My real name is Benjamin Noble and my user name for this class is b_m_noble. The grade that I received on my midterm was a B, and this is a link to my midterm: http://benmnoble.blogspot.com/2007/09/midterm.html. 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 for the class. 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.
Week 6 – Philosophy Film – A Glorious Piece of Meat
I really liked the short film A Glorious Piece of Meat. Despite its short running length, it managed to cram in as much, if not more, information as any of the substantially longer pieces of work on neural philosophy. I found several bits of information to be highly amusing, as well as extremely enlightening. To begin with, the quote from Patricia Churchland was spot on:
“And then if it turns out that you just are stuff, that your brain just is meat, then wanting it to be different isn't going to change it.”
It somewhat amazes me at how much people really care about this subject. Does it really matter whether or not we are just bundles of neurons? That our brain is just a piece of meat? No, because it wont change who or what we are. We'll still feel the same about anything and everything that we do, we'll just know the truth. The only way that anything will change is if you let that little revelation dictate how you live your life. If this all really is an illusion, there's no reason we have have to stop embracing it.
I also found the films commentary on whether or not we are really in control of our lives to be intriguing, as well. We consciously control very few of our bodies processes, so is it too much of a stretch to think that we may have no control at all? This leads me back to another concept from weeks past, that of truth and illusion. If the truth really is that truth lies, then perhaps the greatest lie would be our belief in free-will. Maybe our bodies are really controlled unconsciously through any number of chemical reactions and our perception of “consciousness” is just a mask, shielding us from the ungodly truth of our own biologically determined existence. The belief that we have some form of control over our lives would only serve to give us purpose. Any seemingly “free” action would just be our bodies way of reinforcing the illusion.
What comes first, Neurons or Awareness? This simple question posed by the film was also completely fascinating, perhaps due to its paradoxical nature. It's very similar to the chicken or egg conundrum, but the answer is far more difficult to discern, as one doesn't really exist without the other. Neurons allow us to posses consciousness, but consciousness allows us to perceive neurons. I suppose this is just one more example of how we truly know nothing about this universe, and that all we can ever hope to achieve is a state of learned ignorance.
“Indeed, we know we are more than just neurons firing, or at least we think we are while the neurons are firing.”
That's as clear an understanding of our consciousness as there may ever be.
Week 6 – Expert Lecture – Gerald Edelman
Gerald Edelman, while very fascinating, lost me almost completely throughout many parts of his lecture. I was able to relate to small bits of information, but as a while his lecture was very technical and very difficult to follow because of it.
One small thing that I appreciated was Mr. Edelman's description of what the mind was like. He said that it is not like a computer, but that it is more (metaphorically speaking) like a jungle. The mind obviously has structure, but it also has enormous variability as the individuality of everyone's brains demonstrates so well. Mr. Edelman gives a wonderful description of the individuality that people poses, even if there are similarities to the structure of these individuals brains.
I also enjoyed his lecture on the Darwin robots. The recreation of various aspects of the mind in these roots was interesting to watch as well as to think about. The robots undertook these tasks on their own and no two robots did these tasks exactly the same, despite being virtually identical in every respect. Mr. Edelman stressed this point with the robot that was searching for the specific spot on the floor. The ability of these robots to play a rudimentary form of soccer was fantastic. Watching the little guy work and “think” about his next move in a physical environment was very impressive.
I also liked Mr. Edelman's description of human perception and memory. If what he understands about the human brain turns out to be true, at least to some degree, then every perception we have is really an active creation and every active memory that we have is really an active imagination. Since every brain appears to interpret stimuli differently these metaphors fit extremely well. Our perceptions create a picture of the world unique to each of us and each of our memories are also uniquely remembered. The mind is really a beautiful thing when thought about in this manner. It creates a sense of wonder and mystery that some feel is exclusive to religion and excluded from science. Science is full of mystery, but no specific example that I have heard has demonstrated this as well as the uniqueness of an individuals mind.
Week 6 – Expert Lecture – Steven Pinker
Steven Pinker is exceptionally gifted at imparting information. The subjects that he is speaking about are relatively complex, but he describes things in an easy to understand manner (at least for the first 45 minutes or so). It made writing about his “expert lecture” both fun and relatively easy.
I liked how Mr. Pinker compared the complexity of human consciousness to that of artificial intelligence. He didn't so much describe similarities between the two as he described the difficulty in acquiring intelligence to begin with. Programing a computer to do even simple tasks is very difficult, yet a four year old can do any of those potential tasks with ease. Walk across the street, pick up a glass, etc. these things are easy for us to emulate, but a computer has a high degree of difficulty realizing these tasks. According to Mr. Pinker, this shows an innate human ability to acquire intelligence. The ease with which we learn and perform tasks is amazing and without some fundamental understanding of how this is possible, trying to artificially emulate intelligence to any great degree will be near impossible. To me, the demonstrates just how truly amazing natural selection really is. The deliberate acquisition of all of our “intelligent” features is somehow easy to understand (their survival value is extraordinary) and yet impossible to imagine.
Mr. Pinker's description of kin relations was also fascinating, as it was something I had really just taken for granted. I care more about my family than the average person. Even though I don't always agree with my family and I may agree completely with some random person, I still care more for my family. The notion that my family shares more of my genetic structure, and thus is cared about by me, is fascinating for both its simplicity and its logical rationality.
I also liked Mr. Pinker's views on morality, that there is some possible underlying logic to it. It would help to explain a global, shared morality that some feel exists. He also explains that moral concepts may exist the same way that math concepts do. It could be argued that we didn't really invent math, we just discovered it. That is explained in the sense that there is a truth to 1+1 equaling 2, we didn't create that to suite us. A moral center in the human brain is also an interesting concept, as it could help to counter the natural cynicism humans poses.
“Philosophy is the study of problems that the human mind is incapable of understanding.” Personally, I found this quite amusing and astonishingly accurate.
Week 6 – Assigned Reading – The Astonishing Hypotheses
The review for The Astonishing Hypothesis was a well written testament to simplicity, and it's by our own glorious professor, no less. It states a simple truth that most people seem too vain and/or egotistical to accept. The truth that most things are as simple and unspectacular as they appear. In this particular article, consciousness is explained in terms of neurons. No soul, no higher purpose, just neurons. And why not? Nothing else we have discovered has ended up being so “important.” Really, it makes all the sense in the world. From the beginning of human existence people have been describing things that they don't know, but that seem important, as somehow more important than they really are. That's not to say that all of these wonderful things in our world aren't amazing, just that they aren't as complicated and mystical as they appear.
Francis Crick seems like a very intelligent man who is firmly grounded in reality. One who understands the importance of material investigation. If it weren't for that lovable little thing called scientific investigation we might all still be praying to sun, just hoping that it will grace us with its presence again tomorrow. It's when we fail to critically examine the universe that we, as self-aware human beings, become truly worth of pity. We are so willing to label something as “special” without even trying to understand why.
Week 6 – Assigned Reading – An Integral Theory of Consciousness
An Integral Theory of Consciousness, by Ken Wilber, is a nice introduction and summation of most, if not all, of the theories and research avenues on consciousness The author begins by pointing out that each of these has something to offer to the study of consciousness This is a good example of the only way to truly study any subject, which is to study it from every possible angle. If you don't study something completely, it's unlikely you will ever understand it. Even if some of the “theories” seem rather preposterous, it is irresponsible to ignore them as they may hold some small nuggets of insight.
I found Wilber's 'four quadrants' of existence to be a rather impressive summation of the many different aspects of life and the universe. It touched upon everything, and when you don't really know where to begin searching for something, as in the case of consciousness, the best place to start would be existence as a whole. This combination of sociological, psychological, and evolutionary concepts is surprisingly congruous, with each area supporting the others. I found the cultural are to be the most interesting, myself, but each holds its own appeal. The general complexity of the structure also suggests that it would be improbable to make any great discovery short of studying the whole system. This highly complex structure, however, is shown to have grown from relatively simple roots; I find that very interesting.
The notion that there could be states of psychological being beyond what we currently posses is interesting. Evolution certainly suggests that life will continue to change and adapt. Wilber's belief that evolution wouldn't come to a halt when it produced our present stage of life is seemingly valid, but it leads me to wonder if he is correct. The same way that it is believed that our development of a “higher” consciousness has removed almost any possibility for another species on our planet to do the same, I wonder if we have hobbled ourselves in a similar way. By being aware of “who” and “what” we are, it might be possible that we have become stuck in our present existence simply by being so completely attached to it. That's just food for thought.
