10. Questions

10. Do you have any questions for the professor?


1. Do you personally believe that Socrates' death was justified?
2. Who do you think won the debate between Einstein and Bohr regarding the implications of the Quantum Theory?

9. Extra Credit

9. List any extra credit that you have done.

1. The text I have just read talked about being agnostic. Being agnostic simply means doubting some kind of a belief. In our current society, people are very agnostic about Christianity and its beliefs. I personally am a Christian so I can't say I am agnostic about the religion, but I can say I am very agnostic about some of the scientific researches are run in this world. For example, I honestly do not believe some of the "proven" theories are true just because I have not seen it with my own two eyes.

 Although very contrary to what I believe, which is believing in a God that you cannot really see, I feel like I need to see something in order to believe it sometimes. Not necessarily all the time, but as much as possible to the point where I am confident when I say I do believe.

8. Evolutionary Theory/Quantum Mechanics

8. How does evolutionary theory connect with quantum mechanics? Feel free to do a google search to buttress your answers here. Clue: Think of Brian Greene meeting Charles Darwin.

If Briane Greene and Charles Darwin were to meet, and have a conversation, they would definitely argue about the evolutionary theory and quantum mechanics. The argument would probably go something along the lines of the following: Darwin would argue, "matter is composed of indivisible, solid atoms." Greene would then oppose him by stating, "atom is not solid, it has an internal structure consisting of a small, dense nucleus." Darwin has established a theory of evolution which states it occurs from natural selection which occurs at random. On the other hand, Greene established the string theory which states "different particle species of the standard model of particle physics as different aspects of a single type of one-dimensional, vibrating string which are completely random" (wikipedia). The common ground between Evolutionary theory and Quantum Mechanics is mutation and uncertainty. The Quantum Mechanics explain the properties of matter and how it is formed, which continues on to explain "subatomic" particles. The Quantum theory states that it is impossible to predict how an individual particle will behave or to find the exact position of it. The Evolutionary theory states that there are changes in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift, according to dictionary.com. The Darwinian model of the evolution of cells states when cells are undergoing mutation, they get rid of all of the negative factors the organism may have. The Quantum theory is an attempt to explain why mutations occurs. Through the use of Quantum theory, we are able to explain the reason behind mutation and evolution, making them connect. Mutations occur by quantum events, but at random times. Additionally, it is impossible to predict the position of an electron which is on the "subatomic" level. Similarly, it is quite impossible to guess when a mutation is going to occur under the theory of Evolution.

7. Socrates' Death

7. How did Socrates die? Do you think his death was justified? Explain your answer.

Socrates

        People in the Socratic era were not open-minded. Because they hated to accept new ideas as well as accept their ignorance, everyone believed that they were wise. Socrates, believing that he was not wise, paradoxically became wise because of the fact that he was the only one aware of his own ignorance. Due to this reason and his new philosophies, the Athenian government decided to put him to trial. He was then found guilty, and poison to death. The question that many people ask is “was his death justified?” I personally believe it was not justified although others may disagree with me. Some may say because at that time period, it was not right to try new ideas and philosophies, and since majority is the justice, that it was justified. In my point of view, because Socrates was framed for “failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges” and “introducing new deities,” which are perfectly sane and fine things to do in today’s society, that the death of Socrates was undoubtedly justified. Even though a person’s philosophy may be unique and different from others within the same society, it does not mean a person can be framed to death by the government because there weren’t any actual crime that has been committed by that person.  The trial was without a doubt run through bias crowd of voters that were brain-washed by the government to kill an innocent person that simply wanted to spread new ideas and philosophies. This resulted in an innocent blood shed by a great philosopher without fear accepted his unjustified crime which he should not have been accused of in the first place.

6. Eliminative Materialism

6. What is eliminative materialism? Please elaborate.

    Eliminative Materialism is very difficult to define because way it contrasts with other theories. It is basically a specialized form of the identity theory; its main difference being that intentional states do no exist. This means that an eliminativist believes that there are no beliefs or desires and desires to tell us this. At first glance this theory seems totally useless, denying the existence of beliefs and desires?  Maybe so, but before making any such conclusions, we should take look at why. When Eliminative Materialists were trying to come up with a theory of mind, they thought back to other times when people tried to explain phenomena and how some of those attempts failed miserably. For example, at one stage, people thought that heat was some kind of a fluid, called caloric fluid, and when something got hotter it simply had obtained some more of this fluid. At the time this sounded like a good idea, so scientists set out to prove it, but discovered that heat was not a fluid but just molecular motion inside the substance itself. What if beliefs and desires are the same? What if our beliefs and desires are just made up entities, like caloric fluid, to help fit our theory? If they are just made up entities essential to intentional systems theory and folk psychology, maybe we shouldn’t use them in our theory at all. Just because they are important parts of the main theories doesn’t mean you have to try to include it in your theory. In the light of this, the eliminativist say we shouldn’t try to explain beliefs and desires, because they could be wrong. Instead let’s focus on things such as pain and other observable states, and then find whatever it is that causes those behaviors we explain in terms of beliefs, desires, and rationality. An eliminativist wouldn't have to say you can’t talk about belief and desires. An Eliminativist might say that you can talk of beliefs and desires but they aren’t really what are happening. Inside your brain, there is no state exemplifying a belief or desire. For example, they can’t say, ”oh look this part of his brain is active he must have a belief”, or “look he must desire a beer”. These types of brain states in eliminative materialism don’t exist. They say we must instead look for what it is that does the job that we explain in these terms. So to rephrase, “Eliminative Materialists believe that there are no brain states that exemplify Beliefs or Desires."

