There are definitely cases where there can be a moral justification for breaking the law. I think that this is such a grey area though because often at the time when the act of civil disobedience is committed it can be hard to understand just how unjust or immoral the case is which is being protested or which is the vehicle for the civil disobedience. It's often easier to grasp the point in retrospect.
A great example of civil disobedience that was warranted would be the Rosa Parks case. Civil disobedience is warranted when it is a means of social progress, when the government has exceeded its authority, when there is a duty to combat immorality, when one must seek to preserve moral integrity and when there is no practical alternative. Racial segregation was the law and what the majority wanted and it was what Rosa Parks was seeking to shed light on and change. Her law-breaking act did shed light on the situation in the South and it served as a great inspiration for those who came after her who also sought to protest unjust, immoral laws. I think that in cases like this, it is absolutely warranted and while it may have looked completely crazy at the time, many people can agree that in retrospect she did a justified thing.
I found the reasons listed in the text for not committing civil disobedience compelling but also a bit flawed. While, in a free society, it is true that we are in a social contract with the government (ideally) and that there can be a multitude of bad results that accompany the good from acts of civil disobedience, a society which doesn't seek to address things that can be wrong or unjust will not evolve properly. There can be a lag when it comes to social issues keeping up with the current law and that can be addressed by protests or other acts. The notion that one can just move out if they don't like things made me openly laugh when I read it. It reminded me very much of the politicians claiming that the people who stuck around in New Orleans during the Katrina disaster were obviously stupid and 'asking for it'. It's a sort of romantic notion to believe that anyone can pick themselves up and move if they are in a bad or unjust situation. Economically speaking, many people are born into class structures that stack many things against them from birth (even in this free society). So, if they experience unfit, unjust laws there is no option to pick up and leave. Often, the best option is to make their voice heard and shed light on the bad situation they have encountered. This is not to say that I think that everyone at any given time should run around and openly break the law just to prove a point or expose huge injustices but that it can be warranted even in this society. The Rosa Parks case really is the great example, once again, of this fact.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Individual and the State
I believe that you must separate the economic sphere from the social sphere. There are many thinkers like Milton Friedman (in Capitalism and Freedom) who merge both issues together and this forces you to have all or nothing solutions. When you merge both spheres together, you must then say government is either good and can interfere in everything or government is evil and can interfere in nothing. This is counter-productive to progress and understanding. It doesn't allow for the (sometimes important) in-betweens and grey areas.
There are issues that overlap such as eminent domain (private property). Some people believe you have things, they are yours and no one can take that away (this would be a classical liberal idea). However, under modern social-democratic thinking, things can be taken if it is for the public good. For example, using an area for a bridge or subway system which helps with commerce but may take away someone's house in the short term. We do compensate people for this (or they should be!).
In most cases, there is significant separation. Do not kill people is not an economic issue, for example. This is a human rights issue.
If we assume we can elect competent people to iron out the kinks we can separate the spheres and deal with the cases where things are unclear or overlap because dealing with these things is inevitable and reality since these situations exist. When it comes to issues of individual rights in the social sphere (let's say anything in Bill of Rights, Universal Declaration of Human Rights) then the government should not impinge on the things dealt with in those documents. When it comes to the economic sphere, anything to deal directly with money and property can be decided collectively by the representative government to tax properly for the greater good of all. You cannot apply these laws in a way that is likely to cause harm. Harm can be defined as material harm here. In terms of taxes, when applied correctly they do not cause injury (proper taxing on the wealthiest for example) or harm. But again, judiciousness is needed. In this example, you would not want this tax on the whole of society where it would harm those in the lower income brackets. This is an illustration of sensible limits decided by society and society's elected representatives in government.
Blindly following either ideology in terms of Mills or Marx would potentially not be best for society as shown in the examples above.
A state which blindly follows a policy of non-government interference in all matters will be a state that collapses in on itself due to the inability to perform collective action. More precisely an example would be the requirement that people are protected from force. In today's world, this means you need a well funded military and to do this you need government interference in terms of taxation. Additionally, you need protection from force domestically which also requires government interference. Non-government interference is not realistic or even an ideal to strive towards to have a healthy state. That would be a non-state (anarcho-capitalism for example) and will not last. In a non-state anyone can then label themselves as the state due to their unwillingness to go by the ideals set out (which will always inevitably happen in any system, not everyone will be on-board with the system 100%).
There are issues that overlap such as eminent domain (private property). Some people believe you have things, they are yours and no one can take that away (this would be a classical liberal idea). However, under modern social-democratic thinking, things can be taken if it is for the public good. For example, using an area for a bridge or subway system which helps with commerce but may take away someone's house in the short term. We do compensate people for this (or they should be!).
In most cases, there is significant separation. Do not kill people is not an economic issue, for example. This is a human rights issue.
