowing whether they will or not. This parallels the “faith” that many people have concerning God's existence, not knowing whether He/She/It/They actually exists or not.

Weeks 3 and 4 - Assigned Reading - Physics and Philosophy

Heisenberg's Physics and Philosophy was a somewhat challenging read (the grammatical errors certainly didn't help either), but once I was finished I found it to be quite insightful. It was a nice history lesson, describing some of the contributions to philosophy by several major philosophers. The evolution of ideas, however, was the most important aspect of this text. One of the fundamental advancements of philosophy that this article describes is that of experience. To know that what we experience is real, that it exists. This might seem obvious, but what is really being defined is how we perceive things. “Things” have certain properties, but our perceptions of these “things” might be flawed, inaccurate, and/or limited. However, to ignore what we perceive is to ignore everything; therefore, we assume that what we perceive is real because it has yet to be proven false, wrong, flawed, etc. That can be a somewhat confusing concept, but it is a very important one.

That concept essentially allows for “mistakes” in science. Our limited understanding and perception of nature means that we can not physically experience every aspect of it; therefore, we will make “mistakes.” This line from the article says it better than I ever could, “Insistence on the postulate of complete logical clarification would make science impossible. We are reminded here by modern physics of the old wisdom that the one who insists on never uttering an error must remain silent.” Descartes “triangle” is a good representation this. His somewhat shady inferences might seem logically obtuse now, but they were important then and they led to other more accurate principles later.

Weeks 3 and 4 - Philosophy Films - Little Things that Jiggle

“My ambition is to live to see all of physics reduced to a formula so elegant and simple that it will fit easily on the front of a T-shirt.” That quote by Leon Lederman is about as direct an explanation for the purpose of this video as there can be as it shows exactly what science hopes to achieve. Science, in all of its complexities, is trying to understand the universe in as simple of terms as possible. The four forces that explain why things do what they do are a good example of this. As complex as the universe is, four forces explain why everything happens within it.

This video sheds a nice, friendly light upon science. While many people consider it to be complex and tedious, and it is, the ultimate goal of science is to make the universe completely understandable to everyone. Science doesn't want to be complex and tedious, but until we discover all of the little details about the universe science will continue to be off putting to many people.

“Things, are made of littler things, that jiggle.” That's as simple as it gets.

Weeks 3 and 4 - Expert Lecture - Owen Gingerich

Owen Gingerich is a very accommodating man. He expresses his views in an almost neutral way, like he is showcasing possible belief scenarios, but he also manages to tell how he feels about something. He doesn't sound forceful or overbearing which is somewhat surprising since he is at least mildly critical of other viewpoints.

Gingerich's talk of life and how the circumstances for its existence are very fascinating. There's a name for the principle he was describing, but I can't remember what it was, and probably couldn't spell it if I did. The way this set of circumstances leads him to God is what I found most interesting, however. He doesn't take a rather irresponsible, uncritical view on it and assume that God is merely a creator and his ways are a mystery, he looks for what this higher power did and how he did it. Admittedly, I find his conclusion that a divine force is responsible for these precise circumstances a big leap of “faith,” but faith is what religion is all about so at least there is a logical reason for his assumption. This also demonstrates how very accommodating Mr. Gingerich is. He doesn't deny science in support of his faith, he embraces it. That is an admirable quality, indeed.

His description of Time and The Big Bang was also highly interesting. The notion that what happened before the Big Bang happened without time is almost incomprehensible to me. Time being a constant, forward moving force of cause and effect is dependent on our existence and perhaps that makes any real study of anything prior to The Big Bang beyond our comprehension. Maybe one day we will evolve to a point where we can disassociate ourselves from time and truly understand what existed, or what it was like, back then.

All of this speculation about other universes is another thing I have had an interest in. It's something that can be difficult to comprehend, and as such may be essentially meaningless, but the idea of Heaven as another universe is very profound. If there is no possible connection to it and no logical proof of its existence then why not define it that way? Hell can be described in the same sense, as well.

