|
|
Post by kevinphilosophy on Jun 28, 2015 7:26:37 GMT
I will be putting all of my collected essay questions for each week in this thread to reduce board clutter.
1. Why was Socrates sentenced to death?
Socrates the philosopher was put on trial on charges claiming that he corrupted Athenian youth and that he failed to recognize Gods that were sanctioned by the state government. It says it quite clearly in the dialogue of the event compiled by Plato, How Socrates Died, "Two charges were brought against Socrates—one that he did not believe in the gods recognized by the State, the other that he had corrupted the Athenian youth by his teachings." It is arguable that these charges were more political than anything, considering the enemies Socrates made. Society doesn't seem to like it when someone jiggles the apple cart. In this case that someone was Socrates, who always questioning things and getting people uncomfortable. He was under the gun from more than one person, and the reasons are implied to be more out of spite than anything. "For they would not, I think, be willing to tell the truth that they have been detected in pretending to possess knowledge, whereas they know nothing. Therefore, I think, being ambitions and vehement and numerous, and speaking systematically and persuasively about me, they have filled your ears, for a long time and diligently calumniating me. From among these, Melitus, Anytus and Lycon have attacked me." Politics has a nasty habit of muddling the authenticity of charges, or Socrates certainly believed so in his certain situation. In any case he was sentenced to death over it.
2. Why is there a conflict (for some) between science and religion?
There have been arguments between various camps of scientists and religious authorities since the modern concept of science as we know it existed. The two sides have been competing for the minds of different peoples of the world for a long time now, but neither have succeed in snuffing the other out. A quote I feel explains this succinctly is from Michael Shermer in The Great Mystery, where he is quoted saying "I don't think a union between science and religion is possible for a logical reason, but by this same logic I conclude that science cannot contradict religion. Here's why: A is A. Reality is real. To attempt to use nature to prove the supernatural is a violation of A is A. It is an attempt to make reality unreal. A cannot also be non-A. Nature cannot also be non-Nature. Naturalism cannot also be supernaturalism." What he is saying is that the two sides operate in completely different ways, one by faith and the other by evidence. The thing about proof is that it can be hard to come by, and faith is just a mere belief in an idea. It's pretty hard to disprove the possibility of an invisible, all-powerful sky wizard. I mean, how could you prove there isn't one up there? Sure on the other hand there isn't anything substantial to prove that there is one out there, but the idea still stands that a belief in a magical entity that has the power to do whatever it wants, or that other spirit-like things exist is impossible to disprove. The faith versus proof factor is the core problem of why neither the faith side, nor the science side has been able to completely shut the other down. You cannot properly relate the supernatural to the natural, and that is why there seems to be no end in sight for the debate over the veracity of religious beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Post by kevinphilosophy on Jun 29, 2015 6:58:08 GMT
Week 1 Extra credit Responses: Posted by erikaresultay
"1. Why was Socrates sentenced to death?
Socrates was accused by Melitus of "unjustly corrupting the youth, and in not believing in those gods in whom the city believes, but in other strange divinities (p. 36)." He also laments in his defense speech a common stereotype of philosophers in his time that reflects the bias he sees in Melitus: “that he searches into things in heaven and things under the earth, that he does not believe there are gods, makes the worse appear the better reason (p.35)." While he never explicitly rejected the idea of gods, he supported the idea of self-consciousness more valued than the judgement of the gods. This is demonstrated in the dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro—the both explore if holiness is a result of being loved by the gods or if the gods love things that are holy. The attitude towards the gods is reflective of his method of teaching. From Socrates’ perspective, he discusses controversial topics that go against conventional ideology because it is beneficial to society, beneficial meaning an improvement to the gods rather than in congruence with teachings of the gods.
2. Why is there a conflict (for some) between science and religion?
Conflict between science and religion lies not in the core ideas, but mostly from the way each side goes about supporting its ideas. The religious side tends to use “Folk Psychology” terms such as "desire," "motivation," "love," "anger," and "free will," (p.22) in describing daily activities, and dogmatic, conclusive statements as a basis of morality. However, this is a big issue for the scientific side. The manner in which ideas are formed is demonstrated by the following quote:
a genuine scientific endeavor worthy of its name cannot ad hoc cherry pick which aspect of science they wish to utilize...any scientific endeavor worth the appellation must be open to revaluation and correction.. where past gurus and their ideas [may be] corrected, changed, or overthrown. (pp.15-16)
It is no surprise then when people such as Patricia Churchland present ideas that contradict the traditional beliefs in the bible, religious individuals get angry. On one hand, the approach of religion to explaining the universe is based on faith and intution, which is a lot easier to practice than constant questioning. On the other hand, it is foolish to accept everything at face value and to not seek a deeper understanding.
