ryan
New Member
Posts: 13 
|
Post by ryan on Jul 11, 2015 21:23:57 GMT
Week 1 ESSAY QUESTIONS1. Why was Socrates sentenced to death? The answer to this question is not as simple as it appears to be. Yes, Socrates refused to accept the answers that were given to him, and essentially doubted the gods of the state. And yes, he was also accused of spreading falsehoods to the youth, corrupting their beliefs. All of which undoubtedly led to his trial, and eventual execution. But more importantly, the real reason Socrates was sentenced to death were his principles, which he based solely on objective reality. Socrates demanded heavy scrutiny of even the simplest ethical conundrums and refused to believe something on faith alone. By constantly challenging the status quo and striking up arguments with his peers, however legitimate they were, Socrates became an annoyance to the people. When it came to his trial, his principles were so firmly held, even he himself could not allow the sentence to be overturned. He elected to die, even after being offered a pardon - “If I were to escape death now, I would be breaking the law.” His reality was so intertwined with the absolute, the finite, that he refused to budge even an inch in his beliefs. Was this an act or courage or of arrogance? Honestly, it was likely a little of both. 2. Why is there a conflict (for some) between science and religion? There has always been a driving force in the human consciousness that has compelled us to understand our particular surroundings and the reasons for their actions, and to go even deeper: the reason for our existence. And at the heart of these questions is the conflict between science and religion, or respectively, objectivity (logic) and subjectivity (spirituality). To give you a basic example of the divergence between religion and science, I ask: What is choice? Can science prove or quantify a human’s decision to walk either left or right? Is this decision just a chemical reaction firing in the brain? And if that’s the case, what distinguishes one choice from the other, aren’t they the same chemical reaction? Where science fails at such a simple query, spirituality easily tackles the problem- Because the choice was yours. Your soul, your spirit, your person, felt compelled to walk in one particular direction. As simple as this may seem, as intuitive as it may seem, science still fails to answer such an elementary question. The conflict between science and religion is therefore obvious, they are two completely separate and distinct views of our existence, neither holding all the answers. In fact, there can never be an answer to all things at one particular time, because the closer one gets to the truth, the farther away it appears. As we approach our limits in science, all that we know breaks down, and the further away we get from understanding it (quantum mechanics). It appears whichever way you lean, the problem comes full circle again, and you are left with no real answer. But maybe the answer we seek is right in front of us. The convergence of what we understand and what we don’t understand, lies within the birth of the soul. Life itself. A balance between both worlds.
EXTRA CREDIT RESPONSE_____________________________________________________________________________________ Jun 26, 2015 0:43:39 GMT -7 junghyunnie said: 2. Why is there a conflict (for some) between science and religion? Science and Religion often have open confrontations and conflicts with each other because of mere similar topics to explain the natural phenomenon. One would argue that science is to observe the natural occurrences happen random in nature while the other contradicting party would state that God has created men and earth and that we must believe by faith. According to the book “The Great Mystery”, it states, “Oh Dave that guy who just verbally assaulted you is a fundamentalist Christian and he thinks your publication contradicts the Bible and insults his religion” (The Great Mystery, 2014). Christians often react so defensively when they are challenged the question in whether God has created all. In this quote, there had to be an unavoidable conflict between David Lane and the fundamentalist Christian because one was trying to explain the same viewpoint in how everything was created in a different approach to explain creation. While Christian believers would only explain everything by faith which will never bring the argument to a halt. To give another example that brings conflict is the quote, “Francis Crick say as that consciousness is just a bundle of neurons or when Patricia Churchland indicates we are just three pounds of meat, how do we feel then?”