3b. What grade do you deserve and why?
I feel that I deserve an A in this class because I have put forth by best effort in understanding the material and making my posts thorough and thoughtful. I put in an “A” level of effort, and hope to get out of this class what I put into it.
4. What is your real name?
Kara Krone
5. What is your "user" name?
Karabear_1
6. What is your email address that you use for this class?
Karabear1@gmail.com
7. Name and address for your website.
http://karabearscave.blogspot.com
8. Have you done all the reading for the entire class?
Yes
9. Have you watched each of the films that were required?
Yes
10. Please place here all of the postings you have done for this class
Week 6- “The Zahir”
In Jorge Borge’s illustration, Borges becomes obsessed with a coin called the Zahir. To Borges, this coin represents an abstract, infinite number of futures— the material substance of life. The coin tantalizes him in a “demonic” influence, playing over and over again in his mind and not letting go. He becomes obsessed with the idea of it, yet ashamed to admit what it is that torments him. He relates the story of a tribe who repeats the name of God in order to link themselves with his presence, only to find that the name has lost all meaning. Perhaps, if think about the Zahir incessantly, he can free himself of its influence.
Borge’s novel appears as a warning against how something of little substance can become something of abstract and powerful meaning. Though the coin itself is meaningless, Borges realizes that has the power to become something more and influence the future in infinite ways. This idea becomes part of him, when he dreams that he himself has become a pile of coins. It has become inseparable from his own reality. He attempts to consult a psychiatrist, but is struck with shame at his obsession. While the Zahir is part of his reality, it also destroys his reality in the “ripping of the veil.” It is “the shadow of the rose,” an abstract shadow of the corporeal world that is inseparable.
Though the Zahir can represent any idea, I interpret this parable as a metaphor for religion. When glanced at superficially, religion can seem meaningless. However, there is a great and abstract depth behind its shallow face. God is part of us (at least to Borges), as when he becomes a pile of coins in his dream. Religion can also become dangerous if contemplated too obsessively— it can torment the mind until the idea becomes inseparable from reality. It can destroy the veil of the real world until it becomes an ever present shadow. An obsession so powerful can bring both joy and shame, as when Borges reservedly confesses to his psychiatrist. It can also devoid a powerful idea of all meaning when it is repeated incessantly. The idea becomes a habit, instead of a true linking with God. Perhaps God is really behind religion/ the coin, but superficial obsession must be worn away before genuine truth can be established.
Week 6- “A Free Man’s Worship”
How can man become free? Bertrand Russell’s “A Free Man’s Worship” examines how man must break free of the harsh reality of nature. “All the labours of the ages” will amount to nothing when mankind is crushed by the universe’s destruction. The savage man worships this power and calls it into a God. He calls it good, though facts are often bad. It is the stronger man who can ignore the harsh reality of power, and still feel free to create and criticize. By embracing material objects, man is strengthening his bondage to destructive time. It is only ideas that may rise higher and survive— at least temporarily. Only then may mankind embrace his own mortal nature. It is tragedy that is the “proudest” of the arts. Reveling in his own mortality may help mankind to rise above it. By giving up material goods, this frees man up to create, to live on past his short lifespan. We must cherish our “noble” thoughts, not our material nature, if we are to beat relentless time.
The concept of mortality ties shackles many a person to their material goods. Many people wish to build an empire before their death, so that they may live on past their time. We build up stockpiles of houses, cars, companies, and even children to comfort us from the idea that every mention of our presence will one day be gone. However, our companies will one day dissolve and our precious genes will scatter amongst the subsequent generations until they are beyond recognition.
Only by surpassing this weakness in our nature can we rise above it. Death will always be the grim reality of nature, but we can rise above it through art, creativity, and beauty. We can use our mortality to inspire us, but we must not let it beat us. More importantly, we must not worship its power. For, power is not inherently good just because we fear it. Power can only be worshipped through the loss of our own freedom. By instead worshipping ideals which are higher than nature grants us, we may create them in our philosophy, art, and literature. Though these creative thoughts will one day die as well, we can use these them to shape our world against the harsh reality of fate.
Week 6- Ramana Marhashi
At an early age, Ramana Marhashi suddenly found his life meaningless. He found himself drawn to tales of worship and renunciation, and finally contemplated the meaning of life and death. This epiphany led him on a spiritual journey that lasted the rest of his life. Ramana renounced all of his possessions and began to meditate, lost in the ecstasy of living. Though he spoke few words, Ramana’s humble and devout lifestyle meant a great deal to those around him. Visiting pilgrims saw his renunciation as a connection with God, and found peace merely being in his presence. Even so, Ramana saw himself as an equal with all living things, as when he shared all food and medicines before providing for himself. His greatest teachings were taught through silence and his own loss of ego.
The most interesting aspect of the Ramana Marshashi film was in learning about a religious ideal from a cultural background other than our own. While Western cultures are drawn by all things loud and flashy, the followers of Marshashi found meaning in his silent renunciation. The Protestant perspective emphasizes one’s personal relationship with God, while Hinduism teaches one to lose the ego via meditation. The concept of sin never enters into the equation, only finding a connection with God through the loss of body and self. I feel that the world would be better off if we were to find time for peace and silent meditation. Instead of pointing fingers at others for their “sin,” perhaps we can take a look at the harm this attitude may do to our own spirituality.
I do, however, have some critique on Ramana’s methods. In my opinion, Ramana seemed a little selfish at the beginning of his journey. He was lazy in his studies and needed a new purpose in life. Suddenly finding interest in a religious book, he took off with his brother’s money without a second thought. His original meditations seemed very self-absorbed. He was lost in the ecstasy of living but took not a single care for his own body. It almost sounded like a psychological addiction to meditation. When his mother worried about him, but even he resisted comforting her. It seems that later on is when Ramana truly lost his ego self. Others were drawn into his circle, including a cow that he was particularly fond of. He shared his food with all and began to write down his thoughts for the benefit of others. To me, this says that a person’s spirituality always has room to grow, no matter how highly others may think of them. Ramana needed to truly lose his ego before his could find peace from within.
Week 5- Ethical Recurrence
One of the deepest held human instincts is a fear of death. Generations upon generations of natural selection have produced this innate need for survival and further propagation of the species. Out of this fear has been born hope of eternal life. The human mind cannot grasp the concept of non-being, and therefore invents elaborate speculations of what lies after death. Because of this deep evolution-driven survival instinct, few question whether they would truly want eternal life. The mere hope of eternal life usually provides people with enough comfort to deal with their own mortality.
In “The Myth of Eternal Recurrence,” Nietzsche dares to examine the true consequences of eternal life. If a demon came upon us and offered that we could forever experience the same sorrows, happiness, and pains, would this be a boon or a curse? Would we truly enjoy an eternity of repetition— over and over and over again? Wouldn’t each action deal overly harsh consequences if it had to be repeated for eternity? Do we really think about the real meaning of eternity?
Most people will pay lip service to an afterlife, as a small comfort in their own mortality. However, I feel that these people, in their deepest heart, fear that this life is all we have. Why else would a funeral bring so much sorrow, if after death we would simply return to our loved ones? To another extreme, others waste their lives away pining for the afterlife, never living to the fullest for fear of sinning away their place in heaven.
Perhaps if more people examined the true meaning of eternity, they would take more pleasure and comfort from our small existence. The Christian heaven is full of eternal bliss and happiness. Wouldn’t this be a rather dull existence? Isn’t the challenge and burden of life what makes the good times even sweeter? Or would we like to live in Nietzsche’s version of eternity? Never having intellectual growth or stimulation seems to be the worst idea of hell. Furthermore, the human mind cannot grasp the concept of eternity. The universe is theorized to be 13.7 billion years old, but eternal life would well exceed this number. We really want an afterlife where our small 60-80 years (give or take) is contemplated for eternity?
Personally, I would rather cherish my loved ones for the short time their here, and love every minute I am alive. The idea that we could possibly live longer than the universe is absolutely ridiculous, but it’s not something I would ever wish for. Okay, I’ll admit another hundred years or so would be nice—but I’ll take what I can get, and love every (freshly experienced) minute of it.
Week 5- Gandhi
Gandhi’s vision of an entirely non-violent society is not something that can be accomplished with a light hand. Our entire species must accept it as the law of man above the “law of the brute.” It must be pursued with a religious zeal, for ahimsa (non-violence) is the only true path to God. Ahimsa transcends diet, race and culture— it is the way of life for all mankind. If it is undertaken without strength and humility, it becomes weak and cowardly. A person who undertakes ahimsa must be willing to die for the cause, or it will lose its power. If all society cultivates non-violence, we will be held together by it and lose the need for government.
I was surprised at the radical nature of Gandhi’s views. Though I have always appreciated his influence in India’s independence and in the civil rights movement, I never gave thorough attention to the extremism one must take to make non-violent resistance powerful. One cannot simply avoid violence, it must be in every thought, deed, and action. Society must band together in non-violent protest, to the point of willing self-sacrifice.
Just as the military trains people to sacrifice as a single unit, I can see that non-violence must have a similar bonded strength if it is to be successful. The destructive force of violence is not something that can be combated easily. Non-violence must attain even greater force if it is to be successful. Though I do not agree with Gandhi’s view that ahimsa can only be achieved through God, I can see that an almost religious zeal is necessary to grasp the full nature of this humble sacrifice. As an alternative solution, perhaps all that is needed is a belief in a just cause, or simply in humanity.
Upon reading this, I was at first skeptical of the radical sacrifice that would be needed to form an entirely non-violent society. I began to contemplate wars that were fought on the basis of freedom and humanity, and whether these same ideals could be achieved through non-violence. In the end, Gandhi showed me that violence can only lead to anger, fascism, and hypocrisy. Violence is power—could one really obtain freedom by the forceful seizing of power? When freedom is seized this way, doesn’t it pave the way for future leaders to seize power from their own people? Can anger really bring about just ideals? Yes, some wars for independence have led to positive ends, but I can also envision these same wars being fought through non-violent resistance. If ALL people stood against the powers that be, the leaders would become powerless. It is the people, the proletariat, that BRING the power to the warlords. Admittedly, I don’t have enough passion to stand up to a cause with this amount of self-sacrifice, but I guess this is one reason we still haven’t united against violence. However, Gandhi opened my eyes to the true meaning of humility and self-sacrifice, and the power that these ideals hold.
Week 5- Sam Harris
Sam Harris critiques not only religious fundamentalists, but also the permissive nature of religious moderates. When religion is analyzed thoughtfully, it becomes apparent that reading such an ancient text as law can bring about mindless violence and intolerance. The intolerant views of these texts are not made up by fundamentalists—they truly are contained within these religions. As such, the way in which moderates overlook these flaws gives “cover” to religious fanaticism. We must lose our sense of political correctness when dealing with such bigotry if we are to transcend our cultural differences.
The social aspects of atheism are something I deal with everyday. Because I’m reluctant to enter irrational arguments, I am prevented from bringing up my disbelief in even a casual manner. Even mentioning that I am an atheist can cause problems at work, within my peer group, and at school. As a result, I usually keep my mouth shut until I am in open minded company.
However, Harris is right on that intolerance is NOT something that should ever be tolerated. Religion should never give cover to hate and bigotry. I feel that there are many atheists/agnostics fearful of being shouted down when the intolerance of religion is pointed out. To my own parents, I have pointed out the multitude of wars, witch burnings, and persecutions that have arisen in the name of religion. In response, I am told that these things are in the past and are inaccurate interpretations of the bible. To me, even ONE religious war is enough to say that blind faith is an evil and extremely powerful tool. Even more important, such things are STILL going on today.
The real question that arises form Harris’ lecture is, when does it become unethical to not speak up against religion? Though I may find their reasoning illogical, I have many Christian friends and family whom I love very much. These “moderates” have good-will in their heart, making any attempts to convert me inoffensive. I just smile, and say “no thanks.” Does this mean that I am being too politically correct? Should I response in kind—“Your belief in God is illogical! The only way to go is atheism!!!” Or should I continue to smile and keep my mouth shut?
The same applies to religious moderates speaking up against fundamentalists. It so difficult to speak up against someone who is so set in their beliefs that it becomes nearly impossible. Do religious moderates and liberals really have a responsibility toward these people? Don’t moderates have a right to believe in something, as long as it is not bigoted and hurtful? Sam Harris would say no, they don’t have this right because they are giving cover to fundamentalism.
To me, the real solution is to speak up. The only way to combat bigotry is to make it known that atheists, moderates, homosexuals, etc are people too, with families, dreams, and cares about the world around them. Though we cannot hope to stop fundamentalism, speaking up will slowly open the minds of people who feel power in being the majority. Just like I have learned the good in many Christian’s hearts (though I may disagree with them) we can break fundamentalism by teaching them that their friends and family with differing viewpoints have good in their hearts too. Yes many religious texts are full of hate and contradiction, but condemning a good person would make me no different than the intolerant fundamentalists.
Week 4- A Glorious Piece of Meat
The film “A Glorious Piece of Meat” does not postulate whether our consciousness is self-aware or not, but brings forth some different ways of thinking about the issue. Though it feels that we are directing our consciousness, is this our true reality? Our brain directs most of our bodily functions without our control, maybe even our own thoughts—our own cherished “free will.” Do we really know whether neurons or awareness comes first? Either theory can be critiqued, leaving us with few answers.
Crick’s idea that “what we take to be the soul is nothing more than a complex network of neurons” leaves me a little cold. Though I may be wrong, I like to feel that I have free will and personal intelligence. I cherish my individuality and personal choices. Perhaps this is why it is so difficult to think that we may be nothing but “neurons spiraling.” The idea of a human soul is rather comforting, which is why we must be careful not to just pick the easiest answer. In the end, I have to agree with Churchland’s view that “if it turns out that you are just stuff, that your brain is just meat, then wanting it to be different isn’t going to change it.” We are what we are, no matter how much we postulate upon our consciousness. I still have the semblance of thought and free will, no matter what my brain’s role is in the ordeal. We may never have answers to human consciousness, so what can we do but just go on being human?
Week 4 - Ken Wilber
Ken Wilber’s theory on consciousness sorts through the many aspects of our world to come up with an integrated theory. The complex nature of consciousness means that each scientific theory must work together to attain a real truth about awareness. He formulates a complicated quadrant system, with each section pertaining to a different aspect of our lives. As the levels of each quadrant grade from macro to micro, so to do our levels of consciousness possess many different depths. Also, there are different types of validity claims for each quadrant, because each works in a different paradigm. Most importantly, our consciousness is not individual, but a complex mixture of these numerous grades. We not just individuals, but a combination of individual, behavioral, cultural, and social beings.