I find Wilber's discontent with empirical science and its study of consciousness somewhat confusing, however. He seems to be criticizing its approach based upon the assumption that subjective experience and cultural meaning can't be analyzed in any sort of empiricist form, but only through our own subjective, “conscious” states. More than anything, he seems to be arguing semantics as the disciplines of psychology and sociology (as well any of the other social sciences) use logic and reason as much as any of the natural sciences. Just because there isn't a number attached to them doesn't mean they are fundamentally different from empiricist science. Now, to say that you can't apply a reductionist approach to the social sciences, which is why empirical scientists will never understand consciousness, is slightly defamatory. Francis Crick may not have understood the necessity of subjective experience, but that does not mean that his understanding of the grand, evolutionary simplicity of the brain, and in effect consciousness, any less important or meaningful. I now find myself arguing semantics, even though I technically agree with Wilber's argument. I just find his viewpoint on empirical science to suggest a double-standard, as he does not point out that social science would seemingly fail in nearly the same regard, or at least be just as incomplete, were their situations reversed.
Week 6 – Assigned Reading – The Problem of Consciousness
John R. Searle's “The Problem of Consciousness” was an intriguing deconstruction of what consciousness really is, how it came about, and how it should be explained. Despite all that I had already learned about the subject of consciousness, I had never really taken the tie to understand what it really is. Deciphering where and how it came to be would be impossible if you didn't even know what it is you are trying to find. According to Mr. Searle, consciousness is a subjective state of awareness. That's may appear somewhat vague, but in actuality it describes a great deal. To have subjective feelings that are independent of your direct attention is a specific phenomenon that can be studied and understood. Mr. Searle's differentiation between consciousness and knowledge, awareness, and self-consciousness is what narrows the field as each of these things can be explained independently of any conscious state. I personally found Mr. Searle's breakdown of what consciousness really “is” to be quite helpful in my understanding of the many subjects in relation to it. It's easy to misconstrue the small, but complex part of ourselves that helps to set us apart from other creatures.
Mr. Searle's section on the relations between consciousness and the brain is the section that I found most fascinating. It points out our understanding of simple processes and how they can create more complex, higher level functions. This is how the brain creates consciousness. Just because we don't know exactly how the brain does this doesn't mean we don't know that it does. This recurring theme of labeling things we don't yet understand as impossible to understand, and further, that they must somehow be metaphysical in nature, is completely ridicules. Science can't give you an answer to something without first studying it. If what you are looking for are quick, often narrow-minded answers to complex problems and questions (that probably have simple solutions) then you should try religion.
I found Searle's description of one particular common mistake in relation to consciousness to be rather pleasing. As opposed to Ken Wilber's “An Integral Theory of Consciousness” which implies that computation and empirical studies are essentially meaningless (especially in relation to consciousness), Searle states that they are merely incomplete. Studies and their corresponding data contain information regardless of their form, but alone they may not mean much; they are not, however, “meaningless.” Wilber appeared to either not understand or to misstate this fact, but Searle states this fact plainly and my appreciation for his work is all the greater for it.
Week 6 – Assigned Reading – Why I don't Eat Faces
It seems to me, after reading Why I Don't Eat Faces, that one of the only truly logical arguments for vegetarianism from a materialistic point of view is that which relates to the central-nervous-system. Or, if you wish to be more precise, the argument of pain. If we feel pain, then so do the rest of the animals who have evolved to the point, or in the direction, of developing a central-nervous-system. Fine, that's fair enough, but if what you take offense to is the pain, then we can by all means remove it; Pain is not mutually inclusive with killing (that might seem odd, but it does happen to be the case). Remove the pain, remove the problem. That sounds oddly similar to a quote I read recently from Joseph Stalin, “Death solves all problems. No man, no problem.” You could take offense to the apparently heartless eye I have cast over this issue or you could understand that I am simply attempting to refute the argument. Devil's advocate, if you will.
One hypothetical situation I find quite amusing is that of the more neurologically advanced species than the human, the “transhuman” of this article. It is commonly used in defense of animals, but seems to work to varying degrees depending on the situation at hand. If we are going to be hypothetical, then why not think of a time in the future where plants have evolved to develop central-nervous-systems and can feel pain just like us? What do we eat then? I understand that the article also pointed out that animals need to eat what they need to eat based upon their circumstances, but the whole point behind making assumptions about our universe is to “know,” in relative terms, that this universe is what it is. We could come up with any number of hypothetical situations, all just as unlikely as the next, but that doesn't make it the truth. If people wish to assume that they are more intelligent than other animals, then maybe they are right? We do have a higher form of thought process known as consciousness; animals don't have this and they are unlikely to ever develop it. Again people, Devil's advocate.
This article also cited the health and economic benefits of a vegetarian diet. I'm not really sure of how this would affect anyone economically for the good or the bad, so I will skip that argument and go right into the one on health. First off, there are no health benefits to a vegetarian diet there are simply health benefits to a balanced and healthy diet. In fact, a true vegetarian diet is very restrictive and the “abundance” of proteins that are said to exist in plant sources is the truth, but from a slightly skewed perspective. Yes, you can get a complete source of protein from plants, but it requires a lot of different plants. If you don't get a complete chain of amino acids to form a complete protein then it is all for not. You don't get anything from a near complete chain of amino acids except a trip to the hospital. And proteins are not the only nutrient lacking from plants, although I explained that before so I'm not going to waste your time again.
Week 7 – Assigned Reading – On the Genealogy of Morals (Prologue & Ch. 1)
Friedrich Nietzsche is a fascinating and intelligent man. His work “On the Genealogy of Morals” makes many wonderful observations about humanity and life. The first thing that I noticed, which doesn't necessarily have to do with the rest of the article as a whole, was his metaphor for philosophy. He describes philosophers and the their ideas as that of a tree bearing fruit. Philosophers are intertwined in the same way that the branches of a tree are, sharing ideas and growing as one. The ideas that they come up with are like the fruit that a tree must inevitably bear. These ideas, like the fruit of a tree, do not need to be liked by the people who experience them, that is not the point of philosophy and is not the concern of philosophers. I found this metaphor to be extremely insightful and the one point that I appreciated the most was that philosophers do not need to concern themselves with whether or not people like what they come up with. Philosophy is not a discipline whose sole purpose is to please people, its purpose is to ponder the meaning of the universe and everything in it (amongst other things).
Nietzsche's prologue as a whole is just as essential as any of the other chapters of this work as it argues why morals must be examined. Just examining the concept of morality arbitrarily has merit, but to understand that morality is a thing not unlike any other part of our universe and should be critically examined as such allows you to see the necessity behind it. Nietzsche devotes just enough time and examination on this simple premise as it is not exactly difficult to understand. Morals have long been taken for granted, as if they are somehow universal truths, but to assume as such is foolhardy. There may be some universal truth to them or they may be faulty human creations, one cannot possibly know except with examination. Nietzsche states it plainly, if this does not make sense to you then it is no fault of his, the blame rests entirely on yourself.
I do believe I have found a new favorite philosopher.
The first chapter of Nietzsche's work begins to break down the genealogy of “good” and “bad.” Nietzsche rejects the answers given by traditional English psychologists and instead looks to those who posses the power. The ruling class of the day were the ones who held influence, and to Nietzsche this meant they were the ones who could determine right from wrong. It would appear, from a sociological point of view, that this correlates well with a conflict theorists perspective. The theory that power relations are the key to society with each group in society striving to maximize its benefits. I must say, this makes more logical and practical sense then the ideas passed by the English philosophers of the day, that actions were praised as good for the group with which they were the most useful. This would make sense given a level playing field, but the skewed importance of groups in society at the time suggests otherwise.
As to the emergence of “evil” (not just “bad,” but “evil”) Nietzsche points to the priestly class, the ones who hold no real power, save for their connection to a “higher” power (and in effect have ultimate power). They were responsible for fundamentally altering the values of society, claiming that the repressed, the lower class, were actually “good” and that those who held influence, the aristocracy, are “evil.” While this might seem like a more sensible view on “good” and “bad/evil” as those who are being repressed must deal with hardships that the ruling class either created or can ignore, the effect is the same as before. Those who hold some form of influence are creating a value judgment to benefit themselves and to disadvantage others.
Week 7 – Assigned Reading – On the Genealogy of Morals (Ch. 2 & 3)
The second chapter of Nietzsche's “On the Genealogy of Morals” is just as insightful as the first. It begins with the development of the conscience, or at least a trait that was labeled a conscience. According to Nietzsche, it began with freedom of will, the ability to make a promise and to keep it, a so called “sovereign.” These men were able to do things that others could not and as such they held certain values, looking out for themselves and others like them (other sovereigns). They would punish those who lied, who did not have a freedom of will. This responsibility that they possessed would be called a conscience.
