Mt. Sac Intro to Philosophy Course Posts: Final

FINAL------------

3b. I feel as though I deserve a “B” to “B-”. I feel that I wasn't quite ready for the amount of work I had to put in during the first 3 weeks of class. However, I tried stepping it up the last three weeks and I feel as though I have earned a “B” after being at a “C” from the midterm. I didn’t finish some of the questions, as I have been bogged down by things in my academic and personal life. I would also like to mention I feel as though I have gotten a lot out of this class as it has changed my life views on many different aspects of life which is really exciting to me and I am glad I have taken this course.

4. Anthony Leonard Cusimano

5. Anthony Cusimano

5a. My midterm grade was a “C” which was quiet generous of you sir, thank you.

6. HYPERLINK "mailto:cuziss1@yahoo.com" cuziss1@yahoo.com

7. Mt. Sac Intro to Philosophy, http://mtsac-intro-phil.blogspot.com/

8. yes

9. yes

10. WEEK 1 POSTS---------------------------

Huxley-
When I first got started on this video I wasn’t to sure it would be very relevant to the present time we live in today. However, that all changed when Aldous Huxley answered Mike Wallace's question “what are the enemies to our freedom in the US?” He said there are two impersonal forces that are lessening the freedom of people on our planet. One is overpopulation; when there are more people in a certain area, people have to co-exist in a different manner which lessens their freedom. People cannot assume the same liberties they once enjoyed with lesser of a population because there is less of it to go around for everyone. The second is, according to Huxley, over organization. As technology becomes more complicated it becomes necessary to have more and more elaborate organizations, and more hierarchal organizations.
Huxley also spoke of different devices that can be, and are, used for lessening freedom. One of the devices he spoke of was propaganda. Used through tools such as Televisions, radios, billboards, movies, or anything the public will view often, it can, in a big way, effect the decision making of the majority by getting them into something they, more often than not, wouldn't have gotten into otherwise. Going back to over-organization for a second, Huxley also spoke of breaking down power into smaller groups so that one particular individual couldn't be burdened with all the power. Case in point; the three branches of government in the US, the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches.

Fukuyama-
The interview with Francis Fukuyama was very interesting because I think all people think about this topic at some point in their lives. What will the future be like? How did I get here in the first place? From the beginning point of time, how did things evolve to the way it is now? Are all questions that came to mind. All theological societies as well as science points to there being a beginning point to creation. This is not to say that God was the creator, but it is a definite possibility. Why do we have feelings? How do we almost universally know right from wrong? There aren’t enough hard facts to make a definite decision but I think that all of our emotions and our emotional responses are there because of evolution, evolutionary psychology.
I agree with Fukuyama when he says the idea that creation came about through the big bang, and how it immediately raises the question what existed prior to the big bang? All theological study's point to a beginning as does physics. That leads to conclusion of a divine creator. I also like what he said about how this also leads to the question about human uniqueness and human dignity. Fukuyama comes to the conclusion that it’s hard to know why we have things like emotion and emotional responses, but also that Darwinism, Modern Science or any of the other scientific disciplines have yet to completely mystify the possibility that it maybe something more than just evolution that leads us to our present state of being, complete with all our emotions and understandings between right and wrong. I personally believe that there is a God, but I believe that evolution has given us things like fight or flight response. Compassion is something that, I think, evolved in human beings over time.

Fukuyama 2-
I enjoyed the Francis Fukuyama interview so much that I am doing two posts on it. There were many different topics being discussed but one that really stood out was when the interviewer said to Fukuyama, “History has a direction and in some ways its toward the good.” I personally believe that every person comes pre-wired with the instinct to make the human species live on. We all come pre-wired to mate and produce life and we all come pre-wired to protect it as often as possible. However, if you ask a group of men, if they were to be walking with their family and saw someone getting beat up on a street corner, would they help that person? There would be a barage of different answers.
Fukuyama responded to this statement by the interviewer with the words, “Most people argue progress should be progress towards morality. The principle that Liberal Democracy embodies is radius of trust between different societies should encompass all of humanity. There's a moral universalism to it.” It would be nice if most men would help a stranger in a time of need but the reality of the matter is most people probably wouldn't. People don’t do things for the better of humanity. People do things for the betterment of themselves and their loved ones. Not to say they wouldn't want everyone to be helped but people usually look out for themselves.

The Socratic universe-
When I went to the site for the Socratic universe reading I really enjoyed the chapter 6 question of Does God exist? A good answer to the question was from Arntzenius from USC. He said that he didn’t know how to answer the question. He said that he was not exactly sure what it means to say that God exists. I love how he put that because that exactly how I feel. I believe there is a God but I'm not sure if God helps us in the day to day events in the form of an answered prayer per say. I think that God built our universe with all of its laws and complexities but isn't able to manipulate the world he made in a physical sense. He left his best message and guide for us through Jesus and the bible. He can't snap his fingers and give someone a million dollars. They have to follow his word and through that message they can learn to make themselves able to have that million dollars, but God can't actually do anything for a person. God just leaves clues for us to do things for ourselves.
Mc Cann said that, when asked whether or not God does exist, wants to know the reason the person is asking and what that person thinks hinges on whether or not God exists. I find this very interesting because I have also wondered the same thing. People often hope there is a God because it will make them feel better knowing that there is meaning to life and maybe somewhere to go after. It also allows people believe that people are inherently good because we come from God which is good. I believe McCann merely wants to know because he doesn't find the question to be particularly relevant to answer considering many people have different views and he doesn’t want to waste his time debating the never ending question. However, I think it is a great question to ask and the answer could dramatically change the way a person lives their life. Not to mention it is possible that there very well may be a God.

The Socratic Universe 2-
I wasn’t going to get into ch. 7, What do you think happens when you die, but since my last post was ending in a way towards afterlife ill pick it up from there. Afterlife is curious topic because everyone has a different view of what happens. Many people believe in Heaven and Hell. Many people believe in reincarnation and becoming a different energy in our world. And some think that we just go blank and our bodies decompose. My personal take on life after death is that we just go blank and decompose. However, there are times I think that maybe there is an afterlife and come back as someone or something else. But I think that’s mostly optimism and wishful thinking on my part. I'm a firm believer in we get one shot at life.
It seems as though many of the philosophers that were interviewed felt the same way I do. McCann, as he did in my last post, said that he would like to ask the person asking the question, “why is this a significant question?” Obviously a lot of people would want to know this question because it could have a huge impact on how we live our lives. I personally feel like this question is a question no one can answer, however needs to be thought of and talked about until a person gets a clear idea about what they think happens. A person just needs to make sure they are at peace with what they are choosing to believe.

History of Philosophy wiki-
Philosophy to me is the beginning of human knowledge of our world. It asks the question who we are and what is our purpose? It all started in Western philosophy which consists of four main eras- the Ancient, Medieval, Modern, and Contemporary. The Ancient era includes philosophers like Plato and Aristotle. In terms of Western Philosophy, the Greeks started a chain reaction idea that began logic of rational thought and basically created all the knowledge the western world had for a good 1,000 years or so. I feel that it is a shame though that so many old philosophers are well-known but that so many contemporary ones are invisible and unappreciated. Even though praise should go to the original creators of fundamental ideas that encouraged future thinkers, more public attention should be directed to the many thinkers of today.
The history of philosophy started before any of us know and the only ideas we do know are ideas that were recorded closer to modern day time. Every day since human existence began; we humans have been finding better ways pass on ideas and past events. It’s only been 2009 years since Jesus was (supposedly) born and we don’t actually know a great deal about anything back then. We don't actually know too much about our own history, so compared to the actual time this universe has existed, the true History of Philosophy is, for the most part, unknown. Given that we haven't been able to write anything down or keep records of our philosophical ideas or conclusions since our emergence 50,000 years ago (Modern humans).