If we assume we can elect competent people to iron out the kinks we can separate the spheres and deal with the cases where things are unclear or overlap because dealing with these things is inevitable and reality since these situations exist. When it comes to issues of individual rights in the social sphere (let's say anything in Bill of Rights, Universal Declaration of Human Rights) then the government should not impinge on the things dealt with in those documents. When it comes to the economic sphere, anything to deal directly with money and property can be decided collectively by the representative government to tax properly for the greater good of all. You cannot apply these laws in a way that is likely to cause harm. Harm can be defined as material harm here. In terms of taxes, when applied correctly they do not cause injury (proper taxing on the wealthiest for example) or harm. But again, judiciousness is needed. In this example, you would not want this tax on the whole of society where it would harm those in the lower income brackets. This is an illustration of sensible limits decided by society and society's elected representatives in government.
Blindly following either ideology in terms of Mills or Marx would potentially not be best for society as shown in the examples above.
A state which blindly follows a policy of non-government interference in all matters will be a state that collapses in on itself due to the inability to perform collective action. More precisely an example would be the requirement that people are protected from force. In today's world, this means you need a well funded military and to do this you need government interference in terms of taxation. Additionally, you need protection from force domestically which also requires government interference. Non-government interference is not realistic or even an ideal to strive towards to have a healthy state. That would be a non-state (anarcho-capitalism for example) and will not last. In a non-state anyone can then label themselves as the state due to their unwillingness to go by the ideals set out (which will always inevitably happen in any system, not everyone will be on-board with the system 100%).
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Modern American Society and Buddhist Enlightenment
Is it possible to live according to the Buddhist teaching of enlightenment which requires one to detach oneself from selfish cravings and desires in the U.S.? It could be possible but it certainly would be a difficult proposition. I would even go so far as to say that the proposition is difficult for our time period first and foremost.
Buddhist teaching and specifically the teaching of the way to enlightenment involving detaching from the narrow concern with oneself, escaping the prison of one's own desires and illusions was expressed hundreds of years ago when people were far more isolated and less connected to the rest of society. To detach in such a way was far easier because one potentially had far less in the way of social relations, material possessions and distractions since things were far more simpler then. People were closer to 'nature' in some respects as well. The very act of detachment was perhaps easier.
In this time period, we live closer together, we are connected by technology in ways that I am sure people in the early days of Buddhism could not have even imagined, our social connections are broader, many people live in advanced cities where education and betterment of the self is the goal to remain alive and survive in a societies influenced by or run entirely by capitalism. There is less reliance on nature in that resources are not gathered by us specifically but we rely on others to gather them for us and then we compensate for such gathering. Our lives are very much colored by the desire to 'find ourselves' and we do this either through formal education or through career hopping, travel or self education. We reward those who formally educate themselves and look up to those who seem sure of themselves. In many ways celebrity culture is part schadenfreude and part reverence for those who seem to possess what most only can dream of namely the very materialistic qualities of perfect beauty, perfect fitness, perfect wealth.
To add to this, the media over the last 40 years or so has launched billions of images, mantras and ideals for us to work towards. We see airbrushed, illusionary images of models in commercials advertising the newest way to get thin, get rich, get happy and we fall for them (using we as the general populace) because there is a heavy emphasis placed on finding oneself and then bettering oneself in every way imaginable. It definitely is a culture based around concepts of self and selflessness is not something that is sold. This is pretty much the opposite of the Buddhist teaching of the path to enlightenment. As I postulated above though, given our time period and the technological and scientific advances which bring us closer together and give us more insight into ourselves I am not sure that the Buddhist path to enlightenment is any easier today (even with the persistent media messages pushed at us daily) than it was hundreds of years ago.
Buddhist teaching and specifically the teaching of the way to enlightenment involving detaching from the narrow concern with oneself, escaping the prison of one's own desires and illusions was expressed hundreds of years ago when people were far more isolated and less connected to the rest of society. To detach in such a way was far easier because one potentially had far less in the way of social relations, material possessions and distractions since things were far more simpler then. People were closer to 'nature' in some respects as well. The very act of detachment was perhaps easier.
In this time period, we live closer together, we are connected by technology in ways that I am sure people in the early days of Buddhism could not have even imagined, our social connections are broader, many people live in advanced cities where education and betterment of the self is the goal to remain alive and survive in a societies influenced by or run entirely by capitalism. There is less reliance on nature in that resources are not gathered by us specifically but we rely on others to gather them for us and then we compensate for such gathering. Our lives are very much colored by the desire to 'find ourselves' and we do this either through formal education or through career hopping, travel or self education. We reward those who formally educate themselves and look up to those who seem sure of themselves. In many ways celebrity culture is part schadenfreude and part reverence for those who seem to possess what most only can dream of namely the very materialistic qualities of perfect beauty, perfect fitness, perfect wealth.
