MIDTERM
4. What is your real name?
Ngoc Gia Tran, but I go by Gia
5. What is your "user" name?
Epiphanygt
6. What is your email address that you use for this class?
Gtran7@gmail.com
7. Name and address for your website.
Name: Epiphanygt
Address of Blog: http://epiphanygt.blogspot.com/
8. Have you done all the reading for the first three weeks?
Yes
9. Have you watched each of the films that were required?
Yes
10. Please place here all of the postings you have done for this
class (you can copy and paste them):
*All are pasted on the bottom of the final- check all posts at the bottom of the final.
11. Why does Lisa Randall believe that there may be many more
dimensions than we presently know in current physics? Is there any
evidence at this stage for her beliefs?
Lisa Randall, a Theoretical Physicist, her lecture talks about the possibilities that additional dimensions can exist in space: <http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/randallwilson.htm> She believes it is possible for additional dimensions to based on the Einstein equation and the string theory. The equation by Einstein called, the energy of particles : (Energy of particles = mc^2). This equation applies to objects in space. “The String Theory; by Joel Pochensky,” Randall mentioned, can be similarly explained as; in any given dimensions, there are possibly objects in the universe called branes; these branes are matters that gets stuck onto surfaces and therefore creates a separation from being interconnected to other possible dimensions. Similar to Randall for example; imagine a three dimensional room with a shower curtain and there is water droplets stuck onto this curtain. This picture explains the water droplets that are stuck onto the curtain in this three dimensional room, is the same as branes being stuck onto a surface in a two dimensional- but without ever reaching the level to three dimension.
In addition, another example offered for furthermore relevance about the levels of dimensions, can be found from the book, Flat Land by Owen Gingerich. It is written about an animal that only lives in a second dimensional, and a sphere that is able to travel from the third-dimension pops into the second.
Reference:
David Christopher Lane, Ph.D. Spring 2008 Introduction to Philosophy. Neural Surfer. Feb. - April 2008. Dept. of Introduction to Philosophy. Mt. SACC.
12. What are Pythagoras' philosophical views in a nutshell?
View of a nutshell is knowledge of one subject should be able to used and apply in this whole universe.
13. Do you think science and religion are compatible? Be sure to
explain your answer by GIVING
THE EXPLANATIONS given by philosophers who side with your position
from the Socratic Universe (cite and quote when
appropriate).
Professor Dumont from Mt. Saint Mary's College and I shares a quite similar view when responding to; “If science and religion is compatible,” in the book, The Socratic Universe. Below is Dumont's response and was found from a Professor in philosophy, David Lane's website: (http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/socra5.html)
I believe science, and religion can be compatible; since both of the institutions offers humans to practice and to pursue to search for answers about life and the universe. Throughout all my science courses; in chemistry, microbiology, biology, and mathematics; were consists of students from all types in ethnicities and multi-cultural diversity. Similarly, to Dumont, "Its greatest in science is acknowledgeable of its progress and obstacles, its greatest in religion can be realistic and would not distinguish ones to be superior than others.” This professor does acknowledge that there are a bad religion and a good religion. The good, are the one does leaning in and offer the support in scientific research, yet also can take its stand and abolish in research studies if founded to be inhuman to their beliefs. This is reasonable for me to assume that we are similar, when describing ones whose open-minded in both of the study fields.
I believe that both institutions can exist because; I am a dedicated believer in Buddhism and science student majoring in microbiology. These two roles serves is what makes me a valuable being of my own. I had never found trouble that it has ever affected my moral values. Having both, and being both, can be described as; a counter-balance. This count-balance provides aspirations, and motivations. Therefore, I believe that science and religion to be compatible.
Dumont said it best when he mentioned, "that its best science should be humble and know its limitations and honest in its claims. At its best religion provides comfort, consolation, inspiration, and motivation without claiming to have all of the answers nor to order people around." I do agree that in science, there are grey areas and holes remaining to be filled. The same goes for religion.
14. Why was Socrates put on trial? How did Socrates defend his
position?
Based on the story, Apology by Plato; Socrates was put onto trial for three convictions: First reason; is the practices of evil by contacting the oracles, secondly; for corrupting the young and charging them money but teaches evil and by making bad things seems better in reality, thirdly, is for his beliefs as an atheist. Socrates started his own defense at the very beginning, by first mentioning to the judges with the story of why he has buildup enemies, throughout the time. Socrates explains his reasons why he has repeatedly visited the oracle. So he told them that he was confirming with the oracle about whose the wisest of all so I can learn from the wisest. The oracle direct him to poets, mechanics, and artesian. He told the Athenians that after his examination from each of them, they weren’t so wise yet the wisest overall.
This introduction of his to the judges is later valuable to provide evidence to his title. Back in the days, the judges’ identities were kept for privacy reasons so the person testifies themselves unknowing whose its prosecutors. To provide his introduction and story was true of such poet exists, and his visit to the oracle serves this purpose he yells out, Meletus whose the poet. Socrates confronted Meletus with a series of questions that lets the audience to evaluate this ignorance of his. To fight for his second conviction, he challenged Meletus by asking about the health of the horse, if the harm is caused by one person or if by all the rest from that one person. Meletus answered that all, which is incorrect and Socrates points out that he is certainly not in the level of convicting him. Thirdly, he asked Meletus if the neighbor of good and bad matters at all and which will he choose. Meletus of course answers: good, and addresses that no one will want to hurt themselves by living with the bad naighbors. So once again Socrates tackled his prosecutors one by one, and so on.
http://www.pagebypagebooks.com/Plato/Apology/
15. Give a brief history of philosophy using just 300 words (no
more). You may use an outline format, but be sure to
cram as many "factoids" (facts) as possible (key names, ideas,
dates, etc.). Remember, it must be
your own words and not merely a series of quotes.
The beginning of Western Philosophy starts at Athesian, in the city of Rome in Italy. There
16. Explain the big bang and the inflationary universe. Why is it
important to know astronomy in order to do
philosophy?
The big bang theory was a primary theory to explain the creation of the universe. Stating that the universe was created from a giant explosion so to speak. However, there is no explanation as to what caused this humongous explosion and several other things remain unexplained in this theory. For example if we divide the universe into 4 quadrants and look at each one individually, one can see that, all four of these quadrants will have similar geometry, composition, and thermal properties. In the general physics of of an explosion, this will not occur. Take for example an oven that exploded. Parts of that oven will not uniformly scatter around the center of the explosion nor will the parts have similar geometry or thermal properties. This is where the inflationary universe theory comes into play.
"The crucial property of physical law that makes inflation possible is the existence of states of matter that have a high energy density that cannot be rapidly lowered." This is called a false vacuum, written by A. Guth in the article called, Was Cosmic Inflation the ‘Bang of the Big Bang?’
The inflation theory also serves to explain why the universe appears flat. The amount of energy amassed during the inflation period is so huge that when critical mass is reached and the energy is released, rapid expansion occurs. Anything that is rapidly expanded will appear flat. An example given in the article is placing a magnifying glass up to something small with a curvature, lets say a tic tac. Through the magnifying glass, the surface of the tic tac will appear flat when in actuality it is round. "This effect can be understood if one accepts from general relativity the relationship between a critical mass density and the geometric flatness of space. The huge expansion factor of inflation drives the universe toward flatness for the same reason that the earth appears flat, even though it is really round. A small piece of any curved space, if magnified sufficiently, will appear flat.
It is important to know astronomy because it is the oldest ancient navigating system that has ever exists. The stars up above the skies were once used to help navigate voyagers, detect the eclipses for the religious tribal period, and as a calendar.
17. How do Heisenberg's views on philosophy and science DIFFER from
Einstein's? How are they similar?
Both of the these philosophers in science: Heisenberg and Einstein; both, similar views on philosophy by choosing physics to represent natural sciences. Although, where both of these physicists appears to be in the same fields of profession, and both, are extremely capable of carrying out mathematical formulas; however, this is not all true-partial. In this situation of Heisenberg and Einstein, it is a good example, showing two human beings can only agree half way, due to the fact that ones term in natural science, does not agree with another’s being in their definitions of natural science. Given a situation sitmilar to this, it is due to the fact that both really differ from another, and this proves our the way how ones being is different from another in their perceptions in life.
Differences: Natural sciences; “res extensa” where it lies similar within metaphysical realism. Where ones being find their existences and percieves the word similar to realitiy and sentimental with nature and animal beings, wisdom and logic. For this reason being, he was able to grasp concepts and make possible to explain his quantum theory. Whereas, for Einstein; his ideal of natural science is “cogito ergo sum” which perceives his existence from what he believes. What ones believe that exists is very different from what ones knows it exist. For example, a child comes crying about what she believes to be a monster under her bed, and of course we all now there is no such thing as a monster, this thought exists mentally of this little girl and because of this, it moved her emotionally, making her acting the way like she did. So continuously the little girl whose like Einstein who keeps checking her closet, underneath her bed, or behind curtains, but she knew the monster is hiding somewhere, she just couldn’t find it yet. Versus, the parents, of the little girl plays the part of Heisenberg, which shows there’s no such monster at all places, in the closet, underneath all and everywhere, to prove to the little Einstein (girl) that there is no such monster, and it exists only in your dreams and imagination.