While I can easily agree that our consciousness possesses many different shades, I felt that Wilber’s theory was flawed on several different levels. His main hypothesis, that each quadrant can only work if the other three exist, is a false dilemma. It would be impossible to erase any of the quadrants, because they exist whether we are conscious or not. These quadrants do not have anything to do with our conscious specifically, but are simply a fact of our existence. Second, Wilber considers all theories on consciousness to be correct if they are integrated into his own theory. Seriously, not even one of these theories is wrong? Just because he has “integrated” our existence into quadrants doesn’t mean that any random theory someone constructs must automatically be correct. Also, he makes it impossible to falsify his argument by constructing different “validity” claims for each quadrant. Third, I have a small complaint against Wilber’s ad hominem attacks against other philosophers. That statement that “it never ceases to amaze how Anglo-Saxon philosophers greet the reinvention of the wheel with such fuss” certainly does not grant his argument any credibility.
Maybe I’m just small minded, but I can’t remove self-awareness from the consciousness equation. Wilber removes self awareness by making us part of a larger system of consciousness. I think our efforts would be better served through research into the brains neural functions, rather than creating random, uncorroborated theories. Though I don’t know if the human mind can ever grasp the concept of consciousness and self awareness, Wilber seems pretty far off the mark to me.
Week 4, Pinker & Edelman
Both Steven Pinker and Gerald Edelman view consciousness as a product of evolution. However, each scientist differs in his view of innate versus evolutionary consciousness. Pinker views consciousness as a mix of both innate and genetic functioning. While the evolutionary processes are a result of social influence, there is a certain universalism about moral consciousness. Evolution may have led us to discover certain morals truth about the universe since statements regarding trust and altruism must be true in any functioning culture. It is practical for evolution for converge on these ideals, because they help us better adapt in a social society. Pinker does not have any real answer to consciousness beyond these evolutionary moral truths. Though neural computations can be described in physical terms, science cannot quite grasp the idea of consciousness. Our evolutionary constraints will likely prevent us from ever understanding consciousness.
Edelman, on the other hand, grasps at explaining consciousness from a strictly evolutionary and neurological sense. To him, the cerebral cortex is the key to understanding evolutionary brain functions. The examination of key neurological functions can even allow us to create a basic form of artificial intelligence. His “Darwin 7” machine was able to “learn” and condition itself for certain patterns. By studying the patterns of this artificial intelligence, we may be able to grasp certain facts regarding consciousness in our own brains.
Edelman’s examination of consciousness as a computational process differs from Pinker’s view of innate evolutionary consciousness. However, the fact that neither scientist makes a defining conclusion about consciousness attests to the complexity of the problem. I feel that Pinker is probably correct in his assumption that evolution has restricted us from truly understanding where consciousness comes from. Though Edelman can evaluate and imitate the human brain all day, this is only a small piece of human cognizance. The question of self-awareness never arises in his experiments with artificial intelligence, because this is beyond our testable limits. However, these experiments are fascinating looks at neurological functioning. Continuing this research will help us to further understand our intellectual processes and motives, even if we never reach a true understanding of consciousness.
Weeks 1-3
Meme Theory
Dawkins introduces the idea that evolution does not always occur genetically. Our culture is transmitted through “memes” at a faster rate than genetic evolution. These memes are embodiments of human culture— fragments of our thoughts and practices that gather together to form more complex ideas. This is much like our own development in that we are composed of many genes sequences that form a complex being. Dawkins goes on to demonstrate that natural selection and survival of the fittest applies perfectly to memes. Memes that cannot reproduce will die out, while others adapt to become cherished human institutions.I found these ideas to be a fascinating look at the evolution of human culture. The theory of memes places abstract cultural ideas into scientific terms that can be more easily studied. The thought occurred to me that memes must evolve at a faster rate because they do not require sexual reproduction. They can reproduce many times in a single person’s lifespan. This gives them a more accessible power than genetic evolution, which we can only witness in our children. This idea also explains the evolution of ideas which cannot be genetically inherited, such as celibacy. The theory of memes places abstract cultural ideas into scientific terms that can be more easily studied. The thought occurred to me that memes must evolve at a faster rate because they do not require sexual reproduction. They can reproduce many times in a single person’s lifespan. This gives them a more accessible power than genetic evolution, which we can only witness in our children. This idea also explains the evolution of ideas which cannot be genetically inherited, such as celibacy. The “self-perpetuating” meme operates on the greatest reproductive success, i.e. survival of the fittest. This brings to mind Fukuyama’s lecture from earlier in the semester when he mentioned the death of religious diversity. The loss of small religious sects could be the death of memes that could not compete and therefore did not reproduce. We can see “genetic” variation in memes when Roman Catholicism developed protestant offshoots. Then, reproductively unfit memes (Puritanism) were “selected” out. The development of indoctrination techniques were a means of coping with the environment, creating further reproductive success.Memes can be used as a means of control in human culture. The goal of an advertiser is to give birth to a meme that will become self replicating. The idea will gain momentum, and the public will be swayed into buying a product because the meme has permeated their culture. Another example is Dawkins illustration of blind faith. Blind faith is self perpetuating because we are told that it is better to believe without questioning. We must ask ourselves, what is this meme’s means of survival? Is it harmful to trust this meme simply because it has culturally acceptable? We must be careful when addressing the memes that come to us on a daily basis. The self-perpetuating quality of memes makes them seem appealing, but we must learn to question what is considered socially correct.The concept of memes reinforces the idea that “all life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities.” The replication of memes is but one aspect of the natural selection that occurs in every aspect of life on this planet. Dawkins thorough presentation of his theory was extremely convincing and provided me with an innovative means of analyzing human culture.
Mentally Diseased?
The phrase “fundamentalism is a mental disease” suggests that Intelligent Design supporters must be lacking in intelligence. I seriously doubt that a person’s religious upbringing damages their actual mental capacity. The current wave of support for intelligent design in the classroom comes from ignorance and a lack of education, both of which are easily correctible with the proper education.By understanding the scientific method, it is easy to see that science neither proves nor disproves religion— the two are in completely different spheres of thought. While science operates on observation and repeatability, religion is based on the premise of faith. Because intelligent design attributes aspects of evolution to an abstract “intelligent designer,” it is incapable of observation. Once the scientific method is understood, it is stringently clear that one cannot cop out of observable data when forming a theory.Many people are raised with the idea that evolution is in direct conflict with religion. Without being taught otherwise, their beliefs are reinforced by peers and leaders in their community. Even our own president does not understand that the “methods” of intelligent design are false. These people are not mentally damaged, but are a sad product of an ignorant society. By focusing education on the scientific method as the basis for all science, more people may be able to see the incompatibility between ID and evolution. I feel that the video spent too much time condemning instead of teaching. Instead of attacking ID proponents, perhaps the issue of education should be addressed. When the facts are laid out, it is practically impossible to accept that ID belongs in the realm of science. However, it is very difficult to overcome a lifetime of false information. This does not mean that ID proponents are incapable of thought, but that they must overcome the restraints of society and open up to new ideas.
Dawkins: Queerer than we Suppose
Richard Dawkins suggests that our brains are have not evolved to process the true queerness of the universe. Natural selection has developed our brains to model the world for our survival, not for the pursuit of space travel or pondering the origins of life. Because we have evolved to survive in “middle world,” we are cannot trust our common sense when it comes to explanations of the universe. Because of our inadequacies in understanding the true strangeness of our surroundings, the universe is “queerer than we suppose.”Dawkins view is contrasted with Wilson’s conjecture that we are capable of knowing everything in the universe. Even a human being’s life can be predetermined through the gathering of genetic and social data. The fact that the human brain can evolve makes us capable of knowing and breaking all data down. When we reach the level of synthesis, we can move forward to even greater breakthroughs in science.In my opinion, both Dawkins and Wilson have some truth to their arguments. Like Dawkins, my view is that blind faith is an excuse for belief without evidence. I do not suppose that anything my brain cannot grasp must have a mystical reason simply because I do not understand it. Therefore, as Wilson explained, everything in the universe must have an explanation and can be broken down. The question remains as to whether we, as human beings, will ever have the capability of explaining everything scientifically. In this view, I stand by Dawkins— our physical limitations prevent us from possibly knowing everything. When we are able to overcome our intellectual limits and understand the true order of the universe, we will have evolved beyond what we know as human. Even so, the vastness of the universe will leave some knowledge forever untouched, generating the evolving melody that haunts Wilson in his search for knowledge.
Physics and Philosophy: Lecture Response
I found it interesting that each Philosopher attempted to give universality to the cosmos in a different way, though they were all scientists. While Owen Gingerich does this through a religious “sophistication” of the universe, Stephen Wolfram finds meaning through mathematical patterns that are present in nature. Lisa Randall, like Gingerich, theorizes about multi-verses, but does so through a purely scientific viewpoint. However, these physicists/philosophers have the common goal of finding a unified theory for our universe.Though Owen Gingerich attempted to apply theology to physics, he failed in providing any evidence beyond speculation. The idea that the universe MUST have a designer because of a gut reaction that he has would not bode well in the scientific world. He then states that scientists are uneasy about multi-verses, because Christians have already been there. Speaking down to scientists in this manner does not provide his argument any credibility. What proof does Gingerich provide that Christians communicate with other universes, other than hearsay? The fact is, science is based upon empirical, measurable evidence. Though Gingerich attempts to connect physics with theology, he fails in providing the necessary aspects that would make his theory scientific.Though I am not well read in the evidence for Lisa Randall’s theories, she does not seem to make the leap from hypothesis to fact. It seems that she, like Gingerich, is proposing something that is based on a gut feeling. I found her example of the sphere entering the 2-D world compelling, but her statement that we still need breakthroughs and theoretical input from others admits that she lacks real evidence for her theory. This places her in the realm of philosopher rather than scientist. Her theories are interesting, but they lack the extra strength of scientific proof.Wolfram, on the other hand, presents his theory in a mathematical and logical manner. By starting with very small patterns, he demonstrates on a very small scale a logical pattern in our universe. These patterns are easily observable in many plants and animals, such as the mollusk. As the patterns increase in complexity and have an array of influence by the environment, it becomes evident where the complexity of life stems from. In this manner, he finds a universal formula for the universe from a simple rule.Providing scientific proof for philosophy serves to strengthen ideas beyond the level of mere theory. We must be careful, however, not to take ideas for truth simply because they are scientific in name only. It is perfectly okay to theorize, but falsely applying physics to philosophy can be dangerous toward those who lack a critical eye.
Physics and Philosophy
As I began this week’s readings, I at first failed to see any connection between physics and philosophy. After all, science is a process of systematic observation, while philosophy attempts to answer questions that cannot be observed. The methodology of philosophy seems too theoretical to apply to the scientific method with its use of reason instead of hard facts. However, after reading the selections on “Physics and Philosophy,” and “Cosmic Inflation,” I began to realize the philosophical aspects of science.Because our scope of observation is very limited, scientists, just like philosophers, must apply reason to advance their theories beyond what is readily observable. While the fundamentals of cosmic inflation and the big bang are based upon mathematical fact, these theories are still speculation because they lack hard empirical evidence. In this manner, scientists may become philosophers in their own way. Like other philosophers, they seek a “unified theory” that gives logic and reason to our seemingly chaotic existence. The cosmic inflation theory is one manner of organizing the grand scope of our universe.“Physics and Philosophy” demonstrates that the push toward systematic, scientific logic began long ago, during the reformation. At that time, Descartes attempted to apply systematic logic to the human mind by breaking down all knowledge to “cogito ergo sum,” I think, therefore I am. Like the scientist’s attempts at a “unified theory,” he was creating a single, universal fact upon which to base all other knowledge. This began the current push toward a mathematical and scientific truth in our universe.However we to frame it, philosophical science is still bound by our “method of questioning” and our own empirical observation. Scientists seem to feel that theories based in mathematics and physics would attain absolute certainty. However, we may never be able to find the answers to the big bang and the origin of the universe, because they are beyond human understanding.. In this way, scientists are no different than philosophers and theologians in their search for a unified truth.
Week 2, Gods too Decompose
It is difficult to determine in “Gods too Decompose” whether Nietzsche’s parable has a positive or a negative connotation. First, I found it interesting that the crowd was composed of non-believers. Perhaps Nietzsche is suggesting that there are no true believers left, because God is dead to them. There is not one person left who takes the madman seriously when they laugh at his “looking for God.” The serious nature of their loss is ignored.Then, Nietzsche suggests that we have destroyed all boundaries and absolutes, because we have “[sponged] away the entire horizon.” As we pursue scientific inquiry, our knowledge of the world becomes larger and colder. We lose the warmth and community that God provides. Instead, there is a sense of nothingness, a hurdling through space without direction. Yet, human beings ignore their loss when they “do not hear anything yet. . . of the gravediggers.” They do not smell the decomposition of their boundaries nor honor the loss of an enormous aspect of humanity. Nonetheless, the boundaries are too far gone to regain. There may be no purification at this point because there is no longer any sense of the finite. Our religious rituals are now meaningless, because God is dead to us. We call out to him, but he can no longer hear because our deed is “too great.” The next statement can have two completely different meanings. When he states that “there can never be a greater deed,” greater can mean bigger/grander, or it can mean better. If it means grander, it implies that we do not perceive the enormity of our loss. Perhaps this is why the situation is too far gone for God to be regained. If it means better, Nietzsche is happy at the loss of boundaries. It may open up inquiry past the small world that God may provide, so that we can continue to increase our knowledge past the boundaries of religion.God is not literally dead, but the boundaries of religion have decomposed to open up our universe past the periphery of the horizon. Our religious traditions have become meaningless, because we can not lose the knowledge we have gained and can no longer hold God truly in our hearts. Therefore, he is dead to us. Though we have “done it to ourselves,” we have yet to acknowledge nor see the enormity of our deed.The biggest questions this parable brings to mind are who is the madman? Why is he “mad?” Is it because he is the only one who acknowledges the death of God? Does Nietzsche see the death of God as positive or negative? In what way would we need to “purify” ourselves?I found this selection to be beautifully deep and poetic, and it brought many different ideas to mind. However, a piece as multifaceted as this really needs some context.