To add to this, the media over the last 40 years or so has launched billions of images, mantras and ideals for us to work towards. We see airbrushed, illusionary images of models in commercials advertising the newest way to get thin, get rich, get happy and we fall for them (using we as the general populace) because there is a heavy emphasis placed on finding oneself and then bettering oneself in every way imaginable. It definitely is a culture based around concepts of self and selflessness is not something that is sold. This is pretty much the opposite of the Buddhist teaching of the path to enlightenment. As I postulated above though, given our time period and the technological and scientific advances which bring us closer together and give us more insight into ourselves I am not sure that the Buddhist path to enlightenment is any easier today (even with the persistent media messages pushed at us daily) than it was hundreds of years ago.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Cosmological and Design Argument
The question for this week that is posed is what, if anything, can philosophy contribute to the understanding of religion. Religious conviction, in general, is fascinating because it's a defense of a set of beliefs that most people accept as true or real from a young, impressionable age. For many people they were never presented with a choice of beliefs or a comparable amount of belief sets from which to choose (if any). Faith plays an enormous role here and it is hard to separate out faith from the topic of religious conviction for that very reason.
Many people are born into the religions they then spend their life defending and believing. People are taught what their parents believe(d) the majority of the time. There is no choice offered in many cases (note that I am making these statements in a very general and broad sense since there are obviously always exceptions). Do people stop to question later in life 'why do I actually believe these things as fact?', 'what if what I believe is not a solid fact?' or 'what if I was born in a totally different place in a different set of circumstances?' . If a person raised here in America as a Catholic were to happen to have been born in the Middle East or the Far East, for example, the likelihood that they would have grown up believing a totally different set of beliefs in a different religion is a very real one.
It's hard for me to understand how people can live their lives accepting things as total fact without evidence or without active questioning or even without considering that they may have been taught to accept something from birth that may not necessarily be true. I found the Blackboard posts for this week fascinating in that regard. Many people casually mentioned that they were raised in certain religions and now have a solid belief in a god and those beliefs of that religion and therefore in regards to the chapter we read and the arguments we had to consider they found it hard to register that things could have been different for them growing up or that what they were taught from youth could possibly not be entirely true or that one can question religion and belief(s).
The question and idea of faith is really a hard thing for me to stomach. I take a very pragmatic view of life and therefore, for me, it's important to always seek and learn and prove or disprove. I don't ever blindly accept things. For me, questioning and curiosity are some of the wonders of our species. To deny oneself the ability to question and view things objectively purely based on a notion that one should just believe and accept things as they are is counter-productive and self-limiting. It stunts progressive thought and allows for a certain complacency that blocks advances in many areas.
In my study of religions over the years, I have found it interesting that many religions (especially the Judeo-Christian-Islamic set) have parables or tenets that dissuade people from actively questioning. The concept of faith is one that exists to cushion this lack of questioning. In Christianity, for example, the Adam/Eve/serpent story is one that exists to warn people that questioning and curiosity is a fatal mistake. This particular parable is used to discourage free thinking and inquiry while also having the added benefit of keeping those who believe in line and in defense of their religious beliefs since fear becomes a huge motivator. People don't want to offend or ruin their relationship with their god figure and thus take these stories/tenets to heart. So, I can understand why people who are brought up with certain ideologies err on the side of faith since their religious background may really hammer in the acceptance of things as they are in that particular set of religious beliefs.
I think that Philosophy is interesting when it comes to this/these conundrum(s). In the case of Hume's arguments, I think something like this is good in that it allows people to question and ponder these enormous quandaries. Philosophy can be useful in getting people to begin the path to enlightening themselves (truly) that the easiest truths provided may not always be true in and of themselves. Philosophy can help people to understand the possible whys involved with why certain ideologies are so attractive while others are harder for people to grasp and maybe in this way Philosophy does a great service to those actively seeking to open their minds.
However, it's not a simple process. Changing centuries of religious 'programming' (for lack of a better word here) and getting people to adopt the desire to question and look at things more objectively, which ultimately means getting people to go beyond the fear factor present in their religious ideologies is a huge endeavor and enormously difficult because the notion of faith is the very antithesis of reason.
Many people are born into the religions they then spend their life defending and believing. People are taught what their parents believe(d) the majority of the time. There is no choice offered in many cases (note that I am making these statements in a very general and broad sense since there are obviously always exceptions). Do people stop to question later in life 'why do I actually believe these things as fact?', 'what if what I believe is not a solid fact?' or 'what if I was born in a totally different place in a different set of circumstances?' . If a person raised here in America as a Catholic were to happen to have been born in the Middle East or the Far East, for example, the likelihood that they would have grown up believing a totally different set of beliefs in a different religion is a very real one.
It's hard for me to understand how people can live their lives accepting things as total fact without evidence or without active questioning or even without considering that they may have been taught to accept something from birth that may not necessarily be true. I found the Blackboard posts for this week fascinating in that regard. Many people casually mentioned that they were raised in certain religions and now have a solid belief in a god and those beliefs of that religion and therefore in regards to the chapter we read and the arguments we had to consider they found it hard to register that things could have been different for them growing up or that what they were taught from youth could possibly not be entirely true or that one can question religion and belief(s).