It may benefit both sides to consider the rather rigid assumption of what materialism is: “that everything that arises is nothing but permutations of matter..that it is the exact opposite of spirit or that it somehow diminishes human consciousness.” To say that matter is just matter may be too conclusive even be a scientific standpoint (p.12)."
1. Regarding your metion of Socrates and Euthyphro and Socrates questioning and eventually coming to a satisfactory definition for terms such as pious, and what it means to sacrifice to the gods and pray to them I think it plays into the trope I mentioned of Socrates, where he is always questioning things further and further. In a society where Gods are deemed all-powerful someone could expect to rock more than just a few boats questioning them.
2. Onto your second essay question I see you've chosen an apt quote from the book detailing what I see is a problem with religious debates. "Any scientific endeavor worth the appellation must be open to revaluation and correction." I've noticed a funny thing about people when their religious beliefs are under attack (specifically people of the book), they claim that something has been taken out of context! Or "it's not supposed to be interpreted that way!" I imagine it would be very infuriating for someone trying to discount the value of religious texts when the person defending them can merely pull out exception after exception in the defense.
|
|
|
|
Post by kevinphilosophy on Jul 4, 2015 18:33:59 GMT
1. Why is understanding physics and the general rules of the universe so important in doing philosophy?
Having a clear definition of things is paramount when searching for truths. Einstein was concerned about what Heisenberg's uncertainty principle could mean for searching for something definitive, in this case the location and momentum of small elementary particles of matter. You can only know one at a time for certain, as the act of discovering it will affect the other. This means you cannot know both location and momentum with accuracy at the same time. On page 17 of Quantum Weirdness it talks about the reason Einstein heavily objected against the present leading beliefs on quantum mechanics and the philosophical meaning of it "was because it puts the cart before the horse, or, more accurately in this context, it puts man's present understanding prior to the world itself." This very simply means that you cannot know how much you don't know. Considering physics and it's laws affect the entire universe as we know it this is the reason understanding physics is so important, and at this point in time we must accept the possibility that we know next to nothing of the true scope of it.
2. What is eliminative materialism? Provide three examples of it
Eliminative materialism is the process by which we (by we I mean the global human society in general) discount old beliefs about how things in our world and the universe work that we didn't really understand before, as we gain knowledge over these natural events through a better grasp on the sciences. Going back to The Great Mystery Matter VS. Spirit, on page 21 it talks about eliminative materialism and the order of fields that we consecutively try to apply to situations in attempts to explain them, until one succeeds. First is mathematics, when that fails comes physics, then chemistry, then biology, then psychology, and last sociology. If those all fail to explain something it's apparently a joke to say that God was the reason it happens. In Eliminative Materialism: The Death of Thor, PART TWO I quote you saying "we replaced the old and outdated concepts of our mythic past with new and more accurate terminology, which reflected our new found understanding of our body and universe at large." What this means is that instead of having any real religious or spiritual meaning when someone says to another person who sneezes "bless you," it is merely a tradition, or a habit of the population. We don't really mean to say that we believe you are being freed from evil spirits leaving your body and thus reducing some of the overall evil content in you that is making you sick. We know better now what causes illnesses, and bacteria, viruses and parasites are the things studied in school when the topic arises, not evil spirits. Another example is why it rains. Yes, rain. It doesn't come forth with a song and dance, or even a prayer honoring invisible sky spirits but from certain atmospheric conditions! This is well understood by now, and it's at the point where we can drop chemicals into clouds and make rain happen, that's how well we have it down. For a third example we will talk about albinism. In the ancient past (and unfortunately in some less educated pockets of the world today) people have associated being albino with things like being cursed , or having magical properties. We have come to know that this is not true, and the only thing rare about people with albinism is their mutation(s) on one or more of the genes responsible for the correct proteins needed to create melanin. Although with everyone else we have established through science, ironically, or not, depending on your point of view on this is the fact that eliminative materialism has not been able to surpass (or only very poorly move forward from) "folk psychology" in terms of understanding the mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by kevinphilosophy on Jul 6, 2015 6:54:41 GMT
Week 2 Essay Question Replies: Originally posted by courtney leos
"1. Why is understanding physics and the general rules of the universe so important in doing philosophy?
