FINAL(ly)!!

11. Why does Steven Pinker believe that evolution is important inunderstanding human behavior? Be specific in your answer.
Stephen Pinker believes that the link between evolution and psychology should be a natural one because we cannot really understand anything as complex as human behavior without understanding how it go there in the first place. Evolutionary psychologists theorize that humans have a universal nature that has evolved over time. If we can trace universals in human behavior in our evolutionary past we can begin to understand our motivations, we can begin to prevail over our natural tendencies toward selfishness and aggression. We seem to be evolving in a direction of reciprocal altruism because it serves a function in our survival.
Pinker stresses the importance of the fact that intelligence did not evolve overnight. This complexity was built upon a series of stepping stones from manipulation of tools, to group cooperation, to language development. Over time we have become wired, through neural connections to support intelligence. Understanding this and realizing where we came from and how morality and behavior have progressed will provide us with great insights into understanding human behavior.12. In addition, why is the theory of evolution helpful in doingphilosophy?
Steven Pinker made a connection that Philosophy is a discipline devoted to topics that the human mind is incapable of understanding. However, the study of evolution and evolutionary psychology can help us discover our underlying motivations and how phenomena such as religion evolved along with us to guide our behavior. Examining the idea of moral realism, the belief that some moral statements are a part of the reality of the universe can guide us toward a deeper understanding of morality and the role it plays in decision making, family dynamics and our treatment of neighbors and strangers. Philosophy can draw conclusions from evolution by examining why we naturally treat neighbors and family well and observing whether it seems that we are evolving toward treating everyone the same (including animals). We can speculate that as consciousness evolves the notion of purpose and the necessity of the Creator complex may begin to fade away. 13. Explain why Francis Crick does NOT believe in a soul.
Crick argues that we are simply physical beings who have somehow deceived ourselves into believing that we are something more, something non-material, something transcendent. He hypothesizes that whatever we consider to be our “self” – our joys and sorrows, our memories and ambitions, our sense of personal identity and free will are just the result of the interactions between nerve cells and their molecules. As a materialist, Crick’s insights tend to be grounded in the observable world and thus he believes that we must first exhaust every avenue of the empirical realm before giving up the idea of consciousness to the arena of the metaphysical. In Crick’s estimation we must accept the fact that it is more reasonable to think of consciousness on a physical basis in order to begin to reach an understanding of how it works. The longer we confabulate ideas of the soul and that some immaterial spirit survives us the less likely we will give the study of the consciousness the time and energy it requires to attempt to discover real and reasonable answers based on neural activity. 14. What are some of the major issues behind a neuro-ethicalargument for vegetarianism? What are its strengths? What are itsweaknesses?
The neuor-ethical argument for vegetarianism addresses abstinence from consumption of meat and meat-by products on moral grounds merely than just for reasons of health. The argument promotes non-violence in every direction as a sign of human compassion. The knowledge that a central nervous system governs what our bodies feel and how we process pain and suffering, we should become more conscious of the fact that we are indeed causing pain and suffering to any creature which is killed for our consumption. Lane argues that if it is not necessary to eat animals for survival, then we should make the moral choice in our life to cause as little suffering in the world as possible under our control. In order to consider ourselves an intelligent species, we must go beyond our taste buds and make choices that extend past our own self-interests.
Another stance taken from the neuro-ethical standpoint questions our emotional attachment to some animals but not to others. We find a lot of double standards in our day to day choices regarding which animals are “okay” to consume and which are not. There is a large degree of self-deception present in our actions regarding meat consumption. We rarely think of what we are eating and we disguise it with varying names, adornments and packaging in order to allow our rational mind to ignore the facts. This unthinking, unemotional detachment tends to cross over and affect how deeply we feel the sufferings of others. The idea is that non-violence is something that we should all strive for in our human relationships and in our relationships with animals. We may not be able to adhere perfectly to Gandhian principles of ahisma but any conscious steps in that direction can only lead to an improvement in character and quality of life.
In my opinion the strengths in this argument lie within the context of the Choice that we have. The fact that we have a choice in whether to eat meat or not should drive us to debate the argument that it is an instinctual part of human nature. There are many cases where we have made a conscious effort to rise above our instincts and learned to think and reason from a higher point of view. If we, considering ourselves to be of high intelligence, can consciously and intentionally rise above the common acceptance of a lower standard of life and morality. We, in our efforts to build a strong character and strengthen our degree of moral conviction, must not only live consciously, we must eat consciously.
The argument regarding the central nervous system lends the neuro-ethical stance on vegetarianism to at the very least, support a lacto-ovo vegetarian lifestyle. A cow does not need to be killed in order to produce milk and chickens that are happy and healthy produce far more eggs than those treated poorly. We must, at minimum think about where our food is coming from and what kind of energy it is bringing into our body. Our diet should be primarily plant based because eating living things promotes life, however, if we must eat meat then it should be done minimally and humanely. Some say that animals raised on farms with a healthy diet and attentive care have a better quality of life than “free” cows. I had to wonder, based on Mr. Lane’s argument, if an animal raised in such conditions were to die of natural causes, what would the argument be against consuming it?15. How do John Searle's views differ from Ken Wilber's? Who do youfind more persuasive and why?
John Searle views consciousness as a biological phenomenon; higher level features caused by lower level neurobiological processes in the brain. He believes that consciousness is caused by brain processes and is not some extra substance or entity. In contrast, Ken Wilber believes that consciousness cannot be localized to a specific location in the brain or in any one of the quadrants. Wilber does not believe that consciousness is located in the organism, instead he believes that consciousness is anchored in and distributed across the physical brain, the physical organism, the ecosystem and the cultural context.
Searle appears to be more of a reductionist in his approach to consciousness, urging us to remove the study of consciousness from the realm of philosophical and metaphysical impossibility in order to conduct theoretical scientific investigations based in the fact that conscious states are caused by neurobiological processes. Wilber attempts a more integral approach to the study of consciousness, concluding that each of the 12 major schools of consciousness has something important to offer. He proposes a “non-reductionist simul-tracking of all the quadrants and the transformation of the researchers themselves” as equally necessary for an integral approach to consciousness.