(The Great Mystery, 2014). The science advocates can clearly say and verbally such words without hesitation because one is trying to prove a closest understanding to how and why we would exist and that a simple chunk of meat can be compared to human beings. On the other hand, Christians again, would argue that men were put would clear and concise purpose to their existence on earth. This would pose a conflict once again between science and religion. Science is clearly acting upon the observations of nature while religion solely acts on faith alone (Religious Tolerance, 2012). The two heavy components will have an unending argument because each side claims a different solution to the same problem. _____________________________________________________________________________________ My Response:I completely agree with your explanation on the modern religious views held by most of the world. I do on the other hand think the conflict between religion and science is inherent, such that, neither truly argue about the same thing- and in that respect, I disagree. Modern religion has become a complete mockery of what religion, or more importantly, spirituality stands for. While science attempts to understand that which CAN be understood, or quantified and categorized...true spirituality (which is all but lost) is merely the practice of coming to terms with that which CANNOT be understood. Now in a world where science reigns king, creating all the technology we see before us today, that which we CANNOT understand has been put on the back-burner. I believe this to be the reason spirituality has become the many religions we see today, the spirit trying it's hardest to hold on. The intrinsic nature of science is just like a computer, only caring about the answers; ethics themselves are always secondary. Modern religion is currently in mass conflict with science because it is trying it's hardest to appeal to the dominant scientific mindset we currently worship. In other words: desperation to hold on to spirituality has pushed religion to the brink, forcing it to appeal to our scientific senses (knowing), even though in and of itself, it cannot claim to know anything: which is the entire point of spirituality itself. The balance between knowing, and not knowing. We have become obsessed with knowing everything, we have forgotten how to humble ourselves. |
|
ryan
New Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by ryan on Jul 11, 2015 21:24:26 GMT
Week 2
ESSAY QUESTIONS
1. Why is understanding physics and the general rules of the universe so important in doing philosophy? Philosophy, being the study of the nature of knowledge and reality, relies heavily on science and mathematics in order to progress. One cannot reasonably argue about a given topic without a general understanding of the nature of that topic; and physics is generally regarded as the closest known science that can explain our existence, and all natural processes that we sense. Although Physics can be seen as more of a tangible representation of our universe, and Philosophy often times an intangible representation, they both rely on the same method to come to a conclusion; the scientific method. Reason and demonstrable evidence are weighed against many different claims/hypotheses until one claim is either definitive, or the obvious answer. Since science prides itself on the use of empirical evidence, repeatable experiments, and rigorous scrutiny, it is only natural that philosophy would require at least basic knowledge of the math and sciences that govern our universe. 2. What is eliminative materialism? Provide three examples of it. Be sure to support your answers with references to the required readings and films. In short: The argument that all concepts of behavior, experience, and our senses (what we perceive), should be judged by how well they reduce to the biological level (physical sciences). - Humans used to believe that a god, “Thor”, was the bringer of thunder and lightning, until electromagnetism was discovered. We also believed a god would pull the sun around the sky using a horse driven carriage, until we discovered gravity was spinning our earth around. As with most previous beliefs that claimed to know the nature of the world without using hard science, they are eventually explained by either physics, math, chemistry, or biology.
- Eliminative Materialism does not always refer to only physical sciences. Even human behaviors, such as relationships, politics, and feelings are reduced to sciences such as sociology, or psychology. When speaking of relationships and social groups, what we used to describe as free will is often touted as a culmination of your experiences, coupled with the pressures and expectations that society places upon you. This is how sociology explains this behavior.
- simple example of eliminative materialism would be to look at the plague. The plague was once believed to have been a punishment by god. As silly as it sounds, we did not understand the cause of disease back then. There were no microscopes that could actually see these organisms. There simply was no way to physically prove what was causing the disease. So we turned to the “supernatural”. Using the process of eliminative materialism, and eventually documenting, experimenting, and proving what caused the disease, we were able to eliminate the supernatural claim that gods caused the plague.