It is important to understand physics and the general rules of the universe when doing philosophy, because the google definition of philosophy is, “the study of fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline,” “a particular system of philosophical thought” and “the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience.” The definition of physics is “the branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy. The subject matter of physics, distinguished from that of chemistry and biology, includes mechanics, heat, light, and other radiation, sound, electricity, magnetism, and the structure of atoms” and “the physical properties and phenomena of something.” These two definitions coincide, because to understand philosophy- the study of literally everything around us and having to do with our world, you need to understand how those things came into existence which means understanding, or trying to understand physics.
2. What is eliminative materialism? Provide three examples of it.
In the videos provided, “Eliminative Materialism 1” we learn that if something we cannot understand with math, you turn to physics, then chemistry, then biology, and if nothing else can explain it then it is “okay” to say god did it. Eliminative Materialism the process of trying to figure something that cannot be answered with just common sense, then if every science fails, we turn to another thing that cannot be explained ,God. Three examples of this would be Thor or any mythical figures, ghosts and spirits, as provided in the “Eliminative Materialism 2.”"
1. In your recalling of the Google search definition of philosophy you mentioned "a particular system of philosophical thought." I believe the system we are striving for in this course is one that searches for truth in things, such as through highlighting the debates about what is true and what is not, as well as discussing what we can't tell is true or not. At least that's my impression of this course so far, as we jumped into Socrates and his constant questioning of things at first and now on week 2 we have explored arguments of two of the top minds known to mankind relating to the natural of physics.
2. I don't mean to nitpick so much, but I noticed in your examples you separated Tho and various mythical figures (I believe you meant other God figures), ghosts, and spirits. Could it not be argued that all of these fall under a mythical figure umbrella? Or perhaps under spiritual figures, since none of these have been shown with any convincing evidence to exist in material form?
|
|
|
|
Post by kevinphilosophy on Jul 13, 2015 6:21:30 GMT
Week 3 Essay Question 1. Why is the theory of evolution so important in understanding how human beings behave?
Understanding the theory of evolution is important to understand human behavior because it offers an explanation into how we evolved consciousness. With conscious awareness comes curiosity, which breeds questioning, which brings forth research efforts and finally answers, as well as more questions. Human behavior seems oriented towards researching and advancing knowledge (once instinctual goals like shelter, food, and sex are managed). Curiosity is a great benefit when something is intelligent enough to just dip ones toes in the water, and not drown. It is what drives us to learn things and innovate, and it what helped our ancestors cross Oceans in the past as our species migrated throughout the Earth. The most curious individuals and tribes were the ones who developed the technology to help them thrive. In your video PIVOTAL CONSCIOUSNESS: Why Do We Ask Why? you say asking why is important as "why is similar to an all purpose function key on your laptop computer, that opens up programs that are otherwise hidden from display." Curiosity doesn't always kill the cat. It is important to note how got to this point, and how this evolutionary process has no foreseeable end.
2. Which questions do you think evolutionary theory cannot answer?
This questions premise is something I have to disagree with. If we are talking about all things biological, such as bodily functions and quirks, including the immense complexity of the human mind, are explainable by evolutionary theory. In your video The Magic of Evolution: Daniel Dennet's Card Trick Analogy is quip from Daniel Turts University that I want to elaborate and give my take on, "natural selection automatically conserves whatever has worked until now." Evolution isn't a perfect process, not every good change has to be amazing or even immediately benefit the organism. An example is why humans live as long as they do, specifically women. The females of most species don't live long past reproductive age because there usually is no benefit to future generations from another member of the species competing for resources. But humans are complex social animals. Having an elder to watch the kids and do various chores to contribute to the household could allow more time the other adults to devote to more active pursuits such as hunting, or harvesting vegetation. This is believed to have made bringing children up easier, and consequently raised the maximum number of children a family could support. This theory is called the Grandmother Hypothesis. Homosexuality can be seen as a variation of extension of this idea, as even though a homosexual person may not have children of their own, their contributions to family life in terms of resource allocation, protecting and raising nieces and nephews etc. can be seen as a stabilizing factor to community efficiency. So even though things that are puzzling in the biological realm at first glance, when questioned "how does seemingly weird reality benefit a species?" A closer look can offer an explanation as to how a trait proved itself through natural selection.
|
|
|
|
Post by kevinphilosophy on Jul 13, 2015 6:34:47 GMT
Week 3 Extra Credit Responses: Original poster is nathanabcede123
"Why is the theory of evolution so important in understanding how human beings behave?