In my opinion, while Searle and his reasonable breakdown of consciousness as a biological phenomenon makes complete sense, I cannot be immediately persuaded by his argument namely because there do seem to be times when consciousness does appear to have unexplainable properties. Searle himself said, “we do not know how it occurs, it does not follow that we do not know that it occurs.” I think that I would have to thoroughly examine Wilber’s theory in order to develop a well-formulated understanding of the various aspects of consciousness and how different quadrants express and explain them. Wilber’s theory seems to be more comprehensive by nature, however, in completing this analysis of the various schools of thought and the quadrants related to complete conscious evaluation, I may be able to deduce that Searle was more accurate than I originally thought. I hesitate to make that conclusion without further investigation…16. What is the theme behind the little movie, a GLORIOUS PIECE OFMEAT? How would a religious person argue against it?
The Theme behind the film A Glorious Piece of Meat is that every idea, from the soul, to religion, to awareness, comes through consciousness. Everything we know about the world comes through consciousness. We believe ourselves to be more than just neurons firing, at least while the neurons are firing. That is to say, we believe we are more than just our physical being, at least while our physical being is alive. Everything we do is modulated by our brain yet because awareness seems distinctly separate from other neuro-functions such as digestion, the beating of the heart, the development of antibodies, we believe that we are running the show. In reality, the “I” (or the conscious self) does not actually do much except believe itself to be more than it is. If ideas such as neuroscience, materialism and justice arise from consciousness and consciousness arises from neurons then it stands that neurons were present before awareness even if we were unaware of that presence. For example, a small child has internal organs even before they realize that there is something inside of them. A constantly evolving maturation of thoughts regarding what is going on inside is the only thing that can eventually bring about rational understanding. First we must learn that there is a biology to us, then we can begin to understand the mechanics of such a biology, and only after that can we begin to reflect on what makes these things happen in the first place. Existence precedes understanding (or essence).
A religious person may argue that while everything may come through consciousness, that consciousness comes through God. If we are, in fact, a complex system of neurons firing, those neurons came from somewhere. And wherever the neurons came from and however they became programmed to conduct such notions as reflective awareness and consciousness, there we can find God. Also, a religious person, believing that God’s plan for them and their purpose was set long before they were born must believe that essence precedes existence.17. Why is Sam Harris so critical of religion? Give his strongestarguments and where do you think his argument fails? Or, if itdoesn't fail, where does it succeed?
Harris is critical of religion because he sees it as an attempt to control behavior around the world. He believes that it is intellectually and theologically bankrupt and that religious individuals submit to the moral demands of an invisible super-intelligence in order to justify their personal beliefs. Religion is a belief system, a personal representation of the world that we are foolishly allowing to creep over state and national lines and direct our lives and our behavior. Everyone is offered the freedom to believe what they want, the problem arises when people believe their ideas to be rooted in factual reality and thus attempt to impose these beliefs on others. Geopolitical conflicts stemming from differing belief systems are affecting our view of the world and the world as a whole.
Harris makes a good point, that religion is the only school of thought which expects no explanation, no reasoning and no rational basis. It is fundamentally taboo to criticize someone’s beliefs but as rational human beings it is our duty to evaluate why people believe certain things to be true. “Why?” is a favorite question of ours, asked almost incessantly from about the age of 3. I appreciated the example of the man who believed there was a large diamond buried in his yard. If we were to question why he believed this to be so and he was able to give us a great, detailed account of facts supporting this belief, it would garner more respect and be more convincing than if he simply replied that this belief gave his life meaning or made him a better person.
Harris deduces that whatever is true, spiritually and ethically in our circumstances has to be universal in order to be valid. We do not have Christian Physics or Hindu Science or American math because there are certain fundamental truths about the nature of the universe that all can agree on. Religion should have the same universal characteristics. In Harris’ estimation, religion attempts to inject ideas of morality where universal consideration of human suffering would better fit.18. Explain the essence of Nietzsche's genealogy of morals. You canoutline your answer here.
In the genealogy of morals, Nietzsche questions the values of our moral judgments by examining the origins of our moral concepts. He shows how terms like “good”, “bad” and “evil” have evolved over time which plays havoc on any ideas of absolute truth in morality. Their different, sometimes contradictory meanings lead Nietzsche to believe that these concepts are not equal to reality. Morality was not, in fact handed down from God, it was created by man. Nothing is absolute.
In the first essay, Good and Evil, Good and Bad, Nietzsche discusses the origin of the idea and judgment of “good” beginning with the praise of unegoistic actions. Then follows “good” as a distinction of social class (Aristocrat vs. Common Man), then “good” as spiritually superior [The Priestly Caste (Jews) vs. The Warrior Caste (The Aristocrats)]. Out of the Priestly Caste came the distinction between Master morality and slave morality. Master Morality was developed by the strong, the healthy and the free, they were happy and that was “good,” therefore the common man must be “bad.” In contrast, slave morality saw the poor, the sick and the sinners as “good” and their wealthy oppressors as “bad.”
The second essay, Guilt, Bad Conscience and Related Matters begins by discussing the origin of responsibility. When man acquires his own standard of value and begins to look at others with either respect or contempt and is able to make promises or give his word as something reliable, he has found a level of responsibility. This responsibility becomes instinctual and we call it conscience. With conscience comes reason, seriousness, mastery over emotions and reflection. Nietzsche then questions how “bad conscience” and the idea of guilt originated. These concepts did not always have moral basis. Guilt meant that a debt was owed and punishment was the way that payment was secured. Slave morality brought about the idea that guilt and bad conscience were moral issues. Through this idea punishment became celebratory (not for the punished but for the spectators) and justice began to take the shape of revenge. It appears, through Nietzsche’s genealogy that a high price has been paid for the construction of every ideal. Realities misunderstood, lies consecrated, consciences corrupted… Man has been made to look at his natural inclinations with an “evil eye” and they have become synonymous with “bad conscience.”