I must say, I find this a rather remarkable depiction of the development of consciousness in humanity. The responsibility that people now possessed would have been great indeed and what they did with it, how they felt about it, would have shaped who they were. It has been said that a conscience is a moral compass and this description by Nietzsche is very accurate in that respect. It shows a development of personal values, of a creation of a personal morality, this sense of “right” and “wrong” that people seem to feel regardless of who they are. Of course, being personal, this feeling is not universally the same, it is shaped by society.
I also found Nietzsche's rationale for the development of “right” and “wrong” in society to be rather fascinating, if somewhat simple. As Nietzsche puts it, memories are formed through pain, the more painful the more everlasting the memory. Through years of painful human punishments we eventually learned several “I will not's” that guide us to more moral ventures in punishment.
Nietzsche's final chapter deals more with a personal morality, or more accurately what it means to do “good” or to do “bad.” Both, according to Nietzsche, appear to have the same ultimate affect upon you. If you feel some action is wrong it brings with it a dissatisfaction. This is only natural, but the opposite is also true. If you feel that some action is right it brings with it a hollowness that demands to be filled with more “good” actions. It's a cycle of unhappiness. Cited in the chapter is Buddhism, and this principle comes directly from this, to want is to be eternally unhappy. To disassociate from every desire is the only way to achieve a higher form of happiness.
Week 7 – Expert Lecture – Why Turn Vegetarian?
The little video entitled Why Turn Vegetarian? is the first thing in this class (lecture, reading, or short film) that has more fallacious arguments, or at least half-truths, then it does actual sound arguments. A significant portion of the arguments given are not mutually inclusive with eating meat (I'm not sure I worded this sentence properly so I will explain further). The very first argument is that heart disease begins in childhood and the second argument is that a vegetarian diet reverses heart disease. To begin with, it isn't clear whether the composers of this film intended this to mean that meat causes heart disease or that any cause of heart disease, genetic or otherwise, begins in childhood. Meat does not cause heart disease by itself (but obviously too much of anything is unhealthy) and if someone is predisposed to to a condition like heart disease, simply not eating meat is not a cure-all.
The third argument is an outright fallacy. To proclaim that meat makes you fat is not taking into consideration any other factors (exercise, total diet, body type). I eat meat, I eat a lot of meat, but I am by no means “fat.” Obviously, citing my condition alone presents a certain bias, but speaking from a nutritional point of view it is completely accurate. Meat does not make you fat, it just has a high fat content. Saturated fat is another thing entirely (it equates more towards their first two arguments), but when a modest amount of saturated fat is eaten as part of a balanced diet it presents virtually no risk.
The “arguments” continue in this fashion with only a select few of them actually being representative of PETA's intended theme. The only true, sound arguments are those that cite the condition of the animals themselves and the requirements to actually raise these animals. I do not mean the way that they are treated, as any inhuman treatment of these animals is not required to produce the meat (except for the actual killing itself), but the emotions of the animals themselves. Fear is a very real thing and it is obvious that these animals experience it. And any nutrients that these animals require could be used to feed the starving people of the world.
Despite all of these arguments against eating meat, there are quite a few in favor of it. First, we, as omnivorous creatures, are designed to eat meat as well as vegetables, fruits, grains, etc. Second, other animals eat meat, only meat, and do it on a regular basis. If we are to be equated to animals then we both need to be held to the same standards; they eat meat, so we eat meat. Third, meat has many beneficial properties that are very difficult, near impossible in fact, to get from only plants and other grown substances. There are certain fatty acids and one B vitamin in particular that do not occur with enough regularity (if at all) outside of meat, especially if ALL people were to become vegetarians. And finally, I think meat tastes great.
Week 7 – Philosophy Film – Flam On
FLAME ON!!! This movie is terrific, one of the best short films I've viewed for this class, as it has the distinction of being multi-layered. Several films for this class are sophisticated in this manner, but few, if any, of them were this immediately relevant. Ignorance fueled homophobia has been a concern in recent years and this film sheds a nice light on the subjects of this misguided hostility. The true beauty of this film, however, lies within its deeper meaning. Homosexuality appears to be used to demonstrate that certain traits which are considered less than glamorous in one time are considered perfectly normal in another. It's that kind of depth and complexity that makes this class so interesting.
This film explains how many historically important people were homosexual. It wasn't, however, their homosexuality which made them important (Marcel Proust is the exception, of course). These are completely normal individuals who made important contributions to society, but in most cases were subjected to extreme forms of prejudice due to their sexual preference. To me, this is one of most sickening aspects of our history (prejudice, not homosexuality), and it is made all the worse knowing that it still exists in full swing.
When looked at from a naive point point of view, this film is saying that you should be gay as you will be more intelligent for it. That isn't such a bad way of looking at it; if taken metaphorically, being gay could signify that one aspect of yourself which is considered in society as your “worst” quality. Since we don't really know what our “best” or “worst” quality is then having this particular quality doesn't matter one bit and one day we may even be considered all the greater for it. You can't change who you are (well...I suppose in some cases you can), and in all honesty you really shouldn't want to.
This is the first film that made me think outright of how little I care to question the superficial aspects of society. We all like what we like, end of story.
Week 7 – Assigned Reading – Peace, Non-violence, and Conflict Resolution
Peace, Non-violence, and Conflict Resolution. Three things that many people claim they strive for yet approach in vastly different ways and with different attitudes. Gandhi's principal of non-violence, or ahimsa, does have the distinction of being one of the few success stories, however. I couldn't say why this is the case though as there have been many instances of non-violent rebellion that have ended in tragedy. There have also been cases of violent rebellion that have ended in, relatively speaking, a peaceful resolution (America is the perfect example).
I do have a great deal of respect for Gandhi's approach though. It is very practical as you don't need to teach people how not to fight, they already know how to do that. That isn't to say that people “wont” fight, just that anyone can “not” fight. Does that make sense? I hope so. It is also non-hypocritical. No one can say that you aren't practicing what you preach. That gives a great deal of credibility to it.
I also like Gandhi's understanding of his own philosophy. Ahimsa isn't a personal approach to life or salvation, it is meant for society. Unless everyone partakes in the crusade then little good will come of it. This is true of most social upheavals and non-violence is no different. It is something that would be more difficult to spread outside of actual instruction though. It is easy to raise your fists when someone does the same, but how do you spread an approach of non-violence? If one person simply refuses to fight then they could be labeled a coward, idiot, etc. To spread something of this nature requires a great deal of diligence and that as well makes it more credible.
Week 7 – Philosophy Film – Myth of Eternal Recurrence
The Myth of Eternal Recurrence is a simple little video. I say simple simply because its only purpose is to propose a hypothetical situation. How you feel about that situation, though, should reveal something about yourself. This films principal quality lies in its ability to demonstrate how each of us views our own lives. Personal opinion can be a thing of beauty, especially when people don't confuse their opinions with facts. I suppose one of the other things that this film demonstrates so well is that regardless of how you truly feel about this idea of eternal recurrence the truth is that it doesn't matter. Any such notion of unprovable faith doesn't change the ultimate truth of the universe (whatever it happens to be), all it serves to do is show how you view life. Maybe that's why it's called a myth, because the only truth it possess is personal.
As for myself, I'm not too sure of how I would feel about my own eternally recurring life. I suppose I wouldn't care. If I had to live my life again and again exactly as it was then I wouldn't even be aware that any of these other lifetimes existed. You couldn't be aware of them, or these lifetimes wouldn't be the same. Unless we are lives are all biologically determined and our thoughts on any particular situation don't mean a thing. Maybe this question is more complex than I had originally given it credit for. Either way though, one life is all anyone would be stuck with. It still forces you to make the correct decisions here and now; living it all again isn't the same thing as a do-over.
“You are a God and never did I hear anything more divine.”
That is probably my favorite line from this short film. It shows the power that a few words of knowledge can give to an individual. It demonstrates well the concept that to know God's will is to become God himself. The ultimate truth is the only thing that really matters, the rest is just “dust of dust.”
Week 7 – Expert Lecture – Sam Harris
Sam Harris is quite a likable guy. According to him though, about 44% of you likely wont think so. Personally, I find him to be a logical guy with a firm grasp on reality. His speech was engaging and above all his subject matter is very relevant.