Gingerich's views on what God truly is are also astounding. His understanding that something omnipotent and everlasting would be completely beyond human comprehension. Yet, despite this, people continue to try and describe and understand God in relatively simple terms. The hand reaching down from the heavens, the creation of Adam and Eve, etc. are far too simple and incomplete so as to describe something of a godly magnitude. As metaphorically descriptive as these ideas are, taking them literally, or perhaps even figuratively, seems to degrade God's value. Of course, these things may not be wrong. Philosophically speaking, they could simply be our limited perception of the omnipotent.

Weeks 3 and 4 - Expert Lecture - Lisa Randal

Dr. Lisa Randal's description of the various dimensions that we live in as well as her description of what other dimensions could possibly be like is fascinating. Obviously, trying to imagine what another dimension “is” is very difficult, maybe even impossible, which she recognizes; however, her description of a sphere passing through a two-dimensional universe made the pains of thinking about it a little bit easier. Her further description of a sphere passing through our universe, growing and eventually shrinking, was about as picturesque an image as anyone can presently imagine to describe another spatial dimension. The idea that gravity or other forces perhaps act differently in the presence of other dimensions is also interesting. Why is gravity so weak in relation to th other forces? That's something that I never really gave much thought until now. Dr. Randal's description of branes gave me a small idea of how to think about this, but again it's really difficult to conceive of it in reality. The fact that she can even describe at all how this would work is amazing though. We and our world being stuck to a three-dimensional brane? It kind of makes you lose a grip on reality if you think about it too hard.

The other thing that Lisa Randal proved to me is that outside-the-box thinking is very important. Hypotheses, theories, ideas all lead to something, whether they end up being accurate or not. These unproven hypotheses and theories, at least in the sense that they don't have measurable evidence (yet), aren't taken on faith. They aren't simple (or complex, I suppose) notions like God that are assumed just for the sake of hoping they exist, they are based upon established knowledge. These ideas weren't just created, they were discovered or hinted at through the course of other work. This gives outside-the-box thinking a logical credibility as it isn't just faith based assumptions.

Weeks 3 and 4 - Assigned Reading - The Copenhagen Interpretation

This article, The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, describes an interesting point. Are the things that we observe in nature real or are they the product of our interference. The demonstration that this article gives involves particle physics. In order to view the position of an electron, a particle small enough to view the electron would have to be used. This particle would move th electron upon contact, thereby only giving the actual location of the electron at one moment in time. This does demonstrate one concept in science very well, that the environment that we are studying is not completely removed from the “we,” or those studying it. At least not in every circumstance.

Weeks 3 and 4 - Expert Lecture - Stephan Wolfram

Stephen Wolfram's mathematica (or was it cellular automata? The terminology was somewhat confusing) is an interesting form of mathematics. Traditionally, it was believed that to get complex systems, complex equations would have to be used. It is easy to understand why this would be believed as extrapolating these systems to any great length would take a significant amount of time. With modern computers, an extreme number of calculations can be performed in a matter of seconds. As it turns out, very simple rules can create very complex patterns. Prime numbers are a good example as they have very simple rules and yet a fairly complex pattern is created when these rules are extrapolated. Wolfram also describes snowflakes in the same manner as they are naturally occurring and complex, yet very simple rules can and will create a traditional snowflake pattern. This does lend a sense of credence to concepts such as natural selection and evolution. These concepts were, and still are, criticized for being too simple to have created such complex results (humans). People would often suggest that a higher force had to be at work in order to achieve our very precise and complex results, when this is now obviously not the case.

Computational irreducibility is the concept that a system is too apparently complex to reduce it into simpler terms. The only way to understand what it would lead to is to just run the system. This has prevented science from making any great progress in this area. Wolfram connects computational irreducibility to the phenomenon of free-will. I found this a highly entertaining and extremely promising idea as free-will seems to allow us to work without defined laws even though our brains work with definite underlying laws. The system of free-will is seemingly computationally irreducible and the only way to see what will happen is to just run the system.

The notions that we, as humans, are no more special than other events in nature is also interesting. Apparently, our actions are computationally equivalent to naturally occurring events. Wolfram's connection of this to extraterrestrial intelligence was intriguing as it was often assumed that signals received of a certain complexity could only be created by a higher intelligence. It turns out that this is also not eh case, which is why it is so difficult to discern the difference between random radio noise and an actual intelligently created signal.