EXTRA CREDIT RESPONSE___________________________________________________________________________ Jun 30, 2015 23:44:56 GMT desireevallejo said: WEEK 2 QUESTIONS): Jun 28, 2015 17:25:33 GMT -7 misarea said: What is eliminative materialism? Provide three examples of it. Eliminative materialism is the process of understanding something via elimination of certain aspects of science. If physics doesn't work, try sociology, then biology, and so on. The age-old saying of this philosophical belief is that if something cannot be explained academically, then "God did it." But by utilizing this method, "constructed realities" are in a way, debunked. For instance, as mentioned in Eliminative Materialism: The Death of Thor Part II three examples include the concept of Thor being replaced with the role of electromagnetic currents, the illness is a result of spirits is replaced with the knowledge of bacteria, and finally, the notion that otherworldly phenomena control one's heart and muscles, the central nervous system comes into play. This begins the transition into the unending science vs. religion debate. Yet, as mentioned in Eliminative Materialism Part III, this process somehow skips our own understanding of ourselves. Emotional concepts, such as anger and love, thus are used to explain human behavior. These terms and ideas are, despite popular belief, not scientific explanations of anatomy. So while we can use the eliminative materialism process to uncover the reasonings behind everyday occurrences, we still tend to lean towards folk psychology when it comes to ourselves. ___________________________________________________________________________ My Response:I do agree with much of what is stated here, but let me respond from an eliminativists perspective for a second - in regards to emotion and behavior. Science is actually in the process of mapping out the different emotions and the process for each (anger, love, nervousness, etc.) A cocktail of different hormones, and neurotransmitters can actually be seen acting in a consistent and particular pattern for each of the different states of human emotions. In fact, every single cell in your body has receptors that are open and ready to react to a given situation, which are flooded by these hormones. So folk psychology may be a dead practice after all. I myself find the spirit to be a very interesting thing indeed, but without the proper tools to measure such a thing, I find myself at a standstill when it comes to speaking about it. |
|
ryan
New Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by ryan on Jul 11, 2015 21:24:44 GMT
Week 3 Essay Questions1. Why is the theory of evolution so important in understanding how human beings behave? Evolution plays a key role in the understanding of human behavior, or any animal behavior for that matter. Certain human behaviors can be fully understood once you see the evolutionary benefits or detriments that accompany that action. Take for example greed. This behavior is often looked at as a negative trait to hold, but in fact can have innumerable benefits to the individual, and hence the species. The benefits of greed are quite obvious, you horde important assets and materials in order to have an edge on your fellow man. This can lead to an increase in appeal from the opposite sex, -and safety and security for yourself (wealth, housing, food, etc.) The origin of modern behaviors can therefore be linked to the growing need to adapt and compete. The fact is nearly every human behavior can be linked to evolution when you take into account the rewards or consequences of that behavior. 2. Which questions do you think evolutionary theory cannot answer? While evolution can explain a tremendous amount when it comes to life on Earth, it cannot come close to answering the questions that are still present in the Universe. Is there a God? How was this universe created? A great debate between Wallace and Darwin can shed some light on the differing opinions of what evolution explains, and what it does not. Wallace believed the human mind to be much too complex, and that natural selection could not have been the only factor; whereas Darwin was convinced that over-time, natural selection was capable of not only self-consciousness, but possibly answers to our very existence. So it may be a matter of belief to some, and fact to others- that the complexities we see around us are merely opportunity and chance converging into some beneficial state of being. Fortunately evolution in not the only science that explains our existence. We still have Physics, Biology, Chemistry and a ton of other sciences to fall back on when evolution has reached its peak. EXTRA CREDIT RESPONSE
_______________________________________________________
Jul 12, 2015 18:41:06 GMT qiangao said:
Which questions do you think evolutionary theory cannot explain?