The percentages that Mr. Harris quoted are staggering. 22% of the population believes that Jesus will come back and “save” us in the next 50 years. Wow. I try no to judge too harshly when it comes to perceptions, but that is completely ridicules. That's not even considering the other 22% who think that Jesus is “likely” to return within the next 50 years. 44%? Even if that number is inflated it's scary to think about. It reminds me of another number that Richard Dawkins quoted in a video of his that I viewed a while back, that (if I remember this percentage correctly) about 50% of the population in America (or maybe it's the world?) believes that the earth is only 10,000 years old. These are scary, irrational beliefs that people have.
It never even occurred to me that these are the same people who run our country. Whether they only vote or they are elected to office, it makes no difference. How can someone possibly be trusted to make a rational decision when they hold beliefs of this sort? Admittedly, in America it rarely, if ever, comes to any form of extremism, but in recent years it seems to be heading in that direction.
I found Sam Harris's comments on the “common sense” judges who were appointed because of their “realization” (not belief, but realization) that our rights are derived from God to be very astute. This made me think of Scientology. I find it absolutely stupid that someone would criticize the beliefs of a Scientologist while they themselves believed in God, or any metaphysical religious ideas for that matter. This assumption that somehow your unproven beliefs are more valid than someone else's unproven beliefs is both insulting and ignorant (I only picked Scientology because I recently watched a biography on John Travolta). If your going to criticize someone else's beliefs you better think long and hard about the beliefs you personally hold, chances are they make equally as little sense.
“I don't like the idea of living in a world that doesn't have a refrigerator sized diamond in my backyard.”
I never realized just how funny that justification is for a belief in God.
When Mr. Harris spoke about respecting peoples beliefs, it made me think about the general idea of tolerance, especially religious tolerance. That word, tolerance, is exactly the right word for the action is specifies. We don't usually “respect” people's beliefs we merely put up with them, we “tolerate” them.
Week 8 – Assigned Reading – A Free Man's Worship
Bertrand Russell's “A Free Man's Worship” is a brilliant piece of literary non-fiction. I dare say it is the single greatest piece of non-fiction I have ever had the pleasure of experiencing. Full of metaphor and simile, it is every bit as creative as the creativity it worships. Bertrand Russell has always been one of my favorite philosophers, but I now see him as peerless in literary prowess. His ability to evoke imagery more powerful than all the great religious works of the world is simply magical. I loved “A Free Man's Worship,” I hope it strikes all of you with the same force that it has struck me.
Bertrand Russell's devotion to human creativity, knowledge, wisdom, and thought are as strong as any individual's devotion to their faith. His scathing rebuke of man's creation of God is evident in full force throughout this piece. The simple mindedness with which humanity created something so omnipotent, so everlasting, and so intolerable as God is at the very core of the evil in the world. It takes a small man to create something from which he can not escape. Man created God to give meaning to the world, and so long as this creation stands man will forever be unable to escape the eternity of pain with which it brings. To subject oneself to the torment of artificial imprisonment is not a sign of fortitude, but a sign of weakness. The beauty that is created through philosophy and art shall forever be a testament to what humanity is capable of when it frees itself from the shackles of omnipotence.
I find that Russell's use of language brings exactly the kind of beauty to science and philosophy that is thought to be missing from them. Science answers the unexplained and philosophy ponders the unexplainable, but without literary sophistication they can be colorless and bland. His weaving of words is a mastery of the very thing that he implores people to develop and manipulate, that beautiful thing know as creativity. It is the sign of true freedom. The essence of it can be felt everywhere, for it is truly everlasting.
Week 8 – Philosophy Film – Digital Baba
Digital Baba is probably one of my least favorite short films. That's not to say that it's bad, but that it's a bit to obscure for its own good. It took me two viewings before I had any idea of what information was trying to be imparted. But, after that second viewing, I think I have some idea. To begin with, that fellow at the beginning of the film presents an argument that I've heard before and I actually find it to be rather clever. “God is pure energy and that is why scientists say that energy cannot be created or destroyed.” I give this argument a special kind of credit because it happens to include science in its reasoning. The logic behind it is crude, however, and the science really isn't implemented to all that great effect.
The one point that I see being made in this film is that a guru is, more or less, an unnecessary part of life. People cite gurus as giving them strength and hope, but the ones really responsible for that are themselves. People tend to not give themselves enough credit for their own actions. I found that that one line the movie presented demonstrates this pretty well: “The Guru's Ultimate Miracle----pulling dried and burnt cow shit from a jar.” The only thing they do for you is confirm what you already want to believe. You don't need a guru to believe in yourself, others, or God. It all amounts to that old adage, “they merely open the door for you, you are the one who has to walk through it.”
Week 8 – Philosophy Film – The Zahir
The Zahir is one of those short films that appears to have a double meaning, or at least two meanings that are different, but very closely linked. This coin, the Zahir, has the power to mesmerize. It enchants those who think about it, affording them sleepless nights and wasted days. The obvious meaning to this is that people give too much credence to money. It's value is artificial, but it is taken as truth. This gives the Zahir power. This power is no more real than the value that is ascribed to it, but it is granted power nonetheless because of human greed and vanity.
The second meaning to this film is more religious in nature. It is said that a particular group of people repeat their own name and the ninety-nine names of God until those names are meaningless. This action is desired to be used upon the Zahir, in hopes that it will eventually become meaningless as well. It is hypothesized that the power behind the Zahir is that of God. This likens to the belief that some people hold about money, that money is God. The power it possesses is great amongst people, equal to that of God, or so some believe. It could also be reasoned that the value people give to money is the same thing as the value they give to religion. If money is artificially given value by people, then perhaps they have done the same thing with religion.
Week 8 – Assigned Reading – Nicholas of Cusa
Nicholas of Cusa appears to be a very wise man. His notion of learned ignorance hearkens back to the initial weeks of this class. Everything we attempt to understand we relate to something we already understand. Therefore, We cannot possibly understand the infinite as there is nothing to compare it to. This infinite, which Nicholas of Cusa calls the Maximum, is forever greater than anything quantifiable that we perceive as being the “maximum.” If we can quantify it then we can always find something that is greater.
Nicholas of Cusa's labeling of God and Jesus as forms of the Maximum is interesting. As they are unrelated in human terms they are beyond our understanding. They are the maximum for there is nothing about them that can be quantified. All of human understanding about them is incomplete for we can not possibly know them.
I also found his understanding of Minimum in relation to Maximum to be intriguing. Since Maximum is limitless, it is the infinite, then it includes the Minimum. The Minimum, being limitless itself, includes the maximum. If the labels of most and least are disassociated from these labels then it will make more sense. The Maximum and the Minimum are one in the same as they are both everything and nothing. Any understanding of these truths will be incomplete as we deal in terms of quantity. Without quantity, without relation, we cannot understand them.
I find the comparison of the infinite to that of circle to be very astute. The circle begins where it ends and there is no point that is understandable beyond any other. The beginning and ending are incomprehensible to us and as such our understanding of the nature of circle is incomplete. Is it a line without any angles? Or, is it a line with an infinite number of angles? This inability to determine the nature of something so simple makes it both simple and complex, just like the Minimum and the Maximum.
This concept is both easy to comprehend and eternally incomprehensible. I suppose you could say that it is the ultimate paradox. The only thing that we know is that we do not know.
Week 8 – Philosophy Film – Inner Visions and Running Trains
The short film “Inner Visions and Running Trains” is about our lack of understanding of anything beyond our physical realm. We just don't know what happens after death or what there is beyond our universe. This is an important concept to understand. Regardless of what people claim they know, or of what they put their faith in, the truth of the matter is that they know nothing. People have a tendency to misconstrue illusion with truth, of fiction with fact. People want there to be something more than what they can see, but wishing for it to be true is not going to change the truth of the matter. There either is more or there isn't and no one knows for sure.
“Who knows what may happen to me at the time of death? I may enter the state of unconsciousness, enter the state of dreams and see railway trains. . . How can I make a claim about my attainment of the Ultimate? The truth is that I know nothing.”
A very wise quote from a very wise man. He doesn't claim to know anything which is what makes him truly wise. Despite his apparent divine message on the battlefield, Baba Faqir Chand still questioned the “truth” of these metaphysical appearances. When others had witnessed a divine message that had apparently been delivered by him he knew that it must have been a mistake. He had not delivered any spiritual message, so the truth of the whole matter was still a mystery. To Baba Faqir Chand, God is only what any person makes of him. That's a wise way of looking at things, indeed. He was a guru's guru, a man who deconstructs the illusions brought about by those who believe they know the truth.
