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.

3. Einstein/Bohr

3. In the famous Einstein/Bohr debate over the implications of quantum theory, who do you think won? Explain why and be sure to detail your answer with pertinent information related to quantum entanglement, the double-slit light experiment, and other strange factoids within physics. You don't have to side with either one, if you wish, and can present the pros and cons to each. However, you should really develop your essays and I would suggest including some new research that you can discover through a google search.

Albert Einstein wrote to Max Born, "you believe in the God who plays dice, and I in complete law and order in a world which objectively exists, and which I...am trying to capture."  Undoubtedly, Albert Einstein was a man who did not believe the univserse was run on indeterminacy. Bohr made a counter-argument saying that you can find out what kind of games God is playing in the dark by shining light on it. The argument was that by shining light on something, we will find the result, but in some of the instruments we use to shine light alter many ideas.

Double Slit Experiment

Einstein's Box

Albert Einstein, in order to prove people wrong, performed many various experiments against indeterminacy. He thought that uncertainty and probability could proven wrong by using the double-slit light experiment. This experiment demonstrated "that matter and energy can display characteristics of both waves and particles." This is how the experiment was run: a source of light was focused on a plate that had two parallel slits. As the light passes through the slits, they are disrupted, and the results are shone through a screen on the opposite. Einstein used this experiment to argue that this would not be possible if light was actually made up of just particles. Because it is nearly impossible to determine how the light is going to behave, his argument did not refute the Quantum Theory. Because Einstein failed to prove his point, it actually helped Bohr's point. 
At the Solvay Conference in 1930, in order to disprove uncertainty, Einstein came up with a new experiment. The experiment called "Einstein's box" showed that matter can be classified as a solidified energy and can actually measure it. As time went by, Bohr found a slight mistake in Einstein's experiment. Bohr was able to prove that the experiment would not be able to actually prove what Einstein intended it to prove. According to Andrea Lane, "the inevitable uncertainty of the position of the box translates into an uncertainty in the position of the pointer and of the determination of weight and therefore of energy." In the end, Einstein once again failed to prove his point and actually helped Bohr with supporting the principles of uncertainty.
Einstein and Bohr debated for many more years. Einstein continued to fail at proving his argument. All of his arguments that used experiments actually supported the very theory that he was trying to refute. Because Einstein did not have a solid proof of his argument, I can confidently say that Bohr won the debate.

2. Mysterium Tremendum

2. In the magazine MYSTERIUM TREMENDUM (and in the film feature), it is argued that the reason many individuals have a problem with a purely scientific exploration in philosophy and religion is because of a misunderstanding of the term “matter.” Explain his argument and feel free to either support it with additional material or critique it. 


A lot of individuals today have a problem with a purely scientific exploration in philosophy and religion is because of a misunderstanding of term "matter." Although many religious people feel that the term "matter" contradicts the Bible nor insults their religion, they feel that the term demoralize humans as just objects. In the short film, "Mysterium Tremendum," Prof. Lane asked a group of undergraduate and graduate students, "how would you hypothetically feel if someone did indeed inform you that you were a body of pure unalloyed light?"  The majority of the students agreed that they would feel "boundless and happy." The thought of us all becoming "beams of light" gives all of us a sense that we are all alike and uniform. The theory of us all being "beams of light" makes everyone equal. Although we may look different, physically, and behave differently, we are made of the same material. Later on, Prof. Lane asked another question, "how do we feel when we are told that we are just this stuff, just this body, just the re-composition of this world?" The students answered, saying they would feel like they are basically nothing and feel utterly depressed. If we are just "stuff", then we are not important as we thought. In the end, we are nothing more than just bodies. 
Prof. Lane stated, "we tend to think that matter and spirit are opposites and that focusing on one discount the other and vice versa." This idea may be very confusing to may people as it was with me. Instead of trying to find a scientific definition for the term, we need to focus on grasping the idea first. Prof. Lane uses a tree to explain the term "matter." In the dictionary, a tree is described as, "a plant having a permanently woody main stem or trunk, ordinarily growing to a considerable height, and usually developing branches at some distance from the ground." In a scientific sense, a tree is made up of millions of cells, which are made of molecules that are made of atoms. But in a more religious and philosophical sense, a tree can be called the giver of life. Just like that religion and science look at things with different perspectives. Because of this fault that we have, people will often have trouble connecting religion and science. 
According to the dictionary, a matter is any substance of which any physical object consists or is composed of. With this linguistic definition, it is quite hard to grasp the idea of "matter" in a religious sense.
Prof. Lane stated, "even when we get to the very core of matter, we find yet another layer and our understanding of what is actually going on turns indeterminate." We do not fully understood what is going on around us because there are things that are just inexplicable. Many things are invisible to our human eyes. However, as time progresses, we will be able to see the invisible through instruments and technical advances.
The film, "The Quantum Thinking,"  asks a simple yet complex question, "what is real?" When we observe objects you do not sufficiently define it because we do not fully understand it. As the film states, we are "invariably altering what we are examining." We form our own opinions that differs from others of what we are seeing because we have different perceptions. So in the end, the way we define an idea or understanding all depends on our perspective and the way we look at it.