Java Philosophy post 7-
I thought that the Java movie was pretty interesting. The first quote by Kierkegaard in the movie was what caught my attention because it is something that a lot of times is true, people always seem to think the grass is greener on the other side. Or, when there is a decision that is to be made, people often times take forever making a decision because they fear they might want the other option. There are so many choices and options in life that one can become paralyzed. A person wants the right choice but there’s so many it’s hard to see what the right choice is. That happens to a lot of people and a lot of times people just pick a career and are stuck in something they don’t really want to do.
Often times, people look around at their fellow peers see what everyone else is doing to see if they are doing is on target with what’s considered right or normal. People aren't born with instruction manuals on how to live life. We compare ourselves to others to use them as a reference for where we are and where we are going on the giant chess map of life. Jean Paul Sartre points this out with his quote, “everything has been figured out, except how to live”. Another guy in the movie read a quote that basically stated people put their heartbeat on the clock, instead of thinking about nothing other than living life to the fullest until the end.

Nicholas of Cusa-
This short movie, for me personally was a little hard to understand because it was so abstract. Socrates says that the only thing he truly knows is that he knows nothing. He says this because he understands the complexity of the world and how it is too much for anyone to really grasp. I don't get what he’s saying because is that supposed to mean we shouldn't bother trying to learn anymore because it’s too much to handle anyway? I have always thought of life as one humungous mathematical equation, mathematical chain that cannot be broken because if it has a missing link in the chain it wouldn't exist.
Everything we know and everything we will know about the universe is made up of numbers in every dimensionally possible way. Because everything is so much made of numbers, and everything is related to everything else and interconnected in some way, it is impossible to know anything really. For example, even just trying to figure out mathematically the way an apple relates to all things in the universe is not possible. And it's because of that that we can't claim to know anything, thus we are ignorant. And basically we are pretty much like Socrates, in the sense that the only thing that Socrates actually knew was that he didn't know anything.

Darwin’s DNA post 9-
I chose to select an eBook out of the recommended readings called Darwin’s DNA because I like the topic of Darwinism and the whole theory of evolution. I enjoy this topic because I think that it is most likely true about our world. I find it interesting because, to me, it describes where we come from and it answers a lot of the basic questions we have about life. Why we think the way we do and how we got here in the first place. A lot of times when I read the different materials we are required to read I actually really get into the reading so much that I lose a lot of time thinking about it so much. I am actually getting a lot out of reading these materials in more ways than just getting a good grade in class I could use this material and apply it to every single aspect of my life. It’s very interesting stuff.
Because of Darwin, there have recently been new fields of study such as Evolutionary Psychology and Evolutionary Philosophy to develop in the last 100 to 200 years or so. My personal opinion is that those two studies are going to be very important for a long time to play a large role in finding out how we got this way and how we can use that information to our advantage from this point on. These are the types of things that will help us to answer these interesting but nearly impossible questions to answer. For instance, it can help determine why we have a state of consciousness in all of us. Over time we probably needed to think critically for our own survival which likely led to our consciousness adaptation.

How Socrates Died-
I enjoyed the book about the death of Socrates, and I noticed that while he claims always to be ignorant, he is actually smarter than the people he speaks to. This is because he asks them the right questions, and deducing a good answer from them, but always being able to find the flaws in their argument. With Euthyphro, he constantly seeks a definition of piety that Euthyphro cannot explain, making Euthyphro look like a moron. Socrates derives knowledge from other people, but only knowledge that he knows has no contradictions or flaws in logic. He professes to not know anything, but only because he is looking for a genuine, unbreakable truth.
I don't agree with the idea Plato gives, however, when he writes about how one should always follow the laws of the state. His reasons are important, though, and it is true that when a society does not follow the laws and customs that hold it together, it falls apart and worse predicaments happen where anarchy and lawlessness ensue. Admittedly, it is better to have a society that doesn't always work than not having one at all. But when the society is going against basic human rights, like the Nazis, I don't think I could uphold the laws of a state that did the things they did. People have the right to exist, and to express themselves.

WEEK 2 POSTS-----------------------------

EXPERT LECTURE: 1) Professor Owen Gingerich
Gingerich makes some interesting points about how the universe could have been created with a purpose and by gods or God. The more the conversation seems to continue, though, it seems like not only is it unknowable whether or not God did create everything, but also what the point of arguing about it would be. Because even if there are alternate universes, or dimensions, with different laws, atoms, molecules and what not, who is to say that God didn't create those as well? Just the argument that everything was created at random is kind of ridiculous because not only is it unprovable, but it really doesn't mean anything.
The problem of evil seems like another strange question, but this one is more interesting. Every time I think about how God could create a world with evil in it I think of what an ant would think of a person. To an ant, a human might seem like an all powerful, all knowing, god who can control everything. But of course, people are not like that. It may very well be the same in the relationship between us and God; to us, he may seem like an omni-potent being, but in reality he is just really, really, powerful, but not all powerful, and can't stop all the evil in the universe.

Lisa Randall and Edward O. Wilson, Harvard University
The idea of extra dimensions is very intriguing, but it may turn out to be no more than abstract theories that don't have any implication in the way we do things here on earth. Thus far in human existence we have been able to make tools that we use with our own senses, and we go past our capability to obtain information in this manner we are only using our imaginations. In this case it could very well be that there are hundreds or more dimensions that expand reality in ways we will never see. The only thing I can imagine being able to explore or observe these other dimensions are machines or robots that would be able to do so and convert it into some kind of visual image.
Wilson is right, I believe when explaining that the destruction of the world's environments is the most pressing issue by far, and all other world problems pale by comparison. However, people are not ready to cooperate with each other when they perceive everyone else as being so different from themselves. The only time this ever happens is when several people see something else as a genuine threat to their survival and that is only recognized using our basic instincts, not reason and logic. It seems that the only hope for humanity to solve these ongoing crises is to change their own individual lifestyles and do what they can for their local environments.

Cosmic Inflation-
I was somewhat surprised when I found out that the “big bang theory” didn't actually explain what happened before or during the “bang”, and instead was just the after-effects. This theory could mean that not only this universe was created by cosmic inflation, but that somewhere unfathomably far from where we are now; there could have been another big bang, or several, that were caused by this. What I would like to know is what this could mean for the extra dimensions ideas that Lisa Randall was throwing around.
It appears to me that two things happen the more science tries to explain how everything started and what meaning we have here. 1) As much as these theories might meet the agenda of those who try to prove that God doesn't exist, it doesn't really matter, because one could argue that God could make those things happen anyway, rendering all scientific explanations for cosmological events null and void, and 2) the more detailed the explanations for how everything works, the less mysterious God looks and the more people seem to appreciate Him.

Little Things That Jiggle-
The quote by Leon Lederman at the very beginning of the movie is pretty funny, but I think it's quite meaningful at the same time. Will physics ever get to a point where the entire universe can be summed down to one tiny formula, given its complexity and enormous size? I doubt it, especially because of the fact that as disciplines become more complicated; they begin to delve into other disciplines, creating never-ending amounts of questions. Of course, though, summing everything down into simpler terms is always a worthy goal.
Another interesting quote in the film was one by Einstein: “It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid”. This goes hand in hand with the other quote, that things should be simple enough in physics that you could tell basically anyone them. Of course Einstein would say this after he creates the famous “E=mc2 “formula. Once people have figured out how everything is interrelated in terms of forces, molecules, and what not, only then is it possible to find the easiest way to express how something works.

Gods Too Decompose-
The video was a bit strange, but powerful. The quote at the beginning stuck with me the whole time. It is a good excuse, and one that absolves him of any blame. God is dead, but the reality is, did he ever live? Was he ever there in the first place to die? Or does he simply live through our minds and hearts, and cease to exist but as a spiritual manifestation we create?
One thing I have trouble considering is, how exactly did we kill him? Did our need for him die off when we became more compelled to learn for ourselves how life operates, and that is what in turn killed him? Would that consequently mean that heaven and hell no longer operate and function, or just cease to exist altogether? Maybe we mutually abandoned each other, seeing as though the relationship didn't really go anywhere. God existed to help humanity through times where it could not depend on itself for all things.