Week 8 – Expert Lecture – Daniel Dennett
Daniel Dennett appears to be a jolly, old fellow. And, judging by the way he communicates, that stereotype fits pretty well. It doesn't hurt that his views on science and religion are fairly close to my own (with a few exceptions that are almost exclusively on the science side). All in all, he was a very enjoyable speaker.
I liked the term “bright,” or at least I like what it stands for (the word itself is a bit odd). Brights are people who reject supernatural explanations. It's been a fairly common practice throughout history to explain something you don't understand as supernatural, or beyond human understanding. This is pointless. Virtually every “unexplainable” phenomenon from the past has been explained away in purely scientific terms, and the rest we are making great strides in. I can relate to people's desire to understand the universe, but creating illusions for yourself isn't helping anybody (unless you like to lie to yourself).
Listening to the commentary in this lecture on evolution and natural selection made me realize something, it deals with the desire to understand as well. What I realized is that I'm glad we have at least some scientific understanding of the world. I realized over the past few years (I'm only 20 years old) that you don't need religion to accept life and our place in it. All of these conflicting and contrasting metaphysical “answers” were out there and I could reject them. I didn't need them, but for years I thought that I did. Science made that a great deal easier. To know that there was a practical understanding of the world out there that I could accept with as much passion as any religion was a really big development for me. The whole point of all of this is that without something real to latch onto in the world, like science, I would have been stuck believing in some religion or another. Not that being an atheist or an agnostic wouldn't have been an option (well...if circumstances in history had been different then they might not have been), they just wouldn't have amounted to much. In other words, believing in absolutely nothing would have been just as fruitless as believing in some false purpose.
Science gives people practical answers they can accept. I think it was Richard Feynman who said, “I'd rather believe what I know than think think I know what I believe.” That quote sums up my entire philosophy on the universe and I thank “God” that science allows me to do that.
Daniel Dennett's views on consciousness are where we tend to differ. I find his hypothesis to be a valid one, but incomplete. This notion of competing ideas with the idea that wins-out being conscious is plausible, but alone it seems to lack context. For instance, it appears to have little structure, something which our consciousness obviously does have. Anyway, Robert Wright (the interviewer) is very correct in saying that something as yet undefined is difficult to understand or communicate (although he didn't say it in so many words). When you can't even define what something “is” it's difficult to understand varying explanations about it.
In other words, “how do you defend an indefensible position?” I don't have an answer to that, but it was sure fun trying.
Week 8 – Expert Lecture – Ramana Maharshi
The “lecture,” or what would more accurately be called a story, of Ramana Maharshi's life was an interesting one, if somewhat boringly delivered. Besides the story of his life, one of the real draws for me was the setting. The scenery of the Indian villages, temples, etc. can be beautiful and breathtaking. I've always found the differences between Western and Eastern cultures to be intriguing. This film was a nice showcase of much of what is different about some of these Eastern cultures.
The developing years of Ramana Maharshi's life seem pretty typical of a child trying to find his or her identity. It can be surprising to think that well respected people often grew up under the same circumstances as you or I. I found it especially amusing how much “spiritual enlightenment” appears to parallel “shirking responsibilities.” Ramana Maharshi's fascination with discovering what it is like after death also seemed appropriate for someone in his stage of development. All in all, his formative years actually seemed pretty routine, at least from a Westerner's perspective.
I found the approach that people took to Ramana Maharshi's existence to be intriguing. The man had literally done “nothing” for years, he merely contemplated his own existence and gave some written instructions to his followers. Yet, despite his lack of involvement in people's lives, they worshiped him. It would appear that people can be just as intrigued by the unknown as they can be afraid of it. Let them come to you and make up their own minds about the meaning of your actions, or lack thereof. The devotion that someone has towards the “answer” to life can be a powerful thing. This reminds me of the movie “Forrest Gump.” When he was running back and forth across America and people followed him, despite not having a clue as to the purpose behind it all. They made their own purpose, but when he stopped running they were lost, or purposeless once again.
It was in the Maharshi's later years that he became more relatable. He was a fair and practical man, both very inspiring qualities. He also interacted with the world; it was mentioned that he read the newspaper. To me, this aspect of the Maharshi was most commendable. He looked at the world with no prejudices and accepted everyone while still learning about the world himself.
This is the first piece of material that made me realize just how similar religion and philosophy actually are. They both strive to understand the world and give meaning and purpose to it. Philosophy doesn't accept or create illusions, however, it tries to deconstruct them. In that they will forever be different, while remaining eternally linked.
Philosophy is religion without the spirituality.
End of class postings
Steven Pinker believes that evolution is important in understanding human behavior because it shows how and why human characteristics developed the way that they have. The brain is the most important attribute of human physiology that Steven Pinker is interested in and understanding evolution can help to demonstrate why the brain developed the way that it has instead of the countless other ways that it could have developed. The purpose of most aspects of the human mind and its various input extremities are taken for granted in cognitive science. These things, such as stereo vision, developed for their usefulness; the purpose of most of these human features is usually quite obvious. For instance, stereo vision prevents people from walking into things or off of high surfaces.
In the case of human behavior, the usefulness of certain human traits is not so clear, but asking why they developed is as much a part of evolution as any physical part of the human body. Evolution does not need to explain, or perhaps cannot explain, every aspect of the human mind and human behavior. One specific example that Mr. Pinker gives is that of dreams. Dreams may not have any adaptive function at all, they could just be, as he puts it, a “screen saver” for the mind. Understanding evolution in relation to human behavior will either confirm or deny this. Evolution explains things in terms of their adaptive functionality, their survival value, but that does not mean that absolutely everything adapted for a specific purpose, it may have been a byproduct of some other feature. Without looking at evolution to study human behavior, however, one will not know either way.
Evolution can also help to explain behavior through the adaptive functionality of certain genes in our genetic code. That does not mean that our genetic code determines exactly what kind of behavior we will end up with, otherwise known as determinism, because intelligent beings require the input of environmental information in order to stay intelligent. An evolutionary understanding of our genetic code can, however, determine the value of certain human behaviors as our behavior is obviously influenced to some extent by our genes. They, genes, are the basis for most all human characteristics and traits, and behavior is no exception. Furthermore, evolution, in relation to human behavior, can help to find universal human nature, not simply the affect that genes have on human behavior.
The theory of evolution is helpful for doing philosophy for much the same reason that it is helpful in understanding human behavior. Evolution allows people to understand why and how they ended up the way that they have. To know where something comes from can allow you to understand its purpose, its reason for being, to some extent. That isn't to say that understanding evolution will allow you to understand the meaning of life and the universe, but it will allow you to understand where it comes from. Simply put, without knowing where something comes from it will be virtually impossible to know where it will end up.
Evolution also brings with it certain logical and scientific explanations about the universe. These logical starting points for study help to eliminate any metaphysical illusions, or any incomprehensible mysticism from the universe. That isn't to say that the study of the metaphysical is beyond the realm of philosophy, but to assume that there are no logical, falsifiable answers to the universe removes any reason to study it to begin with. The theory of evolution gives science and philosophy something to work with, something quantifiable. It gives philosophy the tools to understand more about life and the universe.
Francis Crick does not believe in a soul because science has given no reason to suggest this. According to Mr. Crick, “the soul,” as our consciousness is often perceived, is nothing more than a complex network of neurons. He believes that we have fooled ourselves, as we often do, into believing that we are more than we truly are. Science has explained everything that we once perceived as too important, too complex to have a physical explanation, and our consciousness should be no different. This reductionist thinking is what led to many great discoveries, including that of the double helix in the structure of DNA. To assume arbitrarily that something is too complex to have developed naturally, is to ignore the very fundamentals of science.
Francis Crick does not claim to have the final answer in relation to our consciousness. What he does give, however, is a starting point. To look at the mind as a series of neurons, requires that you actually study the mind. To look at it as some form of metaphysical miracle that is incomprehensible to humanity gives you nothing. Mr. Crick could potentially end up being wrong in his basic assessment of the mind, but by fashioning an argument that requires actual study its secrets will eventually be unlocked. Consciousness, according to Mr. Crick, is just another product of its environment, despite however complex it happens to be; there is nothing to suggest that the mind is anything more than this. In fact, if science has taught us anything about complex structures, our experience should suggest that the mind really is no more incomprehensible or metaphysical than anything else in the universe.