On a side note. . . .
I found Lance Schaina’s views on “abortion” to be highly sexist. To refer to an old testament ritual where a woman is ritually unclean for 10 days during, and after, her period is demeaning toward today’s role of women in the world. The view of women as something holy and pure held strong through centuries of oppression, where women were nothing more than objects of reproduction. While men left the house to work, women were held captive by their corsets and their social role as the “moral center” of the household. To bring back this old idea is to suggest that women are “holy,” not human beings that are equal to men. The obsession with the idea that the menstrual cycle is “holy” and that touching a women during her cycle is unclean also demeans a women’s reproductive freedom and her right of recreational sex against the rights of men, who have no menstrual restrictions. Abortion views aside, women are more than reproductive objects, and have every right to be equal partners in society, menstrual cycle or not. Anyone else have an opposing opinion on this?
Week 1, Nicholas of Cusa
Nicholas of Cusa sets out to examine the source of human knowledge. When he states that “every inquiry is comparative and uses the means of comparative relation,” he suggests that everything we know is a result of comparing with other knowledge. I take this to mean that we know what a sphere is because we are told that a sphere is round from the knowledge of our elders. Then, we compare the shape of a triangle and see that it is different. Hence, we have knowledge of the triangle in comparison to the sphere. Next, Nicholas explains the difficulty in realizing where the original comparisons came from. When ideas that have been built upon slowly over time, its origins become lost. For example, language is used to represent (i.e. compare) objects and ideas. As time passes, language evolves upon itself, and the original comparisons become lost. Also, abstract concepts such as infinity are impossible to compare. That is why we do not fully understand their meaning. Hence, we cannot truly understand anything because we do not have a true comparison to its origin.Some philosophers, such as Pythagoras, “deem all things to be constituted and understood through the power of numbers.” This idea hypothesizes that numbers are the only thing that is concrete, and that the world is made up of numbers. Everything else would be by “comparative relation” and abstract. However, since numbers are infinite and we cannot understand infinity by comparative relation, numbers are also impossible to fully understand.Because of the difficulty in truly understanding abstract ideas and comparative relation, “wisdom and the seat of understanding are hidden from the eyes of all the living.” Though we desire to know all things, the true origins of thought are impossible to understand. When we fully grasp this concept “we will attain unto learned ignorance.” Nicholas of Cusa deducts, through a series of proofs, that we know nothing. Like Socrates, he understands that the root of all knowledge comes from knowing nothing. The fact that this is a recurring motif in philosophy demonstrates its importance at the root of our understanding.
Apology
In “Apology,” Plato expounds, through the words of Socrates, one of the most fundamental themes of philosophy— that we know nothing. Though he is being punished for corrupting his followers, he first proves that he has nothing to teach because he knows nothing. He relates to the audience his effort to seek out men who do know something, but finds that they are even more ignorant than him because they think they know though they do not. Even when he is condemned to death, he still stands that death is nothing to fear because one cannot know what it holds. Because Socrates holds that knowing nothing represents true virtue, he has nothing to fear and knows that he is right in standing strong against pretenders.It is human nature to enter into a situation carrying long held opinions and assumptions. The idea that one’s own opinion is always right operates on the assumption that all others must always be wrong. Because of this, most people shut themselves out from reason and are prevented from learning new ideas.The ability to realize that one knows nothing is not a simple one. Socrates is aware of this, and therefore elaborates it through long proofs. Even then, he is condemned to death for “corrupting the youth” and challenging long held assumptions. Because of the difficulty in truly grasping this concept, it is something that must be reaffirmed everyday, during every lesson. Philosophy is a way of studying new ideas; therefore, one first must know nothing in order to be open to every possible manner of thought. We all apply labels to ourselves: liberal, conservative, male, female, Christian, Buddhist, etc. Until we realize that these assumptions are preventing us from opening our eyes to new ideas, we cannot grow as human beings. Though I often remind myself to let go of my assumptions, it is something that plagues me every day. By looking at Socrates ability to let go of fear and stand strong, I realize what it takes to truly accept that one “knows nothing.”
Reaction to Fukuyama's "End of History"
I found Francis Fukuyama's lecture on The End of History to have the substance of a science fiction dystopia. First, Fukuyama'sconcept of a utopian society is one without culture, history, or scientific advancement. In his view, each culture is slowly being engulfed into a single world society where all live in piece in harmony and are not subjected to the constant upheaval of science. Religious and cultural singularity is the goal of this society, where each person thinks in exactly the same manner and therefore has no reason for war. Cultural singularity leaves no room for the philosopher, the artist, and the revolutionary. I was reminded of a concept I recently read in Crime and Punishment, where Dostoevsky states that all great men are criminals because they have transgressed the cultural boundaries of their society. Men such as Fukuyama can only see the criminality of revolutionaries because they seek a world where everyone follows a singular ideal. Those who are not within the "moral universalism" would be weeded out and we would lose the great thinkers that form the substance of literature and philosophy.Instead of embracing diversity, Fukuyama sees it as a means of conflict. He chooses to completely ignore the intolerance and ignorance present in fundamentalist religion, seeing the rise of fundamentalism in America as a sign that we are achieving our goal of"moral universalism." In reality, a singular morality usually breeds intolerance towards diversity. Hatred towards Muslims, Atheists, and homosexuals is growing as they are increasingly seen as the "enemy" against a growing majority. This intolerance will only increase when the positive aspects of diversity are not addressed in our culture.If Fukuyama sees the loss of history, art, science, and diversity a positive thing, he may continue to live in his shallow universe. Enough sci-fi has dealt with Fukuyama's idea to see the harm in a society where we are all automatons. His ironic statement that communism did not work because it was against human nature demonstrates his lack of critical thinking about his own idea. Personally, I embrace the diversity that makes us human and will continue to enjoy my world of cultural diversity.
11. What was your midterm grade?
My Midterm grade was a B+
http://karabearscave.blogspot.com/2007/02/midterm.html
12. Why does Steven Pinker believe that evolution is important in understanding human behavior?
The human brain does not exist independently of its surroundings. Because our conscious feels like a mechanism of free will, it is easy for us to take it for granted. Rather, ALL aspects of our bodies are a product of natural selection. For example, we have stereo vision because of an evolutionary need to see depth. An intelligent reaction to the environment is needed in human beings, because this is our greatest mode of adaptation. Because of this, it is only natural for scientists to begin merging psychology with biological evolution.
This adaptation extends to our cultural and familial relationships. The need for reciprocal altruism is a key function of human evolution. “Kin selection” impacts how blood relatives react to each other, further influencing their fitness and natural selection. When individuals help each other, individuals become part of a stronger culture. This helps cultivate relationships and provides security in not being exploited by others. Furthermore, it helps develop long term relationships and provides shelter for our children. This evolutionary social behavior is also present in religion. Morality is a product of the need to cooperate in a social world. Religious morality often reflects this “Darwinian wisdom.”
By understanding these evolutionary influences, we can help understand ourselves, and even override the biological impulses in the brain when necessary. We can learn to expand our social circle to bring altruism beyond our blood relations. Though the idea that love for our children is through evolutionary impulses may seem cynical, this does not change our relationship with them. By becoming aware of why we act the way we do, we can amend our behavior in positive ways.
13. Explain why Francis Crick does NOT believe in a soul.
Crick hypothesizes that our concept of a soul is merely a delusion of the brain. Because we are purely physical beings, why would a single aspect of us be something more “transcendent”? As scientific research progresses, it becomes increasingly clear that our thought processes are a “complex system of neurons.” Even life has been analyzed and reduced to the simplest D.N.A. molecule. These discoveries are not divine or transcendent, but a product of empirical research and evidence.
One of the brain’s processes is for making potential plans. We are not aware of the computations in making these plans, only in the final result or “decisions” that the brain makes. The brain carries out a series of neural processes, and we seem to be making choices for ourselves. It then attempts to explain why it made a certain choice, and knowing no conscious reason, applied the “simplest conclusion.” Most people view this as a “little man,” or a soul, inside our brains. The personification of this process can have the semblance of free will, but in truth is merely a series of neural processes. Because empirical studies hold more strength than blind conjecture on the soul, Crick’s theory makes logical sense. Just as science has devastated supernatural explanations in other fields, further scientific research will only continue to reveal that our consciousness is merely a chain of neural stimuli.
14. What are some of the major issues behind a neuro-ethical argument for vegetarianism? What are its strengths? What are its weaknesses?
Though the writer begins his passage into vegetarianism on the grounds of health, it soon became apparent that there is “no good reason” to eat meat. First off, most of us do not eat meat for the taste of the meat itself, but for the spices. These same spices can make nearly anything taste equally appetizing. More importantly, animals possess the same central nervous system as we do. We often rationalize not eating “intelligent” animals such as dolphins and dogs because we feel a kinship with them. Using this same rationale, we should not eat living creatures because they feel pain just as we do. To ignore this fact is to ignore the evolutionary complexity of most animals. Instead, we rationalize and disregard that we are eating a complex creature. We reduce it to a “Big Mac,” if it’s nicely pre-packaged. However, our intelligence provides with a choice whether to avoid meat. If we are really honest with ourselves, we will realize that meat is not necessary to survive and we morally better off in avoiding it entirely.
The main strength in the essay was in pointing out how we attribute value in certain animal instincts and completely disregarding others. Because we value our humanity so highly, any animal that we can anthropomorphize with a name becomes prized. Furthermore, if it has a bit of intelligence, we empathize with it and it receives special privileges. Why don’t we value other attributes? We both experience pain, so why should pain not be something we also empathize with? In my opinion, we only empathize with attributes that separate us from other animals. All invertebrates experience pain, so this aspect doesn’t interest us. If we are truly “higher” animals, why do we need to separate ourselves in this manner?
In addition, Lane is correct that there is no good reason to eat meat. If we can avoid harming another living creature, why don’t we begin doing so? To use a less significant example, I gave up soda because it was bad for my health. By doing a cost/benefit analysis, I realized I was better off with good health than enjoying a soft drink. If we do a cost benefit analysis of hurting a living creature versus enjoying a steak, I believe the answer is plain— there is no good reason to eat meat.
Though the neuron-ethical argument for vegetarianism is strong, it doesn’t take into account that most people simply don’t care about the pain of foreign creatures. This isn’t necessarily because they care about humans more, but because there is a huge separation between friends and strangers. The cow used for a steak at Outback is an abstract meal, we don’t think about its life and where it came from. Similarly, the Aids victims in Africa are easily out of sight, out of mind. We don’t care because we don’t “know” them. This is an almost impossible hurdle in human nature. Our own social group is always the most important, and this includes the family dog. Lane’s argument does not take this into account when using our reluctance to eat the family dog as a good reason to become vegan. We must cross this hurdle of compassion before such arguments can be made effective.
15. How do John Searle's views differ from Ken Wilber's?
Ken Wilber’s acknowledges the multitude of theories on consciousness by coming up with an integrated theory that lends truth to them all. Because consciousness is a complex network of intentional, behavioral, cultural, and social experiences, he has integrated each into a multi-level quadrant system. Each “quadrant” pertains to a different aspect of our lives. As the levels of each quadrant grade from macro to micro, so too do our levels of consciousness possess varying depths. Since our self-awareness has a multitude of aspects, each quadrant works together to form a single consciousness and cannot be singled out as a single entity.
To Searle, consciousness is entirely a biological process. The brain consists of “neurobiological processes” which “cause all of the colour and variety of our conscious life.” Our brain organizes our thoughts and experiences into a “single conscious field.” Therefore, consciousness is a purely personal experience which is relative to the observer. This differs from Wilber’s view that consciousness is a totality of our self, community, and surroundings. Although Searle is convinced that the brain causes consciousness, we have yet to discover just how it accomplishes this. We have only to back the hypothesis up with empirical data.
While Searle admits to his lack of empirical data, Wilber unapologetically forms a theory based on nothing but speculation. His main hypothesis, that each quadrant can only work if the other three exist, is a false dilemma. It is impossible to erase a single aspect of our existence away, so his basic premise is false. Wilber disregards self-awareness by putting us into a larger system of consciousness. I simply can’t remove self-awareness from the consciousness equation, because I feel self-aware. (I think, therefore I am?) While Searle’s theory lacks the weight of empirical evidence, I believe our efforts are better served through this type of scientific research, rather than through random uncorroborated theories. Though I don’t know if the human mind can ever grasp the concept of consciousness and self awareness, Searle is on the right track in researching our brain’s neurological processes.
16. What is the theme behind the little movie, a GLORIOUS PIECE OF MEAT? How would a religious person argue against it?
“A Glorious Piece of Meat” examines how our brain is the driving force behind our consciousness. Though it may feel as if we are creating original thoughts, is it possible that we are only directing neural impulses from the brain? Most the brain’s interactions occur without personal awareness. Our heart beats, our food is digested without our express consent. From an evolutionary standpoint, we are a “summary of our neural origins.” Therefore, our soul is nothing but “neurons spiraling.” We think we have free will and self consciousness, but these are nothing but illusions created by the brain.
It would be very difficult to prove something as vague as the human soul. A religious person could reference the bible, or draw attention to the fact that consciousness cannot be fully explained scientifically. Furthermore, we have been unsuccessful in recreating consciousness artificially, signifying that the soul must be something more than complex computations. The biggest argument a religious person has in favor of the soul is simply that we “feel” that it is there.
It is difficult for me to play advocate to religion, because I simply cannot advocate an argument on the basis of faith. In the end, all I can say is that we really don’t have an answer to human consciousness. Neural functioning explains part of it, but where does self awareness come into play? To say that we have a soul simply because we “feel” it or because we have faith is a little weak. We are better off continuing our scientific research on the brain, even if we never have all the answers.
17. Why is Sam Harris so critical of religion? Give his strongest arguments and where do you think his argument fails? Or, if it doesn't fail, where does it succeed?
To Harris, religion forms the fundamental basis of the world’s conflicts. It falsely draws lines in the sand between Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc when we would be better off accepting each other as simply human. Though hope is something which gives humanity optimism, a belief has the conviction that hope is an actual reality. The danger in this is that belief can become a machine that completely takes over our behavior. For example, the Catholic belief against condom use has helped to spread misinformation and Aids in Africa. Harris rejects even moderate religion, as moderates may shield dangerous fundamentalist ideas from criticism. To him, it is time to end this toleration of faith. While we wouldn’t accept blind faith in any other realm, why do we accept it in religion? It is time to transcend religious differences and open ourselves to greater reason and evidence.