WEEK 3 Posts

Edward O. Wilson Interview-
"Mysterians" seem like the lazy man's idea of the mind; almost like they kind of just give up and say, "Well, the mind is just something we'll never be able to examine empirically." This, if anyone looks at the articles coming out in science magazines today, is obviously not true. As for what Wilson suggests is our conscience, as in a "little world", I do believe that has some merit, because we (sometimes literally) recreate what we sense in the environment in our brains, and seems to create a small area that is our life. This also makes it quite subjective.
I agree with him however, that religion and science will come to be closely related, if not completely intertwined. Many atheists and agnostics seem to choose science to be their religion. It seems strange to me, though, that Wilson would be offended by some kind of physical entity that would create everything, being God. In the traditional physiological sense, I would find this absurd as well, except in my wildest imagination. However if there were such a being, it is quite possible, just as we are beginning to barely comprehend how our brains work, exist in conditions we may not fathom for a long time, if ever.
Richard Dawkins Presentation-
Dawkins has some interesting ideas about how humans have adapted to live in a "middle" world, between the extremely large (like planets and stars) and the extremely small (as in atoms). People can see, as he says, the solidity of a rock even though most of the space it actually occupies is empty, because we have evolved to recognize the solidarity of objects for our own survival. Likewise, it would be a lot easier to recognize the way space and time relate to each other if we were the size of planets or stars. Of course, this is not the case.
If we were the size of germs, would we recognize the physics of quantum mechanics easier? Would we even care? In this "middle world" form, as Dawkins describes, we barely even knew about many things we can observe and evaluate with our senses until relatively recently. There are still aspects of our own little "universe" that still are mysteries, and this would be the same if we were born into the extremely large universe or the extremely small one. That begs the question, however, of are there larger and smaller universes that we just can't plain out see? And if we were born into these other worlds, would we be able to recognize these?
Sociobiology-
Sociobiological systems seem very complex, almost too complex to really study in an empirical sense. The entire discipline appears pretty subjective. Selfishness exists, for instance, because of the inclusion of a "selfish gene", pushing those people to act more toward attaining resources for themselves. Culture and how one is raised also factors in, as well as certain predicaments and circumstances between people. Surely the discipline is not in the business of predicting people's behavior, since all these factors make that way too complicated, but having guidelines for people's behavior can't be that bad.
It could probably be reasoned, also, that some altruistic behavior can be considered selfish behavior. For example, take an ant. The entire purpose of male winged ants is so that they can fertilize the future queens, and when they finally take the flight to do so, they die quickly afterward. This may seem pretty altruistic, but if you were to consider an ant colony a super-organism, it might seem selfish. Or bees; in the case of honey bees, food is gathered from plants back to the hive, so that it may feed the colony.
Survival of the Sufficient-
The short film Survival of the Sufficient presents the idea that evolution is constantly affecting us, and that each and every moment is one in which we are changing. Everything from the food we eat and the air we breathe, to the people we talk to and the things we do, change our state and make us evolve to fit our predicaments. In terms of today's world, our environments are changing very quickly, and so we may be evolving quickly too; not necessary physically, but mentally. People would do well to remember that we never are in a certain state of being, and that with each second we are changing.
I found the postscript amusing though. Having monkeys banging away at typewriters long enough to create the world’s best literature seems like a half-brained idea. The only thing they would probably get good at is making the most noise per hit on the typewriter, especially if they were all similar to the chimpanzee that was on the video earlier. If that premise were true, then if you gave a group of monkeys enough millions of years they would probably accomplish anything.
Darwin truth video-
This video demonstrates through evolution man's search for meaning in all things, and what role truth has along with man. It seems, though, that truth is undiscoverable. As the video points out, we only evolved to survive, and were not originally engineered to examine problems like why light travels in waves and packets of energy. Robert Blake's bleak quote demonstrates this, and how much man likes to apply humanized emotions (like sentiment) to the rest of the non-human universe. I especially like the paraphrasing of Voltaire, in saying that man would invent God even if he didn't exist.
I find the intriguing statement at the end a bit simplex though. The truth lies? Or do we lie to ourselves? For we are the ones seeking it, and through subjective lenses, the unfiltered truth will never be seen by all. Deceit, though, is rife in nature, and also in human nature as well. And what if we did somehow, as Jack Nicholson said, "Handle the truth"? What would knowing it change? All I can think of is our desire to seek knowledge would die, and we would become really bored.

WEEK 4 Posts---------------------------------------

Evolutionary Psychology with Steven Pinker: Week 4, Post 1-
The interview with Steven Pinker was a very interesting interview that touched on a lot of subjects but in general the topic was Evolutionary Psychology. I found the conversation they were having about kin selection very interesting because I have always thought the topic of families , relatives, and friends to be very interesting in the sense that, why it is we do it and how long it has it been that way. The answer is probably, forever. I think the reason we care more about our loved ones then the average person is because, deeply seeded in the human mind, through a process called natural selection, is the need, desire and duty to keep their gene pool alive in the world. Every human beings deepest human need is to procreate and to stay alive. And I think deep down no one really cares about you more then you care about yourself. That is because you are all you can control, and also because you have to find a way to pass your genes on with the best possible mate.  Evolutionary Psychology is a study of psychology that studies how human behavior has evolved through natural selection over the last 2 million years. Evolutionary Psychology looks at things like the emotions or pattern of thought that humans have and looks at the underlying motives of a particular behavior. They look at the universal motives and patterns of thought in human behavior. I find the part of this interview when he talks about how our family has 50% of the same genes as we do but how it’s not the same as 100%. Pinker says that there comes a time when even with a family member there can be conflict of interest. Even in a family setting, their interests don’t always coincide with your wishes. 
Evolutionary Psychology with Steven Pinker2: Week 4, Post 2-
I also enjoyed the concept they spoke of called reciprocal altruism, which describes basically the whole idea of; I'll do you a good deed for free right now, so long as you do this same deed when I'm in need, which is basically what friendship comes down to. In the instance of 2 people of any type of relationship, there is a constant surveying being done by every human being. The point is to see if there is a give and take aspect to the relationship, which shows a person’s true intentions. This was a tool probably used by humans to weed out untrustworthy allies. This is the idea that "reciprocal altruism" is an evolutionary adaptation that has evolved in human interaction over thousands maybe millions of years. This is very interesting to me because there is a sort of universal logic in the sense that there has to be a give and a take, not just one or the other because then there would be no fairness.  Steven Pinker believes that this just might be a reason why we are so smart in the sense that we had to keep track of what people owed us, what we owed them, to make sure were not exploited, and to cultivate relationships that will have a rather open reciprocity over a long period of time, versus a rather shorter period of time. He thinks that this concept is probably what differentiates humans from animals in that benefiting someone who isn't your blood relative is pretty rare and that it may not be a coincidence that we have such complex relationships and complex societies. All in all, knowing what we know about Evolutionary Psychology and with more knowledge on the way, humans should be able to utilize this information in their daily life by understanding the dynamic of human nature. 
Dr. Gerald Edelmen; Neuroscience Institute: Week 4, Post 3-
The main topic of this expert lecture from Dr. Gerald Edelmen is on Cognitive Computing. Cognitive computing is to take all the actual data we have about the brain and use it to reengineer our use of the mind. Our mind is our most important possession because it is with our mind that we make the world and our world. This expert lecture focus' on bringing the most gifted minds in the world of neuroscience, biology, and many other fields to trade ideas in search of grand theory of how the mind works that is consistent with the body of known data about the brain. That is why learning about how our minds work and knowing the background information on how they got this way, helps us to figure out exactly how to use our minds in the most productive way possible. I believe it is through the process of learning that we experience evolution of our psychology.
According to Edelmen there is no formal definition of mind. Roughly speaking, the mind is a tightly intertwined collection of cognitive processes of perception, memory, language, learning, will and eventually consciousness. Very simply speaking, Cognitive computing is what a philosopher does when he puts neuroscience together with computer science to explain psychology. I find this interesting because one of my underlying believes about this physical universe is that every single aspect of this live can be calculated into a mathematical equation. In other words, I believe that every single aspect of life can be proven using actual numbers. There are actual countable systems that make up even the most abstract of human behaviors, most of which we haven't yet been able to comprehend nor will we be able to comprehend in any short period of time.