Week 5 - Expert Lecture - Richard Dawkins

“Science does violence to common sense.” A rather remarkable quote taken from a remarkable man. Richard Dawkins is one of my personal favorite philosophers and this video was every bit as revelatory as any other piece of material I have read or watched by him. The idea that science somehow affects us negatively is not meant to display a negative aspect of science, but a negative or limited aspect of humanity. The revelation that our planet was not the center of the universe was a huge event that shattered our assumptions, and possibly our egos. Obviously, it was easy to assume that the sun was small and revolved around our planet as that's what appeared to be happening, common sense told us this. The same can be said of seemingly solid objects and the eventual discovery that they are mostly empty space. Dawkin's proposal that we evolved to navigate this so called “middle world” is amazing in its simplicity. The notion that different animals, or vastly different sized creatures, see the world differently is so very simple that common sense never allowed people to see the truth in it. What is obvious is not always right, but that doesn't mean the truth is any less simple.

Dawkin's description of how humans view each other is also enlightening. Another consequence of our middle world status, we, as humans, tend to view each other as both machines and intellectual individuals. For academic reasons it is appropriate that humans are viewed in a mechanical way as they are easier to study, but it can be useless in everyday life. People have hopes, dreams, motivations, guilt, etc. which can allow them to do seemingly unpredictable things. Stealing a car is a good example as it is nearly impossible to predict that an event like that would happen. Just as our perceptions of the universe as a whole are incomplete, so too are our perceptions of people flawed and incomplete.

Week 5 – Expert Lecture – Owen Wilson

“There is only matter and energy in the universe.” That's as to-the-point as you can get in describing the makeup of the universe. While Edward Wilson becomes a bit more vague later in his interview, almost entirely due to necessity, it's still nice to see a direct answer to something every once in a while.

I found Wilson's understanding of free-will and determinism highly insightful. It's perhaps difficult to imagine our choices not being made by us, which in essence is what determinism proclaims; However this is absolutely what happens throughout our lives. This doesn't happen in the purest sense, but virtually every decision we make is influenced by an outside force. Why do we go to work? We need money. Why do we go to the supermarket? We are out of food. This isn't to say that we are without conscious choice, only that free-will in any pure sense is more of an illusion. To truly do something free of external or internal motivation is very rare. We absolutely poses the ability to make choices and decisions on our own, but those choices, especially when measured at a community level, can be understood, and even predicted, due to social circumstances. The advice given by Mr. Wilson is perhaps the best thing about this, which is to not worry about it. After all, you are who you are and so long as you're happy does it really matter? Ultimately, what this all means is that neither free-will or determinism likely exist in pure forms, but like many things in life there is most likely a nice combination of the two.

Wilson's views on religion and science are accurate and interesting as well. His understanding is that traditional religious beliefs are not compatible with science. This has obviously been the case throughout history as science has continued to replace religious beliefs. Religion is adaptable, but Wilson sees no real compatibility between the two anyway since science will eventually explain everything, including the creation of life. While his view is somewhat pessimistic, it is the most practical that I have yet heard and I have no choice but to agree with him. I also appreciated his biological, Darwinian view on religion. The was in which it bonded groups of people and had an evolutionary effect on them as well as the religions, themselves. This religious impulse is thus not evidence of God, as it can be explained biologically. I never considered religion in this manner, but it's a fascinating point.

I also greatly appreciated Wilson's view on the afterlife. The human mind (consciousness) needs a timescale to exist and when faced with an eternal afterlife, bliss is impossible. The best possible scenario would be an eternity of boredom, or maybe to be numb to the experience altogether. The essentially removes any distinction between Heaven and Hell. If you're faced with an eternity either way, then what's the difference? That is possibly the most fascinating thing I have heard this semester. Also, Wilson's sense of belonging is extremely intriguing as well. It doesn't come from believing that God intended us to be here, but that we belong simply because we are here.

Week 5 – Assigned Reading – Evolution 101

“Biological evolution is descent with modification.” I've heard evolution described that way before and it's still the simplest way to understand it. The central idea is that ll life on earth shares a common ancestor. As time passed, lineages split and evolved and various modifications were inherited. Apparently, life can be broken down into three major domains. These domains can be broken down further and further and each sub-section can be studied independently of the whole.