Week Four: Biological Philosophy

Film: Evolution Trilogy

 First of all, I would have to say that I loved the analogy of editors and writers, for men to constantly "write" sperm. It was a great analogy and easily understood. I do realize it is true that as people grow up, they get edited by everything around them. It can be their parents, friends, environment, and just about anything that is near them that influences them.
 The film stated, "deceiving oneself in others is how the job gets done." In other words, people portray themselves in a certain way to fit into their environment. So, they can live and prosper happily. We are "edited," formed into oneself, by what is around us. It is ultimately not what we did, but it is the people around us that formed who we are today, and will continue shaping us in the future. 

Text: Darwin's DNA

 This text interesting because of the controversy between science and religion. The fact that some people accept one thing but not the other for various reasons. Because of this controversy, people has constantly went off to say that religion and science cannot co-exist. 
I totally disagree with this idea that they cannot co-exist. First of all, I believe in both because they are both able to co-exist. There are some phenomenons in this world that cannot be scientifically proven, which is when religion comes in to fill in the hole. Because they both exist, they compensate each other for whatever they lack and help each other out rather than just fight to see which is true and which is false.


Film: Charles Darwin


 I was first amazed at how revolutionary Charles Darwin's idea was. The fact that he had came up with a theory like the Natural Selection theory really showed how much of a genius he was. People may argue that it was not something that great of a discovery but rather than a discovery, I'd say that it was a research and he spent many countless hours trying to prove his point.
 Secondly, I saw the real genius of his work. The theory states that there is a gradual, nonrandom process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers which ultimately leads to evolution and mutation. The fact that this was thought up back then with evidence to prove his point was just amazing.


Reaction: The Genius of Charles Darwin


Wow Anastasia, I totally agree with everything that you have stated in your reasoning. It is quite an annoyance to see people trying to force down their beliefs unto other people. It is absolutely wrong to force a belief, although trying to convince and persuade is something that is totally fine.
I can sense your anger throughout your post. I feel like it is unnecessary but the fact that it is quite annoying and to see this in real life in my daily life as well really angered me as well. Though people are using proofs now to prove their point, I am not convinced by any of them.


Reaction: Evolution Trilogy

It is so true that religion stays the same and people tend to go to science more since it has more proofs, in a sense. There is a reason that is called a blind faith because of the fact that we believe in someone or something that is not visible to the human eye. Hence, it won't be a religion if there was no faith and we continue on with our faith because we believe. For example, a person would move out of a city if they heard a tsunami was coming because they actually believe it is coming.
It was also interesting as you stated about the part where we are being edited by people all around us. Because we are always constantly surrounded by people, we are shaped and formed into our perfect selves later on. These "editors" can be either our environment that we live in, the people around, us or even the life we live.

Reaction: Nova Evolution

It is truly amazing that there are only 4 letters for describing the DNA, and can be rearranged into many different types of combinations. Though a very confusing concept to grasp in the beginning due to complications, there are some interesting facts lying around.
The natural selection process and how it is the root of evolution was interesting as well as you have stated. The fact that Darwin was able to come up with such a revolutionary concept was also quite amusing. To see that DNA is the cause of evolution and how tiny practically invisible matters cause such big things to happen was an eye-opener.

Week Three: Natural Philosophy

Film: Electric Surfing


 This video was quite fascinating in a sense that it contained many visuals explaining the fundamentals of electricity and some basis of physics. These visuals helped me understand a lot better about certain types of concepts that was not clear to me a while ago. As a man that is quite interested in chemistry, it was actually pretty interesting to review some of the information that I have learned in the past. I could not keep my eyes away from the video, even for a split second because of its uniqueness in explaining the concepts.
 Although I have not learned anything new from this video, it was interesting to see myself recall some of the concepts that were taught to me when I was younger. Because they were not taught the same way the video tried to portray the images of electrons and protons, etc., I find this video very useful in some degree to teach students about the basics and the fundamentals of electricity.