Francis Crick: Week 4, Post 4
This assigned reading titled, "The Astonishing Hypothesis", by Francis Crick is about the debate the goes on about whether or not consciousness is spiritual or divine by nature or whether it is just an extremely complex set of neurons caused by evolution. This way of thinking leads me to think Crick had a very physical idea of the world. That in fact this world is mainly a physical universe. I tend to side with Crick on this particular issue because I think that there are reasons we have consciousness that have evolved over the years. Crick believes that all that makes up the mind, your sense of personal identity and free will, you joys and sorrows, are just an assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. I, too, believe that it takes a much greater investment in faith that "I" am more than just neurons firing. For Instance, Crick explains where he thinks "free will" is located in the brain. He goes on to tell his assumptions of how ones brain is concerned with making plans for future actions, without necessarily carrying them out. According to Crick, there is also a part where decisions are made. The brain uses its experience and information to search through all of the fluff so to speak to get to the best possible decision. This implies that the "free will" lies in the anterior cingulated sulcus of the brain. I believe that this has evolved in humans over the years and wasn't just simply a divine gift from god.

An Integral Theory of Consciousness by Ken Wilber: Week 4, Post5-
Ken Wilber in the academic article “An Integral Theory of Consciousness,” writes about an extensive data search among various types of developmental and evolutionary sequences that yielded a 4 quadrant model of consciousness; Intentional, Behavioural, Cultural, and Social. Each level is broken down into a dozen major stages or levels of consciousness. I found this very interesting because consciousness to me is not an exact science so it seems very odd to me that we humans try to break down our consciousness into a cut and dry science. However, I do find it necessary to do this because it really is the only way we can comprehend what our consciousness really is. We have to, in a way, put this not so exact science more so into terms of black and white to be able to understand how our brains work, even though as we all know that just is not how our minds operate. Our thought processes vary in degree from one another; there are many shades of gray, even though there are many major similarities, which is indeed what Wilber is speaking of in this article.
One portion of the 12 major levels that I found quiet interesting was the Nonordinary states of consciousness in which Wilber spoke of dreams and the use of psychedelics. I personally have never used them; i.e.: Magic Mushrooms, LSD, etc., but I do have many friends who have used them and have stated to me that they have brought them enlightening experiences that they still treasure to this day. They spoke of how the experiences changed their views on life for the better in many ways. I believe it to be due to the fact they cause, as Wilber says, “toxic side-effects” but I do believe these drugs open up parts of the mind that help us to further investigate our concept of consciousness at a much deeper level then if we were “sober”, and not always in a bad way, sometimes in ways to further our development.

The Problem of Consciousness by John R Searle: Week 4 Post 6:
John R Searle writes about consciousness and how it is the most important phenomena that we have yet to figure out. He begins his argument by first defining what it is he means by consciousness in the first place to clarify the main target. What he means by consciousness is the subjective states of awareness that begin in the morning after we wake until we fall back to sleep at night. He goes on to say that consciousness is a biological phenomena but that it is subjective and that everyone experiences consciousness in their own private way. Overall Searle breaks down the idea of consciousness to mean basically just being awake and being aware, being conscious not unconscious like you would be if you were sleeping. I found this particularly fascinating because throughout this whole class I have yet to really learn a clear definition of what philosophers mean by consciousness until I read what Searle had to say about it.
Searle goes on to answer his question as to how consciousness relates to the brain by stating that conscious states are caused by lower level neurobiological processes in the brain that are higher level features of the brain. The brain interprets all the external stimuli of the world into variable rates of neuron firings at synapses. This is the type of idea that Crick was referring to that consciousness was nothing more than a conversion of our external world made by the nervous system into one medium, namely, variable rates of neuron firings at synapses.

Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Week 4 Post 7-
In this audio read book, the author writes about how Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection and reductionism disproves many of the world’s previous ideals about life. He states that it is the single best idea that anyone has ever had. He calls it dangerous because as he writes, “it burns, like any misconceptions we have about nature, like a universal acid, special creation is burn away, the cosmic pyramid of God, mind, design, order, is annihilated.” He writes that it takes the God out of life, and that it proves that there is not God, but also says that there can be design without a creator and that people get it wrong when they say that there must be a creator to have design. To the author science proves this fact.
He states that “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea,” is still making its way around the world and that it is going to take some time to be fully accepted as truth just like it took centuries for people to accept Copernicus’ Heliocentric Model. He asks whether or not we should be scared of this idea and he answers with an astounding no. He feels we just need to grow up and see the underlying beauty of it. Dennett the author writes that Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection is really a beautiful thing that we need to embrace rather than be scared of. He feels we need to evolve and learn to adapt to the truth it reveals.

The Yoga of Bodysurfing: Week 4 Post 8-
This is a podcast of a story about a man named John who is five feet eleven inches tall and extremely thin. John used to play sports when he was younger but because of the fact that, we all, as humans need to make a living by the time we become adults, John had to stop and in a way become a bit sedentary. Every summer he spent a number of weeks with his relatives in Madras, only taking swims in the water for mere minutes a day. No matter what John did, he could not gain weight. The speaker suggested that John do a type of yoga swimming to help him gain weight. He discovered Bodysurfing.
I totally feel for the character John in this story because life in America, or in general for that matter, is so fast paced that it leaves little for actual enjoyment or fulfillment of life. One cam almost become a drone or slave to society. When John discovered Bodysurfing from the speaker he started to actually gain weight. All he had to do was walk out into the water, hold his breath, use his body as if it were a board and let the waves takes him back in to shore. To body surf one must become one with a powerful piece of nature. I absolutely love bodysurfing, in fact I have been doing it since I can remember and it is quiet the hobby. It is not only good for the body, but it is good for the soul as well. You could say it balances me out and it definitely can be considered a practice of Yoga for its mind, body, and spiritual conditioning. If there is anything pure in the world it is Bodysurfing. It’s very instinctual and it brings you back to being a human again. And in this fast paced society we live in today, it is almost an essential piece to the puzzle we call life.

Is My I-Phone Conscious?: Week 4, Post 9-
The beginning of this excerpt I read from Mr. David Lane, my Professor, I agree completely that it is quiet necessary to not only have your own personal position on each varying issue, but to also put yourself on the other side and try to see things from the opposite point of view if one is to truly come to a complete conclusion on any one issue. One has to almost become the devil’s advocate and argue against themselves to get the full scope of what may be possible, even if one doesn’t change their viewpoint.
I further read the story about Ramana and the conscious dream state and her telling the people in the dream state that it was not their minds in this dream state that were making this dream brain function it was actually the Hitherto state of awareness called the waking state that made this dream brain function, the people in the dream state didn’t buy it. I thought that was rather interesting because Ramana further explained to “churchland” that she could not prove this any other way then for one to die to be able to come back to the actual waking state which was controlling everything in the dream state. The speaker’s story was to show that everything caused by the physical brain may appear to be perfectly sensible in this present waking state awareness, but may in truth be completely wrong if indeed there were higher states of awareness in which this and other states were subsumed.

Is Consciousness Physical?: Week 4, Post 10-
I believe that, at first glance, before we take a deeper look into our “physical” universe, everything seems, as we put it, “physical”. However, my inner most belief is that everything comes down to a sort of mathematical reality or equation that in and of itself is formless. All of it combined however makes up what we sense as a physical realm, almost like the movie “The Matrix”. That is how I perceive the world. However, that is just my hypothesis. Growing up, in one way or another, we were taught in many ways by society and our family members that we each have a “soul,” some mysterious “ghost” in the machine so to speak, that may or may not go to heaven when we are done on earth depending on how morally we lived our lives. I, being the logical thinker that I am, never really quiet understood what that meant. I always wondered, “Where is it located in our bodies, this soul?” “What is it made up of?” It just never quite made sense to me.
Philosophical Thinkers such as, Crick, Edelman, Ramachandran, Paul and Patricia Churchland, and John Searle are all people who believe there is a sort of logical explanation to what our conscious is. To them, as I agree with, we are nothing more than an extravagant set of neurons and neural synapses which create our consciousness. On the contrary, there are many people in the world like Ken Wilber, who believe that there is something more to our consciousness then just neural firings. But of course, like everything in life, I do not believe it comes down to an either or type of deal but rather a mix of the two. A more systematic reductionist approach like Crick’s is ideal to lead to more hard evidence of a physical answer but Wilber’s idea of the 4 quadrants presents a nice base for a new set of experiments we need to analyze and come to conclusions on.