A phylogeny is like a family tree that breaks down the lineages of different species. A clade is a grouping of an ancestor and all of its relatives; this clade can be big, encompassing thousands of species, or small, encompassing only a few. One common misconception that this produces is that there is some form of hierarchy amongst species, which is not the case. All species presently living have developed over the same amount of time, they just formed their own evolutionary paths at different points in history.

One of the things I found most interesting in this piece was that of analogous traits, or traits that are superficially similar and evolved for similar reasons. These traits, the article used bird and bat wings as an example, have separate evolutionary origins giving them some unique features. It was also interesting to learn that “reptile” is not a valid phylogenetic grouping. If it were, then birds would need to be included within it.

Week 5 – Assigned Reading – Meme Theory

Richard Dawkin's description of cultural transmission as a form of evolution is very interesting. I never thought about it that way myself, but it makes complete sense. The discovery that it is not exclusive to humans was also intriguing. The transmission of different songs that the birds in New Zealand sang was a perfect example. The way the songs spread and “mutated” was virtually identical to genetic evolution, only much quicker. Obviously, it also did not spread only between parents and their children, thus affirming its cultural nature.

This event is brought about by memes. Memes are ideas or any form of culture, human or otherwise. The bird's songs, human fashion, catch-phrases, all of these are included. Dawkin's description of a God-meme is highly fascinating. He hypothesized that it probably arose many times due to independent “mutation.” The reason that it survived and flourished so readily is that it has such a high survival value. An utterly fascinating concept. His comparison of it to a doctor's placebo was also amusing and intriguing.

His description of blind-faith in the meme-pool was interesting, as well. Dawkin's describes it as self propagating in the way that it reaffirms itself. It discourages rational inquiry an can justify anything. It can also be ruthless in propagation. All of these concepts, interestingly enough, apply to patriotic and political blind-faith, as well.

Week 5 – Philosophy Films – Survival of the Sufficient

The short film, Survival of the Sufficient, describes an interesting evolutionary concept. It states that those who survive aren't those who were the most suited to their environment, but those who were best edited by their environment are the ones who survive. The film uses books as an example. It states that books are continually reprinted and no final editions are ever made. This is representative of the endless number of generations of creatures who are continually edited through any number of social and environmental factors. These editions, or creatures, are rarely if ever perfected, even if they become a little more perfect each time.

The film also states that deception, of oneself and others, is used to edit as well. We deceive ourselves into believing there is a place for us in this world even if we are not ready to fit in with it. Deception allows us to continue and create a new edition that will likely be better suited to this world. The postscript to the film states how, given enough time and enough typewriters, monkeys will eventually produce all of the written works of the world, but they will also produce a lot of junk. This describes how, over time, we will eventually “perfect” ourselves, but in the meantime we will make a lot of mistakes.

Week 5 – Philosophy Films – Fundamentalism is a Mental Disease

Fundamentalism is a Mental Disease. It infects rational thought and prevents humanity from bettering itself through discovery and invention. There aren't many things I would classify as truly “wrong,” but fundamentalism is one of them. It is so thoroughly lacking in common sense, logic, or any other reasonable support that it is completely unjustifiable and ignorant. Intelligent design, the holy grail of creationist “theory,” is near the forefront of the fundamentalist crusade. Science has essentially debunked the literal notion of the Bible's account of the creation of life, yet still the idea of God playing a key part in the creation of humans, or any life for that matter, persists. The belief that the cell is too complex to have been created through pure chance is ridiculous. Simple rules can create complex systems, this has been proven. Also, chance never really figured into the equation anyway, the cell evolved the way it did through years of precise change. Features were added and deleted based upon their value until the perfect life building unit was born (that's a very simplified description, of course). It's not a terribly difficult concept, just a very time consuming one.

If you wish to believe that God allowed for life to begin and that it was his divine wish that it has turned out the way that it has, that's just fine. Science doesn't rule that out, science never even intended to replace God, even though it may actually happen one day. All that evolutionary biology ever wanted to do was to rationally describe the processes that took place; to understand how it happened. If God did these things, then he played by our universe's rules.