The third essay discusses the meaning of ascetic ideals in which the three great catch phrases, poverty humility and chastity live. Nietzsche compares the ascetic ideals of artists, philosophers, priests and concludes that the attempted elimination of will and suspension of emotions required by ascetic ideals would be castration of the intellect. He paints asceticism as a self-gratifying desire of sick people to present some form of superiority. All sick people, Nietzsche claims, in their desire to shake off their lack of enthusiasm and feeling of weakness, instinctively strive for the organization of the herd. The ascetic ideal has pervaded the entire history of human beings under the protection of holy purposes, this is the true disaster in the history of health of the European people. If we set aside ascetic ideals then man has had no meaning up to this point, his existence on earth has had no purpose. He does not know how to justify himself to himself, he has suffered from the problem of his meaning. The ascetic ideal has flourished because any meaning is better than no meaning at all.
19. Why does Gandhi believe in ahimsa?
Gandhi believes that nonviolence is the law of our species. He says that his wife became his teacher in non-violence because he, as a young husband, continually tried to bend her to his will and she, in return, showed him determined resistance and quiet submission, making him ashamed of himself and curing him of his stupidity in thinking that he was supposed to rule over her.
Gandhi believes that the practice of ahisma is spiritual food, which must be taken in continually. Nonviolence is much more than inaction, it is the highest action. He teaches that we must cultivate in our lives truthfulness, humility, tolerance and loving kindness as part of the unchangeable creed of nonviolence. It goes beyond man-made law and is in accordance to the law made by Nature for man. Practicing ahisma in diet is commendable as a means of practicing restraint but it barely breaks the surface of ahisma as a way of life. Gandhi practiced ahisma as a means to reach Truth. “We have no means of realizing truth in human relationships except through the practice of ahisma.” He believed it to be the summit of bravery. When one can practice non-violence in the face of raging violence, that is truly virtuous. We cannot be cowardly, we cannot seek vengeance, we must be willing to sacrifice all, except our honor.
Gandhi believe that violence was a clumsy weapon which created more problems than it solved and left behind it hatred and bitterness and a nearly impossible set up for genuine reconciliation. He advocated nonviolence not because it was the easy way out, on the contrary, nonviolence is probably one of the most difficult virtues to aspire towards. He considered violence to be a crude and eventually ineffective weapon. “ His rejection of violence stemmed from choice, not from necessity.”
20. What is Nietzsche's notion of the myth of eternal recurrence? Besure to use the film as your guide.
The Myth of Eternal Recurrence is Nietzsche’s concept that the universe will recur in similar form an infinite number of times. Nietzsche presents this idea in order for us to come to terms with this possibility. He encourages us to examine what we would have to do in our life in order to believe this to be a blessing instead of a curse. If the notion of heaven and hell could be redefined in this context, it would make sense to believe that you create your own heaven or hell by the life that you lead. If we strive to live in such a way that this news would make us rejoice then it doesn’t matter what the end of this life brings, whether it be an afterlife, a transcendent plane, an cyclical infinite recurrence or nothing; we will be happy with the result which was a life well-lived. 21. What is the ironic theme in the movie Flame On? Hint: what isthe movie REALLY trying to say?
I think the movie Flame On is using homosexuality as one example of how society and religion can direct behavior and moral action by projecting those beliefs held to be valuable at any given time. Humans, by nature do not know what our best and worst qualities are. We simply know how people react to these qualities at any given time. The reactions we receive influence greatly the way we feel about decisions we have made and form how we will make decisions in the future. We must realize that traits are subjective to individuals, culture, and sociological implications and that the truth rarely enters in to people’s perception of ideals and values. The values of yesterday are different than those of tomorrow and what is frowned upon one minute is celebrated the next. It is easy to view homosexuality as an “evil epidemic” progressed by exposure to homosexual images, until we look at it from an objective standpoint and realize who placed that notion of “evil” in our minds in the first place. If some of the best and brightest minds 22. Why does Daniel Dennett favor calling himself a "bright"?
The term “bright” is no longer used to just refer to a smart person. Dennett uses the term to refer to people who reject supernatural explanations. They are generally agnostics or atheists that reject any sort of higher purpose or design. Dennett says there is “no reason to believe in magical thinking,” that consciousness is just the state of the brain. “Brights” also do not believe in life after death. Dennett believes that natural selection just happens and we have to stop insisting that there must be a reason or a greater purpose behind it. 23. Outline Bertrand Russell's a FREE MAN'S WORSHIP.
A Free Man’s Worship begins by retelling the story of the creation. From the Big Bang to the birth of man with his power of thought, knowledge of good and evil and “the cruel thirst for worship.” Following his inception, man struggles with his instincts, manifests a divine Plan and becomes “perfect in renunciation and worship” at which time the universe ends and begins again. A poignant blend of the ideas of Creation, Evolution, and Eternal Recurrence.
He follows by discussing the depression of the scientific idea that man is the “product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving.” That all that we are, and all that we have created is doomed to extinction by death of the solar system.
He outlines mans freedom during life to examine, to criticize, to know, to imagine, to create. Prior to independence of ideals, there existed a worship and respect of Power. From this worship, Man creates God, “the mystic unity of what is and what should be.”
Then begins the struggle. If non-human Power appears to be tyrannical, leaving Man helpless, shall we worship this Force or shall we instead worship Goodness? Should militarism be our guide as we struggle to maintain our ideals against this hostile universe? Or is the rejection of Power where true freedom lies? We shall worship only the God created by our own love of the good, and respect only the heaven which inspires us.
In order to reject this Power, a revolution or a rebellion of sorts naturally wants to take place but we are urged to release this indignation, since it “compels our thoughts to be occupied with an evil world.” In order to know true Freedom we must stop asking life to yield to us. We release our desires and become resigned to whatever will be, we free our thoughts to create art and philosophy. We learn, upon this renunciation, that the world was not made for us.
When we become resigned to the rules of fate and recognize that the non-human world is unworthy of our worship we can begin to see the beauty of Tragedy. Those moments in life when we lose the eagerness of temporary desire, when we stop struggling and striving for petty ends and care of the little, trivial things that appear to make up the common day by day. Then we can find the beauty and the magic of the Past, all those petty things escape from the memory of the past and leave us with what is beautiful and eternal, this is the key of religion to a soul which has conquered fate.
Man worships Time and Fate and Death because they are greater than anything he finds in himself. “Man is but a small thing in comparison with the forces of nature.” To imagine their greatness and to think of them greatly makes us free men, no longer bowing before the inevitable but accepting them as part of ourselves. The free mans worship is the abandonment of the struggle for private happiness, the expulsion of eagerness of temporary desire, the passion for all things eternal, effected by a contemplation of Fate.
The text ends by discussing to brevity and powerlessness of man’s life; the goal of which should be to preserve a mind free from the “wanton tyranny” that rules his life, proudly defying the irresistible forces and sensing the world that his own ideals have fashioned despite the march of unconscious power.