The theory of evolution lets us understand how humans evolved throughout the years as well as describing how they adapted during each phase. The way humans behave are based on what goes on in the brain . Adaptations and emotions are stimulated by the brain to give the sense of urgency or relaxation. Overall, the brain plays a major role in the behavior of any living organism, especially humans. This is proven by the statement “Our consciousness (a “first person affair” displaying intentionality, reflecting beliefs and desires, etc.), our creativity, even our value systems, have a basis in brain function” (23). The theory of evolution gives us a guideline as to how humans became the diverse species we are today. Darwin’s theory of evolution has been used to trace back the human species to the caveman and even the monkey which shows far we have evolved from many centuries ago. People today try to argue about the theory of evolution bringing religion into the picture, this is proven by the statement “The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and it cannot be argued away. There are indeed religious minded people, such as Pope John Paul and the scientist Kenneth Miller, who embrace evolution as factual” (44). In conclusion, the theory of evolution gives us an idea of how humans behaved in the past and how they have improved and/or worsened.
Which questions do you think evolutionary theory cannot answer?
The theory of evolution cannot answer how diverse humans have become in the sense of ethnicities and creative minds. Each person is special in their own way and the theory of evolution cannot explain why each person acts the way they do. The theory of evolution also cannot explain the first man and women to walk the Earth. Everyone is told that God put Adam and Eve as the first people to walk the Earth as well as populate it. Although this is based on religion, it is the only idea that scientists have been able to actually grasp. The theory of evolution also cannot explain religion, how did the human species end up believing in god(s) when in the beginning they only relied on themselves? According to Dawkins’ , religion is something that was made up by mankind and is very destructive which is proven by this statement “Dawkins’ views on religion vary from Gould’s; he is an atheist and sees religion with no authority on values. Religion, he asserts, is a meme, and a destructive one at that. He goes as far as to call religion a virus that we need to get rid of” (45,46)."
Question 1 Response: In your first question you talk about human behavior of the past being a rough guideline for human behavior of the present. I agree with this as human nature does not change. Things like war and crime, but also benevolence has been documented as far back as the practice of documenting things goes. We are still animals at heart, with all the instincts predictability that goes along with that.
Question 2 Response: Your second question you make an assertion that the theory of evolution cannot answer how diverse humans have become in the sense of creativity. I find it interesting you would imply an a disassociation between the theory of evolution and the natural bell curve one could expect from drawing upon a large subject to sample from. Things like intelligence and creativity that can be associated with it are expected to differ between people, much like other traits such as bone structure and skin tone.
|
|
|
|
Post by kevinphilosophy on Jul 20, 2015 6:37:29 GMT
Week 4 Questions
#1 Explain the virtual simulation theory of consciousness.
The virtual simulation theory of consciousness is the idea that our supposed existence is nothing but the result of a highly advanced simulation program that is capable of generating the complex matrix the theory purports we are part of. The proposition that such an immense and complicated universe can be the result of a highly detailed computer program is interesting to say the least, partly because we cannot effectively disprove it. In you an your wife's book, Is the Universe an App there is a quote from Nick Bostrom's essay "Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?" which talks about the very possibility. "The latest, and perhaps most provocative idea to gain some currency in varying scientific disciplines is the hypothesis that the universe is an incredibly rich and detailed illusion which has ultimately tricked us into believing otherwise." I remember reading about this theory a few years ago, and it was discussed that if humans ever managed to create such an intricate program ourselves that it would serve to provide evidence supporting the theory as we would then have proved the very idea possible.
#2. How does the brain trick us and for what benefit is it for our genetic survival?
When reading on the topic of near death experiences a reoccurring theme of a dark tunnel with an imagined illusion at the end, whether it be just light or something else, such as a memory the person has is apparent. Anyone who has read about this phenomenon before will already be aware of this, but what could be the evolutionary cause for these prevalent illusions? The tantalizing scenery is believed by some to be a trick of the mind with the purpose to either tease, or taunt the mind of someone who's physical body is in such a poor state that it borders death in order to keep them from giving up in hopes that they will pull through and survive. Taken from Cerebral Mirage, it is stated "it may well be that whenever the body-brain is under severe stress (such as when one has a heart attack or is in a car accident) consciousness elicits an ultimatum package of patterned meanings, drawn specifically from one's own unique biographical/psychological history, to encourage one to live and resist dying." In the cases of humans who have survived traumatic events and lived to tell tales of these near death experiences the biological explanation of benevolent trickery can make sense, even if it seems a bit strange.
|
|
|
|
Post by kevinphilosophy on Jul 20, 2015 7:04:20 GMT
Week 4 Extra Credit Replies, original essay questions posted by desireevallejo
"1. Explain the virtual simulation theory of consciousness.