I loved this film.

Week 5 – Philosophy Films – Truth Lies

The short film, Truth Lies, sheds light upon the illusions created by humanity. It describes them as necessary for people to live another day. These illusions, despite there apparent irrationality, serve to give humanity purpose. The only apparent purpose in life is to live long enough to pass on our genetic code, but without some ultimate goal for ourselves, something that is more important than us, that simple task seems pointless. The film visually demonstrated the idea of heaven as an example of a lie created by people for people, which I found amusing. These illusions, however, are an adaptive function created to help us survive and they aren't meaningless in that context.

“Man would have to invent God, even if such a being didn't exist.” That about sums up the film, Truth Lies, as it shows the meaning that we need to give ourselves. The purpose we require, even if there ultimately isn't one, so that we will want to wake up tomorrow. The truth is that truth lies. It's an adaptive function that developed over time. It's an oxymoron that makes perfect sense.

End of class postings

The reason that Lisa Randal believes there to be many more dimensions than we presently know about in current physics is that science suggests this as a possibility. One example that she gives involves gravity and how it is so much weaker than the other forces in our universe. She cites the specific example of a paper-clip that can be picked up with a small magnet despite the gravity of the entire earth attempting to pull it back down. One would expect the four known forces in the universe to be equal, but obviously they are not. She explains this through the concept of branes. A brane is a surface, either two-dimensional or three-dimensional, that objects are “stuck” to. Dr. Randal explains that our universe, along with all of its matter and forces, could be stuck to a three-dimensional brane even though there could be more spatial dimensions present. The one force that would not be stuck to our brane, however, would be that of gravity which would affect any other spatial dimensions that may exist and pass freely through them. She further explains that gravity may have its own particular brane where it originates, which helps to explain why the force of gravity is constant in our universe. At this stage there is no measurable evidence to support her belief that other dimensions actually exist, there is only theoretical speculation.

Aldous Huxley views education as a means to combat social problems. Education, he feels, is important to develop intelligent human beings. According to Huxley, education is one of the few ways that our general social ills can be improved at a community level. Education alone is not a complete solution, however. Society needs to attack on the psychological and individual levels, as well, not just on the social level. Huxley has stated, “Nothing, short of everything, is ever enough,” and that demonstrates his commitment to education and any other program that will improve society.

I think that science and religion are compatible as they tend to answer questions differently and for different reasons. According to Michael Jubien from U.C. Davis, “The major difference [between science and religion] is that they generally have distinct goals (e.g., theorizing about the nature of the physical world versus saving souls). To this extent they are compatible.” The one area where they tend to run into conflict, however, is when religion attempts to make claims in areas that are supported by science. Again, according to Mr. Jubien, “[S]ome religions make claims that are in conflict with science (not to mention common sense). Such claims may be an essential part of certain religions, but they aren't an essential part of religion per se.” So, while science and religion are compatible there is a separation that must exist between the two. Joel Friedman from U.C. Davis perhaps said it best, “Science is a traditional enemy of traditional religion. However, science is compatible with enlightened religion.” So long as religion is willing to adapt to the discoveries of science then they should forever be compatible.

Socrates was put on trial because of his personal beliefs and philosophical views on life. His accusers claimed that he was an “evil-doer” who corrupts the youth and that he is one who believes in gods other than the gods of the state. And, despite the seemingly apparent inconsistency, they claimed that he believed in no gods. Public opinion about Socrates was essentially the same. They felt that he was an “evil-doer and a curious person” who taught others that bad things were better than they appeared to be. Socrates defended his position against these claims by logically demonstrating how they each were inaccurate and misguided. He did this in a somewhat jokingly and lighthearted manner, however, by not openly refuting any of the claims, he would simply demonstrate the logic errors in each of them. For instance, when Socrates was accused of not believing in the gods he argued that he must believe in the gods because he believes in the sons of the gods. Socrates's defense against the claim that he was “a corrupter of youth” was done in a similar manner. He argued that he could not be blamed for how these youth turned out because never did he promise that he would teach them anything.