24. What is the overall theme of the movie INNER VISIONS AND RUNNINGTRAINS?
The theme of this movie seemed to be that the true knowledge of the feelings, images and visions we see are all creations of consciousness, scars and impressions produced by the mind. Even the gurus were ignorant about the real cause of the miracles and visions attributed to them. It was their disciples who attributed such omniscience and omnipotence to them, offering them power, attention and devotion. “Whosoever remembers God in whatever form, in that very form he helped his devotee.”25. What does Nicholas of Cusa mean by "learned ignorance"? What areits implications for your own life?
Learned ignorance is ignorance that has been acquired. It is the desire to know that we do not know. If we can fully attain this knowledge of our ignorance, then we have reached Learned Ignorance. Nicholas of Cusa states that “The more he knows that he is unknowing, the more learned he will be.” Learned ignorance has its basis in the fact that the precise truth is inapprehensible. Whatever is not truth cannot measure truth precisely. The more deeply we are instructed in this ignorance the closer we approach the truth.
As far as implications for learned ignorance in my own life, there are countless examples I am sure but the one that stands out the most to me stems from the arena of religion. I was raised by Muslim parents but sent to a Christian Science elementary school, a Baptist middle school and a Catholic High School during which time I immersed myself in spiritual studies ranging from Wiccan principles to Buddhism and Taoism. The more I learned about religion and the essence of spirituality and the idea of God, the less sure I was of the answers. To this day, through all of my learning and searching and researching I am even more sure of my ignorance on the topic than I was when I knew nothing about it.26. What does Gerald Edelman mean by Neural Darwinism and SecondNature?
Neural Darwinism refers to an explanation of higher order brain functions. It establishes a neural basis of consciousness and combines privacy with an ongoing unity and remarkable variability on a daily basis. Edelman poses that the human body is capable of creating complex adaptive systems as a result of local events with feedback. The neurons of the dynamic core interacting with the world through input and output are causal and the evolution of this dynamic core has provided vastly increased numbers of sensori-motor discriminations. Edelman suggests that experiences during development strengthen some neural connections while others weaken or die. In this sense, our environment “selects” connections to live or die similarly to Darwin’s natural selection.
Second Nature is Edelman’s conclusions regarding a brain based epistemology. It’s goal lies in solving the mystery of how we acquire knowledge by first understanding how the brain works. Edelman poses that we are at a remarkable juncture in neuroscience. We are on the brink of understanding something previously left to the philosophers. He rejects the idea that consciousness is a product of the brain too complicated to ever be understood in scientific terms. He insists that the brain is not isolated but rather is embodied and the body is embedded in the environment.
27. Why turn vegetarian?---according to the film you saw. Whatarguments are there against vegetarianism? You may need to do agoogle search here.
The vegan film, while providing disturbing images meant to remind us of what exactly we are eating when we bite into a hamburger, also offered many compelling reasons for making the switch to a vegetarian diet. Heart disease begins in childhood and a vegetarian diet can reverse heart disease (also carnivores develop cancer at a higher rate than vegetarians). The video also argues that eating meat and dairy makes you fat (which I may have to argue against as a general statement- eating lean sources of protein can actually speed up metabolism and aid in the process of losing weight- not that weight cannot be lost on a vegetarian diet, as it surely will if done properly, just stating that meat and dairy in general do not make you fat); and you shouldn’t have to lie to your kids about what they are eating. On a sillier note, they mentioned that every package of chicken has a little “poop” in it, however vegetarians that are not conscious of the importance of an organic diet are consuming far worse things than a little “poop”. The video also argues that meat is filthy and bloody and that “it isn’t fair” and that no living creature wants to see her family slaughtered. Further, the danger mad cow disease and the correlation between eating meat and impotence are proposed. They then turn to the more ethical arguments; that no one should have to make a living by killing, that it takes a small person to beat a defenseless animal and an even smaller person to eat one, and that no animal deserves to die for your tastebuds. The argument that resonated most with me from the video was that the grain used to feed the animals could be used to feed starving nations. An important reason why many are starving today is that tremendous amounts of grain are used to fatten animals for slaughter (it takes 8-12 pounds of grain to produce one pound of edible beef). The U.S. is also a major importer of beef from poor countries, where the grain grown feeds the cows we eat rather than the people who live in the country. Wealthy nations feed more grain to their livestock than to the people of India and China (1/3 of humanity). (http://jewishveg.com/schwartz/jhunger.html)
I did find it difficult to locate many valid, intelligent arguments opposing a vegetarian diet. They were mostly along the lines of “our teeth were designed to eat meat”, that God put animals here for our use, that it is “natural” to eat meat and that some amino acids are hard to find in alternative sources. One opinion I found on www.friendlyathiest.com stated that “I am part of a massive framework of society that is environmentally devastating. I can’t leave and I can’t change it and while it might be tempting to reduce my personal impact, that’s pretty insignificant. If I am going to do something insignificant, I’ll do something I enjoy instead.” Unfortunately, as hard as I tried to find a compelling argument against vegetarianism, it seemed that the root of all of the opinions was laziness and convenience. People cling to meat (and God!) because they are uncomfortable with the thought of life without it. It is interesting that vegetarianism seems to occur a lot more amongst atheists than among other groups. Arguably, the closest thing to a valid argument was this (also from the friendly atheist website), “We should be loyal to the human species. Cows would not thrive in the wild. Dying to feed a human seems like the best destiny an animal can have. They are supporting the existence of the only species on the planet with the potential to spread the seed of life to other worlds.” However, by this token of loyalty to the human species, my prior argument regarding the fact that we use preposterous amounts of grain to feed livestock rather than sustaining the lives of the malnourished and impoverished 1/3 of humanity seems to trump this argument!
I really enjoyed this quote as a rebuttal to the insistence that man has been eating meat for thousands of years and it is a natural occurrence. “In dark ages people are best guided by religion, as in a pitch-black night a blind man is the best guide; he knows the roads and paths better than a man who can see. When daylight comes, however, it is foolish to use blind old men as guides.”-Heinrich Heine
28. What was the turning point in Ramana Maharshi's life?
At age 16, he read Periya Puranam and it filled him with ecstatic wonder and inspired him with awe and emulation. A few months later there was a great change in his life. A violent fear of death overcame him and this thought drove him inward and he became totally absorbed in the vital questions demanding to be answered. What does death mean? What is dying? The body dies but the spirit cannot be touched by death. The permanent awakening of this new awareness with in him brought about a dramatic change in his life and his interests- he no longer enjoyed games, he was indifferent to food, lost all interest in his studies and became pre-occupied with divine awareness. Two months later he began his quest and embraced asceticism. He became immersed in the bliss of being.