18. What is meme theory and do you find it plausible? Explain your
reasoning.
http://www.rubinghscience.org/memetics/dawkinsmemes.html
Chapter 11 from
Richard Dawkins, ``The Selfish Gene''
[ First published 1976;
1989 edition: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-286092-5 (paperback) ],
the best short introduction to, and the text that kicked off,
the new science of MEMETICS,
(and, also, the text where Dawkins coined the term `meme').
The meme is what Dawkins calls it, “meme is memory; memory of the self genes.” There is a format that I arranged in order to state each of Dawkins claim to be plausible or not:
- Dawkins: “When you plant a fertile meme in my mind you literally parasitize my brain, turning it into a vehicle for the meme's propagation in just the way that a virus may parasitize the genetic mechanism of a host cell. And this isn't just a way of talking -- the meme for, say, "belief in life after death" is actually realized physically, millions of times over, as a structure in the nervous systems of individual men the world over.'
*Mine: This one sounds delusional, and I so glad that this has never happened to me. But I don’t doubt that it couldn’t happen. In fact, there was a case similar that I remembered her and I, this one great friend of mine. I feel so bad for her, no matter what. Before she found the bible and after, regardless. But she told me she had to find God, to calm those voices, and trance music that were repeatedly playing for the past 2 years. Next she added, voices similar also to reality; hallucinations of hearing her doorbell being rung, and the other I can recall; she told me she couldn’t go out in public, because it seems like everyone is staring at her, and because of this reason, she once got into an argument with a cashier because she thought that person was mumbling about her. For some reason, I find myself keep replaying our discussions over and over in my head. But when I replay them, it is actually me wanting to tell her all the wrong intellects in the bible texts, I cared for her too much for her to be deceived. I hope this mean I’m actually fighting against it. I don’t know why, but I get extremely offended when I hear that G word being used from the bible. Therefore, it is reasonable of what Dawkin has mentioned.
-Dawkins: “He meme of Darwin's theory is therefore that essential basis of the idea which is held in common by all brains that understand the theory. The differences in the ways that people represent the theory are then, by definition, not part of the meme. If Darwin's theory can be subdivided into components, such that some people believe component A but not component B, while others believe B but not A, then A and B should be regarded as separate memes. If almost everybody who believes “
*Mine: He is exactly on the dot with this one. I had always loved doing trial and error; my favorite thing to do is to ask knowledge and observe ones knowledge. So I will pick out 2 people that will definitely fail the intellectual question, so I can recognize what they fall short on. Then to really double check, I ask the intellect being so to hope that they verify my sources that I didn’t go wrong. One of the most recent questions I suggested to be about on conscious. The thing is, Darwin is right, because when you question them further these meme, does have a pattern and trend regardless if religious or not.
“I asked, what is your definition of consciousness?” to Person 1 and Person 2:
1: (religious- Christian)- Self awareness, voice within me that speaks to me
2: (none, not religious at all: my sister, but you will find out why I choose her) - My feelings, senses
*Me: “Why do you think you have it?”
1: From God of course
2:God
*Me: Isn’t it ridiculous that my sister, 22 yrs old, a college student who doesn’t believe in God just pop this out as her answer. This is the exact reason why I choose her to ask. So of course I confronted her and let’s further.
*Me: “You don’t even believe in God, how can you claim such a name?” I asked her.
2: (She smiles from stupidity, trying to play it off) Whoever created us.
*Me: (From there I want to see how an ignorant being like her answers this does):
“Do you think you are anymore superior than animals? and why?”
2: Of course we are superior than them; we have consciousness, can talk, evolved…technology (typical answer of ignorance)
*Of course me and her argued even further after this point.
So to double check myself, my definition of the word consciousness is: observant, memory, thoughtful, appealing, sensory; gut feeling and alertness, considerate,
*Confirmer: my boyfriend: awareness, where you would know what is avoidable or not
Bingo, this qualifies Dawkins theory on this one.
- Dawkins: This brings me to the third general quality of successful replicators: copying-fidelity.
memes are being passed on to you in altered form.
*Me: Yes of course; commercials, the media, lame religious channel on public television. That same friend that I have mentioned from above, she was telling me how happy she feels because it felt like she picked the best religion, Christian because it is all over public television and the internet. I replied, it’s America, you think they would by any chance decide to promote Buddhism, it’s not Asia here. Anyways, yes, this does work definitely.
19. Why is understanding biological evolution so important in
understanding human thought and behavior. Be sure
to cite Wilson and Dawkins and Darwin when appropriate.
It is so important for anyone to know about this concept, because if not, then outcomes similar as to my sister’s results. She thought evolution was due to adaptations and only the fittest are the ones who survives. Typically, this is the reason that leads them actually thinking, humans beings are superior to all animals. That humans and animals are unparallel. Due to the fact that there are so many derivatives forms out there, corrupted materials, conspiracies, I think it is almost impossible to spot the traditional theory from the rest, especially if one has no clue whatsoever to begin with. Part of the reasons is due to the internet. Due to the technical terms and vocabularies, and its funding sources, I would assume discombobulate people who are not trained at all to read science articles. If ones can’t read science then this leads to further misguidance, and unable to evaluate their sources.
Besides, for people like my sister and the religious, even if ones were to search for some explanations, they will still be brought into the wrong source. My Christian friend tells me she gets her articles from the religious tv channel on public television website. So this is another reason why it is important to know the difference because, like her, and who knows how many more are just using their religious sites, then it never occurs to them that they are reading an erroneous concepts, so this builds on more, and so fourth.
20. In one of the films you were required to see, the narrator
argued that fundamentalism was a mental disease. Why?
Do you agree or disagree and please detail your rejoinder.
http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/mentaldisease.htm
I too, agrees with the narrator that fundamentalism, is indeed, a mental disease. Based on one of the film called, Fundamentalism is a Mental Disease; the narrator states, “Fundamentalism is a mental disease; to which I would add, creationism is taught only by those who cannot think.” These creationists are religious believers of the church and are infallible of their biblical doctrines, no matter what. At some point in time, these church fundamentalists were held an opposition of the context of the bible. Reliable evidences prove the literal context of the bible does contain falsifying fundaments and adjustments should be made from within. However, these fundamentalists ignores and refuses to makes any corrections or changes to the morals and the fundamentals in literature. This is reasonable to assume; that the thinking and the behaviors of fundamentalisms is to be considered as a mental disease.
It occurs to me, that the fundamentalists could not have possibly done this intentionally. It would be considered as if they created lies and guilty for deceiving all the innocents and the faithful child of Gods. They also committed sinful moralities by plagiarizing Gods’ work. After all, they are reputable of their literature in moralities and therefore left me with no other choice than the worst case that can possibly exist. It may seem liable this chastisement of fundamentalists to exist; failing to present God’s work the believers of His, unless they are in a challenged state in mental illnesses. A mental disease sounds reasonable to explain this behavior the best. The functionality of the fundamentalists seems almost as if a virus or a brain-suckling slug has found themselves a common ground to reservoir itself in the frontal lobes of theirs. Pathogens infests itself in ones brain could possibly prevent anyone from progressing their thoughts and even retardations. In fact, this actually help explain why they wrote inaccurate literals in their bible from the very beginning. These fundamentalisms didn’t intentionally deliver Gods’ will in such an erroneous form. Therefore, its mental retardation of caused of that brain-slug.
Another factor that may be the possible interference with fundamentalisms members of these men from church leads me to another type of mental illnesses. It may be possible to draw an assumption; the fundamentalist’s complex system in the level of complexity must not have extent to their fullest developments. This limits ones degrees in the level of complexity and therefore can really discourage how much ones able to perform in reasoning, critical thinking, or multi-tasking. In this case, it remains a challenging and unachievable tasks of fundamentalists to make able of carrying out the performances of the transferring written materials from the old and blend with some new literal materials. The existences of a pathogen can the problem or either it can be blamed to the premature development of their complex system.
21. Where do you think Owen Gingerich "parts company" (fundamentally
disagrees with) Edward O. Wilson? Who do you
think is more persuasive in their reasoning about religion, Owen or
Edward? Explain.
The two professors both, differs from each other in their terms of their religious beliefs which causes them to share their differences in terms of approaching the explanations about life itself and our existences in this universe. Gingerich holds his beliefs of the existence of a higher being which is known to be God; Jesus, to be the master creator of creating this universe and made it possible to sustain life. He explains that each has a personal God, since it reveals itself in different forms to connect with others and that the Medieval time period, perception of God has caused an expectation of the imagery of God’s forms of communicating. He finds it important that atheists, and agnostics should give a deeper insight about such perfect creation and preventing God from compelling the humans since our resources is degrading gradually. Whereas, Wilson was once a believer in Christianity, it was replaced with Darwinism; in a biological and physiological sense by natural selection. He is now a believer of his own abilities because of his own achievements; found independence and determines his own faith and parted himself to believe in any religious beliefs. This is the reason why I found myself to agree with Wilson.