2.) A question that evolutionary science cannot explain is, “Why are some people very generous and philanthropic?” Giving away our possessions and wealth has no benefit to us. Evolutionary speaking, humans are innately selfish. Evolution says that the whole reason we keep living is to reproduce. In the “Evolutionary Imperative: To Be or Not To Be”, the narrator discusses how most people choose to live until they have an offspring. This self-preservation is sort of a selfish way to live on forever. If we are innately selfish, then the art of philanthropy would be dead was it not a behavior that was adopted socially or based instead on our environment. Another thing that I don’t think evolution can answer is why some people are adamantly against having children. I know a few people who are adults who are financially stable and in stable relationships, but they actively avoid having children their whole lives. Since there are many people who choose to be childfree it can be said that it is not an uncommon behavior to practice birth control. Evolutionarily, this behavior makes no sense. The human behavior of avoiding procreation is one that I do not think can be explained biologically, I think it has to be a learned or environmental behavior and choice. In The DNA of Consciousness, the author writes, “the discovery is important because it provides critical evidence of the way that animals evolve new features to improve their chances of reproductive success and survival” (Diem-Lane p. 21). If our biological need and desire is to procreate and pass on our genes, then the behavior of the millions of people who choose not to have children cannot possibly be explained by genetics. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
My Response:Giving away your wealth and possessions DOES in fact have an evolutionary benefit. Say for example you are wanting to gain others trust or favor. This type of behavior can enable you to join their “in-group”. Grouping is one of the most important roles in the evolutionary imperative. It allows you to have power in numbers. Things like defending yourself and problem solving become easier with groups of people. On the other topic of choosing not to reproduce, I also have to disagree. One thing is certain when it comes to human evolution, we have favored our brains and intellect over all else. This is what has enabled us to evolve at such a rapid pace and surpass all other forms of life on this planet in terms of technology and innovation. For this reason, choosing to not have kids is IN FACT part of that evolution of our intellect. Some people KNOW they are not fit to be a parent, so their intellect is doing them a favor. For others they understand the world is overpopulated as it is, and adding to the gene pool is redundant. So you see this is easily explained through the evolutionary imperative. I can see how by looking at our animalistic behaviors, you can miss the intelligent aspect humans have. This is what differentiates us from the animal kingdom, and new ways of looking at our evolution become apparent. |
|
ryan
New Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by ryan on Jul 13, 2015 1:30:19 GMT
|
|
ryan
New Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by ryan on Jul 26, 2015 18:47:37 GMT
Week 4 ESSAY QUESTIONS
1. Explain the virtual simulation theory of consciousness. In the book “The Cerebral Mirage” there is a relatively simple definition of the virtual simulation theory that anyone could understand, that “our day-to-day reality is a relative construct, built upon a scaffolding of information bits that betray their real origin and causation” (2). The universe may be a two-dimensional object with bits of information spread along the surface, and what we perceive as a three dimensional area, is only our brains processing the information in a way we can understand. So in essence we only perceive what our senses are capable of deducing, and the “truth” and the origin of the universe remains hidden to our limited sensory inputs. One of the more disturbing concepts comes from the film “Brain Burn” in which consciousness itself is described as being a state of disassociation with reality. In this state comes the feeling of self-awareness, and the ability to think for ourselves, create, adapt and grow. Therein, consciousness acts as a catalyst for the human brain to evolve. Sources: “The Cerebral Mirage” & “Brain Burn: Consciousness as a Virtual Simulator” 2. How does the brain trick us and for what benefit is it for our genetic survival? In the book “The Cerebral Mirage”, it states this trickery caused by our brains can actually be beneficial in terms of our survival. Simple neurological tricks are put in place by the brain in order to help us “make immediate judgments and predictions for the future” (15). There is also the obvious reason for this trickery….to bypass confusion. Confusion that might otherwise waste time, or even lead to an incorrect assumption that causes harm or death. What we believe we see, as opposed to what may or may not be, aids in perpetuating life through the ability to understand (to a certain degree). This understanding, whether it be truth or not, allows us the ability to create new and better ways of doing things, invent tools that help us in our quest to survive and grow, and ultimately safeguard our consciousness from the impossible to comprehend. Sources: “The Cerebral Mirage” |