The question and idea of faith is really a hard thing for me to stomach. I take a very pragmatic view of life and therefore, for me, it's important to always seek and learn and prove or disprove. I don't ever blindly accept things. For me, questioning and curiosity are some of the wonders of our species. To deny oneself the ability to question and view things objectively purely based on a notion that one should just believe and accept things as they are is counter-productive and self-limiting. It stunts progressive thought and allows for a certain complacency that blocks advances in many areas.
In my study of religions over the years, I have found it interesting that many religions (especially the Judeo-Christian-Islamic set) have parables or tenets that dissuade people from actively questioning. The concept of faith is one that exists to cushion this lack of questioning. In Christianity, for example, the Adam/Eve/serpent story is one that exists to warn people that questioning and curiosity is a fatal mistake. This particular parable is used to discourage free thinking and inquiry while also having the added benefit of keeping those who believe in line and in defense of their religious beliefs since fear becomes a huge motivator. People don't want to offend or ruin their relationship with their god figure and thus take these stories/tenets to heart. So, I can understand why people who are brought up with certain ideologies err on the side of faith since their religious background may really hammer in the acceptance of things as they are in that particular set of religious beliefs.
I think that Philosophy is interesting when it comes to this/these conundrum(s). In the case of Hume's arguments, I think something like this is good in that it allows people to question and ponder these enormous quandaries. Philosophy can be useful in getting people to begin the path to enlightening themselves (truly) that the easiest truths provided may not always be true in and of themselves. Philosophy can help people to understand the possible whys involved with why certain ideologies are so attractive while others are harder for people to grasp and maybe in this way Philosophy does a great service to those actively seeking to open their minds.
However, it's not a simple process. Changing centuries of religious 'programming' (for lack of a better word here) and getting people to adopt the desire to question and look at things more objectively, which ultimately means getting people to go beyond the fear factor present in their religious ideologies is a huge endeavor and enormously difficult because the notion of faith is the very antithesis of reason.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Programming
I found this week's reading extremely interesting. I was left with a lot of questions about what the future holds in terms of artificial intelligence. That said, I have always found it easy to see the comparisons between the physiology and anatomy of our bodies and brains to the structure and functions of computers. Taking anatomy and physiology I and II has really opened my eyes to the complex functions of our bodies and minds and I have found it intriguing that many professors even teach brain and cellular function by making analogies to computer processes. In this day and age, many people are able to make the connection so the analogy works well.
Even just yesterday I remarked to someone that I found the process of memory transfer fascinating. I had a test I was studying for this week and since sleeping helps transfer knowledge from short term memory to long term memory, I was thinking about that upon waking up from a deep sleep after studying the night before. Information I had been shaky with was all of a sudden clear to me after a long night's sleep and after remarking how this was a case for sleep and a case against cramming for tests or pulling all nighters he told me that this is very much like what computers do to write information to long term memory on hard drives. I was struck with yet another computer/brain function analogy that made a lot of sense.
In terms of programming, I strongly feel humans are programmed by society in so many ways and most people live their lives thinking they are making complex decisions based on free will when they are really just doing what they have been programmed to do. We are born and form our first attachment with the caretaker who cares for us in our first year of life. If we are lucky enough to have them care for us throughout childhood, this is our second programmer. The first would be our genes which are in and of themselves code for our personality and what makes us 'tick'.
Our caretakers can begin our programming with simple things, programming us to trust but not trust too much, programming us to eat correctly, tie our shoes, the list is endless really. However, those caretakers were influenced by their environments and by their caretakers and their contacts. Their influences are in the form of religion, their education, their outlook on life shaped by both or by even by other influences like the media. So, those influences shape and color how they then program us and shape our personality. Sure, we can and may grow up and choose to deviate from their programming but that base, the actual programming, can't be disputed.
The media plays a very, very large role in this as well as our caretakers. Growing up watching the television, we are bombarded with images of the perfect family, the perfect job, the perfect life, material items to desire, celebrities to aspire to be like or to hate, views about others that make us feel like we belong to certain groups or differentiate us from others in our quest to try to be different and unique. Many people come out of their childhoods programmed to want to get married, have children and have a house for example. In America, the phrase, 'The American Dream' is thrown around as something to aspire to. They are programmed maybe by their religious influences to feel strongly about different things or people. Maybe they watched many sitcoms and over time they have come to believe that life is only about the pursuit of such things which are found in the sitcoms they grew up 'identifying' with. Yet they never question it. It, the programming, is so ingrained that to them, it just seems like they are making a conscious decision to go for such things. They then program their children in the same way and the process repeats itself over and over again.
We have an entire industry that feeds off this programming, the advertising and marketing industry. It's an industry that goes so far as to even put subliminal messages in commercials just to hook young children into desiring a product that they will then beg their parents for.
What does this say about us as humans? It's lofty to think we are different than computers and to think that we completely act and operate out of nothing but free will but it's not really the case that we act completely out of free will (it's probably a lot less than we may think) and it's no wonder (and in many ways awesome) that we have created computers to mimic the programming process on such a technical level.