Wilson is a well recognized scientist with a well-rounded knowledge of humanistic behavioral and in animal behavioral. He dedicated his works in all such areas and receives high recognition and it due the passions that he has to for the things he loves and studies in. He offers a realistic view about the life of this universe is no such thing as he mentioned called intelligence theory, and also where Gingerach has mention also. In the lecture of Gingerach, he mentions that the best reason to question further for such prefect creation of this plant, but his solution does not offer a good solution nor persuasiveness. However, although he is not a believer and free of religious beliefs yet he mentions the best answers of all for now. I think the best way to approach about life itself is what Wilson has mention, where to acknowledge that we are part of the creation of the complex system, naturally selected be a part of the universe.
Owen Gingerich; Astronomy, God, and Jesus:
http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/neuraltelevisiontest4.htm;
Edward O. Wilson; Consilience:
http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/neuraltv6.htm
22. What does Francis Fukuyama mean by the "end of history." Do you
agree or disagree? Explain.
Francis Fukuyama’s lecture, he explains the term of what “End of history” means. He believes that there must be an end to two histories of humans’ institutions in order to have an “End of history;” in the human nature and in the modern science. The history of the human nature he explains; the evolution institutions by trial and error had always offered provided its highest rates in solving to its problems. He suggested the Utopians reigns have failed due to the wrong aspects in the human nature. Whereas of today, the humans’ nature holds a permanent role- staying closest to its humans; offering its ways to work at its best and most effective. In modern science; the scientific inventions is changing the environment for examples he mentions its scientific developments of artificial intelligence and of biotechnology. He claims that in the future of such scientific creations within those fields seems to bring bad news in the upcoming 21st century. In his conclusion, he stated that both of these institutions is not near at an “End of history.” In his last statement, he refers that the new scientific creations can abolish human nature, by taking away the human premises which can lead to the possibilities of other life forms.
Fukuyama did not leave any closure for this last assumption if his of explaining further in details of that what kinds of possibilities of other life forms can develop? He didn’t bother to go into depth of describing what kinds humans’ premises these creations of such artificial intelligence or from biotechnology can cause the abolishment to human nature? Therefore, it is reasonable for me to only assume the definition of Fukuyama’s when referring to his “End of history,” would not have an “End of history” as long as the modern science does not interfere with the humans’ premises, then both of these institutions will not come to an “End of history.” For this reason, I disagree with Fukuyama.
To me, it may seem that Fukuyama cannot put the human nature and science to be at the same level of its values it holds a higher value than biotechnology. Because scientific technologies such as and inventions of biotechnology would not exist if it was not for the institution of the human nature itself in presence and existing first. It first starts with the human nature and then leading to innovations and grew with its creativities and founded modern technology.
23. Explain Nicholas of Cusa's philosophy of "unknowingness."
The “unknowingness” is when one learns a subject and questions arises therefore requires knowledge from another subject that provides the answer to. But as one tries to learn the other subject that provides an explanation to answer the questions arises at the first place, and- now there are more questions to that can link to more subjects and therefore more unknowingness.
*24. According to Nietzsche, how did we actually "kill" God? Think
before you leap on this one.
According to Nietzsche the film, Gods Too Decomposed the madman cried out to the people at the marketplace, “We have killed him- you and I. We are all his murderers.” Although, it appears to be true that it writes out, ‘you and I’, however, not necessarily. It is reasonable assume that the character in the story is referring this statement to a particular crowd. Therefore the crowd are the ‘We’ who killed God and the madman himself. This is reasonable. Due to the fact of his reply to the crowd, he exclaimed, “How shall we, the murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under knives- who will wipe this blood off us?” The murderers of all murderers are the ones that are basically standing amongst one from another, while in public. It is clear that this deed has taken away the lives of the brighter ones. That outshined another, it is only humans being that sheds blood from be knifed, and all his murderers are free from this punishment. It is reasonable, because, if his murderers are not free from this deed, this madman wouldn’t need to bring this to their public fellows.
25. In the movie, Little Things that Jiggle, physics is explained by
a series of slogans. Why, then, is physics
important in the study of philosophy? Substantiate your answer.
26. How do you explain the following line, "To have freedom OF
religion one must also have freedom FROM religion."
-I can only express this based on the meaning of freedom as a U.S. citizen and I cannot speak for the others who are not living in this country. This means: For the one who has its own free-will to choose their religion freely is important, as much more important-one must acknowledge that their religion should never be enforcing against their free-will nor limit its one to any type of restrictions.
27. Why does Dawkins believe that believing in God is delusional?
Based on Darwin’s Evolution theory, he suggests that there is no God existing at all. From the evolution theory, he tells explains further that our purpose of survival is to live long enough to transmit their genetic code to another generation. He points out that we are not so smart after all, because we are not developed for that specificity. Regardless, no one wants to be the dumber one, so we are left to be cruel to one another. In the end, although, there is no God due to the evolutionary theory, our world will invent a God so it takes the believers a further day to survive and transmit their genes.
http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/dawkinstv.htm
28. Can science offer a sense of mystery comparable to what certain
religions offer?
Many; but depends on what sorts of sense you are asking about? Most recently or usually or whatever impresses them the most? The first thing that comes to mind is what every magician is able to put up their sleeves to provide a great entertainment. But as most people I have talked to, it really depends how big of a circle they let themselves believe or be impress by scientific research. We can impress them inventing another term for miracles that is for sure. Because one of my religious friend is crazily into her God, because they supply miracles and heaven. Overall, I think science is too technical for a simple minded-person hard to grasp.
In scientific journals, and that those research, if you throw it at an account executive, a loan officer, or economic, politician, they will read the first paragraph before they loose interest because of all the technical terms we use in science. For example, every body knows proteins, and then nucleic acids..then sucrose, fats and then in… nucleotides and … chromosomal. So from this example, I am sure a student who never took science seriously in high school or college, whose usually becomes business majors and accountants, they get discombobulating rather amused with science. But religions, knows those easier terms that are in between so they throw it at the semi wannabes intellectual people and deceives them.
29. How does an understanding of cellular automata suggest a "new
kind of science".... according to Stephen Wolfram.
His “simple program” which contains 256 (well around the 200s) rules of all mathematical proofs and all into a simple program he call, “computational irreducibility.” It is all foundations of mathematics that are condensed into a calculator type like, where you just press in buttons and it evaluates the formulas which replicates the patterns of nature. I think one day, if it is really more simple to use, it can be taught in a class itself which requires students to know and memorize all sorts of equations to plug in for a rock or something.
30. What were the key turning points in Darwin's life?
When discovering that there are more mysteries in the world itself than he thought he did. It was the quantum theory, the extra dimensions that exists in the universe.
_____________________________________________________________________________
FINAL EXAMINATION: due APRIL 19TH AT MIDNITE.
FINAL EXAMINATION Spring 2008, Introduction to Philosophy Professor
David C. Lane, Ph.D.
Instructions
1. Be sure to place your entire FINAL on your website and when you
are finished send a link of your
test to your teacher directly at neuralsurfer@yahoo.com (don't send
it to any other email address, except that)
2. Make sure that it is YOUR OWN work and that if you use other
authors please be sure to
quote and/or cite the material appropriately. Plagiarism will not be
tolerated and you will receive
an "F" automatically for the examination.
3. The test is due NO LATER than February 15th at midnite.
3a. Each answer should be at least two paragraphs long, if not much
longer.
3b. What grade do you deserve and why?
So I counted I got around 21-22 posts, so a little over half the post, and I’ve answered 95% of the questions. I’m not sure of your grading system. I want you to give me the grade that I deserve based on the representation and the quality of my work; from what I have posted and answered for both, the final and midterm and don’t count the grammatical errors.
4. What is your real name? Ngoc Gia Tran
5. What is your "user" name? Epiphanygt
5a. What was your midterm grade? Or, if you revised it, your revised
midterm grade? Provide a LINK to your midterm
The midterm is attached to this final. I never received my first or revised grade for midterm.
6. What is your email address that you use for this class? Gtran7@gmail.com
7. Name and address for your website.
Address of Blog: http://epiphanygt.blogspot.com/
8. Have you done all the reading for the entire class? I’m going to be honest, no, I haven’t read the book Truth Lies
9. Have you watched each of the films that were required? Yes
10. Please place here all of the postings you have done for this
class (you can copy and paste them. ALL eight WEEKS OF POSTINGS.
Francis Fukuyama
I disagree with Fukuyama's prediction on where he mentions that no
large states or powerful industries would go to war unless big issues
seems to arise. In addition he also added that no more bigger in
space to fight about since spaces has reached its limits and
capacities. This is not true in my point of view. Did we all forget
that our government sponsors on the new innovations and technology for
mars and the moon? Let me remind us all with such administration
called, NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. In the
article written by Mark Whittington, published Sep 21, 2007
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/384514/will_china_beat_the_united_state\
s_back.html
In the past we have been competing with China for the race of to get
to the moon. It was most recent in 2007 that China has surprised the
U.S., Russia and India with their new innovations in space technology.
The strongest country of the nation is sure not pleasant. Besides,
these four countries are aiming for all the same ideas; in new
inventions to strengthen their military weapons, and promoting the
expansion of life and spaces. Therefore I disagree with Fukuyama. I
strongly believe that there is still spaces available for our country
and other countries to go to war for.