Yes, religion is harmful in many ways. It makes sheep out of otherwise logical minds and causes strong convictions in damaging ideas. However, I wouldn’t say that it is the greatest evil that exists in our world. While it is true that religion can be “machinery” that directs a person’s life, many people (not all) need this direction to find meaning and purpose in their existence. Furthermore, it seems a little harsh to place the full responsibility of fundamentalism on religious moderates. The fact that a single group is irrational should not deny the freedoms of other, more accepting, religious organizations.
To take such a radical viewpoint, Harris is reinforcing the misconception that atheists somehow want to take religion away from people. Because the majority of people will always need religion, I feel that there are more effective ways to alleviate the world’s ills. I feel that corrupt people and intellectual sheep are a product of their environment, whether religion is present or not. By placing the full load of the world’s evils on religion, we are rejecting some of the underlying causes of fundamentalism. Instead of condemning religion outright, let’s work on promoting toleration and reason for all humanity.
18. Explain the essence of Nietzsche's genealogy of morals.
In his genealogy of morals, Nietzsche traces how evolution has evolved throughout human history. In ancient times, high ranking people considered themselves “good,” in contrast to the “vulgar” common people. This same political superiority is also present in spiritual matters. A priest will torture himself with rules to feel pure, noble, and therefore good. Christianity reversed this morality to reflect the needs of the common people. After that, “only those who suffer are good (. . .) for them alone there is salvation.” The crucifixion was but a seduction into this new morality, for “god on the cross” was an absolute reverse of the earlier morality. These men of “good” morals need something to contrast against themselves to help them feel superior. They falsify weakness into something of merit, into “blessedness.”
Because morality has evolved to make people feel more powerful, it is nothing but a fabrication of human culture. Even the humble morality of today is nothing but a power reversal against the elite rulers of ancient times. Religious commandments make us feel like we are part of a higher truth, that we are superior to those “evil” sinners. Ascribing different aspects of human nature to sin and virtue makes us feel separate from the animals. But in truth, it just breeds another form of “civilized” animal. We become prey to the powerful priest caste, the politicians, and the rulers when we follow their code of morality. By studying the history of morality, Nietzsche is pointing out its meaninglessness. Morality is nothing but a fabrication of human culture used to separate the powerful from the weak. Only by destroying “morality” can we form a new set of ideals more suited to humanity.
19. Why does Gandhi believe in ahimsa?
Gandhi does not simply believe in ahimsa, or non-violence. He believes it must be in every thought, deed, and action. To him, ahimsa is the truest law of our species, above the violence of the brute. The only path to godliness is through ahimsa, because the man must then rely on the “unseen force” of God. Practiced correctly, it can sustain the spiritual soul. Even so, ahimsa is the end of religion. Religion is a violent division of faith, while ahimsa brings people together under the single oneness of humanity. A godly man knows peace, while a violent man will never be satisfied with the insatiable nature of himsa. It is the only way to receive truth, humility, and emancipation from fear.
Gandhi sparked a realization that violence can only lead to more endless cycles of brutality. Violence is power— can one obtain freedom by forcefully seizing power? When freedom is seized this way, it paves a path for future leaders to seize power from their own people. Yes, some wars for independence have led to positive ends, but these same wars could have been fought through non-violent resistance, and with less bloodshed. If society stood against the powers that be, its leaders would become powerless. Gandhi is right that this can only be accomplished if everyone is willing to embrace ahimsa with their very being. Because there is power in violence, a non-violent movement must show even more willpower if it is to survive.
20. What is Nietzsche's notion of the myth of eternal recurrence?
Nietzsche view of eternal life is not one of heavenly bliss, but of horror. If we had to live the same exact existence over and over again, with the same joys, sorrows, and pains, would this be a gift or a burden? If eternal life was given to us by a demon instead of promised by a “loving” God, would we begin to question what its real implications were? If we were doomed to repeat every single one of our actions for eternity, wouldn’t we take them more carefully?
Though the concept of reincarnation is more of an Eastern idea, Christianity has a similar implication with version of eternal heaven and hell. Our time on this planet is so short, would we really wish to be either rewarded or punished for it ETERNALLY? I doubt many of us really consider what eternity really means, considering that our brains lack the ability to fully grasp the meaning of infinity. Nietzsche has contemplated the full consequences of this word, and realizes that an eternity of repetition would be more of a hell than a heaven. The mere hope of eternal life usually provides people with enough comfort to deal with their own mortality. However, never having intellectual growth or stimulation seems to be the worst idea of hell. It is the spontaneity of life which gives color to our existence. This is not something I would give up, even for the promise of eternal recurrence.
21. What is the ironic theme in the movie Flame On?
“Flame On” critiques the idea that morality is something unchanging and universal. Homosexuality, which has seen generations of persecution, is becoming something acceptable, and in some cases, even a badge of honor. Plato quote that it is “not in the interest of such rulers to have such great ideas engendered in their subjects” demonstrates how difference of thought has always been deemed dangerous to those in power. The disdain for anything against the norm reflects the fleeting nature of morality. As norms change and adjust, new sins will develop in every culture.
The movie suggests that the concept of guilt is a product of these fake cultural morals.
By presenting a beautiful woman scrutinizing herself in the mirror, it demonstrates that we are often our own worst enemy when it comes to criticism. We take this cultural guilt for truth, and thus will criticize ourselves for our most unique attributes. The millions of people who followed the norm are not who make up our history books, but those who dared to change and question. These “criminals” are who shape future morality, paving the way for a new generation to be accepted into wider norm. Just as Galileo’s was once considered a heretic, homosexuality will continue to become acceptable and future “Prousts” will find a place in society. When more people are able to realize that morality is a fleeting aspect of culture, perhaps this will bring more controversial thinkers to our cultural awareness. These “freethinkers” are the people who craft the artistic treasures of human history. A loss of cultural morality will give these people a greater place in society.
22. Why does Daniel Dennett favor calling himself a "bright"?
In this interview, Dennett only briefly addresses the word “Brights.” He explains that the Brights are people who reject religious explanation, as an alternative word to atheist or agnostic. Dennett explains that he doesn’t believe in God, but doesn’t want to make a big deal about it. His reluctance reveals the intolerance many atheists face when confronting opposing viewpoints. The Brights feel that a new word may help alleviate some of the social stigma surrounded with the word atheist.
I feel that creating a new word for atheist is almost an admittance that being an atheist is somehow offensive. Dennett own declaration that an atheist is someone who goes around trying to deconvert people makes him seem a bit ashamed of his own beliefs. Instead of trying to reinvent atheism, the movement would be better off demonstrating that atheism is something one shouldn’t be ashamed of. Although Dennett is right that there are a few atheists who go around shoving their disbeliefs at everyone else, there are far more theists who are guilty of this. Atheists should begin speaking up with confidence instead of reinforcing the misconception that atheism is somehow shameful. By distancing itself from what it really is, the Brights movement does nothing to remove the negative connotations from atheism.
23. Outline Bertrand Russell's “A Free Man’s Worship.”
There is a sense of meaninglessness and void in a scientific world. All the toil and labor that man has accomplished through the ages will amount to nothing when the solar system is extinguished. He has become a slave to this “omnipotent, yet blind” God of fate. He makes God out to be “all-powerful and all-good,” when in truth, the world is rather harsh. Man must either worship a counterfeit goodness, or worship unsympathetic fate. Nevertheless, facts are not always good. We must embrace the difficult aspects of our nature before we may also learn to defy them.
Instead of attributing this “void” to an outside source (an all-knowing or powerful God), man must be free to embrace what makes him man. We must embrace death, then caste it aside say that that we will “respect truth, beauty, and the ideal of perfection” even if our existence seems small and meaningless. There is a sense of tragic resignation in this fate, yet tragedy is what often brings beauty to our existence. Though we are powerless, the acts that “shine out” in history will have escaped the harshness of fate at least temporarily. We can subdue unsympathetic fate with our art, our intellect, and our passion. By embracing our transient existence, then moving past it, we can continue to create and conquer the inadequacies of mankind.
24. What is the overall theme of the movie “Inner Visions and Running Trains?”
Baba Faqir Chand began life as a typically religious man. At one time, he even ate a piece of cow dung because an image of Lord Krishna had appeared instructed him to. Later on in life, some men visited and thanked him for protecting them on the battle field. Because he had no recollection of ever appearing to these men, Faqir Chand had an epiphany that such “divine” images are created by the mind alone. The gurus who use such images to receive worship from their disciples do not have any recollection of such things either. Such men are not honest about their true lack of knowledge, and use such worship as a means of manipulation. In truth, nobody truly knows about the reality of God. Their divine inspirations are merely a product of cultural influence and impressions of the mind.
Faqir Chand has discovered the philosophical mantra that has arisen across many cultures and periods of history— that the human mind truly knows nothing. Even those who are assured that they have seen divine visions do not know what these visions mean or what they truly are. All across humanity, multitudes of religions claim to possess the ultimate truth. The threat of divine punishment is an extremely effective tool of manipulation for their devotees. However, none of these mystics have any substantial proof for what they believe. Faqir Chand proposes that whatever faith a person is, doing small good deeds every day will lead to a good live. This is a truth that surpasses “divine” vision and religious rule. A man is responsible for his own deeds, and must follow the vision of his own heart. Each man can know nothing and do nothing but this. Only through this realization can one achieve peace and knowledge of the “self.”
25. What does Nicholas of Cusa mean by "learned ignorance"? What are its implications for your own life?
The human intellect desires to know all things. However, things can only be known through comparative relation. In other words, we only know what something is because we can compare it to another thing. Furthermore, the greatest thing is the universe is the maximum. The maximum encompasses everything: oneness, the absolute, the minimum, and plurality. Therefore, the maximum must be God, and God cannot be separated from the universe because the maximum is everything. However, it is impossible to truly understand the maximum. Because the infinite cannot be compared to anything finite, and there is only one infinite maximum, it escapes comparative relation. Therefore, God is immeasurable.
We can attempt to become as knowing in the maximum as humanly possible. However, we will still be infinitely far away from truly understanding the maximum. For example, when more and more angles are added to a polygon, it begins to look like a circle. However, a polygon will always be infinitely far away from truly becoming a circle unless it fundamentally changes form. Because we will always be infinitely far away from understanding the maximum, this is learned ignorance. Like the polygon, we can increase our angles and become more complex in our understanding, but this is still infinitely far away from the maximum truth.
Though my “maximum” does not encompass a God, Nicholas of Cusa’s mathematical analysis of “unknowningness” was very informative. Many philosophers believe that numbers are a priori knowledge because they are universal and consistent throughout the universe. Through these mathematical comparisons, it became clearer to me that the infinite is beyond human understanding. Our mind cannot grasp abstract concepts such as infinity because we are finite beings, and have no means of comparative relation. This is why the true scope of the universe is unknowable to the human mind.
Furthermore, the knowledge available in the universe is infinite. However, this does not prevent us from longing to grasp everything we can in our short lifetime. To utilize Nicholas’ analogy, some of us are happy being simple triangles. Others study and work at adding angles to their understanding, so that they may become complex polygons of knowledge, even if they are still infinitely far from the maximum knowledge. Socrates let us know that we “know nothing.” Yes, there is value in that statement. But there is even more value in grasping all the knowledge we can in our lifetime, even if we still know nothing. This is why my thirst for knowledge is unending—the more angles I add to my understanding, the greater my ability to appreciate the beauty of our “maximum” universe.
26. What does Gerald Edelman mean by Neural Darwinism and Second Nature?
The human brain is a “complex evolutionary jungle.” It has a precise structure that may be scientifically examined, but at the same time, its immense unpredictability lends the brain a higher level of awareness. Because of our evolutionary history, we possess immense variability within our consciousness and can never know precisely what the source of a single input will be. Generations of evolution have helped to develop a second nature beyond simple computation.
Edelman believes that it is impossible to reduce some things into bite sized ideas. If our brain is not simply a computational system, we must attribute the rest of our neural complexity to Darwinian evolution. It is important to see the balance between our computational abilities and this complex evolutionary history. Although Edelman was able to create a sort of “thinking” robot, it was still so primitive that it possessed less mental dexterity than a four-year-old. The human brain can be explained computationally to a certain extent, but our higher consciousness is a product of our “second nature” and our evolutionary history.
27. Why turn vegetarian?---according to the film you saw. What arguments are there against vegetarianism?
The majority of the arguments in the PETA film are meant to appeal to a person’s moral sensibility. In addition, a vegetarian diet is hygienic and helps to prevent health disease and obesity. The moral arguments include: not lying to your children about the food you eat, the unfairness of killing innocent animals, the prevention of senseless violence, preventing people from profiteering of off violence, the huge amount of food and water intake that animals use, that fact that animals feel fear, and because everyone wants to be free. According to this film, the benefits of a vegetarian diet seem almost endless.
On the other end of the debate, some people are put off by the vegetarian movement. Human beings have evolved to be omnivores, are therefore require several vitamins that are present in meat, such a vitamin B12. In addition, animal meat is a good source of protein that is more difficult to come by in a vegetarian diet. Our omnivorous nature is demonstrated by our teeth, which are capable of processing both vegetables and meat. Additionally, many species would explode in population if all of humanity were to give up the killing of animals. Hunting and eating of other life forms is a fact of nature. Every predator on this planet must kill to survive, and does not stop to “reflect” upon their guilt. We are just one more predator species, and therefore have the right to kill for food like nature intended us to do.
When writing the opposing views for vegetarianism I cannot help but to provide a rebuttal— the most obvious one being that the destruction of the ecological balance is OUR fault. The reason populations of herbivores would explode is a result of our own systematic killing of predators. We are now forced to keep deer populations, among others, artificially under control. This is a result of our indifferent regard for environmental matters. My perspective is that everyone has the responsibility to lessen our large intake of meat. Our culture tortures animals by shoving them into cramped living spaces, when we could offer better lives if we were to raise fewer of them. We feed our animals huge amounts of antibiotics so that they can survive unhygienic conditions, only to pass huge health risks onto us. My motto in life is “everything is moderation,” and I feel that simply restraining our intake of animal meat can provide a better life for all.