The virtual simulation theory of cociounsess explains a belief that everything we see is not real and basically it’s all in our heads. When we use our minds or our consciousness we may see things that are not real. Consciousness implicates thoughts, sensations, perceptions, moods, emotions, dreams and self-awareness. In the video, Disneyland of Consciousness” the guy goes onto the Pirates of the Caribbean ride and his friend things everything is real in the ride such as the pirates and the shooting scene. When it was explained, to the friend the friend understood that it was all-fake and a robot that makes the ride look real. Otherwise, our consciousness is the only sanity for thinking we exist. Without it there are no beliefs, sensations or experience of being. This shows that our consciousness is all in our heads and it’s all just an illusion to make things funnier and your adrenaline going, which makes life fun in my opinion.
2. How does the brain trick us and for what benefit is it for our genetic survival? Be sure to support your answers with references to the required readings and films.
I think that our brain tricks us by as reading the book “The Cerebral Mirage”, they describe the cerebral mirage as things that may look like its there but in reality its not. Its also gives misleading information which its opinion of knowledge and certainty. We basically know it’s our brain that imagines something that’s actually not real. Such as in “The Disneyland of Consciousness” during the Pirate of the Caribbean ride, the little boy saw something that he thought was real, but it was just his mind thinking it was real. His brain was making tricks with him because with the lights shining on the pirates, it made the pirates realistic when it was just a fake robot but looks human. Our brain tricks us because its part of genetic survival, which helps us, gets through things and whether knowing what’s real a fake in our world we live in."
1. Talking about the Disneyland of Consciousness seems to be a key idea in this weeks material. The story of the illusion played by the Pirates of the Caribbean ride and the realistic looking pirate figure shows just how things can slip through our fallible recognition systems. A creepily still figure that doesn't move at all but has characteristics of a human face and when shown in the right light is enough to trick people at a glance into believing it is an effective example at showing the true level of ease at which we humans can err.
2. Continuing the discussion on The Disneyland of Consciousness, the thing it points out is something I think most people have recognized but don't seem to consider day to day, and that is how easily humans (or any animal really) can be fooled. Our behavior and senses were wired to be on the more paranoid side, as it was talked about in Cerebral Mirage that it was beneficial to assume danger in an uncertain situation than not, as if the situation turned out to not be dangerous there was little consequence, but a failure to act when a situation was indeed dangerous could be fatal for the organism(s) involved. "People often mistake shadows for other people, but not other people for shadows" is a fitting quote I heard before.
|
|
|
|
Post by kevinphilosophy on Jul 27, 2015 6:24:53 GMT
Week 5 Questions.
1. Do you think artificial intelligence will be a significant problem in the future?
I believe that artificial intelligence has the potential to pose great risk to human civilization. At least that is the thought that struck me as Ray Kurzweil said in the video Ray Kurzweil: The Coming Singularity "by 2029 we'll have reverse engineered, and modeled, and simulated all the regions of the brain, and that will provide us the software, algorithmic methods to simulate all the human brains capabilities, including our emotional intelligence." It was going good until he brought up the emotional intelligence part. Is giving an artificially intelligent creation the full range of the human emotional spectrum along with the volatility to go along with it really such a good idea? I can see this not being so worrying if it isn't fully implemented, and instead a watered down system was put in place, such as not coding in the capacity to simulate anger, greed, or jealousy. I just can't see anything good about seriously programming something to imitate what can be some of our worst aspects as humans. Sure,the idea of a computer being able to do all of the advanced mental weightlifting of a human in a fraction of the time sounds great, and if we are as successful as Kurzweil believes we will be in our advancements then we may have some trouble with this emotional wildcard. I say watch out if this is the route that is taken, because danger may lie ahead.