Posted by epiphany at 11:04 PM
Reaction to the film, Aldous Huxley "Man Search for Truth"
I had the toughest time balancing out my beliefs and values for these
past couple of years. I choose to major in science, so I was going
back and forth this whole time questioning about my beliefs between
spirituality and science. At one point, I found myself replacing all
my spiritual beliefs since my science classes practices on producing
hard facts and evidences. However recently, somehow conscientiously
my spiritual side grew upon me, reminding me not to forget what I had
once valued. I've decided to find an explanation for both of these
two beliefs and try my best to make senses from both sides so I can
bring peace inside of me. Believe me, this is not easy and even I
started to get confused and got blurred while researching on my own.
I almost thought of giving up. However after watching the film of
Aldous Huxley, I was able to find a conformation from him. That a
human being should have two types of education; scientific language
and literature. Above all, most importantly is intelligence and
consciousness.
Huxley explains that the scientific language is a one word, which
stands for one theme between given word and event talked about. In
literature work can be expressed in two types of ways;
expressing the inexpressible, and expressing good work in multiple
events human have and expressing it in multiple meanings. Most
important and above most was intelligence and consciousness. These
key points serves as a guidance for me as an individual to let me know
that even though I am in a blur right now, I should continue my
searching.
Posted by epiphany at 11:05 PM
Apology by Plato
If it was for anyone who was able to write empathetically well, it will be Plato in Apology. I don't care for all of the people who thinks I'm weird from those who criticize about the writings of Plato. I found him to be the the greatest writer in empathy. I know it's not hard to write for pity or asking its audiences for sympathy. However, he slowly builds his character to a brighter light, then slowly, slowly, Socrates shines. For this is part of the reason being I found him to be such an amusement. Well maybe because I'm just easily moved by empathy. But most importantly, it is because I use this style of writing- well depends on circumstances. I guess it is because it works! But of course I'm not in any level close to Plato. But let's see what seems to make his writing so eloquent.
I know for a fact that his overall style is reeling in the reader gradually. For example; at the beginning of the story Socrates was fighting for his own defense. As the story progress, he found himself in a more unfavorable situation with the judges. So as the courts' injustice rises to the defender, and this drama gets more intensive, so did Plato write the lines of Socrates to be yet more prideful and righteousness. Towards the end of the dialogue; where more prideful of himself and his friends and the people of Athenians. Socrates announces for himself that he would be this single person to sacrifice for the civilians of Athenians, because now, shinning its brightest, he has a heroic light on him. Overall for me, I will remember this talent and will in the future to read more of his writings.
What level of dimensions does psychic has access to? Is it the same dimension as Lisa Randall and hologram?
I was reading a book called, "Your Sixth Sense," written by Ted Andrews.
He uses the Hologram Peredigm to explain why a person is able to access
and foresees intuitively of another person that once lived or is still
living. However, it seems that Lisa Randall is speaking of the matter as
mentioned for the hologram. So are they actually speaking of the same
dimensions?
I actually started reading about our sixth sense before class and it's
great that I am knowing more of it. But of course, no matter what, I
don't think anyone is able to answer this question, but hopefully
someone can make some senses out of this. My first thoughts of getting
this book was because I wanted to get in touch with my gut feeling.
However, I found out further that it was related to psychic. I kept
reading but I refuse to practice any the lessons offered in the book.
I've always had believed in spirits but never really got in touch of
any, I want to keep it that way. I mean, who knows, I don't want create
an access of any chances with any occurrences with them. Now I'm just
more freaked out. I wonder if anyone shares this same experience with
me?
Posted by epiphany at 9:40 PM
Science and Religion Can Be Compatible
I was fortunate because I was able to discover the Professor Dumont and I shares a quite similar view when responding to; if science and religion is compatible. Below is Dumont's response and was found from a Professor in philosophy, David Lane's website: (http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/socra5.html)
Dumont's (Mt. Saint Mary's College) Response: "Frankly I see both as relying heavily on faith in the unknown. Both are human disciplines/activities, expressing human aspirations and subject to human limitations/faults. Both are institutions and belief systems. I see many problems with both as they are practiced today. At its best science is humble before its limitations and honest in its claims. At its best religion provides comfort, consolation, inspiration, and motivation without claiming to have all of the answers nor to order people around. I see no reason to think that they should in principle conflict, since to me they are both human pursuits of truth. There is a lot of bad religion around (arrogant and unloving) but the good religion that is there could do a great deal to support and limit (through true humility before nature and our limitations and through a proper sense of responsibility for life) the aspirations of science."
In other words, the professor suggests that science and religion can be compatible; since both of the institutions offers humans to practice and to pursue to search for answers about life and the universe. Dumont refers, "its greatest in science is acknowledgeable of its progress and obstacles, its greatest in religion can be realistic and would not distinguish itself to be superior than others. The professor does acknowledge that there are a bad religion and a good religion. The good one does lean in and offer the support in scientific research, yet also can take its stand and abolish in research studies if founded to be inhuman to their beliefs. Altogether, Dumont's responded diligently. Moreover, my approach to this question is similar.
Similar and agreeing with Professor Dumont; in my point of view I do think science and religion can be compatible. As a dedicated student in Buddhism and in the sciences; both of their teachings were equally important and precious to me. Both served as a counterbalance; in providing me aspirations to strive in my achievements, provided me answers when I was most confused. This is the main reason why I believe it is so possible for the science and religion to be compatible. Dumont said it best when he mentioned, "that its best science should be humble and know its limitations and honest in its claims. At its best religion provides comfort, consolation, inspiration, and motivation without claiming to have all of the answers nor to order people around." It is true. Throughout my studies of sciences; for some of its matters do still need light for its grey area and holes still need to be filled. The ones whose literate in science can tell you how many doors has still left unclosed by scientists. This idea also applies samely towards religion. In its religion it does still contains the flaws like science, with grey areas and holes.
Science and religion has been providing valuable resources to humans and the universe. Such resources is extremely valuable to us all. It is for this reason these two institution continues to grow in popularity amongst humans. We all should be acknowledgeable of both. Therefore it is important not one should never limit themselves from getting too egocentric or bias.
Posted by epiphany at 4:29 PM
Edward Wilson, The Creation: Evangelical and Science
As an environmentalist myself, I'd always say, "one small difference or one big difference, no matter what, there is a difference. If all do small parts then together it makes a huge difference." There are small things we can do to preserve mother earth and can even save you $money$ also. Like switching a regular incandescent light bulb with a compact fluorescent light bulb (CPL) or any energy saving bulbs. CPL and other energy saving bulbs costs less than the regular light bulbs, lasts up to 10 times, and each lifespan of the bulbs depending on hours of use can save you up to $91.00 on electricity. It also use 60-75% less energy than a regular bulb. This simple switch will save about 300 pounds of carbon dioxide a year. Win/ win situation, isn't that great! For more small things you can do go to: http://globalwarming-facts.info/50-tips.html
I am glad that global warming has finally been taken upon more serious now a these days, because I remembered one year ago, the issues of global warming was placed to be the 5th place of "Most Important" and of course the 1st place was some celebrity going through some psychological breakdown or whatever. However there are still many people who are not aware about global warming. The people whose not aware like most of my friends and family members. When I approach them about being environmental friendly for global warming awareness, they all response similarly; "I'm not rich so I don't think my voice will be heard or matter" or "No thanks, I don't got the time to protest." They all think they need to sacrifice big in order to make this type of change which I think why not because they are part of the environment, but I tell them- "No, that's not true. We all can let our voices be heard and doesn't matter small or big differences, we all can make a difference." Each citizen in the U.S. has the rights to let our voices be heard, one of the ways is by petitioning. By gathering enough signatures to the White House can start the petitioning process. Here are some of the websites I had been participating in:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2167/t/5243/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=876
www.coopamerica.org/takeaction/fordandgm
It is true of what Edward Wilson listed in the lecture; the loss of animal and habitants, and where half of the population's species can be gone or be brought to an extinction. This all will happen if we do not take actions now to fight global warming. Some of his ideas found here under 'Ecology' : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Osborne_Wilson explains the big picture of how the loss of animals and habitants can affect our ecosystem and the food chain.
Posted by epiphany at 6:10 PM
Cellular Atomata: Stephen Wolfran
n the lecture of Stephen Wolfran he spent ten years to complete his
work on mathematical computations. This device is such a great
brilliant program for sciences studies and the ones majoring in it. I
am pretty bad in math, but at least now it makes me realize I should
take my math classes more serious. I mean, it's awesome that he was
able to calculate the possible structure with math!
But of course i think i bad thing about this is that you must be
fluent in mathematical formulas in order to know the types of formulas
to create the right products. Hmm... does this mean if we are able
know how something resembles a type of object, we can create replicate
the exact product. This technology thing is cool, but kinda scary.
Posted by epiphany at 11:55 PM
Nicolas of Cusa
Nicolas of Cusa, "Even the very profound Aristotle, in his first
philosophy, asserts in all things most obvious by nature such
difficulty occurs for us as for a night owl which is trying to look at
the sun." I think it means that nature is always pure, undeceiving,
and in is predictable. It is unlike human where we are difficult to
read, can be unauthentic, and even be deceiving. The night owl is a
nocturnal creature and will have difficulties seeing sunlight since it
is not part of their animalistic features.