28. What was the turning point in Ramana Maharshi's life?
Ramana Maharshi began life as an average boy. His favorite pastime was sports, and he was a mediocre scholar. At the death of his father, his family was separated and he was sent to live among relatives. Just before his 16th birthday, he read a religious book called “Periva Puranam.” The tales of worship and renunciation gave him a sense of awe, marking a turning point in his existence. Suddenly, a violent fear of death overcame him and he thought “I am going to die.” Instead of retreating into fear, he was led to contemplate the meaning of life and death and a great change came over his life.
From this point on, Ramana Maharshi became a vessel of peace and inner contemplation. He gave up the egotistical “I” to find the greater, eternal self. His peace and constant meditation affected all of those around him, and many flocked to find peace in his presence. However, he did not see himself as separate or higher than those around him. He shared in food and comforts equally, and all castes were forgotten in his company. Like Baba Faqir Chand, Ramana did not grasp at power and pretend to be something greater than he was. His own modesty and serenity were what gave people comfort. He sought an inner truth, and this is what brought people to him. Ramana Marharshi’s renunciation demonstrated that words are more powerful than deeds, and this is something greater than any “all knowing” guru can provide.
29. What was your favorite expert film lecture this term?
Richard Dawkins lecture on the “Strangeness of Science” taught me a secular way to look at our place within the universe. Although much of our universe often seems mystical, Dawkins theory proposes that this is a result of our “middle world” developed brains. Natural selection has developed our brains to model the world for survival, not for the pursuit of space travel or pondering the origins of life. Because we have evolved to survive in “middle world,” we are cannot always trust our common sense when it comes to explanations of the universe.
I am a big fan of Dawkins, and always enjoy his straightforward, rationalistic perspective. This particular lecture serves as a reminder that humans are animals too, subject to evolutionary restraints. We like to think or ourselves as higher beings who possess all the knowledge in the universe, but we must learn that our senses often lead us astray. While there is nothing wrong with embracing what makes us human, being aware of these instincts can also help guide us away from rash, unthinking behavior. It is only through scientific inquiry and education that we may emancipate ourselves from “middle world.”
If we wish to explore everything from the cosmos to microbiology, we must develop beyond our evolutionary constraints and realize that there are things beyond human nature. Dawkins’ naturalistic perspective does not take make me feel insignificant, but gives me comfort that there will always be new things for humanity to discover. We have a place within our own chain of evolution, but we must be sure not to allow these instincts to guide us into back into our animal nature. For we alone can willfully break free from our evolutionary constraints through the use of science, technology, and rational thought.
30. What was your favorite movie this term?
I enjoyed all of the Nietzsche pieces this semester, “Gods too Decompose” being my favorite. Besides the beautiful language Nietzsche utilizes, I appreciate how the poem throws you from one epiphany to within a couple of stanzas. First, we are shown the emptiness that science has brought us. We no longer see any sense or direction to the universe, only feeling its cold, meaningless expanse. We have killed God through science, but our real sin lies in not recognizing the definitive turning point in humanity. Our rituals have become empty and without meaning. We blindly wander in isolation and without purpose, but we continue on as if nothing has changed. But, Nietzsche does not see death as an end, but a beginning. A new “lantern” of truth must be lit to replace the blind morality of God.
As religious fundamentalists battle on the side of violence and ignorance, I can only hope that humanity will one day develop a new morality, based upon humanitarian principals. Because the fundamentalists refuse to accept that the world HAS changed, they fight even harder to defend dying principles. This can only bring further turmoil and separation to mankind. By realizing that biblical principals are based on an outdated age of authoritarianism and misogyny, we finally move forward from them. A new “lantern” of scientific inquiry and rationality must be shown be unite us under new principals. Only then can we can shake off this baggage of blind faith that drags us down into ignorance. Though a completely naturalistic world may seem cold and empty to some, the truth is not always kind. It does, however, teach us to deal more effectively with reality instead of emptily following a “dead” god. Nietzsche’s piece taught me that ancient morality must be definitively discarded if humanity is to move forward.
31. What was your favorite reading?
Dawkins meme theory introduced an entirely new way of looking at human culture. Culture is not just a sporadic occurrence, but evolves in the same way as genetic evolution. Memes evolve through natural selection and fitness just as genes do. It is the goal of an advertiser to create a “fit” meme that will self reproduce and spread throughout our culture. Memes that are not fit will quickly dies out, or possibly spread throughout a smaller segment of the population. This also explains the evolution of ideas which cannot be genetically inherited, such as celibacy.
The theory of memes also places abstract cultural ideas into terms that can be more easily examined. Because I find it very important to be aware of my cultural influences, Dawkins’ theory is extremely relevant to my philosophy on life. From the moment we are born, we are flooded with ideas of how we act and what we should buy. Some ideas seem more compelling than others, and these are the ideas that end up shaping our lives. I can’t stress enough how important it is to be aware of these memes. Before accepting an idea, we must learn to think about the rationale behind it. When a company puts subtle branding into our movies, clothes, music, etc, it is trying to spread a meme. We are blind to this manipulation, and therefore keep buying things just because the meme has become recognizable. Why do we allow strangers to shape our lives? Dawkins theory is extremely helpful in recognizing the influence cultural ideas have on us. If we are to become “free,” we must develop recognition of memes. Is a choice we make really our own, or it is just a self-propagating meme? Once we can recognize memes, we can finally say that we are free to make our own choices, be they positive or negative.
32. Most unusual thing you learned this term
By reading from a wide array of philosophers, I learned that there are many ways of looking at the universe outside of my own. Though I already understood the notion of “unknowingnesss”, I did not realize how this concept is reflected across history and culture. To me, this emphasizes how important it is not to have preconceived notions when examining our surroundings. Once we give up the idea that we know something, our minds are free to absorb new ideas. Reading so many perspectives on humanity did not guide me in any single direction, but opened an array of ways in which to examine the world.
Another point that I found interesting was that there is a sort of philosophy even in science. I am a person who looks for proof and empirical evidence before making a decision. However, when it comes to theories on quantum physics and consciousness, a certain degree of speculation is involved. I finally accept that there is nothing wrong in a certain amount of speculation. After all, speculation is where these ideas come from in the first place. Later on, we may only hope to find evidence to back up our theories. I suppose a certain amount of mysticism is necessary in our lives. There is beauty in the universe, though we may not understand it. Our lack of empirical evidence is part of this mysterious beauty.
All things considered, I appreciate how philosophy opened my mind up to new ideas. As an English major, I took this class to give me new perspective in analyzing literature. Little did I know that it would also give me a new perspective on life. Instead of merely recognizing the concept of “unknowingness”, I will make a sincere attempt to embrace it so that I may continue to grow intellectually.
Midterm
4. Kara Krone
5. Karabear1
6. Karabar1@gmail.com
7. http://karabearscave.blogspot.com/
8. Yes, I have done all of the reading
9. Yes, I have watched all the films
10. Posts are below midterm
11. Why does Lisa Randall believe that there may be many more dimensions than we presently know in current physics? Is there any evidence at this stage for her beliefs?
In Lisa Randall’s theory, the weak nature of gravity demonstrates that we are in a small slice of the universe. For example, if a 3-dimensional sphere passed through a 2-D world, the residents of that world would only see a small cross section of that sphere. The sphere would have substance outside of the 2nd dimension, but it wouldn’t be entirely detectable. This is why gravity is weaker than electromagnetism and nuclear forces. It must pass through our dimension and gain strength beyond what is detectable to us. She supplements this theory with a hypothesis that matter must stick to branes: lower dimensions that prevent matter from spreading throughout the universe. If we do not lie at the gravity brane, gravity would seem weak to us.
Randall takes a small slice of evidence to extrapolate an entire theory of multi-verses. She seems to have trouble making the leap from hypothesis to fact. Couldn’t it be that gravity is weak compared to other forces simply because it is weak? When she hopes for more theoretical and experimental input, she seems to realize the lack of real evidence for her theory and wants others to provide it for her. Her theory on branes is even more farfetched— she provides no evidence for this beyond the fact that gravity is weak. While it may be true that we, being mere 3-dimensional beings, are incapable of seeing the dimensions beyond, it is difficult to accept a theory with little observable or mathematical evidence. In my opinion, Randall fails at providing any concrete evidence for her theories.
12. What are Aldous Huxley's views on education?
While education is useful for survival, Huxley views it at the higher level of “actualizing the greatest number of desirable potentialities.” This statement implies that there are many intelligences in this world that have been lost through a lack of education. If these people are provided appropriate education, we may gain a goodwill, intelligence, and creativity that could be easily lost forever to humankind. Once all actualities have been realized, we will have made the most of what humankind is capable of. It is sad to think there are many great minds out there that have been lost to poverty and ignorance. Huxley’s grand view on education is a hopeful look at what mankind can be capable of if education is all inclusive.
Huxley goes on to explain the differing, and equally important, levels of education. While education has been historically verbal, we must also focus upon making our mind and body respond with a “clearer awareness.” This is done outside of literary wisdom, by achieving a passiveness and receptivity in our minds. While Huxley does not clarify exactly what he means in gaining a “wise passiveness,” it seems that we should achieve a greater awareness of our surroundings if we listen instead of always verbalizing. Once we educate ourselves in moving back and forth between the two, we can “perfect the mind to the intellectual level of God.”
13. Do you think science and religion are compatible?
There are several reasons why science and religion are not compatible. Beckman, of Harvey Mudd, states that scientists “construct a highly technical and precise language for communicating their observations.” Religion is less precise in its lack of an “articulate, coherent system.” (Beckman) While religion usually provides a religious text for guidance, science is more articulate in its need for repeatability and direct observation. Religious texts are subjective and interpretive, while science constructs this “precise language” in order to avoid bias.
Secondly, the subject matter between science and religion differ too drastically. Davis of Scripps College states that religion “deals with questions like God and the after-life,” while scientists “will accept something only if it seems that the claim is empirically verifiable.” When the science and religion attempt to cross into other spheres, they destroy the basis of those institutions. Many fundamentalists attempt to discredit science because the need for evidence overrides their own premise of faith. Conversely, the push for divine intervention in science goes against the requirement for empirical evidence. While the two subjects are perfectly adapted to their own realms, it is counterproductive to push these into the opposing sides.
Third, Jolley of U.C. San Diego states that “the claims of science are empirically falsifiable, those of religion are not.” One of the main premises of the scientific method is that it is falsifiable. Once a hypothesis is formed, it can be altered or falsified as new evidence grows. Religion, on the other hand, operates on pre-conceived premises. It is presumed correct, and therefore cannot adapt to new evidence. In this manner, science operates on evidence, while religion operates on beliefs.
Fourth, science does not attempt to provide “comfort, consolation, or inspiration.” (Dumont) Religion has its place in finding meaning, truth, and social bonding in human culture. Science, however, attempts to explain the universe objectively. If this provides comfort to some, this is not its absolute goal. Science simply operates on a hypothesis, and seeks empirical evidence to verify or falsify it into a theory. Religion is important for filling this gap in human existence. The search for meaning and truth in the universe is an important aspect of humanity. While science and religion are not directly compatible, they are by no means at odds with each other. Each has its own place in the human psyche.
14. Why was Socrates put on trial? How did Socrates defend his position?
In “Apology,” Socrates has been accused of being a “curious person, who searches for things under the earth and in heaven”, “making the worse appear the better cause,” and “teaching the aforesaid doctrines to others.” In other words, Socrates seeks knowledge, challenges moral boundaries, and teaches this doctrine to others. He operates on the presumption that he knows nothing, which has created a following of youth that has learned to question authority figures, who must also know nothing. The “enlightened” leaders and teachers of Athens cannot handle their cultural conventions being questioned and feel slighted that they are not the most learned people in the community. Because of this, Socrates stands accused of being a “corrupter of the youth.”
Socrates first defends himself by demonstrating that he is not a “teacher” because he is not superior to anybody. He lacks wisdom and therefore is not qualified to be a teacher of others. He then demonstrates that no man is wise when he searches for men wiser than himself. As he speaks to these men, he finds that they too know nothing. Furthermore, the ones held in high esteem were the most foolish ones of all. These men, angry at their intelligences being questioned, become angry at Socrates instead of themselves. Next, he demonstrates that he is not a corrupter because no man would attempt to create someone who would harm him. Finally, he demonstrates his service to God by virtue of his obedience. Because Socrates holds that knowing nothing represents true virtue, he has nothing to fear and knows that he is right in standing strong against pretenders.
15. Give a brief history of philosophy
Ancient (585 BC)
Athens encourages philosophy through direct democracy (birth of philosophical debate)
Sophists: Traveling teachers who argued anyone can prove any point they wish
Socrates: Questioned everyone on beauty, wisdom, and truth
Inspired many disciples
Plato: Founder of the Academy of Athens
Student of Socrates.
The mind can apply concepts to the world
Soul is superior to body
Evil is ignorance of truth
Aristotle: Student of Plato
Began scientific inquiry, inductive and deductive reasoning
Medieval
Applied Aristotle’s logic to daily life
Thomas Aquinas: Everything that exists has a cause (God)
Man needs divine help to attain truth
Any research outside medicine was “philosophy”
Existence is good, God is good, therefore God exists
Modern
Age of Reason/ Enlightenment
Influenced by a broader world view
Systematic, logical organization of the world
Religion is integrated into philosophy
19th century: self-organization & intrinsic order (Goethe/Kant)
Development of scientific philosophy (Darwin)
Contemporary
Upheavals, basis for knowledge are challenged
Reform and alter older systems
Influenced by world wars, science, human rights issues, politics
Rise of “pop” philosophy
Very wide ranging
Abrahamic Philosophy
From the study of Semitic tradition
Traced to the life of Abraham from the Hebrew Bible
16. Explain the big bang and the inflationary universe. Why is it important to know astronomy in order to do philosophy?
The big bang provides an explanation for the aftermath of the bang, but says nothing about its underlying physics. Inflationary universe explains the bang itself in that the universe is expanding from a single small region, and that each galaxy is receding at a velocity proportional to its distance. The enormous rate at which the universe expands lowers its energy density, forming a flattened universe. This inflation also smoothes out inhomogeneities, helping to create uniformity. At the end of this period of inflation, reheating occurs. The decaying radiation particles start the process of the big bang by forming “hot soup” of particles. In the big bang theory by itself, the universe would evolve so quickly that there would be no time to uniformity to develop. The Big Bang, when combined with cosmic inflation, helps to explain the shape, form, and substance of our universe.