29. What was Gandhi's double shame? If Gandhi lived during our era would he have a different view of that event? Why? Why not?
Gandhi’s double shame stemmed from two events that occurred in the same period of time. The first of these was that his wife was expecting a baby (he was only 16) and “religion, medical science and commonsense alike forbade sexual intercourse” as well as the fact that he felt ashamed that he could not control his carnal desires until his schooling was finished. The second part of this ‘shame’ was the fact that his father was on his death bed and while he tended to him nightly, for hours at a time, he took relief to go and be with his wife and as a result, was not at his father’s side at the time of his passing. Thus his “animal passions” got the best of him twice and he felt doubly ashamed. He even appeared to blame himself for the fact that his child lived only a few days when he warned, “Nothing else could be expected. Let all those who are married be warned by my example.”
If Gandhi lived during this era I do not believe he would have a different view of that event. I think that many people would believe that he should not feel ashamed but he, being a man of such strong convictions would always feel that carnal pleasures should be set aside in the interest of caring for his father and completing his studies. Translatable to current times, if a boy impregnates a girl while they are still in high school it is still a “shameful” event and if someone who was as close to their father as Gandhi was, took a break from being at his bedside for some personal indulgence, I imagine they would feel the same sort of guilt or shame or neglect of duties that he felt.
30. List Four distinct passages from Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and explain what you think they mean.
2.012 In logic nothing is accidental: if a thing can occur in an atomic fact the possibility of that atomic fact must already be prejudged in the thing.
I think this means that, logically speaking, everything has to be possible in order for it to happen. If it is not possible it will not happen. Certain things have certain possibilities and where possibility lies, there can be no accidents.
3.323 In the language of everyday life it very often happens that the same word signifies in two different ways-and therefore belongs to two different symbols-or that two words, which signify in different ways, are apparently applied in the same way in the proposition.
I believe he is saying that we can have one word that has two different meanings but if they do, in fact have different meanings they must also have different symbols because the symbol is attributed to the meaning and not the word. At the same time we can have two different words that mean the same thing and thus should, in theory have the same symbol applied to them otherwise they would not mean the same thing at all. A stop sign for example and a red light are two different symbols with the same meaning. The word blue on the other hand can mean sad and therefore be depicted by the symbol of a sad face or can refer to the color which would obviously be symbolized with some representation of the color blue.
4.116 Everything that can be thought at all can be thought clearly. Everything that can be said can be said clearly.
This proposition is referring, I think, to the complexity of language and how important it is to have a thorough understanding of language in order to use it properly. Words are tricky and, as Solomon said, “All things are difficult and unexplainable in words.” Wittgenstein posits that while this is true, if we have the ability to think something (since we think through language as the medium) we should be able to process such a thought in clear terms. The same rule applies for everything that can be said, we fiddle around with words out of our own lack of understanding of the language but not because such things cannot be said clearly, maybe because we are unclear of exactly what we are trying to say. As soon as one is clear about what he wants to say, it should be able to be said with clarity.
5.1363 If from the fact that a proposition is obvious to us it does not follow that it is true, then obviousness is no justification for our belief in its truth.
Obviousness is not an intrinsic quality of truth. If something obvious is proposed it does not necessarily follow that it is true, and if something is true it is not necessary for it to also be obvious. Therefore obviousness CAN be present when truth is present but one is not dependent on the other.
31. What was your favorite expert film lecture this term? I really became inspired by the first lectures we watched with Aldous Huxley. 32. What was your favorite movie this term? I most enjoyed Truth Lies, Fundamentalism is a Mental Disease and A Glorious Piece of Meat33. What was your favorite reading? I enjoyed Darwin’s DNA and My Experiments With Truth (for the record, my least favorite was Reasonable Logic only because I found my attempts at grasping every proposition to be exhausting and time consuming, but I vow to give it another chance in about half a year.)34. Most unusual thing you learned this term
Wow, I really learned a lot from this class, where to begin…
I learned that blogging can be therapeutic.
I learned that everything can be related to philosophy! I had aspirations of being a philosophy major in my first go at school and my father convinced me that it was a waste of a major, fitting only if I wanted to become a college professor. Disappointed, I “settled” for sociology as a close second for my development of an intelligent means of assessing the world and the people in it. This class showed me how to apply Philosophy to any aspect of life, from physics to psychology, evolutionary studies to ethics, cosmology to culture, from history to health. It is a very important and often undervalued practice that can lead to enlightenment in many aspects of life.
I learned that the more I learn, the less I know.
I learned that sometimes the questions are more important than the answers. I learned that there are very rarely wrong answers when they are formulated in reason and thoughtfulness.
I learned that there are a lot of books and movies on my shelves that I have to give another chance because understanding and knowledge are cyclical processes and now I may be able to understand something I thought was over my head before, just by looking at it from a different perspective.
I learned how to apply philosophy to my own life and interactions with my family and friends and even to my other classes. I learned that thinking too much is not a bad thing, but the ability to think well and compose logical thoughts is an art that deserves much diligent practice.
I learned that one can have an understanding of the presence of an Unknown force behind everything without having to give it a name like God. Anything fully applied in our lives for the betterment of our self and our time here can be called religion. The honesty with which it is applied to our lives has nothing to do with going to church.
I learned that science and religion are, in fact compatible.
I learned that I possess a deep respect for individuals like Einstein and Huxley and Gandhi and that all hope for civilization is not lost as long as there are men (and women) like them in the world promoting intelligence and goodwill.
I learned that Quantum Physics is not really that scary and is actually quite interesting. (There is a film that I found ridiculously interesting but way over my head that I will surely attempt to watch again now called What The Bleep Do We Know? – I highly recommend it if you haven’t seen it!)
I learned that I am a philosopher at heart and with some effort and a little practical wisdom, I can encounter any problem in my life with a clear mind, a strong conscience and an insatiable appetite for reason.
I learned that I have a lot to learn.