I like this one the best of all from him, "If we can fully attain unto
this knowledge of our ignorance, we will attain unto learned
ignorance." It is true about oneself whose too conceit and carries
such a high ego. I consider the more egotistic a person is whose
always out there always act like a know it all or walks with their
nose up the air are the more ignorant of all. I call this of my own,
"fake confidence." This type of what I call fake confidence is a
hindrance to perceive further knowledge and mostly is arrogant. When
one is humble and not in denial of unknown, they will just only gain
more.
Posted by epiphany at 11:56 PM
No Wonder You Ain't Got Any Genuine Friends (Wk #5)
In the lecture of Steven Pinker, he mentions why people have interactions with others. The relations among one with another such as; that if we keep a calculator and constantly recording down to the very last digits of who owes how much and the other gave how much... Yes, it sounds annoying, selfish, and even could be untrustworthy right? Now, let me ask, how many of you actually have genuine friends? Do you think of yourself as genuine person? What are your definitions of a genuine friend? Do you guys match up to this definition of your own? Do you think they are such good hearted people out there that has a great heart and you can be friends with? In Pinker's lecture, the interviewer seems to be skeptical that good people; where you can just have your guards down- actually exist anymore.
Well I want to say, they do exist, genuine people do exist only if you do exist as a genuine person yourself. I have this friend asked me so often, "Why are you friends with Janet anyways, she's so dumb and slow?" Then another friend of mine asked of me the same thing about my good friend Janet of this similar question. But first of all let me say, my good friend Janet is not dumb, but maybe slow, but she knows who are the fakes and the phonies. Janet knew she's slow and I would always make fun of her, but she always is willing to learn and read self improvement books.
So my response back to all those other friends of mine that raises this question was, "I accept her, because Janet has a good heart. It's as simple as that. I know people usually pick the ones to be friends with based on your expectations or what kinds of goodies one can offer to the other." So I asked them back, "Would you like someone to consider you as their friend because you can offer your goodies to them?" They said, "No." I replied," Exactly, because after all, we just want to be accepted right?" I could see the look of their faces because they all looked like they were going to cry because I made them realize they've been so judgmental all along.
I feel so bad for these people who are so judgmental when it comes to picking and choosing a person as a friend based on what one can offer and benefit from them in the future. You know why? I look at their life. It only made sense to me of why their own friends slowly, one by one betrays them at the end. At the end I'm the one who they cry to when they really want to express their vulnerabilities. Maybe if we all would recognize ones good heartiness only than what the other person can offer to the table. Then, you will have; someone who you can count on if your car breaks down at 3am , someone to cry to about your miseries, someone to confess to when you felt guilty about something you've down and still won't judge you, will accept you for all your contradictions and really and accept you for who you are not. Remember, any relationship is not a one way street, it goes two ways.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Impermanently Permanent by Maynard G. Krebs (Wk#1)
In Java Philosophy; "Who Are You" in http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/eitheror.htm, "Impermanently Permanent" quoted by Maynard G. Krebs describes the best of who I am. I am always learning and being inspired by all my surroundings. I feel that the more I've learned, the more it has made become as a whole. But in order to learn new things, and to put our new knowledge into great use, we need to update ourselves constantly to new ideas. To move forward from our old grounds to new grounds. This is be impermanent.
It is important to make yourself be conscious enough about what you are learning in order to remind yourself; of your own self values and importance. If we are able to recognize our own importance, we only remain to be inspired and not be lost within the materials. But instead, we evolve even more and build ourselves to be more updated to the new materials and at the same time keeping our old values. This is being not the same permanently.
Does Stupid People Really Exist? Agree or Disagree With Me? (Nicholas of Cusa Wk. 1)
I’m not sure if you there are anyone out there who agrees with me on this, but regardless if you agree or disagree, I’m open to others opinions. I personally do not believe that there is really anyone whose is actually stupid in this world. I believe all people; each and every individual person is capable of acquiring new knowledge. Furthermore, I believe that every individual is capable of making choices for themselves. For these reasons being, it is reasonable to suggest that every person has its very own abilities to make decisions for one and think for itself. In the film of Nicholas of Cusa which I had provided the link in this blog, it stated, “Therefore, if the foregoing points are true, then since the desire in us is not in vain, assuredly we desire to know what we do not know.” In order words; people chooses to be naïve and live in a their la-la land, people chooses to lie to themselves, blindfolding themselves and pretending of not knowing any better of their own actions in order to be forgiven easier by other people, they will chose to look lazy and unproductive because they do not favor the idea of being mentally or physically challenged. Therefore, I conclude that there is no such human being that is stupid.
These individuals who appears to be; lazy, mentally or physically challenged, naïve, ignorant (egotistical is a whole new subject), simple minded, or with low self esteems are the people who deceived others as being “that stupid person.” In actuality, these “supposedly stupid individuals” are conscious of their own deceptions and are aware of their own pathetic behaviors. In the end, I can only suggest by quoting after myself, “Whatever floats their boat.” In other words, as long as each individual person seems to be happy and has no complaints, then it is a win win situation.
References: Professor David Lane, Neural Surfer Homepage: <http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/numinousphilosophy.htm>
Regards to Edward O. Wilson, Consilience ((Wk4)
In the regards to Edward O. Wilson, Consiliences lecture. <http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/neuraltv6.htm> For more than thirty years, Wilson was being discriminated, being chastised, and being despised on by almost everyone the world. Yet, he stood independently for his beliefs and his thinking. It's shameful that it taken this long for us, the human beings, to finally let go of the thought of where "supposedly," we are the most superior form than all other living species. Even until now, there are still others who refuses to believe that humans are animals, and we share more similarities with animals, than differing from them.
To be honest, I personally think animals are better than the human beings in so many ways. For example, in the movie of The March of the Penguins; where a mother penguin realizes her newborn died of a premature death. Impulsively, this mother tries to steal another females' newborn. This mother was aggressive and was determine to find a replacement for that newborn of hers. They fought continuously, and within the area other females are guarding their newborns also. However, these other groups of females couldn't stand such much longer of this unreasonable behavior of the mother penguin,. A group of females penguins steps in and gained up this psychotic mother penguin and made sure she didn't return. You see, these helpful female penguins, despite the fact that they are protecting their own newborns from this psychotic mother. In addition, the group recognizes unreasonable behaviors that should not be tolerated. This animal proves itself to be unselfish and ability to differentiate what's reasonable and what's unreasonable.
In another instance in the film called, The Planet Earth; In China, a mother panda gave birth during the cold snowy winter, and to make matters worse, they were lacked in food. However, the mother made sure her newborn is well feed and while she hasn't eat for 12 days. She also never leaves the newborn out of her sight, especially the first month since it is still blind. This animal sacrifices its own for the sake of its own child's well being. In compare to human beings, it's rare to hear such sacrifice, instead I hear parents abandoning their own child or even leave it in a dumpster. I don't think animals has ever done such thing unless if the parents got killed while searching for food to feed its youngs. If I were ever given, in a situation whether to save a human being or an animal, I will save the animal, because an animal can't speak for itself and is the more helpless being than the human being.
Question of the Strange and Queerness That I Cannot Understand (Wk)
In The Strangeness of Science by Richard Dawkins, is found:
When the narrator reads aloud about the recall an experience of ones childhood. Ones able to see, smell, heard, or feel; as if ones were once really there. "The bombshell," then gets dropped into our ears, exclaims "you weren't there, not a single atom that is in your body today was there when that even took place; matter flows from place to place and momentarily comes together to be you; whatever you are there for you were not the stuff of which you were made." This concept is "important" for us understand says the reader.
-Question: How does the matter of energy takes turns or be exactly us? And how is it that feel that familiarity? Does this relate to time transporting, if there is really such thing as time transporting? Does this mean it is possible for us to be at two or more places at once and can possibly take different forms all at the same time?
In the lecture it also mentions that the middle world; us, that resides in this world has a solid brain so we can define solids and not walk through walls. Yet, next line, he mentions, "insects are reverse."
-Questions: Does it mean insects does not have a solid brain? Come on. It can't be implying that insects can pass through solids; if I am missing out, someone can tell me that they actually witness them passing through rocks and the walls?
Truth is, "Whatever Floats Ones Boat" (Wk 4)
Based on a theory of my own, I have made up a theme for the ones that lives in denials of their own, "Whatever floats your boat" (ones boat). Everyone of us are constantly living different realities of truths, because each of us needs different truths, in order to keep us living another day. That is why I totally agree with the creator in film called, Truth is That Truth Lies. He mentions, "Man would have to invent God even if he didn't exist, we cannot live without purpose even if that purpose is that adaptive fiction...etc." Pathetic truths exists a pathetic being and these are the ones that has to have some self denying truths they created for themselves to keep its boat floating. I found a very few; truthful and self loving of their very own existence, these are the ones who doesn't need a boat. There are no reasons in the need of a boat first of all; because the ones who lives in constant reality are well grounded.