There are a couple of major issues brought up within a neuro-ethical argument for vegetarianism. To begin with, the article states one of the principal evolutionary arguments, the development of the nervous system. This is perhaps the single most logical argument in favor of vegetarianism in existence. The argument is that animals, due to their nervous systems, feel pain in exactly the same way that humans do. People don't eat other people because we know that there is pain and suffering involved. There are obviously other reasons that people don't each other, but that reason alone suffices for the sake of the argument. People eat animals because they either can't or don't relate to this feeling of pain that the animals are experiencing. Plants, it is reasoned, do not experience pain and thus are more suitable for eating. There are concessions made in that people with specific circumstances would and should be allowed to eat meat if it is necessary.
I find this to be the single most convincing argument in favor of vegetarianism as it is logical and reasonable. It takes into account the legitimate experiences that these animals encounter. This is its greatest strength and also its greatest weakness. If subjective experience, in this case the feeling of pain, is the sole support of this argument then that can be remedied by simply removing the pain. The lives of these animals do not have to be painful experiences and neither do their deaths as pain is not mutually inclusive with either the raising or the killing of them.
A second point that is brought up in this article is that of a purely emotional variety. The feeling of attachment that we have for the members of our families are very real to us. The same can be said of pets in that we care for them far greater than we do for other animals. Just because we name a pet does not mean it is any different from any other animal, we just think that this particular animal is more “special.” We would be devastated if one of our family members or pets were killed or taken away, so we should feel no differently about other animals. Our convoluted logic on this matter is what blinds us to the experiences of these other creatures. We don't care if someone eats a piece of fruit. We don't even care if someone eats a wild animal. But we would care if someone were to eat the pet dog and we would care a great deal more is someone were to eat a member of our own family.
This argument, which involves the personal feeling of attachment, is also rather effective. It does a good job of demonstrating exactly how we see our families and, more specifically, our pets as opposed to other animals. If we feel this sense of attachment to something that is close to us, or something we have given a name, then it makes little sense to disregard other creatures. There are weaknesses to this argument, however. To begin with, it is almost purely qualitative as it is based on emotion, and thus it lacks a significant amount of logic or any quantifiable aspect. It also tends to misconstrue this sense of attachment that people have with their kin and their pets as a form of callousness towards other animals. People are attached to certain creatures because they have spent time with them. The longer the amount of time, the greater the emotional attachment. This isn't people intentionally being callous, it is just another natural aspect of humanity. Should we, with our higher thought processes, be able to look beyond this aspect of humanity? That is a debatable point of a somewhat unrelated subject. This rebuttal to the original argument appears to be mostly qualitative, but that is usually the case when the original argument is as well.
John Searle and Ken Wilber have several differences in their views upon how consciousness should be studied and understood. To begin with, both men see consciousness as a complex product of evolution. Both of them also believe that consciousness is more or less irreducible, or that it needs to be studied as a whole, as it apparently can't be broken down into simpler parts or looked at from a less complex point of view. Ken Wilber is completely convinced of this fact, but John Searle is slightly more lenient. The one major difference in their views is how a theory of consciousness should be developed. Ken Wilber sees the path that consciousness developed over as part of what he calls a “four quadrant” model. Each quadrant represents one area of life and is laid out in steps. Each step coincides with the development of one aspect of consciousness that is shared between each quadrant. Ken Wilber sees this as the minimally sophisticated way that consciousness can be studied.
John Searle sees a theory of consciousness as being constructed from the relationship between the mind and the body. Consciousness, as John Seare sees it, is brought about by lower level nurobiological processes in the brain, but is itself a higher level feature of the brain. John Searle describes various features of consciousness, but unlike Ken Wilber, does not see them as developing in any particular fashion or order, dependently or independently of any other part of consciousness. John Searle also sees consciousness as something that can eventually be completely understood through scientific inquiry. Ken Wilber sees science alone as inadequate to understand consciousness; he feels that in order to understand the different “levels,” or states, of consciousness one must change their own level of consciousness.
Overall, I find John Searle's views more persuasive than Ken Wilber's. John Searle takes a rational approach to the understanding of consciousness because a scientifically rational approach has yet to fail in its understanding of anything. While I can appreciate Ken Wilber's views on the different levels and quadrants of consciousness, they do line up very well from a developmental standpoint, his approach seems somewhat convoluted and unnecessary. Just because we have yet to truly understand consciousness from a strictly scientific approach does not mean that we wont be able to. I do value Ken Wilber's decision to include all of the areas of psychological research on this subject. This isn't something that John Searle dismissed, but he didn't mention anything about it either. When you don't yet understand something, there is no harm in looking at it from every point of view. Ken Wilber's strict all quadrant, all level approach, however, includes too many unnecessary variables for me to completely agree with it.
The theme behind the little movie A Glorious Piece of Meat was that of consciousness and what actually creates it. The movie claims that consciousness is just a complex network of neurons located in the brain and that any idea of a soul, or some form of higher being, that we may posses is non-existent. The movie justifies this claim by pointing out that people have very little control over their own bodily processes, in fact the “I” does very little in day to day life; for instance, people don't consciously digest their own food or beat their own hearts, our bodies do those things for us. The movie also justifies this by asking the question of which came first, the neuron or consciousness. The two are obviously linked as a persons consciousness ceases to exist when they “are clubbed over the head with a bat.” Also, any ideas about neurons, as well as any other ideas that we have, need to pass through our consciousness in order to be aware of them.
A religious person would argue against the notion that the soul does not exist and that what we perceive as the soul is only a complex network of neurons by claiming that the soul is a separate entity entirely from our physical bodies. A soul is inside all of us, but it is not tied to our physical selves. It would be argued that the soul is the final ingredient to making us truly human. It gives us our morality, our purpose, and our awareness of our own existence and our own mortality. It might even be argued that the soul and our consciousness are two completely separate things. One could be argued as giving us our self-reflective awareness, our consciousness, and the other of allowing us to be aware in the first place, our soul.
Sam Harris is so critical of religion because it tends to defy logic and that is becoming a major concern in America, as it is in the rest of the world. He states that twenty two percent of the population in America is certain that Jesus will return within the next fifty years to “save” us. He then states that an additional twenty two percent believe that Jesus will likely return within the next fifty years to “save” us. These are the types of beliefs that people who vote have; these are they types of beliefs that people running for public office have. That is forty-four percent of the American public that Sam Harris sees as being irrational and illogical.
Sam Harris has several arguments to support this, but two of which I found to be particularly strong, common sense arguments. The first argument is that religious beliefs can twist and falsify morality. A specific example that he gave was that of the Catholic church believing that condom use is sinful. According to Sam Harris, religious doctrine is meant to separate questions of morality from actual human suffering. In this particular case there is no discernible human suffering, yet condom use is considered sinful. From a practical perspective, there are millions of people dying every year in Africa from AIDS. In the villages of Africa, Catholic ministers are preaching that condom use is sinful and yet the only information that the African people have on the subject comes from these Catholic ministers. Another specific example Sam Harris gives is that of college educated people in America resisting stem-cell research. This is likely one of the most promising avenues in medicine, but it is being impeded by, as Sam Harris puts it, “this medieval notion” that at the moment of conception the soul enters the zygote. It is because of this that the belief persists that stem cells in a petri dish need to be treated with the same moral values as any human being; that the moral concerns of these cells trump those of someone suffering from a debilitating disease.
I personally find Sam Harris's argument for this twisted sense of morality to be extremely valid.
The principal idea behind morality is to ease human suffering. In theses two examples Sam Harris gave, the exact opposite is happening. Easing human suffering is a rational goal, but to hold certain beliefs that impede the practical application of such a goal is contradictory. The idea that the soul enters the human body at one particular point in time is completely unjustifiable. The idea that human beings even have a soul is unjustifiable. To let this “medieval notion” stand in the way of an actual relief to human suffering is absurd.
Sam Harris's second argument is that of the misguided path of religious moderation. He feels that it helps protect religious fundamentalism because one of the guiding principals of religious moderation is political correctness where everyone can believe whatever they want and those beliefs are private. Religious moderation prevents people from criticizing and speaking out about other potentially dangerous beliefs, while religious fundamentalists are free to criticize everyones beliefs. Sam Harris also claims religious moderation is “intellectually bankrupt.” It requires people to respect each others beliefs, but that principal only applies to religion. People aren't required to respect each others beliefs about history or science, only religion. Sam Harris states that we analyze people's reasons for believing something and, if the reasons are valid enough, people are free to think in the same way. A specific example that Sam Harris gave is that of a giant diamond that he “believed” was buried in his back yard. The reasons that religious people give to support their beliefs don't make any logical sense when applied to any other mundane thing like this. Reasons like “this belief gives my life a lot of meaning” or “I wouldn't want to live in a universe where there isn't a giant diamond buried in my back yard” appear completely illogical and inadequate when looked at from this perspective. Sam Harris also claims that religious moderation is “theologically bankrupt.” He feels that once people dignify the claim that religious texts are the greatest moral guides that we have then we are slaves to their content. If read closely and accurately, portions of the Bible state that God hates homosexuals, as well as other seemingly immoral ideas. Sam Harris claims that people who committed certain atrocities in history likely read these religious texts in order to justify their behavior. People today may look back at history and think that these societies were comprised of lunatics, but this behavior was completely reasonable given what was believed at the time.