2. How has technology impacted your life?
Technology has changed my life, and the lives of many others in numerous ways for both good and bad. An example of one of the good things is when on one of those unfortunate days I don't have the luxury of waking up naturally I will at least be chirped awake by the alarm clock app on my smartphone that imitates the sound of birds. Of course I lazily press the snooze a few times because I can. Probably the biggest benefit I notice in my day to day life that relates to technology is the internet. I often feel like it's my only real source of entertainment. There are days where I just sit in my chair and spend the whole day reading things to satiate my curiosity. Now on the other hand the ease with which the internet can feed us the information we crave makes it much more tempting as an outlet for procrastination and distraction. I find myself browsing the internet or even playing games when I know I should have gone to bed already more often than I care to admit. Regarding smartphones again is an example I believe is easy to relate to. We have all been in those awkward, counter-intuitive social situations with our friends where it seems everyone is more interested in their phones than actually talking to one another. I mean why hang out if all you're going to do is glue your face to the screen of your phone and browse various parts of the internet? Regardless it is pretty obvious the benefits outweigh the downsides, and as Ray Kurzweil said in the video Ray Kurzweil: The Coming Singularity "technology has been a double-edged sword ever since fire and stone tools." An interesting thing I heard in the video regarding Moore's Law that Kurzweil pointed out was about the fact that "information technology grows exponentially." The hardware and the software running some of the gadgets we have such as personal computers, smartwatches and video game consoles may be seem advanced in the generation they are produced in but they will soon be outdone by their successors, which will be undoubtedly be more powerful in their capabilities.
|
|
|
|
Post by kevinphilosophy on Jul 27, 2015 6:44:24 GMT
Week 5 Extra Credit responses: Questions originally by ggonzalez170
"1. Do you think artificial intelligence will be a significant problem in the future?
I believe that artificial intelligence is a great thing if used in moderation and with safety. We use the GPS to help us navigate through cities we don’t know. I have to drive my child to soccer meets every weekend and the GPS allows me to get to places I have not gone in the past. I remember years ago we I had to rely on the Thomas Guide which was a book filled with maps. The city the street had to be searched on one page then go to another page to find the destination and then the route had to be planned out. In the book “Digital Philosophy” the authors say: “Now imagine this: Place a nano-sized GPS device, augmented with a nano-sized web browser constantly connected to the net but personalized with updates about the person wearing the GPS, so that not only is the person being tracked but the person is also housing tremendous amounts of personal information or data about who they are” (12). This was just the beginning of the book and I had already come to the realization that we have this personal GPS with us at all times. These are our intelligent phones the iPhone, the android phones all of these new intelligent phones most people have. Some people do share more than they are supposed to on social media. Some people without realizing it put their children at risk. They post when they have dropped of a child at school, they the name and the city of the school. If the information is kept private and only shared with people that you know then you might be safe. There is also the unsafe side where people open up to the wrong people and have gotten hurt. I saw the news the other night and saw that a young girl had gone missing after going to meet in person with someone she had met on Facebook. I still think that artificial intelligence will not be a problem is used in moderation and with extra caution and moderation not putting everything out for the world to see. I don’t know what I would do I had to go back to the Thomas Guide for directions to a new city or address. It is so much easy just to put in the address of the place I want to go and have the GPS navigator guide me until I am at my destination.
Lane, David Christopher, and Andrea Diem-Lane. Pg 12. “Digital Philosophy”. Walnut: Mt San Antonio College, 2014. 12. PDF.
2. How has technology impacted your life?
There are so many ways in which technology has impacted my life that I don’t even know where to start. I am so fortunate and happy for the internet, the wifi, YouTube and online classes. If the internet was not available I would not be able to take online classes. Just being able to go on YouTube and look for specific information for math or any other subject is great. I have even gone on YouTube to watch the videos that were assigned for this class we can find anything on YouTube. If technology had not advanced the way it has up until now we wouldn’t be able to get internet service in the home. When I am at work I also use technology for billing and for the transmission of claims online. I work in a dental office and I send the claims electronically online I have to transmit the claims and when a claim needs to have x-rays I send those via the NEA (National Electronic Attachment). When I started working in the dental office that was not an option then about 10 years ago the scanner that scanned transparencies came along. Then very first scanner that I had at work was huge and bulky. It work great and I was able to send my claims and x-rays because of this scanner. The scanner I have now is not that bid and is much easier to operate than the one I had 10 years ago. I can send all of these things because we have equipment and internet that is much faster than what was available a decade ago. Technology is improving immensely and I have witnessed it firsthand because of my work. I have also used technology to entertain my children while I do other things. I have a four year old son whom has used either an I pod and or a tablet since he was a year old. He used the tablet to get videos of numbers, music, letters or educational programs. I only let him use the devices for certain periods of times and I make sure he also had the physical activities that he needs. If we use technology in a positive way it can be a very positive thing and if we abuse it or use it in a bad way then it can become something that is not a positive thing. One very important thing to me is the digital books or the books we can get in PDF files. I can carry the books I have to read in my tablet. I find that carrying my books in my tablet allows me to read my books anywhere and at any time. When I was reading the book I noticed that it said that the books are dead. I don’t think that they are dead there is just a more convenient way to read our favorite books or books needed for school. In the book “Digital Philosophy” the authors say: No, the book died on January 27, 2010. This was when with much fanfare Steve Jobs announced that Apple was coming out with the iPad. At first the response to the touch tablet, which had been widely over typed in the months leading up to it, was somewhat critical because it lacked features that some prognosticators predicted were fundamental (such as a font and back camera, the ability to display flash video, and multitasking)”(20)."