|
ryan
New Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by ryan on Jul 26, 2015 18:52:19 GMT
Week 5 ESSAY QUESTIONS
1. Do you think artificial Intelligence will be a significant problem in the future? According to the film “Ray Kurzweil: The Coming Singularity”, artificial intelligence is closer then we think. Technology tends to grow exponentially, essentially doubling every year, and at this rate the entire human brain is said to be fully mapped and ready for download by the year 2030. The problem with this is not only scientific in nature, but religious aspects regarding the soul tend to surface when this idea is fully understood. If we were able to completely download a brain into a computer, and essentially live forever, would that REALLY be you? I mean “it” might think it’s you, it might have every last memory you have and simulate all feelings you have as well. For arguments sake let’s say I were to completely copy you, and you had a body double right next to you. I then proceeded to kill the original you. It doesn’t seem like that copy of you is really you now does it? Another problem that arises with AI is the reliance on computers as a means of survival. Now there will always be things we rely on to survive…Water, food, air, etc. But what happens when we STOP using our brains to solve problems, and rely solely on a computer. The natural process of evolution ceases, and what we have left is a computer living our lives for us. The implications of this technology are staggering. Integration with man and machine is seen as a logical step in evolution, but well be our demise if we do not tread carefully. For this reason safety precautions and fail safes should be a priority before such a large project is ever tested. Sources: “Ray Kurzweil: The Coming Singularity” & “Digital Philosophy” 2. How has technology impacted your life? Technology not only greatly enhances my life, but has also been a passion of mine for several years. Computers, the most powerful of all our technological advances to date, has consumed my everyday life. I spend countless hours programming, browsing forums, and watching videos. I use it to compute for me, I ask it questions I am curious about, and I even use it to communicate via social media. But there is a problem with too much technology, and I know this first hand. I have become complacent, possibly even reliant on my computer. I find it easier to search for an answer, rather than attempt to solve it myself. The curiosity is still there, but the means to an end has changed. At least I can say I am aware of this problem, and have taken steps to ensure I do not fall into this trap. But that cannot be said for everyone. There is no denying technology has impacted our lives for the better, more than it has negatively. But we must ensure the natural process of evolution is not disturbed or outright ignored when using the great tools technology brings to us. Ray Kurzweil said it best, the biggest problem with technology will be preparing for the eventual integration, and ensuring safeguards are in place to combat any problems that can arise. Sources: “Ray Kurzweil: The Coming Singularity” & “Digital Philosophy” |
|
ryan
New Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by ryan on Jul 27, 2015 4:14:29 GMT
Week 6 ESSAY QUESTIONS
1. Why is Faqir Chand's experiences important in understanding the projective nature of religious visions and miracles? Through powerful meditation, it’s believed Faqir was capable of transcending reality, into an “out of body experience”, and have what a religious person considers a vision. Although even Faqir was humble enough to admit that his experiences were merely there act of entering ones consciousness, or imagination. In the video “The Visionary Illusion”, Faqir’s image appears several times to his followers, and is said to have helped them or saved them during a crisis. This is a prime example of the religious visions and hallucinations one can have when they believe in the supernatural powers of a person or deity. Although what is interesting is Faqir himself never takes credit for any of these acts, and simply states he has no knowledge of why it has taken place. In fact he takes a much more logical approach on the matter when he says “This is all the game of the mind and nothing else” (The Unknowing Sage 53), acknowledging the visions as a simple trick of the brain, human imagination at work. Faqir’s story is very interesting to me, because typically when I hear of people who claim to have “vision” or out of body experiences, I immediately go into skeptic mode, and attempt to explain through pure logic and science, the cause of the experience. With Faqir, I almost want to believe that it’s a mind over matter experience, and maybe it is possible to