The boat floaterers are a dime a dozen: nothing interesting or special to them at all but they think and act like they are. They make themselves believe so , therefore they act that act. Watch them closely. No matter how much a person makes themselves to believe in, the body still will not correlate. Therefore, the reactions, movements will show emptiness and insecurities. But they will free themselves no matter from thinking they are full of nothing now believes they are in self denials. In order to prevent oneself of recognizing whatever flaws they posses, it remain to be blindfold. As time passes by, then it is no longer familiar to know such shape of matter to be. However this blindfold only covers, it doesn't do any fulfillments. So observe their behaviors. It is definite from my own experience, you just have to a good observer- that's all it takes. Yet, I'm still bored. Seeing the replays of same story; women that gets a boob job or a nose job. Because their ideal of truth of actual beauty is to look common to another person. Taking $30,000, in order to spite a spark of the insecurities and low self-esteems; sure because it floats their boat. Because there are so many these floaterers, I am stuck observing these the borest dreamers, dead-end floaterers, the fairy tale wannabes Cinderella, and the worse are the ones that invests all of themselves for a lover (little as these investors know, they will only get dumped sooner or later).
The ones I find most intriguing and enriching are the ones who can speaks and lives in the constantly reality. Those similar to my interests; speaks the same types of human language. Lives in the constant reality, is able to criticize the actual truth, and will laugh at the actual truths. Since there are so few of us; motivated beings as we are, and yet constantly climbing the high of the highest; it forces us to take parts. I admit, we are autistic to some level of degrees. Who can blame us because we are actively bored.
Comment Regarding the Lecture of Owen Gingerich on Astronomy, God, and Jesus (Wk3)
In my art history class, I have learned that most religious paintings and portraits were were purchased from the church from starving artists. These artists uses the bible as a reference and guide themselves of Gods' imagery. The existence of competitiveness amongst these artists, forces them to heighten their creativeness to and produced amplified imageries of Gods' omnipotence. Therefore, it is important for an individual to know all possible background information to whom they choose to worship.
Same for Owen Gingerich, as a religious believer, in his lecture http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/neuraltelevisiontest4.htm;called Astronomy, God, and Jesus, he suggests the religious believers to make sensible choices when selecting an imagery of God for ones to worship. In other words, he felt that many believers in God, has a fixed imagery of God-like figure like in The Sixteenth Chapel; with an old man reaching and creating Adam. In a way, it sounds a bit deceiving, but I am not in a place to offer much in this subject because I wouldn't want to offend anyone.
Regards to Edward O Wilson, “The Creation” (Wk 3)
Let me ask you. What is more important than money? Important than kinship? How about that Mercedes car you’ve always dreamed of? Lastly, can you think of anything else that can be more important than of that new home you and your spouse have just purchased, and can’t wait to start a family in? So, let’s compare and evaluate by breaking it down. In order for a person to be able to purchase any sorts of material goods, one must need to pay with cash. To get cash, a person has to either obtain it through labor or from their kins. In order for you and your kins to survive and to perform labor, we need food and resources. In order for resources to be available in an environment, it first has to exist in this universe. This is reasonable to suggest that the environment is what makes this universe a whole. To protect the environment is like protecting existence in this universe.
Regardless of how much we hate our neighbors or despise another ones beliefs, you don’t even have to agree with anybody. But for the sake of your own beings. I mean after all, you do want to live in that fairy tale story of yours right; drive the car of your dreams, living most comfortably, and enjoying your existence, therefore, we must protect the environment first in order to guarantee that there is a place for us in the future. Where similar to Edward O. Wilson in his lecture:
Wk 7 Post: If Only You’d Knew About the Faces in US
I had always loved the taste of the green leaves and veggies and definitely prefers them over meats. Recently, I have been avoiding to eat meat overall, and finds it kind of disgusted. I don’t know what it is, maybe because my picky taste buds detected the quality of meat has reach mediocre to me- it could be true. Lucky for me for now to stick with the greens and veggies. However, I know that it won’t be much further down that for the US to containment the agricultural crops. After all, if they really did cared there shouldn’t be mad cow disease in the first place. They would stop injecting all the cows with the hormones and further find more details about this viruse. In fact, the US can care less of its overall quality being produced- the real money is quantity. Actually, to the US, producing meat faces to faces that eats meats, there is no difference. We are the faces of meat ourselves so let’s be serious, why would you think they care?
The article that I was reading shows gave me more reasons to not eat meat. However, it seems to me that when I speak to other outside from science, they are clueless about any types of production for human heath and for animals. They think all is made for them is all safe and eat meats for granted. Who would actually log onto site whose usually outside of science that’s conscious for all this. But only if they knew… especially the current issues about our meats produce.
From an online websites called: Organic Consumers Association; article written by Martha Rosenberg: Says It's None of the Public's Business Who Ate Recalled Meat on March 8, 2008
On March 8, 2008; Rosenberg wrote, “This week a 120 page list of over 400 restaurants and food services that bought Hallmark/Westland meat including Costco, Jack in the Box and Taco Bell appears on the California Department of Public Health web site. Officials say the list is growing.” Well I guess if it is too late now.
The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins (Wk 4)
http://www.rubinghscience.org/memetics/dawkinsmemes.html
I think Dawkins has brought up a really good idea about the characteristics about the "meme." I mean, we all know that there people who are a slave the fashion, but we can't let this idea be undersold. Just because we are not splurging on a Gucci purse or Louis Vuitton because it is seen almost everywhere in LA, doesn't make anyone a lesser victim of a meme replicator when you see a baby, couples or watching a couple getting married. All this is also it! I seriously think there's something wrong when I almost all my friends and even my own family members, especially women are looking forward to only replicate! It's annoying to me, because I think it's too over-rated.
Maybe it is just me, but the women’s that I know around me replicates for the wrongs reasons! Others may say I may be critical, but for a fact I know they are wrong; because I can tell that these women’s are not happy with themselves, so they think having a kid will make their situations better. None of these women wants to fix their depressive states of being, but they think having a kid of their own will solve that problem. To me, it is like an empty being producing another empty being. Just like Dawkins describes, it's the meme pool...
Of Course Fundamentalism is a Mental Disease (Wk 4)
I too, agrees with the narrator that fundamentalism, is indeed, a mental disease. Based on one of the film called, Fundamentalism is a Mental Disease; the narrator states, “Fundamentalism is a mental disease; to which I would add, creationism is taught only by those who cannot think.” These creationists are religious believers of the church and are infallible of their biblical doctrines, even when their context contains erroneous errors. There were indefeasible evidences proving literal context of the bible does contain falsifying fundamentals, and adjustments should be made or to create a new. However, these fundamentalists ignores and refuses making corrections and taught wrongful moralities and fake creations in their literature. This is reasonable to assume; that the thinking and the behaviors of fundamentalism is to be considered as a mental disease.
It occurs to me, that the fundamentalists could not have possibly done this intentionally. It would be considered as if they created lies and guilty for deceiving all the innocents and the faithful child of Gods. They also committed sinful moralities by plagiarizing Gods’ work. After all, they are reputable of their literature in moralities and therefore left me with no other choice than the worst case that can possibly exist. It may seem liable this chastisement of fundamentalists to exist; failing to present God’s work the believers of His, unless they are in a challenged state in mental illnesses. A mental disease sounds reasonable to explain this behavior the best. The functionality of the fundamentalists seems almost as if a virus or a brain-suckling slug has found themselves a common ground to reservoir itself in the frontal lobes of theirs. Pathogens infests itself in ones brain could possibly prevent anyone from progressing their thoughts and even retardation. In fact, this actually help explain why they wrote inaccurate literals in their bible from the very beginning. These fundamentalisms didn’t intentionally deliver Gods’ will in such an erroneous form. Therefore, its mental retardation of caused of that brain-slug.
Another factor that may be the possible interference with fundamentalism members of these men from church leads me to another type of mental illnesses. It may be possible to draw an assumption; the fundamentalist’s complex system in the level of complexity must not have extent to their fullest developments. This limits ones degrees in the level of complexity and therefore can really discourage how much ones able to perform in reasoning, critical thinking, or multi-tasking. In this case, it remains a challenging and unachievable tasks of fundamentalists to make able of carrying out the performances of the transferring written materials from the old and blend with some new literal materials. The existence of a bacteria or virus can be the problem or either it can be blamed due to the undergrowth of permanents of never maturing any further than the premature development in their complex system.
References: http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/mentaldisease.htm
Sam Harris and the End of Faith Is Critical for Being Right (Wk 7)
While doing my postings, I took some quick glances of other students in their regards to Sam Harris’s lecture called, Sam Harris and the End of Faith. Can be found: <http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/neuraltv10.htm> Some found Harris to be very criticizing. Not me, he’s so blunt that he’s awesome. I think he’s on the dot. There’s too much shadiness and dark secrets of the religions that most people do not know of because many people gets fooled by their descriptions of holiness; sunlight has its darkness too. We all know that idiocracy and ignorance- kills and will forget. To other responses regards to his apology at the introduction; he apologizes to the secularists. He did so just to exemplify it. There is a possibility of non-traditional secularists. Due to the misuse of philosophical terms, the traditional representation of the secularism has a different philosophy claim to it, or it can play new roles in the society for ones motives. Sometimes a person can sound so critically harsh and yet so right. That is what it sounds like when a blunt person presents their truths to another. It may sound uneasy at first; there are no shiny wrappings or sugar-coatings, that can be any better ever presented, than to taking it straight raw and unwrapped, just pure form.