We are so easy to program! Even our genetic coding goes so far as to inherently program us in ways that we can't yet get around. Perhaps the more advanced we get the more programmed we become as a species. Maybe our likeness to artificial intelligence is a lot more than we think.
Even just yesterday I remarked to someone that I found the process of memory transfer fascinating. I had a test I was studying for this week and since sleeping helps transfer knowledge from short term memory to long term memory, I was thinking about that upon waking up from a deep sleep after studying the night before. Information I had been shaky with was all of a sudden clear to me after a long night's sleep and after remarking how this was a case for sleep and a case against cramming for tests or pulling all nighters he told me that this is very much like what computers do to write information to long term memory on hard drives. I was struck with yet another computer/brain function analogy that made a lot of sense.
In terms of programming, I strongly feel humans are programmed by society in so many ways and most people live their lives thinking they are making complex decisions based on free will when they are really just doing what they have been programmed to do. We are born and form our first attachment with the caretaker who cares for us in our first year of life. If we are lucky enough to have them care for us throughout childhood, this is our second programmer. The first would be our genes which are in and of themselves code for our personality and what makes us 'tick'.
Our caretakers can begin our programming with simple things, programming us to trust but not trust too much, programming us to eat correctly, tie our shoes, the list is endless really. However, those caretakers were influenced by their environments and by their caretakers and their contacts. Their influences are in the form of religion, their education, their outlook on life shaped by both or by even by other influences like the media. So, those influences shape and color how they then program us and shape our personality. Sure, we can and may grow up and choose to deviate from their programming but that base, the actual programming, can't be disputed.
The media plays a very, very large role in this as well as our caretakers. Growing up watching the television, we are bombarded with images of the perfect family, the perfect job, the perfect life, material items to desire, celebrities to aspire to be like or to hate, views about others that make us feel like we belong to certain groups or differentiate us from others in our quest to try to be different and unique. Many people come out of their childhoods programmed to want to get married, have children and have a house for example. In America, the phrase, 'The American Dream' is thrown around as something to aspire to. They are programmed maybe by their religious influences to feel strongly about different things or people. Maybe they watched many sitcoms and over time they have come to believe that life is only about the pursuit of such things which are found in the sitcoms they grew up 'identifying' with. Yet they never question it. It, the programming, is so ingrained that to them, it just seems like they are making a conscious decision to go for such things. They then program their children in the same way and the process repeats itself over and over again.
We have an entire industry that feeds off this programming, the advertising and marketing industry. It's an industry that goes so far as to even put subliminal messages in commercials just to hook young children into desiring a product that they will then beg their parents for.
What does this say about us as humans? It's lofty to think we are different than computers and to think that we completely act and operate out of nothing but free will but it's not really the case that we act completely out of free will (it's probably a lot less than we may think) and it's no wonder (and in many ways awesome) that we have created computers to mimic the programming process on such a technical level.
We are so easy to program! Even our genetic coding goes so far as to inherently program us in ways that we can't yet get around. Perhaps the more advanced we get the more programmed we become as a species. Maybe our likeness to artificial intelligence is a lot more than we think.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
A Case For Physicalism
I very much identify with physicalism and eliminativism interests me immensely. I suspect I will greatly enjoy this coming week's reading on functionalism as well.
The blog question was, " If you agree with physicalism, how do you explain the fact that our mental life seems to be like nothing else in the physical world"
This seems like a very loaded and somewhat difficult question to answer in such a context. To compare the inner workings of a complex system such as our brain which we don't even fully understand yet since we don't have perfect visibility and reflection into our own brain inner workings with observed phenomena that we only understand at surface level just doesn't seem even plausible. If we had such knowledge, we would completely understand how we process not just physical stimuli but how our brain processes complex concepts such as acquisition of knowledge and formation of thoughts. For example, look at how we do brain scans. We essentially look at which areas light up in the brain. This tells us nothing about what the individual synapses are doing or even what the individual brain cells are doing. Our understanding and application of our limited understanding of our brains is downright primitive. Sure, we have come a long, long way in the past 50 years or so but we have quite a ways to go.
Here is a better example. Let's say I see an animal and it is something I have never seen before and it behaves in a way I have never seen before either. I can make the conclusion that nothing else is like this because in my limited knowledge I never observed such a thing/being. Maybe it is a cheetah running at 70 mph. However, there are many other things that run at various different speeds but are different because of their physical makeups, evolution, basic structure Conceptually, they are doing the same exact thing though. It's a question of degree. We realize our brains are complex and sophisticated but that doesn't make it 'magical'. How do we know our consciousness is in fact unique? We don't. We aren't even at the level of understanding required for our own species to make such a statement nevermind other animal species. This also discounts non-human life/consciousness. This limits the data set to things we have observed which can and will be incomplete. Not only is it limited in the size of the data set we currently have but our understanding is limited as well. This greatly discounts unobserved phenomena. What if there are millions of intelligent species out there that we don't yet know about?