I just don't know!!

Daniel Dennett said there is No reason to believe in magical thinking. What is magical thinking? How far does the idea of magic stretch? Should we be skeptical of anything that we do not have immediate proof of? Should we dismiss it entirely or stand by a firm, "I don't know?" I do not know if there is life outside of this planet, I do not know if things disappear if no one is there to see them, I do not know what happened on September 11. I do not know if there is an afterlife, Daniel Dennett dismisses it entirely. My question is, at what point does he go from agnostic to athiest? he seems so sure of his viewpoints, but, as he said, "You can't prove a negative." Well, so if there is no proof on either side, how can he appear to be so certain in his beliefs? The best answer I can muster intelligently to any of these unanswerable questions is "I don't know." Anything beyond that would be the work of my imaginings and hopes and its clear that those are not usually based in fact.

Nervous?

“The planet is developing a nervous system.” What a marvelous idea! What if everybody began thinking about the human species as a Part of the planet? The nervous system! And we are here to take care of it, not the other way around. The nervous system regulates an organism’s perception of the world and what is going on with its body. It manages the body’s responses to internal and external stimuli. Maybe our “purpose” (although that goes entirely against Daniel Dennett’s terminology) is to figure out what is going on with the body (Earth) and work to maintain homeostasis. If we provided the functions to the Earth that our biological systems provide for us, then it would become a working system, with each trying to ensure the survival of the other.

I <3 Gandhi

I am falling in love with Gandhi. Not the man per se, but his ideals, his convictions, his doctrines of non-violence and truth. I will never hesitate to pick up any writings of or about him because there is so much to learn from his unwavering discipline. Even when he errs, he is quick to correct himself and readily accepts responsibility for his mistakes without passing blame or making excuses. The gospel of non-violence is surely one to strive for. Even true martial artists learn that they do not have to harm their opponent to consider themselves victorious. With practice and skill you can learn how to defend yourself and tire out your opponent without ever having to throw a punch. I wonder, would Gandhi consider the use of martial arts in this way to be practice in the art of non-violence? Or is a higher degree of passivity needed in order to truly be considered non-violent?

Understanding Dreams

I had a thought last night relative to dreams and consciousness. I suppose it does not directly tie into the readings but I definitely felt it worthy of noting, at least for myself. Maybe our dreams are running constantly… Even when we are awake decisions and scenarios are running through our heads – “What if this happens?”… “What would I do if this happened right now?” Maybe at night when there is no input or output from exterior sources and we are left to our own devices, we are able to focus on those “random” situations that manifest in our dreams as ‘practice’ for encountering situations when we are awake.Taking it further, maybe that is how déjà vu manifests. So many random associations and deductions are happening in our minds on a constant basis that surely we have encountered certain scenarios in our heads or in our dreams that would parallel circumstances in our daily lives. Hmmm…

Experimenting With Truth

I really enjoyed Gandhi’s Experiments With Truth. I found it to be very entertaining and well-written and I will look forward to reading more of Gandhi’s work. I was very interested in his opinion that in order to develop good handwriting, a child should first learn to draw. I will keep that in mind when I am teaching my boys.
Ooh, I felt I could relate to Gandhi’s experience with his friend, the bad influence. I constantly considered myself to be a reformer of friends however my character was not developed enough to hold fast to my convictions and instead I usually wound up getting dragged down to places that I never thought I would see myself. As Gandhi said, “a man takes in vice far more readily than virtue.” I disagreed when he believed that hiding the deed from his parents was no departure from the truth, although his conscience obviously got the better of him on this one eventually. I, too used that excuse a number of times, believing that omitting information was not really lying (ah, the famous Seinfeld episode with the ‘yada yada yada’…). Eventually, I realized how exhausting it was to have to juggle the truth around the lies and I knew that this could not be real honesty; even in its most difficult moments, honesty was not nearly as stressful as being dishonest. It took awhile to reach the art of tactful truth and I am still nowhere near adequate but at least I am conscious of it, and I am striving and I am much happier now and carry much less weight on my shoulders.
I was rather surprised at Gandhi, keeping company with that friend and allowing himself to be tempted. It was interesting to note Gandhi’s realizations of self in regard to the topic of friends. His understanding of his motivations and his moral lapses in these circumstances brought me to a greater understanding of my own relationships and now, with this new awareness I feel properly armed to handle any misguided friends that may come my way. I will not hold them responsible for my decisions, they are free to do what they like because they have not set out to hold the same values that I do, and they are not as hard on themselves as far as judgement of action, as I so I cannot be mad at them for not making the choices that I would make, I can only be mad at myself because I know the direction that my decisions should take.

Guilt and Social Conditioning; The Evolution of Virtue

I appreciated the message behind the film Flame On. We cannot judge our best and worst qualities because what is considered virtuous changes throughout cultures, generations and even individuals. One person may consider someone to be too forward and aggressive while another may appreciate and admire their assertiveness. We can only experience the varying reactions we get at different times, including our own.
Guilt plays a major role in the decisions people make and so it is used through religion and the establishment of day to day cultural norms to condition behavior. If people believe, as the first narrator claimed, that prolonged exposure to homosexual images will pervert even “normal” human males, then the individuals who are constantly exposed to that belief will generally begin to believe it themselves. Social conditioning can guide a society in any desired direction, it has nothing to do with truth, it has to do with what the person or people in power believe to be right or wrong.

The End of Faith

I have read Sam Harris’ Letter To a Christian Nation and while a part of me felt like he was just trying to get a rise out of people, he made some great points just as he did in the lecture regarding The End of Faith. He reasoned that hoping that something happened and believing that it happened are two different things. The difference is that believing that your thought, your proposition held in mind actually fits in to reality. Beliefs are machinery for guiding our behavior. Unfortunately, beliefs vary from person to person and from culture to culture and difference in beliefs tends to be the source of conflict for a lot of issues in the world today. Morality was intended to minimize real human suffering and instead religious dogma falsifies morality and separates questions regarding morality from those concerning suffering.
It was interesting how Harris noted that it is fundamentally taboo to criticize someone’s beliefs. I wonder how this is the only area of life that we propose go unexamined. Reasons are contagious, which is why we are built to be rational human beings. We are supposed to question people’s beliefs to evaluate their reasoning. Instead religious people are free to submit to the moral demands of an invisible super-intelligence and say anything they want in the name of their Higher Power evading rational explanation because we insist that religious beliefs shouldn’t be questioned. We expect logical arguments in every other field of study, that is why we do not have Christian Physics or Hindu Science or American Geometry, because there are certain fundamental truths to the nature of the universe that everyone can agree on. We are not meant to be overly politically correct or to tolerate all of the absurdity in the world, we are meant to reason and to be reasonable and open to evidence.