Astronomy is an important aspect in understanding our surrounding universe and the small part we play in it. Through astronomy, we may understand that we are not the only living force in the universe, nor are we at the center of it. The knowledge of astronomy helps us fathom how we got here, opening us up greater philosophical questions. Astronomy also helps us to understand physics and a more mathematical, logical view of the universe. Philosophical arguments based in logic have greater rationality and strength. By combining astronomy and philosophy, we may gain perspective in our view of the universe.
17. How do Heisenberg's views on philosophy and science DIFFER from Einstein's? How are they similar?
Heisenberg argues that a completely naturalist view of the universe is impossible, given our limitations in separating the physical from the mental. He uses the term res extensa to denote the physical world, and res cogitans to denote the thinking being. Because the two concepts act upon each other, it is impossible to objectify oneself by separating them. For example, the mind is dependant on the laws of physics and chemistry, while the natural world cannot be examined without the mind. Because Kant’s supposition that certain ideas are ‘a priori’ has been proven incorrect, Heisenberg deduces that ‘a priori’ knowledge is invalid. Therefore, there is no such thing as separating the mind from the scientific. He further proves this through the advent of quantum theory, which can produce exact science without “dogmatic realism.” His discoveries in quantum theory reinforce his belief that there is not a single, unifying force in the universe. The impossibility of ‘ a priori’ represents that nothing is entirely certain.
Einstein, on the other hand, searched for a unifying, absolute principal in physics. Though he never found this principal, he felt assured that it was out there. This theory would unite electromagnetism, gravity, space, and time, giving unified meaning to our universe. To him, a theory that cannot be “tested experimentally will remain a hopeful curiosity.” (Einstein) He also sought absolute, empirical evidence to his theories. To Einstein, quantum theory could not explain the structure of matter because it was “mere probability.” While Heisenberg realized the uncertainty of the human mind, Einstein remained hopeful at finding hard, unifying evidence for all matter.
Both scientists sought a way of examining the universe, each in different ways. Both saw beauty in the universe, but looked for answers by asking it questions. Also, both scientists saw that truth can be found in the laws of nature. This helped each man to find a different sort of scientific principal in explaining the universe.
18. What is meme theory and do you find it plausible?
Meme theory introduces the idea that evolution does not always occur genetically. Human culture has its own process of evolution through the transmission of “memes”— small fragments of our thoughts and practices that may gather to form complex ideas. Meme theory mirrors human DNA in that we are composed of many genes sequences forming a complex being. Likewise, the gathering of memes forms the basis of complex human traditions. In his theory, Dawkins demonstrates that natural selection and survival of the fittest applies perfectly to memes. Memes that cannot reproduce will die out, while others adapt to become cherished human institutions. The “self-perpetuating” meme operates on the greatest reproductive success, i.e. survival of the fittest. For example, the faith meme has developed to prevent one from questioning its own lack of evidence. It then survives to reproduce and carry on in human culture.
Though Dawkin’s theory on memes is philosophical because of its abstract nature, the similarities to gene behavior make this theory extremely plausible. Although Memes evolve at a faster rate than genes, they do not require sexual reproduction. This allows memes to reproduce many times in a single person’s life span. Furthermore, the fundamentals of evolution (variation, natural selection, survival of the fittest) follow meme theory perfectly. Memes often split off into smaller ideas/variations. Those that are more reproductively fit will spread throughout our culture, while those that are not die out. Meme theory also explains cultural practices that are not transmitted through culture, such as celibacy. Dawkins thorough treatment of his theory and the similarities to genes make meme theory extremely plausible.
19. Why is understanding biological evolution so important in understanding human thought and behavior?
When Charles Darwin brought forth the concept that human beings are not the center of God’s creation, but just one part of the evolutionary process, this shattered our perception of human behavior. We are not meant to be in dominion over nature, but to survive within its boundaries. Because natural selection is based upon the selective pressures of the environment, our minds are shaped by generations of adaptation within nature. This concept is extremely important in understanding human thought and behavior. Richard Dawkins realized that our entire perception of the universe is based upon human survival needs. We have evolved to survive in nature, not to travel through space and contemplate quantum theory.
The understanding of early human behavior can explain many of man’s deep seated behaviors. For example, Wilson explains how early tribes survived through solidarity and a feeling of superiority. This brought them an increasing confidence and willingness to sacrifice for their tribe. Religion was a guide in providing these survival techniques, and has been carried down in our evolution ever since.
Wilson goes further in contemplating evolution’s importance by understanding that the human mind is also capable of evolution. Once we understand that are actions are based upon instinctual impulses, we may contemplate the true nature of “free will.” The idea that our thoughts are not truly free may help us to break from our basest instincts. It is important that we understand these restrictions in our mental capacities if we are to move past them.
20. In one of the films you were required to see, the narrator argued that fundamentalism was a mental disease. Why?
The narrator in “Fundamentalism is a Mental Disease” alludes to the large array of evidence supporting evolution by presenting clips of cell division. Because the evidence for evolution is so inarguable, he believes that anyone supporting creationism must have a mental disease. He then points to intelligent design’s attempt to “dress up” creationism in order to insert it into evolutionary science. If intelligent design is analyzed scientifically, it is impossible to accept this as a scientific theory. The absolute lack of peer reviewed support for the intelligent design movement further demonstrates that anyone supporting this movement lacks the ability to think. Because God is not necessary to explain anything, fundamentalists are wasting their minds with questions that are exempt from science.
Though the narrator had a small amount of truth to his argument, I felt that he was being too harsh in labeling all fundamentalists as mentally incompetent. Though the evidence for evolution is extensive, a large segment of our society is in denial toward anything that challenges their firmly held beliefs. This is not because they are “diseased,” but because they have been exposed to religious brainwashing from an early, highly developmental age. By being taught to think that there is only one truth, these children learn to lose their critical thinking abilities from an early age. They are instructed to be like sheep and acquire a sort of intellectual death. They are not born like this, but are victims of a highly restrictive society. Fortunately, some are able break out of this intellectual death and learn to question their preconceived values. For this reason, I would not say that “fundamentalism is a mental disease.” The push for education and scientific understanding in these segments of the community may help some to accept the undeniable facts of science. Minds that are truly diseased would be incapable of ever breaking from their ignorance.
21. Where do you think Owen Gingerich "parts company" O. Wilson? Who do youthink is more persuasive in their reasoning about religion?
Gingerich and Wilson’s views depart in their sense of purpose in the universe. To Gingerich, the universe would be a “joke” without any higher purpose or meaning. He trusts his gut instincts about God’s hand in creation, feeling that this is how things “ought” to be. We are endowed with the ability to understand the universe because religion makes it understandable. Gingerich also states that all men are men of faith because everyone has a belief system. This statement demonstrates his need for faith in all aspects of life. To him, it seems impossible that anybody could lack this sense of higher direction and purpose.
Wilson fundamentally departs from Gingerich in his view that all life can be explained scientifically. Every action a person takes could be predetermined if the data in their life could be synthesized. Because all process in life are obedient to physics and chemistry, Wilson takes a naturalist view of the universe. He contradicts Gingerich’s statement that scientific belief is a religion of its own, because science is based upon empirical evidence. Though he also finds a sense of purpose in the universe, his is fundamentally scientific. The Darwinian view gives him a sense of belonging with his surrounding world— without resorting a higher intelligence.
Though I am admittedly biased against mysticism and blind faith, I would say that Wilson is more persuasive in his reasoning. Gingerich’s views are based upon nothing but a “gut instinct” of what the universe ought to be. If anybody was allowed to make a “credible” theory based on gut instinct alone, what sort of chaotic mess would science become? Science is based upon empirical evidence, reasoning, and logic. Even speculative theories, such as the Big Bang, have mathematical reasoning behind them. Even more off-course is Gingerich’s view that everyone has faith simply because everyone believes in some sort of system. Though scientists believe in a system, it is not a system of blind faith. The scientific method is based upon empirical evidence that can be modified or falsified. This is not the same as blind, uncorroborated faith. Ultimately, Gingerich provides no support for his argument beyond a “gut instinct.”
22. What does Francis Fukuyama mean by the "end of history?"
Fukuyama theorizes that history has a gradual direction toward democracy, capitalism, and moral universalism. He points to the increasing peacefulness between industrialized nations who hold these ideals, because everyone has begun to agree on the same social structures. As a radius the radius of trust widens, it will encompass all humanity and we will become a single, peaceful culture. This cannot happen while science is still developing, because we are still dealing with new uncertainties. History is a sign of our past uncertainties, trial, and errors. Once there is no more to discover for the future, there will be nothing be to learned from the past. At this point, we will reach the “end of history.”
Fukuyama’s concept of a utopian society is one without culture, history, or scientific advancement. This does not seem like a utopia to me, but a bleak world without the color of human diversity. Fukuyama instead sees diversity as a means of conflict. He has decided that everyone must believe in his own personal views in order to find peace. He chooses to completely ignore the intolerance and ignorance present in fundamentalist religion, seeing the rise of fundamentalism in America as a sign that we are achieving our goal of “moral universalism.” Because this lecture is a bit dated, Fukuyama has not yet seen this country’s attack on one with a different belief system. Moral universalism would breed more of this behavior, with those outside the norm being weeded out as outsiders and traitors. Personally, I embrace the diversity that makes us human and will continue to enjoy my world of cultural diversity. Moral revolutionaries are what form the substance of literature and philosophy. Without written history of the “outsiders,” this would be a bleak world indeed.
23. Explain Nicholas of Cusa's philosophy of "unknowingness."
First, the statement that “every inquiry is comparative” signifies that you cannot know one side of something without comparing it to another. The Pythagorean Theorem is displayed next to this quote to demonstrate that a third side can only be found if the other two are known. Next, if everything is comparative, you can’t understand anything without a means of comparison. Because everything in the universe is related through numbers, anything can be used as a means of comparison.
Easy numerical equations are easily understood since the comparison is simple, but the comparison becomes more difficult with advanced equations. Since numbers are precise, and everything is congruent to each other, the universe must be precise even though it is complex. However, the degree of comparative relation makes the universe difficult to understand. Because the unknown and the known are congruent to each other, they must be the same. But, the unknown surpasses human reason. Therefore, we cannot know anything.
If the only thing we know is nothing, we cannot know the unknown. Furthermore, “all things are difficult and unexplainable in words” because words are not comparable. Therefore, the unknown is hidden to the human mind. Even if the truth is right in front of us, we cannot see it— just like the owl cannot look at the sun. Once we understand that the only thing we can know is our own ignorance, we will “attain learned ignorance.”
24. According to Nietzsche, how did we actually "kill" God?
Nietzsche seems to say not that we literally “killed” God, but killed mysticism through the advent of science. The madman represents a sense of insanity that follows faith. When we lose the madness of blind faith, we gain the madness of freedom. Nietzsche suggests that we have destroyed all boundaries and absolutes, because we have “[sponged] away the entire horizon.” We no longer can see any sense or direction to the universe, instead feeling its cold, meaningless expanse. As we pursue scientific inquiry, our knowledge of the world becomes larger and colder. We lose the warmth and community that God provides. Instead, there is a sense of nothingness— a hurdling through space without direction.
However, we are still blind in that we cannot see what we are doing to ourselves. Humanity has become disconnected through the ignorance of its loss. We ignore it when we “do not hear anything yet. . . of the gravediggers.” We do not smell the decomposition of our boundaries nor honor the loss of absolute truths. Without realizing the emptiness of our faith, we wander in isolation of each other. Nonetheless, the boundaries are too far gone to regain. There may be no purification at this point because there is no longer any sense of the finite. Our religious rituals are now meaningless, because God is dead to us. We call out to him, but we can no longer regain faith because our deed is “too great.”
The madman then lights a new “lantern” of truth. The boundaries of religion have decomposed to open up our universe past the periphery of the horizon. Once humanity is able to accept this, they can find purpose beyond the “dead” sense of morality and reason in God.
25. In the movie, Little Things that Jiggle, physics is explained by a series of slogans.
The film “Little Things that Jiggle” demonstrates the search for an encompassing, unified truth in physics. When complex ideas are reduced to simple formulae, they are more easily applied to other theories. Because mathematics and physics provide repeatable, documental evidence for their theories, they can obtain the substance of truth instead of mere speculation. The discovery of a unifying formula of the universe represents, to many scientists, a cohesive truth.
In many respects, philosophy lacks this ring of truth. Because it is often abstract, it usually relies on speculation instead of hard evidence. Philosophers such as Descartes have striven toward a more logical, mathematical process in philosophy, but its abstract nature still leaves these theories up to scrutiny. Likewise, since our scope of observation is very limited, scientists must also apply reason to advance their theories beyond what is readily observable. While the fundamentals of cosmic inflation and the big bang are founded upon mathematical fact, these theories are still speculation because they lack hard empirical evidence. In this manner, scientists may become philosophers in their own way.
By combining physics and philosophy, each field can merge philosophical speculation with the hard truth of science. Providing scientific proof for philosophy serves to strengthen ideas beyond the level of mere theory. Because theories based in mathematics and logic would attain greater certainty, physics provides a greater foundation for philosophical speculation. Conversely, philosophy helps to provide meaning and context to scientific theories. When the two fields are tied together, each may achieve a greater level of meaning and truth.
26. How do you explain the following line: "To have freedom OF religion one must also have freedom FROM religion."
Religious dogma usually comes with a set of rigid dictates. Because religion is a “meme” that has adapted for survival, these rules typically include blind, unquestioning faith. The majority of people do not come to a certain religion of their own volition, but are indoctrinated into it from an early age. Thus, most never find a philosophy that is uniquely theirs, but simply accept the religious dogma that they were raised with. This is not religious freedom, but rote mimicry of very specific rules.
How can one truly believe in something without ever questioning? What if a devout, unquestioning Christian was born in a different culture? Would this person then be doomed to Hell? How can one know that they are correct without examining their own beliefs? The rules and social norms that are indoctrinated into us from an early age restrict our thoughts and behavior. Though some of these rules help us function in society, they prevent us from making truly “free” choices. Though everybody operates within assumed social norms, it is important to understand the effect these have on our personal actions.