I also find this argument by Sam Harris to be completely valid. Religious moderation might appear to make sense on a personal level, but there is no logic to it. Without the ability to vocally justify your beliefs or critique others, any number of things can happen and have happened throughout the ages. A religious justification for your actions is also completely irrational as these texts can be contradictory in their moral purpose. Finally, perhaps my greatest appreciation for his argument is that religious moderation is “intellectually bankrupt.” The justifications that people do have for their beliefs appear completely inept when applied to any other situation.
Nietzsche's genealogy of morals is a simple breakdown of the violence and repression that led to a sense of morality. He began by rejecting the simple answers that were given by the English psychologists of the day as they neglected the societal makeup of history. These English psychologists saw morality, or the value judgments of “good” and “bad,” arising from groups in society labeling things that were beneficial to themselves as “good” and those things which were not as “bad.” Nietzsche brought the societal implications of power into the equation as well, supplementing, but still fundamentally altering the English psychologists answers as to the rise of morality. Nietzsche saw the ruling class, or those who held influence, as the ones who could arbitrarily place a value judgment upon something, usually judging their actions as good and others as bad. This would increase their power and influence and simultaneously decrease the influence of all others. Nietzsche gives many examples of this, but perhaps the best and most immediate to our lives in America is that of race. The dominant and so-called “superior” race of light skinned people would judge themselves as “good,” “noble,” and “pure” while labeling those with dark skin as entirely the opposite.
Nietzsche saw the moral judgment of “evil” as arising from the priestly class. As they had no formal power they relied upon the influence of divinity that they possessed, which was and still is an extremely powerful force. They, the priestly class, fundamentally altered the values of society by labeling the actions of the aristocracy as “evil” and those of the lower class as “good.” The lower class lived in a world of repression and pestilence that was created and then ignored by the upper, ruling class. These new moral judgments were brought about in much the same way as the previous ones. The main thread running through them is that they benefit the ones who make them, who already hold a position of influence, and they disadvantage others. Those are the two major distinctions between Nietzsche's genealogy of morals and those of the English psychologists of the time as Nietzsche's genealogy included influence and power as the source of moral judgments.
Nietzsche also described a personal morality, a conscience, that developed amongst humanity. Those who possessed a freedom of will, the ability to follow one's intentions, one's promises, with action, developed a sense of responsibility. The purpose of this responsibility, to look out for oneself and others who developed this higher consciousness, allowed people to punish those who were unable, or perhaps unwilling, to follow through with their promises. According to Nietzsche, it was through years of violent human punishment that eventually led to the idea of what he called the “I will not's,” or the basis for the human conscience. These deeply imprinted memories of things that should not be done brought people to “reason” and allowed society to flourish. As Nietzsche puts it, “blood and horror is the basis for all good things.”
Gandhi believes in ahimsa because he sees it as the only way to unite people and allow them to live their lives peacefully. Ahimsa is a philosophy of non-violence that is meant to be practiced by more than the individual. To practice it alone for some form of personal salvation, according to Gandhi, is of little use to the world. It is meant to be practiced by society as that is the only way in which it can spread and affect anyone. Gandhi sees the use of violence in order to create peace as impossible, violence only creates more violence. Non-violent, peaceful actions are the only ones that can lead to any desirable outcome.
Gandhi believes in ahimsa because he knows that societies that attempt to attain peace through violent means only serve to create a society of violence. Peaceful rebellions do not lead to hypocrisy, they practice what they preach. Violence is also seen by Gandhi as immoral; the taking of any life or the creation of any pain or suffering is wrong. Gandhi sees violence as the way of the brute, while he sees nonviolence as the way of humanity. Violence, in essence, is seen by him as evil, an evil which can only be sustained by more violence. To remove all support from this evil one must completely withdraw from violence. Gandhi claims to have studied the facts of history and this is what they have shown him. Only through non-violent actions can peace ever hope to be achieved.
Nietzsche's notion of the myth of eternal recurrence is that of an endlessly repeating life. The myth questions how you would react if you found out that you would have to live your life over and over again. Every aspect of these endlessly repeating lives is the same, from all of the pain that you suffered to all of the happiness that you experienced. This idea is introduced to you by a demon in our particular version of the myth, but he is really just used as a setup device for it and is more or less irrelevant. The only bearing that he could potentially have on the myth is metaphorical as it could be argued that a certain amount of spite is present in this demon's desire to tell you about your eternal recurrence.
There are two potential reactions to this revelation in the myth that Nietzsche explains. The first is that of anger and frustration from someone who is displeased with this situation. The potential reasons for this are numerous. This individual could have had a particularly hard life or his beliefs about God and an afterlife could have been shattered by this revelation. The second reaction to this revelation is that of pleasure; this reaction is expressed in a more selfish tone, or of one who has just discovered that there is more to their relatively simple existence than was previously thought. The potential reasons for this are many as well, but any of the reasons for either reaction are mostly irrelevant. The actual reaction that someone has to this information is what is important. It demonstrates how you value life, or at least how you value your own life. It can also show how important having a purpose in life is to you. The number of things that your reaction can reveal about yourself is what this myth is truly about.
The ironic theme to the movie Flame On would have to be that homosexuality, which has been, and still is, often considered a negative aspect of someones personality, could end up being a gratifying personal trait in the future. Many great intellectual minds from the past were homosexual, but that is not why we remember them. We remember them for their contributions to science, society, and/or life in general, even though they were persecuted greatly in their time for their homosexuality. Being homosexual is just one small part of who these people were. The point that the film is really trying to make, however, is that any personal trait and/or endeavor, not just homosexuality, could end up one day being seen as a positive personal quality or harmless pastime.
People do not know what constitutes a “good” or “bad” quality, they only know what society's reaction to it will be. Anyone who takes offense at being labeled something presently considered “bad” in society is likely mistaking that cultures view of it with actual truth. A criminal act of one era could be considered “a sign of saintliness” in another. Homosexuality is used in this film merely as demonstration of a particular quality that is often considered “bad” in society; it's a metaphor for any “negative” human trait or action. The status of these value judgments changes over time, however, and one day it may end up being considered a positive defining feature of someones personality. The truth of any human aspect is relative, so to speak, and real truth is unlikely to ever factor into the equation.
Daniel Dennet favors calling himself a bright because, by definition, that is what he is. A bright has been defined as someone who rejects supernatural explanations. To reject a supernatural explanation is essentially to reject illusion. Illusion can come about from personal superstition, long standing tradition, or general naivete. The reason that Daniel Dennet rejects these supernatural beliefs is because most anything can be explained in scientific terms. Many things that were once thought to be beyond human comprehension are now explained in very simple terms. There is no reason to believe that that wont be the case with any other currently unexplained event.
One other aspect of the “brights” is that they are essentially either agnostics or atheists and Daniel Dennett considers himself to be an atheist. This really should go without saying, but it does bear mentioning as it is conceivably possible to believe in some metaphysical aspect of life without considering that aspect to be an explanation for anything. While Daniel Dennett doesn't necessarily approve of the atheist moniker as it implies someone who implores you to see the reason in what they believe, he does feel it is appropriate considering what it is that he actually does believe. He doesn't believe that there is a god or that there is some divine purpose to life or the universe. He views life through the discipline of science as science is capable of both explaining life and giving it purpose.
Bertrand Russell's “A Free Man's Worship” is a testament to human creativity, ingenuity, and wisdom. The creation of religion was, according to Bertrand Russell, a human failing and that the idea of God is simple minded and weak. He further explains that something omnipotent brings with it great suffering and a lack of foresight. This perpetual life of torment that people created through the fear of committing sinful acts removed humanity's freedom. It made them slaves to an artificially constructed higher purpose. Humanity's true freedom, Russell explains, is expressed through philosophy and the arts, two of the chief fields advancing human wisdom and ingenuity.