The initial question is almost reminiscent of the 'black swan theory' . It goes: "One notices a white swan. From this one can conclude: At least one swan is white. From this, one may wish to conjecture: All swans are white. But it is impractical to observe all the swans in the world to verify that they are all white. Even so, the statement all swans are white is testable by being falsifiable. For, if in testing many swans, the researcher finds a single black swan, then the statement all swans are white would be falsified by the counterexample of the single black swan." (taken from the Wikipedia article on Falsifiability).
We can similarly assume that since our consciousness seems unique that it must therefore be unique but it is only unique because our scope of understanding is limited and our observations are limited as well. Because we think it is unique based on our limited understanding and observation does not make it ultimately unique. It's the fallacy of hasty generalization where a generalization is made based on insufficent evidence. How can we possibly even conclude that the concept of human consciousness as it is understood (which really isn't understood very well) is special and unique?
That said, I do think that over time as more strides are made in understanding the brain and phenomena that right now seems mystifying, the case for physicalism will be even stronger.
The blog question was, " If you agree with physicalism, how do you explain the fact that our mental life seems to be like nothing else in the physical world"
This seems like a very loaded and somewhat difficult question to answer in such a context. To compare the inner workings of a complex system such as our brain which we don't even fully understand yet since we don't have perfect visibility and reflection into our own brain inner workings with observed phenomena that we only understand at surface level just doesn't seem even plausible. If we had such knowledge, we would completely understand how we process not just physical stimuli but how our brain processes complex concepts such as acquisition of knowledge and formation of thoughts. For example, look at how we do brain scans. We essentially look at which areas light up in the brain. This tells us nothing about what the individual synapses are doing or even what the individual brain cells are doing. Our understanding and application of our limited understanding of our brains is downright primitive. Sure, we have come a long, long way in the past 50 years or so but we have quite a ways to go.
Here is a better example. Let's say I see an animal and it is something I have never seen before and it behaves in a way I have never seen before either. I can make the conclusion that nothing else is like this because in my limited knowledge I never observed such a thing/being. Maybe it is a cheetah running at 70 mph. However, there are many other things that run at various different speeds but are different because of their physical makeups, evolution, basic structure Conceptually, they are doing the same exact thing though. It's a question of degree. We realize our brains are complex and sophisticated but that doesn't make it 'magical'. How do we know our consciousness is in fact unique? We don't. We aren't even at the level of understanding required for our own species to make such a statement nevermind other animal species. This also discounts non-human life/consciousness. This limits the data set to things we have observed which can and will be incomplete. Not only is it limited in the size of the data set we currently have but our understanding is limited as well. This greatly discounts unobserved phenomena. What if there are millions of intelligent species out there that we don't yet know about?
The initial question is almost reminiscent of the 'black swan theory' . It goes: "One notices a white swan. From this one can conclude: At least one swan is white. From this, one may wish to conjecture: All swans are white. But it is impractical to observe all the swans in the world to verify that they are all white. Even so, the statement all swans are white is testable by being falsifiable. For, if in testing many swans, the researcher finds a single black swan, then the statement all swans are white would be falsified by the counterexample of the single black swan." (taken from the Wikipedia article on Falsifiability).
We can similarly assume that since our consciousness seems unique that it must therefore be unique but it is only unique because our scope of understanding is limited and our observations are limited as well. Because we think it is unique based on our limited understanding and observation does not make it ultimately unique. It's the fallacy of hasty generalization where a generalization is made based on insufficent evidence. How can we possibly even conclude that the concept of human consciousness as it is understood (which really isn't understood very well) is special and unique?
That said, I do think that over time as more strides are made in understanding the brain and phenomena that right now seems mystifying, the case for physicalism will be even stronger.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Knowledge
This is an extremely complex blog assignment that I have struggled with formulating a response to for the past several days. I have been keenly interested in gender feminism for quite some time as I feel that the concept of gender and gender roles in society(ies) to some extent shapes and molds acquisition of knowledge and output. I also feel that gender and gender roles may be holding back many aspects of our society in the same way that the flawed concept of race is holding back society from overall progress and enlightenment in the sense that without the acceptance that our society and many societies are shaped by such flawed principles we stunt our progress in many fields slowing down personal growth and societal growth.
In terms of acquisition of knowledge, I do to some extent feel that knowledge is partially detached and so I tend to side with pramatist and feminist theory (which feminist theory is up for debate of course). However, I also identified strongly with Dewey. I greatly enjoyed doing some side research on John Dewey since I appreciate his approach and thoughts on acquisition of knowledge as I agree that the scientific method can further human good.
Does this mean that I think that knowledge is therefore something that must be tested to come up with a solid base? Yes. I think those seeking a solid base and some form of truth must actively seek to find ways to prove their truths to be true. How do we acquire knowledge? That's a little tougher to quantify and while I feel the readings that we did on epistemology covered a great deal I am left with even more questions regarding knowledge acquisition!