Neural Darwinism

The host of Gerald Edelman’s presentation said that we are what we think and that with our mind we create the world. He proposed that by reaching, searching and researching we could begin to understand how the mind arises from the brain. The characteristics of the mind or consciousness are that it is a form of awareness created through a process. It is an entirely individual and personal notion, varying infinitely from person to person. It is an intentional and continuous yet changing.
Neural Darwinism, the explanation of high order brain functions is presented through the interactions of neurons of the dynamic core with causal input and output in the world. Edelman stated that we have reached a remarkable juncture in neuroscience and are now on the brink of understanding something previously left to the philosophers. He discusses the illusion of time and how our beliefs represent the past, our desires the present, and our intentions, the future. Past and present are concepts, they are relative to memory and emotion. Future is assumption: fantasy and reasoning through probability, uncertain because of the unpredictable facts and variances that we can only assume.

Good Enough For Nietzsche?

The last line in the Nietzsche video, The Myth of Eternal Recurrence resonated most with me. The sufficiency of this- Earth. I wonder if this is meant to make us think about what would happen if we were told that there was nothing more than this life? No heaven, no transcendent plane, no reward for a life well-lived. Would we despair? Would we feel like our time had been wasted? Would This be good enough? Or is the idea of an afterlife what drives most people to lead good lives? Why isn’t the good life reward in itself? If we had to live the same life over and over again would that be heaven or hell? If this theory of Eternal Recurrence is valid we should all be doing our best to create our heaven during this life to make the next one equally pleasant. Or perhaps if this theory is dissected more we could ask, if this myth of Eternal Recurrence has always been the case then maybe this is not the first time we have been through the cycle and the life we are living is one that has already been lived and all of our decisions are futile because the course of our life has already been determined because it has already happened before. I wonder if this theory has any relation to the phenomenon of Life Flashing Before Your Eyes during near-death experiences…

The Evolution of Psychology (Thoughts on Pinker's interview)

How did reciprocal altruism evolve? Why? Is there an inherent selfish agenda present in the nature of humanity? What are our motivations and why is the mind incapable of fully understanding them? If we do consider that humans are naturally self-serving beings and that even the reason behind universals such as The Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you) are appreciated because we want good for ourselves and not because we naturally want to do good for others, does that lead to cynicism of human nature? Does it lead us to be more accepting of betrayal, infidelity and dishonesty because if these things have a natural basis then maybe they are ok? Just because we can do something does not mean that we should. The view of altruism as an effect of evolution makes sense: Individuals evolve to become the type of person people would trust, love and engage with, therefore securing some degree of survival. There is a logical basis to morality in that it is beneficial to all who support it and promote it in their lifestyle, perhaps this is why religion is so successful. At heart, religions mostly promote morality and the improvement of the human spirit, they just tend to get garbled with a lot of superficial details that cause conflicts between “competing” faiths.

If we can become aware of our underlying motivations, as evolutionary psychology encourages us to do then perhaps we can prevail over our natural tendencies toward selfishness and aggression. Even the founding fathers seemed to have an awareness of the natural state of human nature, they created checks on themselves so they would not become overrun with tyranny.
It seems that we naturally treat our family and neighbors well, the idea is that (hopefully) evolution is progressing in the direction of treating all people well, and even all animals well. There has been tremendous progress in the notion that “all men are created equal” over the past 1000 years, hopefully at some point in time we will stop viewing animals as a lesser species and instead just learn to view them as a different species, still deserving of some consideration of decency.

Vegetarianism & Consciousness (On Why I Don't Eat Faces)

If our consciousness has evolved over time and we still exhibit our ancestors palate for meat maybe it has served some function in natural selection?
There are so many things to consider when constructing one's moral code or value system that all we can hope is that people at least make a conscious effort to do so. Learning to respect the lives of all creatures would bring dignity to the human race, if we are assuming that the majority of the human race cares enough to change anything... We can only work toward individual dignity, integrity, morals and ethics- sadly, it seems the masses are hopeless.
This argument of ethnocentricity in the final note likens carnivorousness to racism... When one views himself to be superior to others and believes his life has more value or that his superior intelligence allows him to have dominion over another, it may blur the lines of discriminatory thinking. Also relative, the animal testing argument: At The Psychiatry Museum [An Industry of Death]- a free museum in Los Angeles put on by the Citizen's Commission on Human Rights (CCHR)- I learned that they used to test psychiatric drugs and treatments such as electro-shock therapy on African-Americans because it was believed at that thime that they were better than animals but less than human. Our social view has changed dramatically since then, maybe over time the same thing will happen with the way we view animals. Maybe as natural selection and evolution continue we will lose our palate for meat or will gain more compassion and stop viewing animals as "lower species" that do not at the very least deserve a decent life and a humane death.

Vegetarianism & Health (On Why I Don't Eat Faces)

I appreciated a lot of the points made in Why I Don't Eat Faces. As a former vegetarian myself, it was easy for me to empathize with Mr. Lane's point of view. I stopped eating meat, fish and eggs when I was 16 years old because I had become aware of the deplorable conditions in which livestock are raised and how common sickness and suffering were and the thought of eating something dead made me sick to my stomach. You would be surprised how many non-food items have animal by-products, not to mention the countless others that test their products on animals!
Questions regarding Mr. Lane's argument though... If your main moral struggle is with the pain these animals endure, would you be okay with eating an animal that died naturally? I found it interesting that Mr. Lane went from a junk food junkie to a strict vegetarian. I, unfortunately did not learn to incorporate the health aspect into my emtional conflict until much later (I had a tendency toward pasta and potatoes and sweets). I agree that we should practice non-violence to the best of our abiltiy in all aspects of our lives. I teach my boys to find a way to pick the bug up and take it outside rather than kill it. If something does not mean you any harm then there is no sense in destroying it. I noticed that Mr. Lane does not consume dairy and I wondered how that fit into his theory of non-violence. Organic farmers treat their animals very well and I believe these animals have a generally good quality of life and are not brought any pain as they produce milk and eggs.
I did agree that we should do our best not to eat anything that can't be eaten raw. Our primary source of nutrition should be living, healthy foods- they should not be overcooked. Life feeds off of life. *This is also why we shouldn't use microwaves! Microwaves zap any nutritional value out of even the healthiest meals with the radiation. There are hazardous effects of direct microwave radiation on living systems.