Philosophy became a unified project through the life's work of Socrates. He spent a large portion of his life critically examining common Greek concepts that were not clearly defined through conversations he had with his fellow Athenians. He was eventually tried in court and executed in 339 BC.E. His principal student was Plato who was the founder of the Academy of Athens. His most famous written work is considered to be The Republic which critiques and/or criticizes various social institutions. Plato's principal student was Aristotle who was the creator of Aristotelian logic, which attempted to classify every known, valid syllogism. Philosophy in the Medieval era was concerned primarily with God and with applying Aristotelian logic to all areas of life. During this time, Thomas Aquinas used his cosmological argument to attempt to prove the existence of God, as well as the goodness of God. During the 17th century, Erasmus, Francis Bacon, Niccolò Machiavelli, and Galileo Galilei were the primary forces behind the rise of empiricism and humanism. John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Edmund Burke created their political philosophies during this time also. Sir Issac Newton's natural philosophy was developed during the 18th century, which is known as the early portion of The Enlightenment.

The big bang and the inflationary universe describe how the universe was created. The inflation that was present at the universe's creation is more accurately described as the “bang” of the big bang. By itself, the big bang theory is considered incomplete as it assumes that all of the particles presently in the universe were already present in some form. The inflation aspect allows for these particles to be created from a very small, virtually non-existent, amount of matter. While the universe was in its small state, it cooled uniformly and then expanded exponentially. The cooling aspect is important because it allowed for atoms to form relatively quickly in the large, new, and relatively stable environment. Over time, the universe formed into what it is today, large amounts of matter and energy. It is important to know and understand this, along with other aspects of astronomy and details about the universe, in order to do philosophy because our universe is what we base our assumptions on. Without knowledge of our universe, our assumptions about it mean nothing as they aren't based on anything. For instance, you can't theorize about the presence of other dimensions in our universe if you had no knowledge of our universe to begin with. To put it another way, you wouldn't think about running if you didn't even know that you could walk.

Heisenberg's views on philosophy and science differ from Einstein's in that Heisenberg appears to be more content with describing the aspects and principles of already established scientific and philosophical concepts. He doesn't really look into new material so much as he looks to test the limits of accepted material. Einstein, throughout his career, continued to push the boundaries of what science was capable of. His various theories were groundbreaking, but also helped to simplify our understanding of the universe and gave us new philosophical avenues to pursue. It could be said that Heisenberg had a more conservative approach to scientific discovery than Einstein, but that he had a more liberal approach to his work with established scientific concepts and the philosophical avenues that that work opened up. Both men, however, approached science with the intent of making it more accessible to humanity. Heisenberg broke down and reevaluated established science while Einstein discovered new scientific concepts and attempted to understand them in as simple of terms as possible.

Meme theory is the theory that culture is transmitted between generations in much the same way that genes are passed between generations. It is likened to evolution and natural selection as the memes that are passed between generations do so through nearly identical processes as genes. The memes that meme theory describes are the cultural traditions, themselves, and are not physical things in the same way that genes are. Memes are the ideas, catch-phrases, styles of dress, etc. that are present in a specific culture and are adopted by others through imitation. This is where the distinction between genetic evolution and meme evolution occurs. Genes are passed directly from parents to their children, human or otherwise, while memes are learned. Memes may be passed to anyone who makes contact with them, which is why they can spread between cultures, not just within them. Memes can also “mutate,” or change form, due to various reasons, which can produce entirely new memes (new styles of dress, new songs, etc.).

These events are not exclusive to humans either. There is a set of songs that a particular species of bird from New Zealand can sing. Different groups of these birds can sing different songs and successive generations of these birds learn different songs from various groups. These songs will even mutate due to imprecise imitation and form entirely new songs. I find this theory very plausible as I have witnessed it myself amongst the various groups in the general population. I have also experienced it personally, as my family's and my culture's traditions have become my own. Knowing that it is not exclusive to humans only serves to make the theory more plausible.