Film: Quantum Thinking: Illuminated Ideas


 When I first stared at the title of this video, I questioned myself what the word "Quantum Thinking" meant. According to Innovations International, Inc., "Quantum Thinking is the ability of the mind to function at a higher level of creativity and innovation." To put it into simpler terms, it is an ability for someone to be able to create something beyond imagination.
 Now the actual video speaks only about the fact that it is quite impossible to predict the  behavior of atoms, containing electrons and protons. It is trying to tell us that is is nearly impossible to think on the subatomic level, and for us humans, it is only a theory which cannot be proven with our eyes. Also, the mere fact that we are using instruments to examine these natural states of matter, we cannot say that they are what they are because of the fact that nature has been altered somehow through the process of using an instrument.
 How do these two concepts of Quantum Thinking and electrons combine? Well the video was trying to indirectly tell us challenge ourselves in our daily thinking. For example, we know exactly what an electron is, what it is made of, and many other various details about it because we have been studying it for centuries. But the fact that we cannot even predict its behavior shows us that just because we know everything about something does not mean we can predict how it will behave. With this in mind, I am going to constantly challenge myself to think further and deeper into this vague concept of Quantum Thinking.


Film: Eliminative Materialism


 Before even starting to watch the video, I searched the definition of the term "Eliminative Materialism". According the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Eliminative materialism (or eliminativism) is the radical claim that our ordinary, common-sense understanding of the mind is deeply wrong and that some or all of the mental states posited by common-sense do not actually exist. It was quite amusing to see this definition because I personally love to question many "common-sense" ideas that we have in our world today.
 The three films related to this idea were very fascinating. The fact that we turn to "God" for everything that is inexplicable was something that I have never actually thought of in the past because I never cared to ask "why?" Also, it was interesting to see that through scientific advances, many of the previous myths and beliefs have disappeared since they were "proven" wrong through sciences. Lastly, the idea that we are neglecting to question ourselves as well because of Eliminative Materialism was truly a phenomenal which made me constantly think about the terms "motivation, love, anger, etc" that are used to keep us from questioning ourselves.


Film: Elegant Universe


 This video's introduction on Einstein's devotion to bring together a Theory to put everything into one was very fascinating. He tried his best to come up with a theory that explained every phenomenon, events, and the way things work all over the world. This theory is called the string theory. It says that everything in this world is somehow intertwined together in some way. According to nucleares.unam.mx, it is the theory to answer any type of scientific question, and that if the string theory was actually true, our universe would actually be made out of strings. These small energies of strings would form the world that we live in today.
 This really made me think about how could this actually be? that we if this theory was actually true, that we live in a world of small strings? I found it quite unbelievable and outrageous. As I kept on researching more and more about this topic, I came to a conclusion that it may actually be true in a sense that there has been many different scientists supporting this idea because it is pretty accurate in many ways. Although quite blasphemous, we may, in the future, conclude that our world is made of strings that are intertwined in certain ways.


Film: The Fabric of the Cosmos


After watching this film, I kept on questioning many things that I have believed to be true in my life. From small things such as why does water freeze when it gets cold, to how does gravity work, and etc, this video really challenged me to think a lot more about the universe rather than just sit around and believe everything is true as other people say it is. Brian Greene's questioning about the universe seemed to be outrageous at first, but as I paid close attention to them, they seemed very idealistic and logical. His questions about time and space were amazing.
One really interesting part about this video was the argument of a dual-universe. It states that there is another universe exactly the same as ours that we live in today, and that there is a copy of myself in that other universe. Thinking about having copies of myself really pushed me to wander about how it would differ. If this was actually true, would they be the exact copies of myself? or would they have some noticeable differences? How different would life be if we switched places? These questions kept on popping into my head throughout as I watched the film.


Reaction: The Fabric of the Cosmos


 Eric, I totally agree with you in the sense that it is quite true that we do not know whether everything people tried to explain or prove are true. Although there are theories and what not, they may also be false in the end and that none of the things that we know today may be true. This idea that things may not be true really challenged me to constantly question things in my life. I'm not saying I became very doubtful about everything to the point where I do not believe anything, but it was a very good reminder to keep myself in check with everything rather than go with the flow and believe everything.
 I also thought the string theory was very interesting because I mean who would believe this world would be made out of strings? The fact that there are duplicates of ourselves really shocked me because if this in fact was very true, than I would have another Seyoon in some other universe that I do not know actually exists. This really scared me, but at the same time, made me excited about certain things. For example, I wandered if that duplicate is more successful than I am, etc.