    While eliminativists say that beliefs and desires are made up entities designed for folk psychology, others would classify them as a directly inferred concept and therefore an essential part of a theory of the mind. The main difference is whether beliefs are like heat or caloric fluid. If beliefs are like heat, then they will always exist, even if our concept of them somehow changes. Although heat was once considered caloric fluid, the basic idea that there was something that made things hot or cold still remains. However if heat is like caloric fluid, a specific idea that was thought to be heat, then it is quite likely to be in need of a replacement. Identity theorists have used this exact argument saying that in history, only when fitted with an exact physical value does the concept fall down. If heat is caloric fluid, then heat doesn’t exist. But if heat is something bigger and above, caloric fluid was merely a possible interpretation. Later, the new grand theory of heat was unveiled although radically different to the average person’s mental image of heat, molecular motion is now considered to ‘be’ heat. This process is called inter theoretical reduction. The new theory turns out to be the incarnation of an older one. As Churchland says in "Matter and Consciousness" about, “That is, they are cases where a new and very powerful theory turns out to entail a set of propositions and principles that mirror perfectly or almost perfectly the propositions of and older theory or conceptual framework,” So which type is a belief? A definite yet vague concept that is waiting for a scientific description and proof, or some idea that was made up to assist another theory. If belief is an adaptive concept willing to accept whatever definition science gives, then beliefs are going to stay. On the other hand, if beliefs are wrong, something that appears to be, but is not, then concept of a belief will only exist as a way of speaking. Identity theory is in many ways similar, it says that mental states, including beliefs and desires, are simply brain states. So in theory, we should be able to find a brain state that could be described as a “belief state”. Eliminative Materialists deny such at thing exists.

5. Philosophy

5. Your teacher argues that philosophy done well is science and philosophy done poorly is. . . well, philosophy. What advantage is there with doing a philosophy predicated on science (Edward O. Wilson's Consilience) versus a more traditional route? What are the drawbacks to a purely scientific endeavor in this regard?

Philosophy based on science has many different advantages over traditional philosophy. The sciences shows humans are affected by taboos, or prohibition. In his Consilience, Wilson stated, "if children are reared apart during the first 30 months or more of their lives and then brought back together again, they would have no barrrier to forming sexual bonds, except being told that this is prohibited by custom and law." Humans do not perform "illegal acts of conduct" only because we are prohibited to doing them. If there were no law to prevent us from committing such cruel acts, we would definitely act as our D.N.A. tells us to. The philosophy states social animals behave according to their D.N.A, not their mind, which is congruent with the sciences proving this ideology. Because of this reason, by using science, we may be able to eliminate some factors of bias actions. For example, since science is able to prove certain ideals, we can use proven theories to use against traditional philosophy that seem very illogical. For example, philosophy based on science contradicts free will. Traditional philosophy states free will affects your decisions, not D.N.A. You want to do something, you are not programmed to do so. Another example is that traditional philosophy supports racist ideologies which then say that they are born to be homo or bi-sexual. The theory states some groups are biologically superior to others. Science then may be used to provide an answer to the question, "are they really born that way?" and prove this philosophy as wrong. Through the use of science, philosophy can be enhanced and become more efficient.

Edward O. Wilson's Consilience proposes an idea that the way the world thinks should be based on the physics. The laws of physics would evolve with time with the law of evolution. Edward O. Wilson stated in his Consilience, "[17th and 18th century Enlightenment thinkers] assumed a lawful, perfectible material world in which knowledge is unified across the sciences and the humanities." He believed that this Consilience would explain about everything in the world, a way to unite all sciences.

4. Theory of Evolution

4. Why is the theory of evolution so important in doing philosophy? More pointedly, why is the theory of evolution key to understanding why human beings behave the way they do? Focus on evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology when giving your answers. I also suggest being creative here and perhaps using your own life as a template to explain some aspects of evolution. Be sure to incorporate material from Darwin directly or other evolutionists when possible.

Richard Dawkins, a evolutionary biologist and author once stated, "biological evolution can help people understand cultural evolution better." Within a cultural evolution, there are memes, a term devised by Richard Dawkins. A meme is an idea, or behavior that transfers from person to person within a culture. A meme can easily spread through a small society through many different types of interactions. Just like evolution, these cultural ideas evolve as well as change through time and eventually become extinct. Evolutionary Psychology explains which psychological traits evolved from adapting and as time progressed. Some of the traits like intelligence, the way we judge others, our perception of beauty, etc has changed changed drastically over the centuries. For example, our perception of beauty has changed excessively over time. Decades ago, women with a more round body was seen as a true beauty. Today, being just thin and skinny is considered to be beautiful, while overweight, obese women are judged with a different perspective. 

  The Theory of Evolution is important in understanding and doing philosophy because it explains how our minds changed and evolved to help thinking be more efficient. It provides an explanation for how our consciousness has developed and evolved through the centuries. As people grow, not necessarily evolve, we develop habits and perception of the things that surround us. For example, I grew up in an environment where violent was dominant. Because of this factor, I have a different perspective on violence unlike other people because of the way I was "evolved" or raised as a child. While others may consider violence as something negative, I see it as not necessarily bad, but something I can easily accept without having negative thoughts. Because of the way I was raised, I have a totally different philosophy on violence than people within my society.