WEEK 5 Posts------------------------------------------------------
Sam Harris and The End of Faith: Week 5, Post 1-
Sam Harris brings up extremely good points about how it seems that sometimes people in today's society who are religious are fanatically faithful to their religion. Harris speaks of the fact that if you turn on the news and you hear about any cruel over the top atrocity in the world today that chances are you will find some “scripture spouting nut bar.” They are usually intolerant to anyone with a different opinion or belief then themselves. They cloak their behaviors in the word of faith, they preach love but they practice exclusion. Harris speaks of the “problem” of religious belief. He feels that this has more influence on the maintenance of civilization than anything that is in our power to influence. He defines belief as something that stirs up enough emotion inside of an individual to go out and take action on what that belief entails to represent to that particular individual in the world, which in turn causes massive problems considering the fact that we all have contradicting beliefs from one another.
According to Harris one thing that religious dogma does is that it separates question of morality from questions of real suffering. He uses the example of the Catholic Church condemning the use of condoms, which is a total falsification of morality. People are dying of aids, we have teen pregnancies. He also speaks of the fact that we have politicians putting up roadblocks on stem cell research because of this notion that we are in some way breaking moral laws. It is fundamentally taboo to question someone’s faith, it is a conversation stopper. There is a lot of politically correctness so to speak concerning an individual's belief in God. Harris says that because we cannot criticize religious extremism because it is taboo and politically incorrect and religious moderates say nothing about it. I find this so very true and it should be something that needs to be openly talked about more than it is today.

Why Turn Vegetarian?: Week 5, Post 2-
This expert lecture created by PETA has ten reasons why it is a good decision to become a Vegetarian. Becoming a Vegetarian has numerous health effects as I have read in the past before I ever enrolled in this class. Reason number two is probably the most important reason I have heard that it is good to eat a vegetarian style diet. Meat can cause heart disease. However, I never knew that heart disease started when you are a child. Reason number five is just plain old disgusting. I never heard that every package of chicken has a little bit of POOP in it, talk about nasty. Reason number seven had a different impact on me when I first heard it.
Throughout this entire expert lecture film they show clips of animals suffering and portray them in a light that implies that they experience life as a human does, with feelings and thought processes. Reason number seven says that you shouldn't eat meat because it isn't fair. They go on to say that “no living creature wants to see their family slaughtered.” This struck a chord with me for a number of reasons mostly because this implies that they have a family structure as humans do. It’s true there are offspring but I’m not so sure they think of families the way humans do. However, I have a cat named “kitty” and I can tell that she gets depressed sometimes and other times he is happy. She knows who we are and she remembers us when we have been gone, even for a few weeks to months. It is interesting to me that when my brother Joel comes home from college she meows to him because she misses him. I know this is why she does that because she doesn't do it to just anybody, only those she really knows. Back to my point, I believe that animals do have feelings and thought processes but I’m not quite certain that all animals have them. I have not come to a conclusion on whether or not I think it is morally right or wrong to use animals as means of survival by eating them. The jury is still out as far as I am concerned.

On the Genealogy of Morals, A Polemical Tract by Fredrich Nietzsche: Week 5, Post 3-
The Article written by Fredrich Nietzsche starts out in the prologue in paragraph one speaking about the fact that we do not bother living life to the fullest and learn about how to progress ourselves to the fullest extent. He writes about the fact that we are too preoccupied by other things such as earning a living and getting material objects. We miss the boat on the most important parts of life and do not focus our attention enough of discovering the wonders of life. The more time that goes by and we do not try to figure out what it is we are and what it is we are doing here, the less time we have left to use for those extremely important purposes. More so important then punching the clock and trying to attain a goal that has almost no value compared to the value that comes when we figure out what we are and what our purpose here is.
In this article Nietzsche writes about what conditions man invented for himself; the values of good and evil. This led Nietzsche into a whole slew of new ideas that tapered off into a whole new field of thought and study for him to figure out: The genealogy of morals. Questions arose like; what value do these morals hold? Have they hindered or fostered human well-being up to now? Are they a sign of some emergency, of impoverishment, of an atrophying life? Or is it the other way around? Do they indicate fullness, power, a will for living, courage, confidence, his future? After this he came upon all sorts of answers that distinguished themselves between things like ages, peoples, and different ranks of individuals. He kept refining the answer to these problems and out of these answers came new questions, investigations, assumptions, probabilities. This is how we are to find out how morals entered the world. Maybe it has nothing to do with divinity. Maybe it has everything to do with maintaining some sort of order. Maybe it has a basis in survival. Possibly it is something that has just sort of evolved over the years as a sort of law or guide to live by because more often times they are right for the sake of surviving life in the best possible way.

The Power of Non-Violence Ghandi: Week 5, Post 4-
Ghandi I suppose is writing this I cannot tell because it does not state who wrote it but whoever it was, I think it was Ghandi, said this very profound quote which stroke a very interesting quote to me. The quote goes like this, “The hardest metal yields to sufficient heat. Even so the hardest heart must melt before sufficiency of the heat of nonviolence. And there is no limit to the capacity of nonviolence to generate heat.” This statement uses the analogy of even the hardest metal melting to the sufficient amount of heat. No matter how hard it is it will melt when it comes in contact with a certain amount of heat just as a person who is the attacker to someone, if met with enough non violence, with the hardest heart will eventually melt before the heat of nonviolence. I find this to be true because if any person is attacking a person who is not retaliating back at some point or another that person will stop because not only is it wrong to keep kicking a man while he is down but he will realize that he is not doing anything to resolve any sort of problem anymore. He is the only one who cares.
I personally do not understand how the act of non-violence solves anything because when someone is attacking me, I do not choose to sit and just take it and not do anything about it. That never does anything but make me look like a weak person. I know that it worked for Ghandi but I do not understand why, I do not know much about Ghandi. Ghandi says that when one is nonviolent against an aggressor, the aggressor is first dazzled by it, then is compelled to give the nonviolent person recognition and that soon that recognition would uplift the aggressor. In my experience, I know aggressors to make their attacks and laugh in the wake of their inflicted harm to spite the person and make themselves feel better. There are plenty of tortured souls I know of that wouldn't give recognition to a nonviolent soul. It would only make them more encouraged to do more damage and make themselves feel better. I do believe that there are people who are messed up like that, caused by their own personal life experiences.

Flame On Morality Reconsidered: Week 5, Post 5-
This Philosophical film, while making me rather uncomfortable at first, started making a whole lot more sense to me about two to two and half minutes in. This video uses homosexuality as an example of how what can be considered “sexually deviant” in one era becomes the standard of living in another. They make a great point in the video that what can be considered criminal in one epoch can in another be considered a sign of saintliness in another. They further state their point by stating in the film that an act that can get you a long prison sentence in one era can in another be considered a harmless past time. This is quiet interesting to me because I have always wondered about this exact thought process, especially after reading about how the during the Roman Era they used to have extremely elicit parties with crazy orgasmic orgy's. I remember learning about this in World History in High School and I have always wondered what was considered normal and what was considered unacceptable as well as what will be in the future, and how it differs from today's world.
This also applies to things like Marijuana. Nowadays, the drug Marijuana is an illegal substance in most of the world and is considered to be dangerous. Huge prison times are given to people who grow weed and they are locked up. In previous generations marijuana was only a recreational thing like cigarettes and alcohol. I am sure back in the day they didn't lock you up if you grew weed, there must have been a point through history that they did not penalize you and more than likely probably praised a person for growing it. Back to alcohol, the United States themselves had an alcohol prohibition and that was only 80 or 90 years ago. In modern times, alcohol is part of daily recreational use. It is used as a medium in social interactions. I find it interesting as to what makes something socially acceptable in certain eras throughout history and what makes something unacceptable. It is a wonder to me how we come to the conclusion that one thing is cool now when it wasn't cool then. I guess it’s all a part of being human.