Human creativity is the essence of the true human spirit. It showcases the freedom that people possess from all things. Nature and death are the omnipresent forces in life and the universe that shape human existence. Freedom from the inevitability of death, from the structure and design of nature, that is the purpose of human ingenuity and creativity. Russell is quick to point out that the creation of God was not the ultimate example of human freedom, but the ultimate example of human weakness. God is the ultimate expression of power, but it is a power that humanity is chained to. The notion that absolute power corrupts absolutely is what Russell is demonstrating. One cannot be free from something that has dominion over the entirety of human existence. Only through creative expression will the spirit of human existence be eternal.
The overall theme of the movie “Inner Visions and Running Trains” is that of wisdom and enlightenment as to the nature of truth. In this movie, Baba Faqir Chand came to realize that personal visions and other metaphysical apparitions were not a product of reality. This happened after several men began to worship him for apparently giving them guidance in a time of extreme crisis. This guidance came in the form of a vision of Baba Faqir Chand. Baba Faqir Chand had no recollection of this and, being in a crisis himself at the same time, found it impossible that he had been the one who gave these men guidance. He eventually concluded that God is unique to each individual. Whatever form God takes for that individual is the form that they remember God most as.
The visions, images, and feelings that one person experiences are true for that individual. They are the creations of all the modes of consciousness, but they are only impressions that have been made in the mind. These visions are not an ultimate truth, they are in fact unreal, but they do possess a personal truth to the individual experiencing them. No one, Baba Faqir Chand included, knows what happens to themselves in dreams or at the time of death. When someone dies they may enter the unconscious state of dreams and could witness anything. The conclusion that Baba Faqir Chand drew from this is that no one can make any claims of knowing the ultimate truth. His wisdom allowed him to know the only truth that anyone is capable of knowing, that he knew nothing. This truth of learned ignorance is the overall theme of the movie.
What Nicholas of Cusa means by “learned ignorance” is that the infinite is beyond human comprehension. Everything we perceive in the world is quantifiable. All of these things have limits, minimums and maximums. We understand them through comparative relation; we take one thing and see how similar it is to something else. The infinite is without limits so there is nothing to relate it to. Anything we find in our universe that is potentially at the maximum cannot be the “Maximum” because it has that limit, there will always be something greater. Nicholas of Cusa's term for the infinite is the “Maximum,” something beyond the limits of comprehension, something limitless.
In this sense, the “Minimum” is the same thing as the “Maximum.” If the “Maximum” is limitless then it encompasses all, including the “Minimum;” if the “Minimum” is limitless then it encompasses all, including the “Maximum.” Our universe is based within the known, the quantifiable. What the whole of the universe came from is unknown, it is the infinite, the incomprehensible. Our understanding of the infinite will forever be incomplete. To understand that our understanding has those limits, that we are incapable of comprehending anything beyond comparative relation, is “learned ignorance.” When we come to understand that the only thing we truly know is that we don't know, that is “learned ignorance.”
The implications of this for my own life are important to know. My understanding of this concept tells me that everything we think we know about life and the universe is limited. We will never know of any ultimate truth because we can't relate to the infinite. Our lives are based on the finite, everything has a beginning and an end. The infinite has no such limitations. This tells me that anyones assumptions about the universe are forever going to be incomplete. Whether those assumptions be based upon religion or upon science, they can never know the ultimate truth of the universe. This allows me to reflect philosophically on the nature of the universe, whether it be for fun or to give my life purpose. The ultimate implication for my life, however, is that the only purpose my life has is purpose which I have given to myself.
What Gerald Edelman means by Neural Darwinism and Second Nature is that the mind needs to be put completely back into science and nature. Darwin developed the theory of evolution, and the brain is as much a part of evolution as any other aspect of the world. Consciousness, or the mind, is a product of the many structures of the brain. As such, it is deserving of scientific study. However, according to Gerald Edelman, the brain is not to be confused with a computer. A computer works through computation and accuracy while the brain is enormously variable and is context dependent.
The mind was removed from nature through the work of two key historical figures. The first was Galileo, who is considered one of the founders of modern physics and of the modern scientific approach. He removed the mind from science for practical reasons. He understood that without living creatures there would be no subjective judgments about the nature of things, but that was not his concern. The second person was Descartes who removed the mind because he believed it was not accessible to physics. He thought that certain things in the universe were accessible to physics and that certain things were inaccessible, which created the notion of dualism. This belief in dualism is what kept the mind out of science and separate from nature for so long. Gerald Edelman reasoned that the mind is absolutely a part of nature and is completely accessible to scientific study.
According to the film Why Turn Vegetarian? there are many arguments for turning vegetarian. To begin with, the film cites many rudimentary reasons to turn vegetarian. Two of these reasons are that heart disease begins in early childhood, presumably the film is claiming that meat either causes or promotes heart disease, and that a vegetarian diet reverses the effects of heart disease. Other reasons are that meat can make you fat, every package of chicken has at least a small amount of feces in it, mad cow disease is present in the United States, and that no person should have to make a living off of killing. One of the more sophisticated arguments that the film presents is that animals, like people, have emotions, such as fear, because they do not wish to die. Another argument is that all of the nutrients used to raise these animals, both water and food, could be used to feed the starving peoples of the world. Perhaps the most convincing argument presented by the movie is also the most simple, that killing is wrong; no matter how you look at it, you're still eating the flesh of another living creature.
There are a lot of arguments against vegetarianism, they also tend to be more scientific in nature then the ethical arguments that are made in support of vegetarianism. One common, and practical, argument against vegetarianism is that humans are omnivorous, they have evolved to eat both meat and vegetable substances. Another is that a vegetarian diet is a highly restrictive diet that makes it difficult, if near impossible, to get all of the required nutrients that the body needs. One argument, or counterargument depending on how you look at it, is that killing these animals is not unethical. This argument, albeit a peculiar one, states that animals in the wild live under the constant threat of being killed and eaten, while those that are raised on farms are generally well taken care of. The painless deaths that most of them receive may actually be a privilege. One final argument against vegetarianism is that animals eat each other all of the time, and if humans are to be compared with these same animals then they should be held to the same standards or their differences should be recognized.
The turning point in Ramana Maharshi's life was when he suddenly became violently fearful of death. It happened suddenly and has been described as the “great change in his life.” He knew he was going to die and he became obsessed with understanding what that meant. He came to understand that it is the body that dies and he imitated this, laying stiff and neither breathing or speaking. Despite the death of the body, he still felt the effects of his personality and of the spirit. This spirit is a separate entity from the physical body, it is transcendent, it is the “I” of the self, and it lives on after death.
This turning point in Ramana Maharshi's life is similar to many that spiritual philosophers have felt. It is the understanding that our physical bodies are not who we really are. Our personality, our consciousness, our actions, and our beliefs are what make us who we are. People become attached to the body, but when it is gone the memory, or the essence, of that person live on. This does not even have to be taken in a metaphysical way; it can be seen as the remembrance of who someone was during life, as an understanding that their essence will continue to exist, even after death, in the memories of those that cared about them. Ramana Maharshi's turning point in life was that of enlightenment, of an understanding about life that is beyond the physical. It was something which brought great peace to him and to many others.
My favorite expert film lecture this term would have to be Richard Dawkins's. He was one of my favorite philosophers already so it was only natural that I enjoyed his comments on perception. My favorite movie this term was Flame On. I thought that it did an excellent job of demonstrating our changing value judgments of human qualities over time. My favorite reading was by far Bertrand Russell's “A Free Man's Worship.” This wasn't just my favorite reading assignment, it was my favorite assignment out of all three categories. I thought that Russell did an amazing job of showing what real human freedom was. The most unusual thing that I learned about was probably of the possible existence of other space/time dimensions from Lisa Randall's lecture. I found this to be an extremely unique subject and something that I will probably look into more in the future.
As to the grade that I deserve, I would like to think that I deserve an A. I've noticed that my understanding of our material has been significantly greater now, at the end of the course. I've even been able to relate concepts that I picked up from the beginning of the course to material we did at the end. My posts became substantially longer and far more detailed and sophisticated (well...I think they did anyway). Also, I was truly surprised at the ease with which I was able to write two paragraphs for each of the answers on the final. Some of my longer answers, one of which is a full two pages, were little trouble at all to write. That is to say, the exam was challenging, but not agonizingly difficult. Overall, the amount of information that I soaked up in this course is well beyond most of the other courses that I've taken thus far at Mt. SAC. And finally, learning what true wisdom is (to know that we know nothing) will come in rather handy throughout my life.