Understanding biological evolution is so important to the understanding of human thought and behavior because it demonstrates how we came to adapt to our environment. Richard Dawkins has demonstrated that we view life from a “middle world” perspective. We don't perceive “solid” objects, such as rocks, as mostly empty space because we adapted to view them as solid. We also don't perceive the sun as static and unmoving, we see it as passing overhead in the sky. If we had been very small we might have perceived a rock as full of holes or if we had been very large we might have perceived our solar system as revolving around the sun, but we adapted to view it in a way that best suited us through years of evolutionary change. Without understanding biological evolution we would be unable to understand why we perceive ourselves the way that we do in the world and why we interact with it in the way that we do. Charles Darwin is the man responsible for demonstrating how species adapt to their environment. He laid the groundwork for evolutionary biology with his concept of natural selection and it is through his work that we know why various behaviors are passed on and others are not. Just like with all other living species, natural selection shows why our specific thought and behavior patterns were passed on and not others. Understanding biological evolution allows us to understand how we were meant to function in our environment which can be important for determining our place in the universe.

Fundamentalism is a mental disease, according to the narrator of the film “Fundamentalism is a Mental Disease,” because it denies rational thought. Fundamentalism attempts to put God back into science, even though God is completely irrelevant in scientific thought. Evolutionary biology has debunked the literal notion of the Bible's account of the creation of life. To counter this, fundamentalists have created the “theory” of intelligent design even though it has no basis in fact. The narrator describes these creationist notions as so unintelligible that they are “taught only by those who cannot think.” I completely agree with the narrator's assessment of fundamentalism. It denies logic, reason, and common sense and it makes human discovery worthless. God is not necessary to answer every question that we have in life. The evolutionary concept of natural selection is so simple and answers so many questions that to deny the simple truth of it would be like denying one's own existence. Intelligent design does not answer any questions, it only serves to put God back into science. All told, fundamentalism is a dangerous combination of ignorance and faith.

Owen Gingerich fundamentally disagrees with Edward O. Wilson on the possibility of a higher purpose to life and the universe. Gingerich sees the universe as a structure that is so generally complex and highly conducive to life, at least on our planet, that it suggests a higher purpose to it. Wilson sees the universe as following very definite rules that will all ultimately be described and understood through science, including the creation of life. The only true fundamental distinction between the two is that Wilson sees a contradiction between religion and science and Gingerich does not. Gingerich's principle argument in favor of religion is that life makes more sense when one sees both purpose and design. Wilson's principle argument against it is that we will eventually come to understand all of the universe's secrets, thus making religion obsolete. The purpose that Wilson sees in life is that since we are “here” we belong “here.” I ultimately find Edward O. Wilson more persuasive that Owen Gingerich because the idea of artificially creating a purpose to life, that is more than likely a complete illusion, does not suit me. Science creates its own purpose through the process of discovery and one day it may discover an ultimate purpose to the universe. I also find the belief that since we are “here” we belong “here” to be perfectly accurate and comfortable.

Francis Fukuyama defines the “end of history” as the last point along the development of human institutions. He explains that humanity throughout the ages has sampled various political and social institutions, but the only ones that have had any lasting value are the ones most compatible with human nature. He expects this final institution to be mostly upon us already in the form of free-market, liberal democracy. The reason that “Utopian” societies, such as socialism, haven't worked is because they are not compatible with human nature, and in effect our history is ending a step before them. Fukuyama also describes another element that is required to achieve a true “end of history” and that element is an “end to science.” He describes science as a forward moving, linear force, one that does not allow us to unlearn what we have learned. In order to truly reach an “end of history” we must discover all that science has to offer, which, according to Fukuyama, will be a long time from now.

I agree with Fukuyama's assessment of our history and its “end” point. We do appear to be moving towards a certain point and the institutions that we have established now have been fairly long lasting. Our own political institution, a capitalist, liberal democracy, is fairly congruous with the way that we, as humans, operate. And science is definitely a forward moving subject that one day will hopefully answer all of our questions about the universe.

Nicholas of Cusa describes “unknowingness” as a state of learned ignorance. As no one knows what the purpose of our existence is or what ultimately constitutes everything in the universe, no one can truly claim to be wise without claiming that they know nothing. Our understanding of life and all of its workings is very limited and despite constant progress we have not learned anything that gives definite meaning to it. The ignorance that is a part of Nicholas of Cusa's philosophy, despite its negative connotation, is a distinctly positive thing. It suggests that you have come to terms with your “unknowingness” and embraced it. To do otherwise would be to fool oneself into believing an illusion.