WEEK 6 Posts--------------------------------------------------
Daniel Dennent and Consciousness and Physicality Interview: Week 6, Post 1-
This is such an interesting interview; it starts out with the two talking about Dennett’s stance on God, in which he is, in fact, a self proclaimed Atheist. When the interviewer asks Dennett if because of his Atheistic views, he feels as though there is a void in his life or something missing in his life, Dennett responds by saying that this is really is the best question to ask because he feels as though a lot of people actually do not believe in God. He feels as though many people want to believe in God; they feel their lives would be better with a God, and maybe for certain periods of time in their lives they actually do believe in God but for the most part Dennent feels that most people on earth truly do not believe in God. In Dennet's eyes, many people do not behave like they believe in God; they behave like they should believe in God. I absolutely whole heartedly agree with this. I myself fall into this same category. I want to believe in God but I think at a deep level I do not believe in God, and I do not think I truly ever did. Maybe at certain times in my life but mostly even when I was 4 I would sit in church and think to myself, this is bullshit anyway.
The interviewer and Dennent go on to debate about natural selection. The interviewer produces as many examples as he can to prove to Dennent that it is possible that there could be an intelligent designer behind the process of natural selection, Dennent all the while stand by his position of the stance that he believes natural selection believes it’s just the passing on of genes for the sake of passing on your genes. Dennent states the fact that over time there can become intelligent life on the planet, then it can also become extinct and then through the process of natural selection, intelligent life can once again be produced. Like a jagged tooth like structure.

Ramana Maharshi and Indian Philosophy: Week 6, Post 2-
Ramanda Maharshi was born in 1879 and lived until the year 1950. He was born to a father who was a self made man and a lawyer. His father commanded respect from even robbers who would not attack him. His mother was a hardworking and gracious homely girl. Her innate spirituality became greatly known as it blossomed onto the direct guidance of her son Ramana. Later, while in high school Ramana's father passed away and he went to live with his uncle while his mother and two younger siblings moved to a nearby town. When he went to America Mission High School, it became clear to all that Ramana would never be a scholar. He preferred games and physical activities. If it wasn't for his amazing retentive memory, the neglect he showed toward his studies would have definitely alarmed his guardians. Up to the point of high school, there was no reason to believe Ramana would be a scholar because he was a good athlete and he enjoyed hanging out in the river with his friends.
When he was 16 he read a book called, “Periya Puranam,” that his uncle had, which brought him great interest as to the love and faith that was possible in the world. The climax came just a few months later when rather abruptly a violent fear of death overcame him; he realized he was going to die someday. This drove Ramana inward and he wanted to answer the vital questions that were demanding to be answered. What does Death mean? I can relate so much to Ramana because I too was never a good scholar in school as I was always the athlete wanting to play with my friends. But I too have a very good memory and I am actually very smart and quiet spiritual. Recently I have had my life take some turns for the different. It has made me think about death and what my life is about. It has made me think about ways I can live my life as full as I can and to possibly contribute something much greater then myself to it. I have many questions that I want answers to and this class is helping me answer them.

A Free Man's Worship by Bertrand Russell: Week 6, Post 3-
In this assigned reading by Bertrand Russell, he voices his opinion that this world is not based on an intelligent designer and that there is not means to an end when it comes to life on this planet. Much like the stance of Dennent on this same particular issue, Russell believes that this is not necessarily a bad thing. He believes, “That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave.” In my humble opinion, and apparently in the opinion of Dennent and Russell as well, there is no real divine purpose for people other than their own purposes for themselves. There is no “divine” calling. We are nothing more than a collection of evolutionary adaptations over hundreds of thousands of years.
The main theme of this particular thought process is that this is not necessarily a bad thing. The truth shall set you free rings true here. As Russell so eloquently puts it, “no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built.” I believe this to be so utterly true; however, if one is religious that is not a bad thing in terms of living your life with some well grounded moral values. These “moral” values are just good ways to live your life which have been passed down from generation to generation. It is possible that humans noticed a pattern on how to live life to successfully pass on their genes and contorted a set of guidelines, called “moral” values, to live by. To think that we humans can think so deeply and hold such complex ideals is truly a testament to how far the process of evolution has come.

On Learned Ignorance by Nicholas of Cusa: Week 6, Post 4-
Nicholas of Cusa, in his “On Learned Ignorance” writes about the nature of all living things to exist in the best possible manner which its potential can exhibit. He attributes this to God. Through this desire, he states that we act toward this end and have adapted ways to attain this goal. Things like judgment over if what we are doing is working. For instance, we have adapted the ability to think critically and investigate into a particular endeavor before we get involved to see if it has potential for our particular skills. This is what we call using comparative relation. To compare something to that which is certain and then to proceed using our judgment we therefore can make an accurate decision on the best possible course of action in our daily lives
That is quiet simply how we have evolved over the years to the degree in which we have. Using the example of Mathematics, Nicholas of Cusa describes how we humans use our knowledge base to help us gain further understanding and develop new discoveries that breakthrough into new areas of interest, and thus lead to new and improved ways to live our lives. That being said, using the example of mathematics, in chapter 2: preliminary clarification of what will follow, Cusa describes the fact that if one is to know the maximum of what is possible, one must know all of what is to know. Which also means one must know the minimum of what is required. Essentially one must have the fundamentals down prior to moving onto the next stage of development in anything. Using the example of mathematics, one cannot fully understand chapter 7 before they understand all that need be in chapters 1-6. There is an order and a systematic approach to gaining the fullness of human potential.
To Be Agnostic by Clarence Darrow: Week 6, Post 5-
This book starts out by defining what it means to be Agnostic; a person who is Agnostic is a person who believes that one cannot know ultimate or metaphysical truths or even whether there are any. This is someone who basically says I cannot for any reason go out on a limb and say that I believe in God because there is no real hard evidence supporting his existence. On the contrary they also say, well I am not really an atheist either because I cannot disprove a god’s existence because there is not real way to know. Many philosophers and scientists alike are agnostic including; Socrates, Hume, Darwin and Einstein. In general this book states that science is inherently agnostic as it tends to only investigate those claims which can, in theory, be tested and proven. The book goes on to say that when a metaphysical claim is to be made, there is usually no way to test it and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that such a thing exists in the world. I agree I think that I am an agnostic because science is hard facts about the world which sometimes points to the contrary of God, but it is hard to imagine such beautifully complex world without some intelligent designer. There is just no way to prove a gods existence.
Andrea Diem-Lane goes on to say that there have been people in the world like Thomas Aquinas, who look at nature for signs of god. As he opined, “how can there be design without a designer?” Interpreting the magnificence of a flower as evidence of a higher being falls short of what is demanded as proof in science. Diem-Lane asks the question, “Does the theory of evolution necessitate an agnostic worldview? Or, can one be a theist and still be an evolutionist?” This question is something that I try to ask myself because I believe in evolution and for me it is hard to be a believer in god if you believe in evolution. To me, there being a god does not make sense if you believe in evolution but there are people who believe in evolution and god simultaneously and being the weak agnostic that I believe that I am, (I am still forming my opinions on what life is all about), I would like to hear their claims as to what makes them think that way.

===========================================================================================================================================================================================================================

11. Steven Pinker believes that evolution is extremely important in understanding human behavior because the human brain itself was made by natural selection, otherwise known as evolution. Pinker is an evolutionary psychologist and he defines evolutionary psychology as bringing to bare on the study of the mind constraints from evolution. It’s the study of “why did the brain develop like it did, instead of the thousands of ways we can possibly imagine that it could have?” He uses the example of the “flaws” of memory that we can't remember everything we want to on a moment’s notice is there because any information retrieval system would just get cluttered with information unless it had some kind of bottleneck to differentiate between what’s useful and what’s useless. He goes on to say that the whole idea of usefulness, utility, function, purpose, is the basis of our mind. Natural selection is one of the primary reasons our minds are the way they are today.