I believe Socrates understood this when he stated that he “knew nothing.” The understanding of “unknowingness” is the only way to have true religious and philosophical freedom. Until we comprehend the rigidity of our own indoctrination, we cannot escape its effects. We must be free from all assumption before we can make a choice that is truly our own. This being said, I wonder if any of us is truly “free?”
27. Why does Dawkins believe that believing in God is delusional?
Richard Dawkins suggests that our brains are have not evolved to process the true queerness of the universe. Natural selection has developed our brains to model the world for our survival, not for the pursuit of space travel or pondering the origins of life. Because we have evolved to survive in “middle world,” we are cannot trust our common sense when it comes to explanations of the universe. The idea of God makes sense to us because we are social beings and like to personify the world around us. This personification is not always an appropriate explanation for things, even though it gives us comfort. Since we are evolved to survive in “middle world,” the concept of God is a delusional survival mechanism. We must learn to break out of the narrow box surrounding our basic survival instincts in order to grasp the true nature of reality.
Furthermore, memes will often justify delusional religious beliefs. Because memes have adapted for survival, they utilize survival mechanisms that may deceive us into not questioning ideas of faith and hellfire. The concept of belief without evidence should not make sense to us, but the faith meme dictates that it is immoral to question it. Also, the idea of hellfire makes us fearful in questioning with the prospect of eternal pain. In this manner, we can easily be deceived beyond even biological means. Dawkins suggests that we must be wary of our instincts (biologically and socially) because they are not developed toward scientific inquiry. To trust our instincts blindly and without question is delusional.
28. Can science offer a sense of mystery comparable to what certain religions offer?
Though Einstein believed in empirical evidence and scientific universality, he remained awed at the beauty of the cosmos. He realized that the “magnificent structure” in nature we could “comprehend only imperfectly.” Though he sought answers to the cosmos, he realized that this would only open more questions. The unending magnificence of science gave him a sense of wonder comparable to the wonder of religious rapture. To Einstein, it was important “not to stop questioning.” Like a theologian, he found delight in examining our place in the universe. The analytical nature of science did not close the doors of mystery, but expand them.
To Wilson, the sense of independence that Protestantism provides is comparable to the independence of scientific discovery. He realizes that the expression of self and belief can be equally expressed through science. The passion of research drives him to continue his work, much like a religionist is passionately driven toward finding new meaning in his or her religious text. As both scientists discover their place in our universe, they are drawn toward new doors of discovery. Science does not make the heart grow cold, but fill it with a sense of religious-type wonder.
29. How does an understanding of cellular automata suggest a "new kind of science”
Stephen Wolfram, like many other philosophers, is searching for a foundational rule for understanding our universe. Wolfram’s methods are a “new kind of science” in that he uses simple computer programs to break down the patterns seen in nature. Computer language is better equipped to find the “primitive, basic constructs” of the environment. By using new technology that can produce quick computations, he is introducing a more systematic approach to finding these mathematical patterns.
By using a series of simple, repeated grids, Wolfram exhibits that complex patterns can come from simple ones. In his demonstrations, some of the repeated patterns produce more complex patterns which may seem random. Though biology may also seem random, it is composed of very small, repeatable patterns. This is one way of explaining the complexity of the universe. By proving that this rule is universal, Wolfram wishes to create a paradigm shift in the way we view the universe. The ability of computers to calculate these small patterns to a high degree forms Wolfram’s “new kind of science.” Without this ability, it would be impossible to analyze such a high degree of repeated patterns.
5. Karabear1
6. Karabar1@gmail.com
7. http://karabearscave.blogspot.com/
8. Yes, I have done all of the reading
9. Yes, I have watched all the films
10. Posts are below midterm
11. Why does Lisa Randall believe that there may be many more dimensions than we presently know in current physics? Is there any evidence at this stage for her beliefs?
In Lisa Randall’s theory, the weak nature of gravity demonstrates that we are in a small slice of the universe. For example, if a 3-dimensional sphere passed through a 2-D world, the residents of that world would only see a small cross section of that sphere. The sphere would have substance outside of the 2nd dimension, but it wouldn’t be entirely detectable. This is why gravity is weaker than electromagnetism and nuclear forces. It must pass through our dimension and gain strength beyond what is detectable to us. She supplements this theory with a hypothesis that matter must stick to branes: lower dimensions that prevent matter from spreading throughout the universe. If we do not lie at the gravity brane, gravity would seem weak to us.
Randall takes a small slice of evidence to extrapolate an entire theory of multi-verses. She seems to have trouble making the leap from hypothesis to fact. Couldn’t it be that gravity is weak compared to other forces simply because it is weak? When she hopes for more theoretical and experimental input, she seems to realize the lack of real evidence for her theory and wants others to provide it for her. Her theory on branes is even more farfetched— she provides no evidence for this beyond the fact that gravity is weak. While it may be true that we, being mere 3-dimensional beings, are incapable of seeing the dimensions beyond, it is difficult to accept a theory with little observable or mathematical evidence. In my opinion, Randall fails at providing any concrete evidence for her theories.
12. What are Aldous Huxley's views on education?
While education is useful for survival, Huxley views it at the higher level of “actualizing the greatest number of desirable potentialities.” This statement implies that there are many intelligences in this world that have been lost through a lack of education. If these people are provided appropriate education, we may gain a goodwill, intelligence, and creativity that could be easily lost forever to humankind. Once all actualities have been realized, we will have made the most of what humankind is capable of. It is sad to think there are many great minds out there that have been lost to poverty and ignorance. Huxley’s grand view on education is a hopeful look at what mankind can be capable of if education is all inclusive.
Huxley goes on to explain the differing, and equally important, levels of education. While education has been historically verbal, we must also focus upon making our mind and body respond with a “clearer awareness.” This is done outside of literary wisdom, by achieving a passiveness and receptivity in our minds. While Huxley does not clarify exactly what he means in gaining a “wise passiveness,” it seems that we should achieve a greater awareness of our surroundings if we listen instead of always verbalizing. Once we educate ourselves in moving back and forth between the two, we can “perfect the mind to the intellectual level of God.”
13. Do you think science and religion are compatible?
There are several reasons why science and religion are not compatible. Beckman, of Harvey Mudd, states that scientists “construct a highly technical and precise language for communicating their observations.” Religion is less precise in its lack of an “articulate, coherent system.” (Beckman) While religion usually provides a religious text for guidance, science is more articulate in its need for repeatability and direct observation. Religious texts are subjective and interpretive, while science constructs this “precise language” in order to avoid bias.
Secondly, the subject matter between science and religion differ too drastically. Davis of Scripps College states that religion “deals with questions like God and the after-life,” while scientists “will accept something only if it seems that the claim is empirically verifiable.” When the science and religion attempt to cross into other spheres, they destroy the basis of those institutions. Many fundamentalists attempt to discredit science because the need for evidence overrides their own premise of faith. Conversely, the push for divine intervention in science goes against the requirement for empirical evidence. While the two subjects are perfectly adapted to their own realms, it is counterproductive to push these into the opposing sides.
Third, Jolley of U.C. San Diego states that “the claims of science are empirically falsifiable, those of religion are not.” One of the main premises of the scientific method is that it is falsifiable. Once a hypothesis is formed, it can be altered or falsified as new evidence grows. Religion, on the other hand, operates on pre-conceived premises. It is presumed correct, and therefore cannot adapt to new evidence. In this manner, science operates on evidence, while religion operates on beliefs.
Fourth, science does not attempt to provide “comfort, consolation, or inspiration.” (Dumont) Religion has its place in finding meaning, truth, and social bonding in human culture. Science, however, attempts to explain the universe objectively. If this provides comfort to some, this is not its absolute goal. Science simply operates on a hypothesis, and seeks empirical evidence to verify or falsify it into a theory. Religion is important for filling this gap in human existence. The search for meaning and truth in the universe is an important aspect of humanity. While science and religion are not directly compatible, they are by no means at odds with each other. Each has its own place in the human psyche.
14. Why was Socrates put on trial? How did Socrates defend his position?
In “Apology,” Socrates has been accused of being a “curious person, who searches for things under the earth and in heaven”, “making the worse appear the better cause,” and “teaching the aforesaid doctrines to others.” In other words, Socrates seeks knowledge, challenges moral boundaries, and teaches this doctrine to others. He operates on the presumption that he knows nothing, which has created a following of youth that has learned to question authority figures, who must also know nothing. The “enlightened” leaders and teachers of Athens cannot handle their cultural conventions being questioned and feel slighted that they are not the most learned people in the community. Because of this, Socrates stands accused of being a “corrupter of the youth.”
Socrates first defends himself by demonstrating that he is not a “teacher” because he is not superior to anybody. He lacks wisdom and therefore is not qualified to be a teacher of others. He then demonstrates that no man is wise when he searches for men wiser than himself. As he speaks to these men, he finds that they too know nothing. Furthermore, the ones held in high esteem were the most foolish ones of all. These men, angry at their intelligences being questioned, become angry at Socrates instead of themselves. Next, he demonstrates that he is not a corrupter because no man would attempt to create someone who would harm him. Finally, he demonstrates his service to God by virtue of his obedience. Because Socrates holds that knowing nothing represents true virtue, he has nothing to fear and knows that he is right in standing strong against pretenders.
15. Give a brief history of philosophy
Ancient (585 BC)
Athens encourages philosophy through direct democracy (birth of philosophical debate)
Sophists: Traveling teachers who argued anyone can prove any point they wish
Socrates: Questioned everyone on beauty, wisdom, and truth
Inspired many disciples
Plato: Founder of the Academy of Athens
Student of Socrates.
The mind can apply concepts to the world
Soul is superior to body
Evil is ignorance of truth
Aristotle: Student of Plato
Began scientific inquiry, inductive and deductive reasoning
Medieval
Applied Aristotle’s logic to daily life
Thomas Aquinas: Everything that exists has a cause (God)
Man needs divine help to attain truth
Any research outside medicine was “philosophy”
Existence is good, God is good, therefore God exists
Modern
Age of Reason/ Enlightenment
Influenced by a broader world view
Systematic, logical organization of the world
Religion is integrated into philosophy
19th century: self-organization & intrinsic order (Goethe/Kant)
Development of scientific philosophy (Darwin)
Contemporary
Upheavals, basis for knowledge are challenged
Reform and alter older systems
Influenced by world wars, science, human rights issues, politics
Rise of “pop” philosophy
Very wide ranging
Abrahamic Philosophy
From the study of Semitic tradition
Traced to the life of Abraham from the Hebrew Bible
16. Explain the big bang and the inflationary universe. Why is it important to know astronomy in order to do philosophy?
The big bang provides an explanation for the aftermath of the bang, but says nothing about its underlying physics. Inflationary universe explains the bang itself in that the universe is expanding from a single small region, and that each galaxy is receding at a velocity proportional to its distance. The enormous rate at which the universe expands lowers its energy density, forming a flattened universe. This inflation also smoothes out inhomogeneities, helping to create uniformity. At the end of this period of inflation, reheating occurs. The decaying radiation particles start the process of the big bang by forming “hot soup” of particles. In the big bang theory by itself, the universe would evolve so quickly that there would be no time to uniformity to develop. The Big Bang, when combined with cosmic inflation, helps to explain the shape, form, and substance of our universe.
Astronomy is an important aspect in understanding our surrounding universe and the small part we play in it. Through astronomy, we may understand that we are not the only living force in the universe, nor are we at the center of it. The knowledge of astronomy helps us fathom how we got here, opening us up greater philosophical questions. Astronomy also helps us to understand physics and a more mathematical, logical view of the universe. Philosophical arguments based in logic have greater rationality and strength. By combining astronomy and philosophy, we may gain perspective in our view of the universe.
17. How do Heisenberg's views on philosophy and science DIFFER from Einstein's? How are they similar?
Heisenberg argues that a completely naturalist view of the universe is impossible, given our limitations in separating the physical from the mental. He uses the term res extensa to denote the physical world, and res cogitans to denote the thinking being. Because the two concepts act upon each other, it is impossible to objectify oneself by separating them. For example, the mind is dependant on the laws of physics and chemistry, while the natural world cannot be examined without the mind. Because Kant’s supposition that certain ideas are ‘a priori’ has been proven incorrect, Heisenberg deduces that ‘a priori’ knowledge is invalid. Therefore, there is no such thing as separating the mind from the scientific. He further proves this through the advent of quantum theory, which can produce exact science without “dogmatic realism.” His discoveries in quantum theory reinforce his belief that there is not a single, unifying force in the universe. The impossibility of ‘ a priori’ represents that nothing is entirely certain.
Einstein, on the other hand, searched for a unifying, absolute principal in physics. Though he never found this principal, he felt assured that it was out there. This theory would unite electromagnetism, gravity, space, and time, giving unified meaning to our universe. To him, a theory that cannot be “tested experimentally will remain a hopeful curiosity.” (Einstein) He also sought absolute, empirical evidence to his theories. To Einstein, quantum theory could not explain the structure of matter because it was “mere probability.” While Heisenberg realized the uncertainty of the human mind, Einstein remained hopeful at finding hard, unifying evidence for all matter.
Both scientists sought a way of examining the universe, each in different ways. Both saw beauty in the universe, but looked for answers by asking it questions. Also, both scientists saw that truth can be found in the laws of nature. This helped each man to find a different sort of scientific principal in explaining the universe.
18. What is meme theory and do you find it plausible?
Meme theory introduces the idea that evolution does not always occur genetically. Human culture has its own process of evolution through the transmission of “memes”— small fragments of our thoughts and practices that may gather to form complex ideas. Meme theory mirrors human DNA in that we are composed of many genes sequences forming a complex being. Likewise, the gathering of memes forms the basis of complex human traditions. In his theory, Dawkins demonstrates that natural selection and survival of the fittest applies perfectly to memes. Memes that cannot reproduce will die out, while others adapt to become cherished human institutions. The “self-perpetuating” meme operates on the greatest reproductive success, i.e. survival of the fittest. For example, the faith meme has developed to prevent one from questioning its own lack of evidence. It then survives to reproduce and carry on in human culture.
Though Dawkin’s theory on memes is philosophical because of its abstract nature, the similarities to gene behavior make this theory extremely plausible. Although Memes evolve at a faster rate than genes, they do not require sexual reproduction. This allows memes to reproduce many times in a single person’s life span. Furthermore, the fundamentals of evolution (variation, natural selection, survival of the fittest) follow meme theory perfectly. Memes often split off into smaller ideas/variations. Those that are more reproductively fit will spread throughout our culture, while those that are not die out. Meme theory also explains cultural practices that are not transmitted through culture, such as celibacy. Dawkins thorough treatment of his theory and the similarities to genes make meme theory extremely plausible.