According to Nietzsche, we have “killed” God by losing faith in him. We have placed our beliefs in other efforts such as science and philosophy, and no longer have a need for God. We invented God to give our lives purpose and we replaced him with our search for life's purpose. It has been said that, “God's only excuse is that he doesn't exist.” Without a reason to believe in him anymore, we no longer have an excuse to do so. Our search for truth has replaced what was once considered the ultimate truth; our desire for purpose has “killed” God.

Physics is important to the study of philosophy because, like philosophy, it is attempting to understand the universe. The slogans from the movie Little Things that Jiggle have the same purpose as philosophical concepts, in fact those slogans could even be classified as philosophical, themselves. The slogans describe how or why something works, or what we hope to achieve, exactly like in philosophy. Physics gives us a starting point for our understanding of the universe. Without any understanding of our universe we would be unable to formulate any philosophical opinions about it. Without physics, the world would be an incalculable, incomprehensible, and ignorant place. With physics, at least we know that we don't know anything about the world, but it allows us to keep searching.

The line, “To have freedom of religion one must also have freedom from religion,” means that to truly be free to believe whatever you wish you must not be influenced by anyone or anything. Religious freedom applies to the individual and in order to have your own personal beliefs you cannot be influenced by any external force, including other religions. This also applies if you chose not to believe in any religion. External forces can lead people to believe something just for the sake of believing it. To truly have the freedom to believe whatever you want you must not be influenced by anything but your own, personal judgement.

Richard Dawkins believes that believing in God is delusional because it is based upon faith. Faith can lead people to believe anything without supporting evidence. It can even lead people to believe something when faced with evidence to the contrary. Dawkins feels that faith would be unnecessary if there were supporting evidence for something because the evidence would urge you to believe it anyway. God is also linked with other religious ideas that reinforce each other. These other religious ideas, such as the threat of hell fire, are often self perpetuating due to their deep psychological impact. All of this reinforces Dawkin's belief that believing in God is delusional.

Science is absolutely capable of offering a sense of mystery comparable to that of certain religions. Science may not offer the same kind of metaphysical wonderment as religion and ultimately it hopes to remove all mystery from the universe, but now and for many years to come it still offers a vast amount of mystery. The number of different things that we still don't know about our universe is staggering. Just waiting to find out what secrets the universe holds is a mystery, itself. The other aspect of scientific mystery is that it is always changing and evolving. Every day new discoveries are made that answer old questions, but almost always those answers just lead to new questions. In that way, religion and science will always be different. Religion offers eternal mystery while science offers a continuous supply of mystery filled questions.

According to Stephen Wolfram, an understanding of cellular automata suggests a “new kind of science” because it shows that simple rules can create extremely complex structures. Each cellular automata is a collection of basic rules that are followed in a sequence. Our prior understanding of science and math suggests that these simple rules will all create simple structures with easily identifiable patterns, but this turns out not to be the case. It was previously believed that to get a complex structure you would have to start with complex rules; however, according to several of the cellular automata, simple rules can create complex structures with no easily discernible patterns. To Stephan Wolfram, this suggests that nature did not need to follow highly complex rules to create such complex results and that there could be a very simple set of rules that created the entire universe.

EXTRA CREDIT – Film Interpretation:

My favorite film that I saw would have to be Survival of the Sufficient. It was a nice twist on Darwin's evolutionary concept of survival of the fittest. The film describes how each generation of life is like a new edition of a book. Each new edition is sufficient enough to make it through life and create a new edition. There are never any final editions, but each is more perfect than the last. The film does a nice job of describing the forces at work in our lives that shape who and what we are, including our teachers, friends, family, strangers, etc. These forces administer the changes that we will pass on to our children. Hopefully, our children will be better suited to meet societies needs and their children will be better suited as well. On and on through the generations we will bestow upon the next generation all of the editing we have received. The ending to the film makes a very good point. Given enough time and enough typewriters, monkeys will eventually create all of the world's written works, but they will also create a bunch of junk. Essentially, it is saying that people will eventually “perfect” their way of life, but in the meantime they will make a lot of mistakes.