12. Philosophy is the study of things like existence, knowledge, and truth just to name a few. Evolution pretty much defines our existence and why we are here, through natural selection we are the result, so therefore we are the result of evolution. Our knowledge is here because through the process of evolution we have gained characteristics to utilize what we call knowledge to help us survive. And if you’re looking for any sort of truth in the world, while it is widely debated to this day by many people, anyone who knows much about science will tell you to look no further than the theory of evolution because as we know it, evolution is the primary factor in why the world is the way it is today.

13. Francis Crick does not believe in the soul because he argues that what we call the “soul,” is really nothing more than a complex set of neurons and neural synapses. Crick is a believer that we are to the very core, physical beings who have somehow deceived ourselves into believing that we are something more divine. Francis Crick was a molecular biologist, physicist, and neuroscientist so he wasn't the kind of person to take non empirical data to heart. He looks for evidence and proof because he is a scientist. You cannot prove that we have a soul; however you can prove that we have neurons which make us take actions. For Crick, the mind is a product of physical brain activity and the brain has evolved by natural means over millions of years.

14. Some of the major issues behind a neuro-ethical argument for vegetarianism for one animals do have a sort of consciousness level and that by abstaining from eating meat one would be taking a great step towards true human compassion. Non violence taken even towards animals can be considered truly compassionate. Another argument is the idea that we do not eat highly evolved species such as our own human race, and dolphins for instance because they have a higher functioning brain and they can be more aware of the physical pain which bestows being killed for dinner.

15. John R Searle believes in the physical causation of consciousness and that the brain processes cause consciousness but the consciousness it causes is not extra substance. Searle believes in the physicality of consciousness, that the root of consciousness is in a way much like Crick's idea of it that it is more or less a collection of complex neural firings which can be proven and observed through science. Wilber, on the other hand, breaks down consciousness into quadrants of consciousness and into many subdivisions among the 4 quadrants, 12 and over to be exact. He feels as though consciousness is not located in the brain, nor outside the brain, rather he feels consciousness is “not merely in physical space but in emotional spaces, mental spaces, and spiritual spaces, none of which have simple location, and yet all of which are more real than simple physical space.”(Wilber) Wilber's view however cannot be proven and therefore is really just a hypothesis more than an actual truth. It’s more of an abstract opinion then something to base a true belief upon. I prefer facts over hypotheses.

16. The little movie “A Glorious Piece of Meat” is basically about the idea that we are more then just a physical being. Our mind, our soul, our awareness, our consciousness, is somehow seperate from our brain. That we have some kind of control over it that is seperate from our physical brain function. In the film they make the point that it is a sort of neural reflection. We believe ourselves to be more then a set of neurons. But it makes the point that “if we are more then the physical substratum of our cerebral cortex then why is that everything we do modulated by our brain.” This along the same line of thought as Francis Crick saying that our soul is no more then a set of complex neurons. The rebuttle of a religious person would more than likely be something along the lines of, “that is just how God chose to have us experience reality and life, but it was God who made us the way we are”.

17. He is critical of religion because he feels as though, how we deal with religious belief or how we criticize or fail to criticize the beliefs of other human beings has more to do with the “maintanence” of civilization than anything else that is in our power to influence, as Harris puts it. According to Harris one thing that religious dogma does is that it seperates question of morality from questions of real suffering. He uses the example of the Catholic Church condemning the use of condoms, which is a total falsification of morality. People are dying of aids, we have teen pregnancies. He also speaks of the fact that we have politicans putting up roadblocks on stem cell research because of this notion that we are in some way breaking moral laws. It is fundamentally taboo to question someones faith, it is a conversation stopper. There is a lot of politically correctness so to speak concerning an individual's belief in God. Harris says that because we cannot criticize religious extremeism because it is taboo and politically incorrect, and religious moderates say nothing about it. I find this so very true and it should be something that needs to be openly talked about more then it is today. However, sometimes being to openly critical of another persons religion could just lead to more violence and thus possibly cause more problems in the world for innocent people.

18. The essence of what Nietzsche is saying in his writing “The Genealogy of Morals” is basically that he went on a voyage to try to find the “value” and to use that to come up with a hypothesis as to the origin of what we call morals. Nietzsche feels as though people in modern times are immature with their feelings because they fail to see the bigger picture of life. This as he says is something that could be a great danger to humanity, which can lead to temptation and seduction of the unwanted. He feels that, “we need a critique of moral values, we must first question the very value of these values —and for that we need a knowledge of the conditions and circumstances out of which these values grew, under which they have developed and changed.” He presents morality in the light of a consequence that must be paid first before you receive the rewards of life. He goes on to make an interesting point about how in society we value “the good man” as much more valuable to society than “the evil man”. And he goes on to ask the question “what if it were the other way around?” what if in actuality the good man is really the evil man and the evil man is really the good man, who is to say what is good and what is evil?

19. Let me start off by defining ahimsa. In its comprehensive meaning, Ahimsa or non-injury means entire abstinence from causing any pain or harm whatsoever to any living creature, either by thought, word, or deed. Non-injury requires a harmless mind, mouth, and hand. As most of us know, Gandhi is famous for his non-violent acts towards to British in the early to mid 19th Century. Gandhi feels that every problem lends itself to a solution if one is to make truth and nonviolence the law of life. He says it takes a lot of strength to become a nonviolent person everyday, requiring much discipline. Nonviolence is truly only achieved when mind, body, are in proper coordination. “Nonviolence is a weapon of the strong.”
#

20. Fredrich Nietzsche in this film asks what if demon creep up on you in your loneliest solitude and said to you that this life as you live it now and have lived it, you will have to live again and again times without number, infinite amount of times. There will be nothing new in it, but every pain, and every joy, and every thought and every little minute detail you would have to live over and over again eternally. He then asks the million dollar question, Do you want this again and again forever? Nietzsche's basic notion is that the answer to this question would lie as the heaviest burden of all your actions. He goes on to say, “how well desposed towards yourself or towards life would you have to become to have no greater desire then for this ultimate eteranal sanction and seal?” That is so profound it is ridiculous, if you ask yourself this question every morning when you wake up and remind yourself of it throughout the day you just might live the life of your dreams. He doesn't say this to propose this as his thoughts on reality, I believe he just says it to make you think about life and take action for the betterment of yourself.

21. This movie shows a muscle magazine in the mid 20th century and a guy talking about how prolonged exposure of even the most normal of male adults to this type of publication, though he may not be aware of its true nature, will eventually make him gay or at least alittle homosexual. But I think the quote that stands out to me is when the speaker says, “todays conquests are tomarrows competition”. They thought that was gay then, and now it is really a popular trend nowadays. Men all over are looking at these publications and trying to become in better shape and it is considered to be ok for one guy to say to another guy, “dang man your looking buff, how can I get like that?” Overall I believe the message is, what may be uncool to most now, whatever it may be, should not stop you from doing what you truly want to do in life because you should see yourself as a trend starter instead of just being like a lemming and running off the cliff with the rest of them. Basically, break away from the norm and take the road less traveled if that is what you want to do, no matter what anyone else has to say. You may have people trying to be like you. And you only get one life and you gotta live it up.

22. Daniel Dennett is part of a group called “Brights,” which does not mean they think they are smarter then everyone else, it simply is a group that rejects the idea of anything supernatural in the world, meaning they do not believe in god. Dennett prefers calling himself this bcause Dennett himself is an Atheist, he does not believe in god whatsoever.

23. Bascially, Bertrand Russell in “A Free Man's Worship” talks about how purposeless and void of meaning science has presented the world with considering the fact that it has basically proven that “man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms”(Russell) He states that though it may bring one despair to think of things this way instead of the theist way they may believe the world to be, that “only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built.” This is because there is no point in decieving yourself and pretending to believe something that is not true, one might as well come to grips with reality and make the best of the current situation. He further brings up his point that this world has no knowledge of mans idea of good and evil and asks the question as to whether or not man should hold himself to a stand that nature knows nothing about? Or if he should take his life and recognise himself as the master of his own destiny.