Response 1:
You bring up a really good point that I think a lot of people don't take very seriously when you say that people are too liberal when it comes to sharing information over social media. I often see friends who I know live alone posting updates saying they are out hitting the town for the night or on vacation. If you are of the criminal persuasion this information can be abused. There have been cases where the homes of people have been burglarized while they were out of town and the perpetrator(s) were found to have chosen the time of their looting activities based on knowledge shared over Facebook or Twitter. It isn't the best idea to broadcast to the world when a good time to rob your house is, which seems to be what a lot of people inadvertently do when they post such updates on their activities.
Response 2:
Your expression of gratitude towards the existence of online classes and easily accessed information through use of the internet is not just your sentiment. I find myself grateful everyday for the cornucopia of knowledge an opportunities the web provides. If it wasn't for the internet and the fact that classes can be done entirely online I wouldn't even be here right now. A few weeks ago when the summer semester started and I found out my original class was cancelled the first thing I did was check the Mt. Sac student website for an online course that I could take to occupy my time with and I found this one in short order. When this class is concluded I will have finished my arts and humanities requirements for the general education required for my future transfer to a UC. The internet was born through technological advancements, and I believe such a valuable tool is often not appreciated as much as it should be.
|
|
|
|
Post by kevinphilosophy on Aug 1, 2015 6:18:36 GMT
Week 6 Questions:
1. Why is Faqir Chand's experiences important in understanding the projective nature of religious visions and miracles?
The reason Faqir Chand's experiences were crucial to his realization of visions and miracles being mere creations of the mind instead of actual supernatural events has to do with the fact he was both the subject of a vision that his contemporaries had that he took no part in as well as a vision he had of his guru, who was later told of but had no recollection of being any part of. During the battle Chand had participated in while stationed in Iraq as an employee of an Indian railway company his group was under siege by a band of rebels, and while they had managed to hold out their supplies (mainly ammunition it seems) ran dangerously low. Without a quick resupply they risked being overrun. With the shipment still en route the rebels began to creep up again, seemingly to make a final offensive. During the tense, but relatively calm moments Chand had a vision of his guru Shiv Brat Lal in which the teacher told him not to attack as the men had only returned to gather their dead. Chand then told his superior of the hallucination and the men held their fire under his command. They lived, and when Chand later got contacted his guru with the news of the vision he was surprised to hear that his mentor had no knowledge of this. I imagine he had originally thought that Shiv Brat Lal had purposely sent the vision to him in some kind of psychic or telepathic moment. Alas that was not the case. He then experienced the other side of one of these situations as the subject of a vision his friends claimed to have while they themselves were in danger. In their story they were in peril, when it was none other than Faqir Chand himself who appeared before them with a shining aura to save them. Rightly confused by this he came to the conclusion that these visions were nothing more than projections of the mind. In your book The Unknowing Sage he is quoted as saying "now, you see no Jesus Christ comes from without in anybody's visions. No Rama, no Krishna, no Buddha, and no Baba Faqir comes from without to anybody. The visions are only because of the impressions and suggestions that a disciple has already accepted in his mind. These impressions and suggestions appear to him like a dream. No body comes from without. This is the plain truth." It was his recognition that these two visions not being caused by any direct action of the subject of the them, him for his comrades and his guru for his own experience, that led him to realize that these events were nothing more than the product of an influenced mind projecting onto itself.