I think he’s awesome maybe because it seems to affect me more since I am a science major. I have finally arrive myself in a clear picture of the controversies on science and the religious. It is true when he mentions about creationism being taught in schools. I remembered my bio professor brought up this issue. He told our class that creationism wants to start a teaching of their own beliefs in the science department. The whole class thought it was the most unreasonable and foolish idea ever and some laughed. The class came to an agreement with our professor, that it doesn’t qualify to fit itself to be in the science department, and if anything, they can fill the empty slot in th general education section. Harris made me realized how possibly easy it was that we can let this so called innocuous taboo earned it’s free ride to the gate of public education (more views siding with him in political issues but it is saved for the final.) So was Edward O. Wilson when he mentions that both of the institutions- does not go hand in hand. My bio class shouldn’t even acknowledge or welcome this teaching at all and including myself at that time. Harris was right about the fundamental taboo of our country. The taboo lets the religious entering from the back doors to take political opinions with the sciences. We can’t shed a bit of pity or sympathy to open the front doors to this flooded-gate to drown the sciences. However, I still won’t be bias or narrow-minded, but I must keep my awareness from them especially in the political public alliances. The struggles against the religious stance will be part of my future. I am confident to say that I have realized made a mistake when I thought science and the religious can go hand in hand- they don’t.
References:
Author and Scholar, Sam Harris: http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/neuraltv10.htm
Flame On: The Real Reasons Why Not Homosexuals (Wk 7)
I remembered my first year here at Mt. SAC; one of the first few classes
was human sexuality. The imageries as I can recall, were the first time
that I had ever seen two of the same-sex beings- so happy. Of course,
all good things must come to an end. After all, who is actually left to
carry out their genes to the next generation. However, it seems like
these homosexuals weren't concern at all. They didn't care
about raising the counts in population. Their civilizations doesn't
even have a book that exists homosexuality is despised as sinful. I
think it's extremely stupid to even be brought into written
contexts. This stupid ignorant texts written to have the same people to
follow it are even more ridiculous. Can they make it any more obvious
and making it able to spot for an intelligent being that they are
creating you for their motives. It is literally speaking out; despised
the gays and lesbians because it is immoral... because they don't
reproduce or create life and so on .
Actually I think homosexuals are discriminated, hated, and unaccepted by
the church and some people in our country for a very particular reason.
Of course, it were to never be written for an ignorant to follow by,
because stupid follows as they were told. Homosexuals are unacceptable
by our country, and others due to the fact that they are lesser
vulnerable than those that is married and or divorce that has a full
nest to take care of. Here is some logical explanations to why
homosexuals are lesser vulnerable; they are the happiest because they
are not obligated to split their paychecks with anybody; there's no
stresses for both ends of the couple since both knows there are no
hungry kids that are at home waiting for them to be fed; the lifetime
commitment of raising a child is freed from them. We'd always hear ones
saying, "It is a tough job to be a parent." Gee and I really wonder
why. All these accessories; a spouse, having kids, grandkids, etc...
what the norms considers that we must need in life, is just to distract
ones being, so they can stay on levels of being smarter than all of us.
Think about it, nobody wants to be dumber than another...
Regards to Ramana Maharsi (Wk 8)
I actually cried while I was watching this film. It was because the words he mentioned coincided with what I was discussing with my mother the other day, and this was before I watched the film. What happened was, my mother was checking on me about my life and school. She made some recommendations for me, but I refused them, and this is very normal, because I've always made my own choices. So I told her; "mother, you don't have to worry about my being. I'm very happy because I found what I love to do, and it's knowledge. I'm actually enjoying these schoolwork’s because this is what I enjoyed all along. You have to know mother, there are so many people who has never found out for their own life-time of beings on what they love to do. People go to work everyday and are miserable because they can't find what makes them happy. But for me mom, instead of you worrying for me, you should be happy for me, because I found what makes me happy. Who knows if I would survive the next day or not. So why wouldn't I live my moments while I'm still alive, doing what makes me happy. That's not wrong mom."
Many people are dependent on another's being for their own happiness. I consider myself fortunate of finding this gift. As long as I'm learning something, that's all it matters.
A Glorious Piece of Meat (Wk 5)
So I choose the first answer. It makes sense, how come religious believers just has to be so stubborn about it. They are really making me irritated. Because it seems like, they just have to keep using that G word and not having to use any of their brains at all to claim anything. I understand the fact that we all are individuals of our own perceptions and sensory. But still their labeling and stamping their god's name on anything there is and it's getting unreasonably out of hand. It is out of hand because they are insulting my intelligence of being. The materials and the biblical texts and all the church thing is like a laugh in the face and second guessing my intelligence, just like our president. He is literally laughing at all of us in the face because he gets to call the shots while we are under him.
For us students, even if we were mention any ideas that's not our own, we will have to state a source from plagiarism. Come on, us scholars here are pulling ends making by through school. It's even worse for scientists. Imagine the science research team discovered scientific evidence for example, life on mars. These scientists got years of education, schooling, and disciplines in order to come up with 300 pages of hard evidence, and here comes stupid, whose a creationist, from the religious beliefs, old tricks as usual, plagiarized this new discovery of theirs and filled in the empty signature below the line - and calls this their god's creation. I would think even mindless people like them can't think, but at least sense this shamefulness. But this is just so unfair. Their beliefs are just not FACTS. If I knew this, I would have switched my major and just hold one book for the rest of my life and be balling, and being worshiped....I'm just kidding.
__________________________________________________________
11. Why does Steven Pinker believe that evolution is important in
understanding human behavior? Be specific in your answer.
Steven Pinker <http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/neuraltelevisiontest.htm>believes evolution is important in understanding the human behavior because the product of natural selection requires a more into depth analysis; of the emotional behaviors and thoughts. Pinker has found out about that the traditional cognitive psychologies that were used to explain the human’s behavior was too vague and now, it requires a further dive into finding out the actual motives of the human nature.
He believes there is could be possible signs that can be further narrow down, if he were to study the universal motives of the human nature. It was assumed from Pinker that genes do get passed on further down to generations. However due to the natural selection process, in order to reveal the motives of the genes, it needs to look the innate of the human being. This further step down will require a further depth of observing the emotional behaviors, and thoughts of the human nature.
Reference: Professor Steven Pinker, M.I.T. and Harvard University: http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/neuraltelevisiontest.htm
12. In addition, why is the theory of evolution helpful in doing
philosophy?
It is reasonable to assume that we all human beings are here for two important reasons; to survive, and to replicate our genes to the next generation. However, what we still do not know is, what the actual motives to survive and what are the actual purposes to replicate our genes to the next generation. It is possible to assume that this is the reasons to explain, why the theory of the evolution is so important for philosophy.
The theory of evolution is helpful in doing philosophy because; it provides an innate knowledge of all beings; if offers an explanation of reciprocal altruism; further knowledge to why there are extinctions among other species; and provides further details on the motives of the genes. If we were to compare the information from the past, where equal reciprocal behaviors did exists, however, in this present time being, we have became so different. So far the theory of evolution has helped explain natural selection. This tells us why we are here, surviving here on earth. However, it still hasn’t necessarily tell us how so we are different, or similar from one another in the areas on; perceptions, beliefs, replication (genes), and how little it takes to influence a change to all ones complex system.
13. Explain why Francis Crick does NOT believe in a soul.
14. What are some of the major issues behind a neuro-ethical
argument for vegetarianism? What are its strengths? What are its
weaknesses?
15. How do John Searle's views differ from Ken Wilber's? Who do you
find more persuasive and why?
16. What is the theme behind the little movie, a GLORIOUS PIECE OF
MEAT? How would a religious person argue against it?
The movie has a leak to be left open for a religious person possibly argues against when mentioned, “If awareness, which is the latter, why is it that when someone clubs you over the head with the bat, your awareness of the world ceases?” They could argue on that they saw their god(s) while they laid unconsciously being knocked out. In reality, it is crucial to testify this to be evident. For example, one may suggest using a neuron transmittance machines to record every single transmittance message. However, this can still provide inaccurate results due to the fact that each person who suffers trauma onto their head varies from cases to cases. A blow to the left side of the head can produce a very different responsive result, compare to someone that takes a blow on the top part of their head. Each case carries too much complexity of results to verify accuracy.
For this reason being, this lets the religious person seem viable on their beliefs. From this, it gives others the faith it needs that are so afraid of death, and yet only a reason to have faith about life after death.
17. Why is Sam Harris so critical of religion? Give his strongest
arguments and where do you think his argument fails? Or, if it
doesn't fail, where does it succeed?
Sam Harris is critical against religion because he does not believe that this country can survive as a whole if we are all separated by moral identities. This is reasonable and I agree. It is reasonable to agree that religion is based on faith and belief system, and is important to distinguish this from factual evidences. It is true, that religion is a sacred practicing belief for ones being. However, this is not true. Our country has let the religious believers achieve its status in political power. Their standard moral system has manifested itself in the school system, in the science research fields, and in political issues.
Harris is supportive against the religious believers and stated that our country yet been generous on religion where it has eradicated its moral beliefs into the political society. To further his argument on how religion has manifested itself in the school system; he stated that sixty two percent wants to teach religious creation in public school system. The issue arise here is that school is there are such school existing, and it is the catholic school and other private institution, and this should not be offered into the public society. In addition, he mentions also about the opposition that exists between stem cell scientific research and between the religious beliefs. From here, he argues that these religious believers that our country was so generous of, has yet let it put a stop onto a scientific research that can better the lives of others being.