In the same way that we are evolving, I think that knowledge and the acquisition of knowledge is an evolving process as well. The way we acquire knowledge is different than the way our ancestors acquired knowledge. Perhaps it can or has been theorized that there has been an evolution from acquiring knowledge via our senses to something a bit more detached due to the advances of our environment. Environment may play a role in how our brains function and our brains may certainly be more complex than those of our ancestors. This is why I think it's so difficult to pinpoint what knowledge really is. How do you pinpoint and put your finger on something that is constantly changing?
In terms of acquisition of knowledge, I do to some extent feel that knowledge is partially detached and so I tend to side with pramatist and feminist theory (which feminist theory is up for debate of course). However, I also identified strongly with Dewey. I greatly enjoyed doing some side research on John Dewey since I appreciate his approach and thoughts on acquisition of knowledge as I agree that the scientific method can further human good.
Does this mean that I think that knowledge is therefore something that must be tested to come up with a solid base? Yes. I think those seeking a solid base and some form of truth must actively seek to find ways to prove their truths to be true. How do we acquire knowledge? That's a little tougher to quantify and while I feel the readings that we did on epistemology covered a great deal I am left with even more questions regarding knowledge acquisition!
In the same way that we are evolving, I think that knowledge and the acquisition of knowledge is an evolving process as well. The way we acquire knowledge is different than the way our ancestors acquired knowledge. Perhaps it can or has been theorized that there has been an evolution from acquiring knowledge via our senses to something a bit more detached due to the advances of our environment. Environment may play a role in how our brains function and our brains may certainly be more complex than those of our ancestors. This is why I think it's so difficult to pinpoint what knowledge really is. How do you pinpoint and put your finger on something that is constantly changing?
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Empiricism
The issue with the question of whether or not all of our knowledge comes from the use of our senses has more to do with the word all rather than the entire question. I don't think there is any argument that a vast amount of our knowledge is gained by the usage of our senses. However, I think that it is problematic to say that all of our knowledge is gained in this fashion. Many areas of knowledge seem to support the theory of knowledge gleaned from senses. Art relies entirely on sensory perception, for example.
Knowledge is something that is understood after we are able to see a connection between a concept and reality (barring the question of what is real and what is not real since that presents a whole other issue altogether!).
I can know that 2+2=4 either from memorization of formulas early in childhood and acceptance of these formulas as fact or from accessing this equation from a knowledge base. However, if someone were to come up to me and ask me for 4 kumquats, my previous knowledge of 4 does me absolutely no good since I may not have any clue as to what a kumquat is or how a kumquat has anything to do with the concept of 4 or even what the concept of 4 really means! I would have to break down that initial concept of 2+2=4 to eventually get to the point where I am able to relate that number of 4 to a quantity that I can then physically count and handle and relate to a barrel of kumquats. I think this is why mathematics is far more complex and goes beyond the initial idea in this post that all knowledge comes from the use of our senses. We may use our senses to understand and apply mathematical knowledge but we must use reason to intially understand number concepts and scientific deduction/induction to get to the point where we can actually use our senses to then make a complete connection.
The problem with senses in relation to reality also brings up the question of how people with a loss of certain senses make sense of their reality and gain knowledge. If someone is born, let's say, without hearing or taste buds or blind or a combination of any those, sense connection terms become meaningless. What does sweet or bitter or bright or shiny or loud or soft mean to someone who cannot compute such things? Does this mean they go through life unable to make further connections because of their sense deficits? Does this mean that they arent able to gain the same amount of knowledge as someone with all of their senses intact? I am not sure. I would like to say 'of course not!' or 'that's preposterous' but I do not have enough of my own experience of knowledge of this to say those phrases.
Knowledge is something that is understood after we are able to see a connection between a concept and reality (barring the question of what is real and what is not real since that presents a whole other issue altogether!).
I can know that 2+2=4 either from memorization of formulas early in childhood and acceptance of these formulas as fact or from accessing this equation from a knowledge base. However, if someone were to come up to me and ask me for 4 kumquats, my previous knowledge of 4 does me absolutely no good since I may not have any clue as to what a kumquat is or how a kumquat has anything to do with the concept of 4 or even what the concept of 4 really means! I would have to break down that initial concept of 2+2=4 to eventually get to the point where I am able to relate that number of 4 to a quantity that I can then physically count and handle and relate to a barrel of kumquats. I think this is why mathematics is far more complex and goes beyond the initial idea in this post that all knowledge comes from the use of our senses. We may use our senses to understand and apply mathematical knowledge but we must use reason to intially understand number concepts and scientific deduction/induction to get to the point where we can actually use our senses to then make a complete connection.
The problem with senses in relation to reality also brings up the question of how people with a loss of certain senses make sense of their reality and gain knowledge. If someone is born, let's say, without hearing or taste buds or blind or a combination of any those, sense connection terms become meaningless. What does sweet or bitter or bright or shiny or loud or soft mean to someone who cannot compute such things? Does this mean they go through life unable to make further connections because of their sense deficits? Does this mean that they arent able to gain the same amount of knowledge as someone with all of their senses intact? I am not sure. I would like to say 'of course not!' or 'that's preposterous' but I do not have enough of my own experience of knowledge of this to say those phrases.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Methodological Skepticism
While I would love to think that the majority of people go through their lives doubting everything they can until they have proven beliefs and belief systems to be true and worthy of belief I think that many people actually do the opposite and are quick to believe right off the bat. That being said, I do think that the world would function very differently if people were to utilize methodological skepticism in their daily lives.