19. Why is understanding biological evolution so important in understanding human thought and behavior?
When Charles Darwin brought forth the concept that human beings are not the center of God’s creation, but just one part of the evolutionary process, this shattered our perception of human behavior. We are not meant to be in dominion over nature, but to survive within its boundaries. Because natural selection is based upon the selective pressures of the environment, our minds are shaped by generations of adaptation within nature. This concept is extremely important in understanding human thought and behavior. Richard Dawkins realized that our entire perception of the universe is based upon human survival needs. We have evolved to survive in nature, not to travel through space and contemplate quantum theory.
The understanding of early human behavior can explain many of man’s deep seated behaviors. For example, Wilson explains how early tribes survived through solidarity and a feeling of superiority. This brought them an increasing confidence and willingness to sacrifice for their tribe. Religion was a guide in providing these survival techniques, and has been carried down in our evolution ever since.
Wilson goes further in contemplating evolution’s importance by understanding that the human mind is also capable of evolution. Once we understand that are actions are based upon instinctual impulses, we may contemplate the true nature of “free will.” The idea that our thoughts are not truly free may help us to break from our basest instincts. It is important that we understand these restrictions in our mental capacities if we are to move past them.
20. In one of the films you were required to see, the narrator argued that fundamentalism was a mental disease. Why?
The narrator in “Fundamentalism is a Mental Disease” alludes to the large array of evidence supporting evolution by presenting clips of cell division. Because the evidence for evolution is so inarguable, he believes that anyone supporting creationism must have a mental disease. He then points to intelligent design’s attempt to “dress up” creationism in order to insert it into evolutionary science. If intelligent design is analyzed scientifically, it is impossible to accept this as a scientific theory. The absolute lack of peer reviewed support for the intelligent design movement further demonstrates that anyone supporting this movement lacks the ability to think. Because God is not necessary to explain anything, fundamentalists are wasting their minds with questions that are exempt from science.
Though the narrator had a small amount of truth to his argument, I felt that he was being too harsh in labeling all fundamentalists as mentally incompetent. Though the evidence for evolution is extensive, a large segment of our society is in denial toward anything that challenges their firmly held beliefs. This is not because they are “diseased,” but because they have been exposed to religious brainwashing from an early, highly developmental age. By being taught to think that there is only one truth, these children learn to lose their critical thinking abilities from an early age. They are instructed to be like sheep and acquire a sort of intellectual death. They are not born like this, but are victims of a highly restrictive society. Fortunately, some are able break out of this intellectual death and learn to question their preconceived values. For this reason, I would not say that “fundamentalism is a mental disease.” The push for education and scientific understanding in these segments of the community may help some to accept the undeniable facts of science. Minds that are truly diseased would be incapable of ever breaking from their ignorance.
21. Where do you think Owen Gingerich "parts company" O. Wilson? Who do youthink is more persuasive in their reasoning about religion?
Gingerich and Wilson’s views depart in their sense of purpose in the universe. To Gingerich, the universe would be a “joke” without any higher purpose or meaning. He trusts his gut instincts about God’s hand in creation, feeling that this is how things “ought” to be. We are endowed with the ability to understand the universe because religion makes it understandable. Gingerich also states that all men are men of faith because everyone has a belief system. This statement demonstrates his need for faith in all aspects of life. To him, it seems impossible that anybody could lack this sense of higher direction and purpose.
Wilson fundamentally departs from Gingerich in his view that all life can be explained scientifically. Every action a person takes could be predetermined if the data in their life could be synthesized. Because all process in life are obedient to physics and chemistry, Wilson takes a naturalist view of the universe. He contradicts Gingerich’s statement that scientific belief is a religion of its own, because science is based upon empirical evidence. Though he also finds a sense of purpose in the universe, his is fundamentally scientific. The Darwinian view gives him a sense of belonging with his surrounding world— without resorting a higher intelligence.
Though I am admittedly biased against mysticism and blind faith, I would say that Wilson is more persuasive in his reasoning. Gingerich’s views are based upon nothing but a “gut instinct” of what the universe ought to be. If anybody was allowed to make a “credible” theory based on gut instinct alone, what sort of chaotic mess would science become? Science is based upon empirical evidence, reasoning, and logic. Even speculative theories, such as the Big Bang, have mathematical reasoning behind them. Even more off-course is Gingerich’s view that everyone has faith simply because everyone believes in some sort of system. Though scientists believe in a system, it is not a system of blind faith. The scientific method is based upon empirical evidence that can be modified or falsified. This is not the same as blind, uncorroborated faith. Ultimately, Gingerich provides no support for his argument beyond a “gut instinct.”
22. What does Francis Fukuyama mean by the "end of history?"
Fukuyama theorizes that history has a gradual direction toward democracy, capitalism, and moral universalism. He points to the increasing peacefulness between industrialized nations who hold these ideals, because everyone has begun to agree on the same social structures. As a radius the radius of trust widens, it will encompass all humanity and we will become a single, peaceful culture. This cannot happen while science is still developing, because we are still dealing with new uncertainties. History is a sign of our past uncertainties, trial, and errors. Once there is no more to discover for the future, there will be nothing be to learned from the past. At this point, we will reach the “end of history.”
Fukuyama’s concept of a utopian society is one without culture, history, or scientific advancement. This does not seem like a utopia to me, but a bleak world without the color of human diversity. Fukuyama instead sees diversity as a means of conflict. He has decided that everyone must believe in his own personal views in order to find peace. He chooses to completely ignore the intolerance and ignorance present in fundamentalist religion, seeing the rise of fundamentalism in America as a sign that we are achieving our goal of “moral universalism.” Because this lecture is a bit dated, Fukuyama has not yet seen this country’s attack on one with a different belief system. Moral universalism would breed more of this behavior, with those outside the norm being weeded out as outsiders and traitors. Personally, I embrace the diversity that makes us human and will continue to enjoy my world of cultural diversity. Moral revolutionaries are what form the substance of literature and philosophy. Without written history of the “outsiders,” this would be a bleak world indeed.
23. Explain Nicholas of Cusa's philosophy of "unknowingness."
First, the statement that “every inquiry is comparative” signifies that you cannot know one side of something without comparing it to another. The Pythagorean Theorem is displayed next to this quote to demonstrate that a third side can only be found if the other two are known. Next, if everything is comparative, you can’t understand anything without a means of comparison. Because everything in the universe is related through numbers, anything can be used as a means of comparison.
Easy numerical equations are easily understood since the comparison is simple, but the comparison becomes more difficult with advanced equations. Since numbers are precise, and everything is congruent to each other, the universe must be precise even though it is complex. However, the degree of comparative relation makes the universe difficult to understand. Because the unknown and the known are congruent to each other, they must be the same. But, the unknown surpasses human reason. Therefore, we cannot know anything.
If the only thing we know is nothing, we cannot know the unknown. Furthermore, “all things are difficult and unexplainable in words” because words are not comparable. Therefore, the unknown is hidden to the human mind. Even if the truth is right in front of us, we cannot see it— just like the owl cannot look at the sun. Once we understand that the only thing we can know is our own ignorance, we will “attain learned ignorance.”
24. According to Nietzsche, how did we actually "kill" God?
Nietzsche seems to say not that we literally “killed” God, but killed mysticism through the advent of science. The madman represents a sense of insanity that follows faith. When we lose the madness of blind faith, we gain the madness of freedom. Nietzsche suggests that we have destroyed all boundaries and absolutes, because we have “[sponged] away the entire horizon.” We no longer can see any sense or direction to the universe, instead feeling its cold, meaningless expanse. As we pursue scientific inquiry, our knowledge of the world becomes larger and colder. We lose the warmth and community that God provides. Instead, there is a sense of nothingness— a hurdling through space without direction.
However, we are still blind in that we cannot see what we are doing to ourselves. Humanity has become disconnected through the ignorance of its loss. We ignore it when we “do not hear anything yet. . . of the gravediggers.” We do not smell the decomposition of our boundaries nor honor the loss of absolute truths. Without realizing the emptiness of our faith, we wander in isolation of each other. Nonetheless, the boundaries are too far gone to regain. There may be no purification at this point because there is no longer any sense of the finite. Our religious rituals are now meaningless, because God is dead to us. We call out to him, but we can no longer regain faith because our deed is “too great.”
The madman then lights a new “lantern” of truth. The boundaries of religion have decomposed to open up our universe past the periphery of the horizon. Once humanity is able to accept this, they can find purpose beyond the “dead” sense of morality and reason in God.
25. In the movie, Little Things that Jiggle, physics is explained by a series of slogans.
The film “Little Things that Jiggle” demonstrates the search for an encompassing, unified truth in physics. When complex ideas are reduced to simple formulae, they are more easily applied to other theories. Because mathematics and physics provide repeatable, documental evidence for their theories, they can obtain the substance of truth instead of mere speculation. The discovery of a unifying formula of the universe represents, to many scientists, a cohesive truth.
In many respects, philosophy lacks this ring of truth. Because it is often abstract, it usually relies on speculation instead of hard evidence. Philosophers such as Descartes have striven toward a more logical, mathematical process in philosophy, but its abstract nature still leaves these theories up to scrutiny. Likewise, since our scope of observation is very limited, scientists must also apply reason to advance their theories beyond what is readily observable. While the fundamentals of cosmic inflation and the big bang are founded upon mathematical fact, these theories are still speculation because they lack hard empirical evidence. In this manner, scientists may become philosophers in their own way.
By combining physics and philosophy, each field can merge philosophical speculation with the hard truth of science. Providing scientific proof for philosophy serves to strengthen ideas beyond the level of mere theory. Because theories based in mathematics and logic would attain greater certainty, physics provides a greater foundation for philosophical speculation. Conversely, philosophy helps to provide meaning and context to scientific theories. When the two fields are tied together, each may achieve a greater level of meaning and truth.
26. How do you explain the following line: "To have freedom OF religion one must also have freedom FROM religion."
Religious dogma usually comes with a set of rigid dictates. Because religion is a “meme” that has adapted for survival, these rules typically include blind, unquestioning faith. The majority of people do not come to a certain religion of their own volition, but are indoctrinated into it from an early age. Thus, most never find a philosophy that is uniquely theirs, but simply accept the religious dogma that they were raised with. This is not religious freedom, but rote mimicry of very specific rules.
How can one truly believe in something without ever questioning? What if a devout, unquestioning Christian was born in a different culture? Would this person then be doomed to Hell? How can one know that they are correct without examining their own beliefs? The rules and social norms that are indoctrinated into us from an early age restrict our thoughts and behavior. Though some of these rules help us function in society, they prevent us from making truly “free” choices. Though everybody operates within assumed social norms, it is important to understand the effect these have on our personal actions.
I believe Socrates understood this when he stated that he “knew nothing.” The understanding of “unknowingness” is the only way to have true religious and philosophical freedom. Until we comprehend the rigidity of our own indoctrination, we cannot escape its effects. We must be free from all assumption before we can make a choice that is truly our own. This being said, I wonder if any of us is truly “free?”
27. Why does Dawkins believe that believing in God is delusional?
Richard Dawkins suggests that our brains are have not evolved to process the true queerness of the universe. Natural selection has developed our brains to model the world for our survival, not for the pursuit of space travel or pondering the origins of life. Because we have evolved to survive in “middle world,” we are cannot trust our common sense when it comes to explanations of the universe. The idea of God makes sense to us because we are social beings and like to personify the world around us. This personification is not always an appropriate explanation for things, even though it gives us comfort. Since we are evolved to survive in “middle world,” the concept of God is a delusional survival mechanism. We must learn to break out of the narrow box surrounding our basic survival instincts in order to grasp the true nature of reality.
Furthermore, memes will often justify delusional religious beliefs. Because memes have adapted for survival, they utilize survival mechanisms that may deceive us into not questioning ideas of faith and hellfire. The concept of belief without evidence should not make sense to us, but the faith meme dictates that it is immoral to question it. Also, the idea of hellfire makes us fearful in questioning with the prospect of eternal pain. In this manner, we can easily be deceived beyond even biological means. Dawkins suggests that we must be wary of our instincts (biologically and socially) because they are not developed toward scientific inquiry. To trust our instincts blindly and without question is delusional.
28. Can science offer a sense of mystery comparable to what certain religions offer?
Though Einstein believed in empirical evidence and scientific universality, he remained awed at the beauty of the cosmos. He realized that the “magnificent structure” in nature we could “comprehend only imperfectly.” Though he sought answers to the cosmos, he realized that this would only open more questions. The unending magnificence of science gave him a sense of wonder comparable to the wonder of religious rapture. To Einstein, it was important “not to stop questioning.” Like a theologian, he found delight in examining our place in the universe. The analytical nature of science did not close the doors of mystery, but expand them.
To Wilson, the sense of independence that Protestantism provides is comparable to the independence of scientific discovery. He realizes that the expression of self and belief can be equally expressed through science. The passion of research drives him to continue his work, much like a religionist is passionately driven toward finding new meaning in his or her religious text. As both scientists discover their place in our universe, they are drawn toward new doors of discovery. Science does not make the heart grow cold, but fill it with a sense of religious-type wonder.
29. How does an understanding of cellular automata suggest a "new kind of science”
Stephen Wolfram, like many other philosophers, is searching for a foundational rule for understanding our universe. Wolfram’s methods are a “new kind of science” in that he uses simple computer programs to break down the patterns seen in nature. Computer language is better equipped to find the “primitive, basic constructs” of the environment. By using new technology that can produce quick computations, he is introducing a more systematic approach to finding these mathematical patterns.
By using a series of simple, repeated grids, Wolfram exhibits that complex patterns can come from simple ones. In his demonstrations, some of the repeated patterns produce more complex patterns which may seem random. Though biology may also seem random, it is composed of very small, repeatable patterns. This is one way of explaining the complexity of the universe. By proving that this rule is universal, Wolfram wishes to create a paradigm shift in the way we view the universe. The ability of computers to calculate these small patterns to a high degree forms Wolfram’s “new kind of science.” Without this ability, it would be impossible to analyze such a high degree of repeated patterns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)