24. The theme of the movie “Inner Visions and Running Trains” is about the fact that we may see what guru's or gods say to be of divine purpose, or we may believe to think of things we attribute to a guru or god when in actuality it is just our different states of consciousness that we falsely interpret as divine. It is really just our minds operating at different levels of consciousness. The theme of this movie is that in actuality we know nothing. Or at least very little.

25. What Nicholas of Cusa means by “Learned Ignorance,” is that we must become aware of the fact that we know very little about our world and the many things there are to know in this world. And that when we become aware of the fact that we are ignorant we will then seek out knowledge, and become a learned person. He takes the actual knowledge we have about our world and compares it to a hexagon, the knowledge, which continually tries to become a full circle by adding more knowledge to the circle making it closer and closer to becoming a full circle but of course the hexagon of knowledge can never become a truly round circle. As much as we try to make it a complete circle by learning as much as we possibly can, the possibility of the hexagon ever becoming a complete circle is impossible. Our knowledge will always be able to grow more and we will never come to the absolute truth of the world. It will always be out of our reach no matter how close we get. However, learning is a constant and is the main goal of our lives.

26. Neural Darwinism and Second Nature are Edelman's theories pertaining to how consciousness works in the mind. What he means is that the mind works in a sort of "Darwinistic" or evolutionary sense, that it reinforces things that it experiences often, and it systematically eliminates neurons that it doesn't use. The brain is always rewiring itself to better adapt to the environment of the person. In this way the brain is not a computer, since computers are static and don't change, and the brain is not preprogrammed with innate info, since the cells develop according to DNA and interact with other cells to create systems which help ensure survival.

27. There are many arguments for vegetarianism as well as against vegetarianism. Lets take a look at the arguments against it shall we? For one, humans are omnivores, we have been eating meat for thousands of years. Another point is that even if I, one person, were to stop eating meat, this would not reduce the number of animals killed at all because the meat market is far to large for meat producers to register a single persons consumption or lackthereof. Thirdly, people make the point that, “how would you feel if you were slaughtered and eaten?” however this point does not hold very much water because how a human feels may not be comparable to how an animal feels. Lastly, vegetarians may not eat meat but they do, however, still use other animal products such as leather, glue, gelatin.

28. When he was 16 he read a book called, “Periya Puranam,” that his uncle had, which brought him great interest as to the love and faith that was possible in the world. The climax came just a few months later when rather abrubtly a violent fear of death overcame him, he realized he was going to die someday. This shock drove Ramana inward and he wanted to answer the vital questions that were demanding to be answered. What does Death mean? What is dying? It is the body that dies. He dramatized death, laid stiff and breathless, but he still felt his personality and the eye within him apart from the body. He experienced that he was a soul transcending the body. The body dies but the spirit cannot be touched by death. He felt with certainty that he was the deathless spirit. From that moment on, the eye or self, focused its attention on its source. Which is the self and substratum of all existence. And his absorption in it remained unbroken. Whether talking, reading, or doing anything he was always centered in on that supreme self. This perment new awareness simply meant his ego had transcended and he was one with God.

29. Gandhi's double shame came when his father was very ill and dying. He had to take care of him and basically be his nurse, which Gandhi did not mind whatsoever. Gandhi's got his wife pregnant which ended up being his double shame in the sense that he did not restrain himself like he should have done while he was a student. This carnal lust got the better of what Gandhi considered his duty to study, and what was even greater duty to him, his devotion to his parents.Gandhi always had his mind on the bedroom, it eventually ended up being why he was not at his fathers deathbed which he fully regrets. If Gandhi lived today it would depend on what type of family he was raised as to whether or not he would feel differently about this event in his life. In some cases, people promote sex much more. But in my famiy, this is not something that I am likely to get caught up with because for one I know how bad having a kid can mess up your life if you are not ready for it and for two family comes first. So all in all I feel it depends on how you were raised.

30. 1.2- The world divides into facts, Means that the world can be broken down into an exact science in some sense, whether it be numbers or chemistry or physics or in some way or another the world is broken down into an exact science.
2.0121- It would, so to speak, appear as an accident, when to a thing that could exist alone on its own account, subsequently a state of affairs could be made to fit.... in my opinion means that all things in existence are interconnected, there are no things that exist by themselves and that is also true of time connections through the process of change they stay interrelated.
2.02- The object is simple. In that whatever the object is, is made up of atomic facts.
2.026- Only if there are objects can there be a fixed form of the world. This means that only objects portray life in a fixed empirical form.

31. The author's overall thesis for this booklet is that science cannot accurately explain mystical experiences, other states of consciousness, and paranormal circumstances. The sound grenade application is a real-world example illustrative of the fact that people's experience of "reality" is subjective, and hence so is consciousness. He writes that just as we may see or hear things which others do not, it may be impossible to understand something (like the mystical) we have no experience of.

32. The author in “Is Consciousness Physical?,” makes the point that when the polyps that stiffled his sense of smell occurred, it got him thinking about consciousness in general and how polyps could take away his sense of smell which in turn took away the strong emotions that sense of smell brings and the hidden worlds that it entails in a way. He applies this to make an analogy concerning the metaphysical states experienced by those who participate in intense meditation and the different worlds that it produces. I think that this is true because what happens is your brain chemistry is changed which results in these different feelings. Every brain is different yet the same in the sense that we all have chemical changes that take place for one reason or another. Whether it be because polyps forming: taking away the ability to allow certain chemicals to reach a portion of the brain to decipate ones sense of smell; or highly intense meditation that produces actual changes in the body, which in turn produce massive changes in body chemistry which result in these heightened states of mind or different worlds.

33. Tolstoy's confession is about his struggle to deal with the meaning of life, and how he converted to a form of anarchic Christianity he developed, feeling he must live humbly like the peasants, and that anarchic living without states or government, or the sciences, was the way to go. I feel some of the key elements in his radical change were his abandonment of wealth, total pacifism, chastity and especially anarchy. He looked to find God directly, instead of dealing with the church and it's teachings, but he still accepted Jesus.

34. My favorite expert lecture this semester has got to be the one with Steven Pinker on Evolutionary Psychology. Coming in at a close second place would definetly have to be Daniel Dennett on Consciousness and Physicality.

35. My favorite movie was by far Fredrich Nietzsche's, The Myth of Eternal Recurrance” I really took a lot from this movie because it makes you really think about life and respect it much more. It puts an ultimate consequence to your actions that would make you do anything in your power to live every moment like it is your last and to make sure every moment counts.

36. There were so many readings I liked, this class really impressed me with all of fun stuff to read but my favorite would probably have to be, “to be agnostic” because I to hear the points of people who do not just blindly believe in god because that is what they were told to believe since they were little kids.

37. The most unusual thing I learned this semester is that a lot of the world does not know these things and if they did it would greatly change their life. If they were to only hear the ideas of Steven Pinker in the evolutionary psychology interview maybe people wouldnt be so ignorant as to thing creation is a possibility. If people were to watch Nietzsche in the “The Myth of Eternal Recurrance” they just might look at how they live life in an abstract way and maybe choose to enjoy life better and not take any moment for granted. All in all there are almost to many interesting new ideas I learned this semester to just list in 1 simple paragraph. I wish I had more time to explain all of the interesting things I have learned that have changed my life for the better. This class has really made me think about majoring in Philosophy. However, I have heard that majoring in Philosophy usually only ends up in teaching jobs, I really hope that is not true because I feel as though a person can learn a great deal about life majoring in philosophy which can be extremely useful in almost any field. If you have time to possibly shed some light on how could one apply a Philosophy degree to the job world? Is a Philosophy degree desireable in the workforce? That would be greatly appreciated on my end. Thank you for your time and vast knowledge bestowed upon me during this course. This has been great experience.

Mt. Sac Intro to Philosophy Course Posts

Thursday, July 30, 2009

Final

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me