The Descent Of Man (On Darwin's DNA)

I absolutely loved Darwin's DNA. The way it was written, theexplanations, the analogies and examples all gave me great insightinto the theories of evolution and natural selection andconsciousness. An excellent read that really tied everythingtogether for me. I will definitely be reading this again.Iespecially enjoyed The Descent of Man. The modification ofintellectual powers through socialization, imitation, reason andexperience was an enlightening realization for me. However, this iswhere my confusion as to whether these traits are consideredevolutionary or adaptive comes in. Animals learn by experience andimitate the caution of others but are we saying that this is NOTsomething that animals have always done? That at some point in timethey became observant reasonable creatures whereas before this pointthey were not? Is the strengthening of the intellect somethingwhich has to do with some genetic modification or is it stillsomething that has to be taught and reinforced to futuregenerations? If natural selection does not imply that the selectivetraits have to be present in the nature of the creature but insteadin the tribe or the pack or the unit and then imparted on the newgenerations, then is it really an evolutionary inheritance or asocial, adaptive one? We do not know at what period in the courseof their development man became capable of feeling and beingimpelled by praise or blame but we can see similar traits in dogsand other animals, they tend to develop "friendships" with otheranimals and care for their safety, as well as respond to blame,encouragement and praise. It appears true that a tribe includingmany members who have a high degree of patriotism, fidelity,obedience, courage and sympathy, who are always ready to aid oneanother and to sacrifice themeslves for the common good, would bevictorious over most other tribes. This natural selection thoughseems based more on adaptive tendencies than evolutionary as all ofthese traits seem to be more behavioral than evolutionary.
The processes that civilized humans go through to preserve humanlife seems to have become somewhat of an intervention in theevolutionary model of survival of the fittest. With vaccines andantibiotics and medical advancements, the preservation of All lifeto the last possible moment seems to have replaced the idea that thestrong will survive and procreate. Now we have humans who aregenetically predisposed to cancers and auto-immune disorders andother general biological "weaknesses" that may not have perpetuatedreproduction without some kind of medical intervention. Could thisbe part of the reason we are experiencing over-population? Couldthis also have something to do with the new strains of antibioticresistant "mutant" bacteria and viruses that are beginning toemerge? What will this do to the evolution of man in the future?What are the consequences of "playing God" and taking life and deathinto our own hands?

Evolution vs. Adaptation (On Darwin's DNA)

I am having trouble distinguishing between evolution and adaptation. Am I wrong in assuming that the term evolution refers to biological changes, including, but not limited to DNA, genetic mutations etc. while adaptation refers more to behavioral modifications that may aid in natural selection? Animals evolve new features to improve their chances of reproductive success and survival (spots or stripes or the ability to camoflauge oneself on any backdrop prove to impart an advantage for attracting mates, hiding from or confusing predators, or gaining access to food- as Carroll explains) which are preserved as small changes in DNA.
In David's diary entry on page 25 he states that If you can imagine without real consequence, then you have a better chance of living if you have already played out competing strategies. Ha! and I always thought that thinking too much was a bad thing! It turns out it is my evolutionary advantage!We do not see the world as it is, we see the world as We are.Again, we discuss how the brain lies to us as a survival mechanism. Consciousness has arisen as an evolutionary defense in order for us to imagine all of these possibilites before actually having to make a decsion in the real world that could affect whether we live or die. For example the drowning man who has been saved and has time to reflect on what he could have or should have done, what he would do differently the next time etc. So, if consciousness can be reduced to neurofunction, it seems that it would be theoretically possible to create a machine or computer that replicates human behavior using probability programming and eliminative functions. However, I believe that the complexity of human consciousness lies in the ability to observe, learn and experience different stimuli as it is presented to us in the world. If all three of these are necessary components then the trouble in creating artificial intelligence lies in replicating all three of these vital points in a cumulative fashion in order to re-create consciousness.
If there is such a thing as a soul, then cloning would raise questions regarding whether the newly cloned creature (Dolly the sheep for example) has a "soul" and where Dolly's "consciousness" comes from. If we are able to clone a human, does the clone have a soul? where does it come from? Will this clone be inferior in any way; biologically, intellectually, emotionally, spiritually to its "original" counterpart?
As children develop, gaining most of their understanding of the world from the first 5 years of their life, we can literally observe neural connections being made regularly. We tend to make the same mistakes repeatedly until we finally learn the lesson, after that the chances of making the same mistake diminish greatly.

More Than Meets The "I"

The "I" believes itself to be more than it really is. We, as humans, tend to believe that there MUST be some reason for us to be here, to be conscious, to exist. Something outside of our skin and bones that has a higher purpose, that demands that we ask why; demands that we learn the truth about the nature of our existence and our consciousness. There must be some reason, especially for those God-fearing individuals , why would God put us here with this complex reasoning ability, yet give us no reason for being here in the first place? The problem I face is that every seemingly unexplainable event that has occured on this earth since the beginning of time has been explained away by man in the way that makes the most sense to him, whether based in fact or not. It seems it is easier to believe in nonsense than to believe in nothing at all. Therefore, we satisfy our brain with a temporary solution, until a better one is made available to us.

I find it difficult to accept that we are nothing more than neurons firing, but not because it is such a bizarre notion but because it is a heartbreaking one. My logical brain says, "Of course we are just physical beings, there is nothing about us that cannot be broken down into physical components." but my emotional brain says "how could all of this uniqueness, all of these thoughts, feelings, memories, opinions, be just a part of brain function that dies along with the rest of us? What is the point of that? " As I reflect and attempt to grasp some sort of understanding of how and when this consciousness comes about, I tend to turn most to my children as a point of reference. I watch Michael learn by observation, education and experience on a daily basis (he is 3 and a half). There is nothing that he knows outside of what he has seen (in school, movies, watching others), been taught, or physically experienced on his own. "Michael, be careful climbing on that, if you fall it will hurt..." He falls, it hurts, he learns, next time he is more careful- a neural connection has been made. No two people will have exactly the same combination of all three of these elements (observation, education and experience). So, however depressing or heartbreaking it may be, I can totally see how an individual's perceptions, what they observe and how, what they are taught and how and what they experience (and how) could entirely shape their consciousness and their uniqueness and who they are.