Our legal system in the United States theoretically follows this process. Innocent until proven guilty could be construed as methodological skepticism. Doubt is used in a case to arrive at certainty of a person's innocence or guilt. Were we not to use this system and believe immediately that someone was guilty because of heresay or sense experience (example: someone only thinks they saw someone steal a car) our legal system would be extraordinarily different.
In terms of incorporating doubt and healthy questioning in everyday life, it could even be thought that certain segments of advertising thrive on the fact that people are quick to believe claims, images, presentations of realities. Were people to take a step back and employ a healthy dose of methodological skepticism in general, would marketing and advertising suffer? If people wondered why they were so quick to believe, let's say, that the perfect life is one like the fantasy presented even in sitcoms or in romance films, would the media industry fall? I suppose one could say that people could enjoy the deception and illusion but do they know they are being deceived in the first place if they have never doubted or skeptically gone over their beliefs?
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Allegory of the Cave
I agree with the idea that without philosopical education which can also be interpreted as criticial thought that mankind is very much like the prisoners in the cave.
Something that really struck me after reading about the allegory of the cave and further interpretations of it is that the concept of being in darkness and seeing light seems to be a universal one which often ends up used in various religions. For many judeo-christian religions, the darkness into light symbolism is used to illustrate an ignorance prior to knowledge of the divine. People aspire to the light of religious knowledge to feel closer to their god figure and in doing so feel as if they have come out of the darkness they may have experienced prior to that knowledge. Concepts of good and evil are also tied into darkness vs. light symbolism. For some people the concept of good is tied to the light and evil is tied to darkness.
This could perhaps be because the concept is such a primal one. We are conceived and grow in the darkness of the womb and our birth is into the light. Using such a concept is something that many people can easily relate to and grasp.
What was fascinating to me was to read a darkness vs. light scenario that was not immediately tied to religious enlightenment but rather to enlightenment of the mind. I say immediately because I briefly read about Plato's Form of the Good tied to his Metaphor of the Sun which could possibly be linked to a god figure. However, it's interesting that so many interpretations of the allegory leave this open ended in terms of what the ultimate enlightenment actually is.
The entire reason that I find philosophy liberating is because it encourages critical thought and questioning of everything that surrounds us. It encourages people leaving the comfort of what they know and have become accustomed to (the cave) for the light of enlightenment and questioning (outside the cave). The entire line of questions regarding what could or would happen with the person who would then return to the cave is also fascinating to me because there are so many variables that can be linked to the condition of society even today. While there are those who venture out of the cave, so to speak, some do go back because they prefer the comfort of what they were used to after seeing the reality of the world whereas others embrace the light and while it becomes apparent that their lives in the cave may have been not at all what they thought they are willing to move on and grasp at enlightenment. And there are those who remain in the cave who are in denial that there is anything else outside as well as those who would try to go back to convince the others in the cave that there is more to existence than just the cave.
The general gist seems to be that one has to experience the world outside (philosophical enlightenment) for themselves to fully grasp that form of enlightenment and I am inclined to agree with this. I think that you can only go so far with explaining to people that there is a way to critically think. They must do it for themselves to completely understand what it is to critically think. Only then can they be liberated from their former darkness.
A life without critical thought, without philosophy is a life unexamined and the pessimistic view is warranted here from the point of view of someone who has already ventured out of their own cave and their own darkness. For those still in the darkness who are ignorant to critical thought and have not even tried to critically examine enough to leave the comfort of their darkness, perhaps this concept is meaningless. Once you have seen enlightenment though, the thought that people could be mired in ignorance and darkness is a rather depressing one and thus could be a reason that the allegory of the cave may read as a pessimistic allegory for some.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
What am I looking forward to learning this semester?
Being a voracious reader, I have dabbled in philosophy over the years but never really developed a firm understanding of it. I decided to take this class to get a better grasp on the subject and to better understand different critical thought processes as well as the history behind certain trains of thought.
I know this particular philosophy class will cover a broad range of sub-disciplines and that appeals to me since I have most likely had some exposure over the years (as a goth teenager, ok as a goth 20 something year old as well throughout most of my twenties, I am sure I espoused quite a bit of existential rhetoric in an ignorant fashion) and I would like to not only attempt to understand these things but also to challenge myself mentally.
What has always attracted me to philosophy has been the question of existence and being. What is reality? What constitutes existence? How have people reconciled the question of a god figure and the ultimate meaning or ultimate futility of existence/life? As someone who does not believe in a god figure and who has delved recently into scientific approaches to the question of god (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Neil Degrasse Tyson for example) I would love to learn how these questions and similar questions have been tackled throughout history.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