be in touch with reality, transcending the limitations of your senses into a state of great awareness. That to me would be a truly religious experience. Sources: “The Visionary Illusion: Baba Faqir Chand's Realization” & “The Unknowing Sage” 2. What is meant by the phrase, "philosophy done well is science; philosophy done poorly remains philosophy." Philosophy is the study of knowledge, understanding, and truths. Therefore it is only logical that if you want to reach the truth, one must incorporate the sciences into philosophy. If philosophy is the quest to discover these truths, then the tool used would be empirical data gathered through the scientific method. In an interview with Patricia Churchland she reinforces the need for science in conjunction with philosophical thinking - “we should see desires and beliefs and so forth as causes within the whole scheme of things, rather than rational ideals or something. And once you do that…then it seems quite obvious that what you want to do is look for an empirical, or scientific, account of how humans work” (Circle of the Wise 66). She even acknowledges the benefits of purely philosophical thoughts as a sort of a jumping off point. In that sense, poorly done philosophy is logic and reason not applied to what is testable and provable within the realm of current truths. And until a thought is able to be quantified, or defined, or testable within the realm of science and mathematics, it remains just a thought. Sources: “Circle of the Wise – Interviews with California Philosophers” |
|
|
|
Post by jchang194 on Jul 27, 2015 5:31:30 GMT
Hello Ryan, I like how you agree with Churchland on how philosophy without science or to anything testable and provable will just remain a thought. I think this will help not only us but others when it comes to people in the future to claim certain "truths" or "facts" by actually listening for any facts. Philosophy needs science and facts because no one will listen to philosophers otherwise. Philosophy has been using science which is why it is still here to this day. Week 6 ESSAY QUESTIONS
1. Why is Faqir Chand's experiences important in understanding the projective nature of religious visions and miracles? Through powerful meditation, it’s believed Faqir was capable of transcending reality, into an “out of body experience”, and have what a religious person considers a vision. Although even Faqir was humble enough to admit that his experiences were merely there act of entering ones consciousness, or imagination. In the video “The Visionary Illusion”, Faqir’s image appears several times to his followers, and is said to have helped them or saved them during a crisis. This is a prime example of the religious visions and hallucinations one can have when they believe in the supernatural powers of a person or deity. Although what is interesting is Faqir himself never takes credit for any of these acts, and simply states he has no knowledge of why it has taken place. In fact he takes a much more logical approach on the matter when he says “This is all the game of the mind and nothing else” (The Unknowing Sage 53), acknowledging the visions as a simple trick of the brain, human imagination at work. Faqir’s story is very interesting to me, because typically when I hear of people who claim to have “vision” or out of body experiences, I immediately go into skeptic mode, and attempt to explain through pure logic and science, the cause of the experience. With Faqir, I almost want to believe that it’s a mind over matter experience, and maybe it is possible to be in touch with reality, transcending the limitations of your senses into a state of great awareness. That to me would be a truly religious experience. Sources: “The Visionary Illusion: Baba Faqir Chand's Realization” & “The Unknowing Sage” 2. What is meant by the phrase, "philosophy done well is science; philosophy done poorly remains philosophy." Philosophy is the study of knowledge, understanding, and truths. Therefore it is only logical that if you want to reach the truth, one must incorporate the sciences into philosophy. If philosophy is the quest to discover these truths, then the tool used would be empirical data gathered through the scientific method. In an interview with Patricia Churchland she reinforces the need for science in conjunction with philosophical thinking - “we should see desires and beliefs and so forth as causes within the whole scheme of things, rather than rational ideals or something. And once you do that…then it seems quite obvious that what you want to do is look for an empirical, or scientific, account of how humans work” (Circle of the Wise 66). She even acknowledges the benefits of purely philosophical thoughts as a sort of a jumping off point. In that sense, poorly done philosophy is logic and reason not applied to what is testable and provable within the realm of current truths. And until a thought is able to be quantified, or defined, or testable within the realm of science and mathematics, it remains just a thought. Sources: “Circle of the Wise – Interviews with California Philosophers” |
|