2. What is meant by the phrase, "philosophy done well is science; philosophy done poorly remains philosophy."
I believe what is meant by this quote is that idea that philosophy is meant to be an aid to science, and when applied well can flow seamlessly with it, but when it doesn't it may just come off as conjecture, or even mindless rambling in the worst cases. As philosophy strikes out in search of the truth while strolling hand in hand with the various scientific fields it may not appear like one is doing philosophy at all. I guess you could say that if science is done poorly it cannot be called science, but if philosophy is done well it can be called science. When reading about the old philosophers they all seem to been labeled as more than just philosophers. They were often well rounded Renaissance men. Philosophy and science have been wed together since we could even identify what philosophy was. In the book How Socrates Died we all read on the Socratic Dialogue and saw the amount of effort that went into defining just what it meant to be pious. Quoted from Socrates on page 9 is "for I observe that no one appears to notice you- not even this Meletus; but his sharp eyes have found me out at once, and he has indicted me for impiety. And there- fore, I adjure you to tell me the nature of piety and impiety, which you said that you knew so well, and of murder, and of other offences against the gods. What are they? Is not piety in every action always the same? and impiety, again- is it not always the opposite of piety, and also the same with itself, having, as impiety, one notion which includes whatever is impious?" The foundational figures of philosophy were not the kind of people who took things at face value, much like anyone researching in a particular scientific field may continually ask the question "why?" Science and philosophy both search for the truth in things, and sometimes it is inevitable that you cannot tell one from the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by kevinphilosophy on Aug 1, 2015 6:41:40 GMT
Week 6 Extra Credit Responses: Originally posted by nathanabcede123
Why is Faqir Chand's experiences important in understanding the projective nature of religious visions and miracles?
Faqir Chand’s experiences give us a better understanding of the projective nature of religious visions and miracles. Through his life experiences he shows us what forms God can take whether it be something physical or mental. This is supported by the passage “In the human body semen is God in gross and visible form; Mind is God in subtle form; and Surat is God in causal form. Those who do not know the art of moderate and controlled living all these stages can never attain peace” (35). He also puts the term “be careful what you wish for” in use when he explains a story of how he wished he would be able to be married twice to experience the happiness of the first one which he then later regretted. This is proven by the passage “When I was being carried I felt a great pleasure and prayed to God, “May I be married again, so that I may enjoy this pleasure of the palanquin again.” The result of my prayer was that my wife died after sometime. My second marriage was arranged. I was again made to sit in the palanquin. Then the old scene of my first marriage flashed in my mind. I repented and, instead of enjoying the palanquin, I felt unhappy and sad” (37).
What is meant by the phrase, "philosophy done well is science; philosophy done poorly remains philosophy."
The first part of the phrase “philosophy done well is science…” means that any philosophical idea that can be explained through reasonable and natural terms is considered scientific. This is supported by the statement given by Cohon (Stanford University): “Science aspires to discover truth by means of a thoroughly objective, empirical method that is repeatable and available to all, and to detect and root out erroneous beleifs by using such a method. It is not the aim of science to console people or to make them good or to bring them happiness. Although its discoveries are sometimes very useful for these purposes…” (25). The second part of the phrase “…;philosophy done poorly remains philosophy” means that any philosophical idea that cannot be proven by scientific means remains philosophical idea, in other words, it remains an unproven theory. This is supported by the statement given by Fischer (U.C. Riverside): “In science, methods are used proportional to belief and evidence. We remain skeptical and we are not going form conclusions for which there is no strong evidence” (26,27).
Response #1
Regarding your chosen quote I find if kind of funny how the man who supported the idea of "moderate and controlled living" just so happened to be married not once, but twice. Did the second marriage have any part in reinforcing this mantra? I believe it may have. Granted it was an arranged marriage after his first wife had died but I still have to take argument with his statement where he claims responsibility for the death of his first wife because he had said a prayer asking God to be married again. "The result of my prayer was that my wife died after sometime," was what he had to say on the subject. Chand said he felt sad during his second marriage, but I guess if you had to sit through your own wedding believing that your holy prayers are part of the reason your first wife died I suppose that would be natural. My main question is, however, why did he not believe in the veracity of religious visions but thought prayer was a perfectly meaningful activity?
Response #2
I agree with your chosen quote "science aspires to discover truth by means of a thoroughly objective, empirical method that is repeatable and available to all, and to detect and root out erroneous beliefs by using such a method." If philosophy and science are both striving for the truth, and they both intersect very strongly at times in their various fields it would be hard to imagine them as being separate, instead of a merged effort at discovering truth.
|
|