18. Explain the essence of Nietzsche's genealogy of morals. You can
outline your answer here.
The genealogy of morals:
1. Everything considered noble, aristocratic, high-minded or capable of attaining higher spirituality was "GOOD", therefore anything common or vulgar was considered bad.
2. In some other cultures, anything considered useful was good, and not useful bad.
3. Jews reversed everything. Dared to say that the poverish the suffering was good, and everything noble and aristocratic was considered bad or evil. However it took over 2000 years for the world to realize this. Over half of the world population sees things this way.
4. The human being is an animal that is entitle to make promises. From these promises, the idea of responsibility is born. It is one's obligations to do something that was promised. When one cannot do the promised thing the idea of guilt is formed.
5. Depending on the significance of the promise, one maybe feel so much guilt as to develop a bad conscience. Meaning one has so much guilt that that one is willing to punish oneself in order to atone for not keeping one's promise.
6. Ascetic ideals, a different and maybe higher form of morality. Three main ideals are chastity, humility and poverty. This goes back to what the Jews thought in the first essay. One shall abstain from certain pleasures in life. One is always humble and is suffering.
7. However, Nietche says, that this is never the case. In all aspects of life ascetic ideals don't mean anything. There is always some one that is envious. One is always protecting something. Even the ascetic priest who prizes himself on these ideals will take joy in a flourishing community of people with ascetic ideals. This in turn is not ascetic.
19. Why does Gandhi believe in ahimsa?
Ganhi believes in ahimsa; where once ones grasps the foundations on principles of life, then it can suddenly become meaningful. The principles of life, he calls it-nonviolence. Nonviolence is the beginning of life. Every being is not evil by nature. However, if a person is raised by violence, then that person will never discover nonviolence. Discovering nonviolence is solving solutions, interpret symbolic messages, knowing that not all contradictions are bad, and being higher than violence. For example, a person is fearful of being attacked by an enemy so they carry a gun with them.
This is simple, and is a quick fix for this situation. However, this is a fake confidence, because it does not provide a permanent replacement. So this person is therefore dependent on this usage and never finds a solution to defend him or herself in case one day they forgot this attack.
20. What is Nietzche's notion of the myth of eternal recurrence? Be
sure to use the film as your guide.
The myth of eternal recurrence talks about a devil inside ones being and scaring them that they will live their life on earth again and again, in the eternal sufferance. The devil speaks inside that they are just a speck of dust here on earth and that they will reincarnate again and again to relive each and every single feeling and events as if they did before their lifetime. But this doesn’t stop. It does on again and again and multiple that to eternity, they are to be reborn again on earth.
However, inside of every being, there is a choice to decide where you place God. If it is in each person, then you will find God inside of yourself and therefore choose to life your own life and ignore this evil voice inside. After all, these delusions are what we draw upon and invented from ourselves or got scared from outside’s influences. To dispose this recurrence of eternity, then it is up to the individual to decide for ones own how to make this inevitable for themselves.
21. What is the ironic theme in the movie Flame On? Hint: what is
the movie REALLY trying to say?
The ironic theme in the movie is how did we praise our ancient Greek philosophers so high on that pedestal and yet the religious that were invented from that country has placed against ones morality. The quality of the mankind back then created great intellects, however, now since our quality of each being remains confuse, so who can tell who’s intellects are great after all.
22. Why does Daniel Dennett favor calling himself a "bright"?
Daniel Dennett uses the term “Bright” to describe the notion that is used to describe people how rejects supernatural explanations; usually refers themselves to agnostics and or atheists believers. He explains that a people can’t prove the existence of a God, but yet can’t prove a negative either, so therefore he calls himself a “teapot agnostic.”
23. Outline Bertrand Russell's a FREE MAN'S WORSHIP.
24. What is the overall theme of the movie INNER VISIONS AND RUNNING
TRAINS?
The running trains can tell the person that is unconscious for either they are dreaming, daydreaming, blow to the head and unconscious; the trains represents wherever their mind really wants to go. It is a mystery for each person, and the destination is unknown. But for that ones being, can either accept the ride, be unknown of the ride and just let it pass by, direct the running train, or make up a destination and pretend they caught that train.
The running train symbolizes each person’s existences and self being. It depends on each persons why how they symbol the train and where it is heading to, that’s all.
25. What does Nicholas of Cusa mean by "learned ignorance"? What are
its implications for your own life?
26. What does Gerald Edelman mean by Neural Darwinism and Second
Nature?
27. Why turn vegetarian?---according to the film you saw. What
arguments are there against vegetarianism? You may need to do a
google search here.
28. What was the turning point in Ramana Maharshi's life?
His first premonition was when Ramana Maharshi bumped into a stranger that was heading to a sacred destination he had heard about. It was before his 16th birthday on November, 1895. His second premonition was when his uncle brought home, Periya Puranma after reading it, he was amazed and inspired.
However, he more than ever, couple of months later, he woke up from his sleep on morning and was in deep fear. He dreamt that he died in his dream and all of a sudden he was afraid to die. Something made him so fearful and true to the fact that he is going to die. This was all it took.
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?
I don’t think so. The double shames were when others misused and mistook his guidance about his usage in nonviolence. His fellows left to him, preventing nonviolence, since there were policeman fondling with their ladies. The nonviolence was incorrectly used. Nonviolence is never a coward. Nonviolence is misused in this situation.
Nonviolence is for the brave and never coward. It is self sacrifice except honor.
30. List Four distinct passages from Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and explain what you think they mean.
1 The world is everything that is the case. *
-The world is what everything is for ones being.
1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
-This world for ones being is what is known as facts, not anything else, but only facts.
1.11 The world is determined by the facts, and by these being all the facts.
-In order for ones to considered as facts, these facts, is the world considers as facts
1.12 For the totality of facts determines both what is the case, and also all that is not the case.
-There are types of facts, depending what is needed to state its claim. There are facts that states what it does not exist, and facts to state what really exist.
1.13 The facts in logical space are the world.
-The logical facts can be seen with the eye, and with the eye, the eye should see the facts that exists in their world.
31. What was your favorite expert film lecture this term?
My favorite lecturer is Edward O. Wilson. I think it could be because he seems pretty well rounded in his lecture. His lectures are not hard to grasp and since he is a biologist (and also in many other study areas) he seems to make more sense. For instance, when he mentions reductional analysis; by building a simple system and adding more complexity, and observing the organisms from the lower levels of their organization which can explain about the higher level in a complex system. I also like the title of his book, The Creation. He is using the term to bring the creationists forward to help the earth of what their god’s supposedly created.
I also liked Sam Harris’s lecture a lot but I don’t know much about him yet. I just started reading his site today and I really the impressions of him. We need more people like him in our country, because this is what true democracy is. I will continue to look further more about him and see if there are others that are similar to him.
I also like Daniel Dennett’s lecture since because he is able to differentiate, and break things apart in order to simplify his ideas and explanations. I actually laughed real hard in this lecture because both, the interviewer and Daniel is so critical amongst each other. This shows that he is definite with what he is talking about. Someone like him that can examine communications by being so diligent in terms of defining all small parts in describing it in details shows good ethnics in logics, observance, and reasoning.
32. What was your favorite movie this term?
I thought the eternal recurrence from Nietzsche is funny. I laughed at this one also. I think if a religious person who saw this will think deviant of this film. But that is the point. Anything the religious refuses to believe or hear, they blame it as evil. They need to face reality and build a stronger mind set. Maybe I should say brains and neurons.
33. What was your favorite reading?
I keep Charles Darwin with me almost everywhere I go. Although I have some studies in biology and microbiology, but this book is better than anything I can relate to. The Natural Selection, is like my personal bible I keep next to be. Who knows, I could be driving one day or while walking from the parking lot and start noticing about that I could add onto to be my personal observations. I’m more of hands on person, and likes to teach myself along the way.
34. Most unusual thing you learned this term
I have learned that this philosophy class has taught me more than I had ever learned in most of any of my classes. It’s a good enhancement to become even better-rounded. In biology there was just one paragraph that mentions about Darwinism, and I never got a clear grasp on it unless this class. Also the quantum theory, in basic chemistry and general chemistry: I, it only mentions Heisenberg’s idea but never about the others ones. So I mistakenly read and almost bought onto the ideas about psychic phenomena. I also learned to keep factual evidences and to never confuse it with beliefs. At any second, all the true philosophers and sciences has ever worked so hard to give logical evidences can be vanished into the hands of a believer.
I also really want to say, this class has taught me more than I had ever learned about myself. My whole life I have never agreed with anybody around me. I rebel not only my family members, but almost the whole world. But I knew I am not farthest from wrong, it is because I am so close at being right and truthful. I have used logics to solve problems for others, but at the end, I have went against another about truth. But what is funny is, everyone gets addicted to my knowledge but they just can’t agree with me. I never knew why, and I have learned now, in this class, there isn’t anyone like us. Us: as in people; who spots ones motives and see the twitches of someone’s face when they are lying; can recall the events and time, when and what, and remember everything; or can point out all logical evidences there are and can reason so well. All this, only exists amongst the few of us. I actually cried because it made so much sense. Truth is depressing to learn, but is well appreciated by me.