Week One and Two: Traditional Philosophy

Film: Either/Or

 After watching the short film, "Either/Or?: a primer on existentialism," I was forced to question the importance of choices and decisions that I have made in the past. Although a simple concept, because I only had a vague knowledge about this idea, it was extremely troublesome to actually grasp and understand in detail the core ideas of what it was trying to portray through the film. Through constant analysis, I came to realize how big of a change one small decision could make in a person's life. If I were to have made a completely different choice in a chapter in my life, for example, deciding to attend another college out of state, would I still be the same person that I am today? What would have changed, for the good and for the bad? 

Additionally, the first quote that started off the video really impelled me to think about the personal choices that I have made in the past. "I see it all perfectly; there can be two solutions-- one can either do this or that. My honest opinion and my friendly advice is this: do it or do not do it-- you will regret both" -Soren Kierkegaard. Although the choices I have made may be unsatisfying to me, the quote above instilled in me a new mindset, that whatever choice I make will result in regret and discontent. So whatever I do, I should not fear the consequences and the regret that I will feel later on, but carry out my decisions with boldness and certainty.

Film: The Myth of Eternal Recurrence

 Wow... after watching this short film, I could not stop thinking about this concept of Eternal Recurrence. It was very straightforward in what the video was trying to portray, so I did not have any problems understanding it. As I was diving deeper into this idea of my life recurring over and over again, I imagined all of the struggles and pains that I have suffered. It made me question myself, "Do I really want to go through everything again? In the exact same way and exact same feelings that I have experienced?"
Also, this video really pushed me to think about what it would be like to relive everything, where I would not be able to change anything, but live it the exact same way that I have lived before. The film asks, "This life as you live it now, and have lived it, you will have to live again and again. Times without number. There will be nothing new in it. But every pain, and every joy, and every thought and sigh and all the unspeakably small un-great in your life must return to you." If I knew that I would be living my life over and over again without any changes, would I try my best in everything I do? or would I not care and just live it out as planned, with a heavy burden and constant struggle to not think about what will happen? It truly made me think about how I would live my life if this myth of Eternal Recurrence was actually true.

Film: The Limits of Science

 I was once again amazed, but at the same time puzzled by this dilemma of our minds and cranial capacity being too limited which limits our understandings. I personally very much agree with this because there are many dilemmas out there in this world that cannot be explained. For example the uncertainty of electrons and their movements. Because there are inexplicable concepts, I believe it is quite true that our mind is too limited to grasp some of the incomprehensible ideas.
That does not mean that humans are anywhere near unintelligent, it is just that we are not developed and evolved enough to be able to understand these inexplicable concepts. For example, humans in the stone ages will most definitely not be able to understand how our solar system works. In the same way, in the future, there may be more newly defined knowledge in some areas of this world that we do not completely understand at this very moment.

Film: The Emergence of Rationality

 Although very short in length, it was clear in its message that humans did not think, but only believed in certain things that were introduced. They never cared to challenge these beliefs and always kept it traditional in order to continually let these wild concepts and ideas to live out through the years. Once challenged, people were often killed or abandoned, not able to communicate with anyone and forced to believe that the traditional way of thinking is actual logic and the way things work.
 It is quite fascinating how people started actually rationalizing and thinking how the world works. This short film showed me how idiotic people were before actual wisdom started forming and shaping from the depths of weird beliefs and myths that were very dominant. It seemed like people were almost brainwashed and forced not to actually rationalize and just believe whatever was told and enforced upon them. Because of this revolution of rationalism and real logicians starting to group, I believe we are now at a stage where brainwashing beliefs can no longer exist in this current society.

Reaction: The Limits of Science

 Rene, I believe that the limit of understanding and the limit of love are totally different. According to the film, which I agree with, tells us that our understandings are limited due to our cranial, or brain, limits. This is totally different from love which is a concept that can only be understood through experience. In a way, yes it is an understanding and love can be categorized under "understanding", but I personally believe love can be limitless depending on the person.

 I do have to agree that our generation has advanced intellectually. It is quite amazing to see small children learning how to use the computer when I was only able to play video games and such when I was smaller. I do believe though that our brains are still too limited to understand other abstract concepts which involves incredible brain power to truly grasp and dive deeper into.

Reaction: The Myth of Eternal Recurrence

Although I do agree that this theory of Eternal Recurrence is blasphemous and there is no way to actually prove and investigate it, it is quite refreshing to think that our life will recur over and over again. It makes me question if I would ever be joyful living my life if I were to have this extreme burden of knowing that I would be living the same life, without any change or free will, over and over again for eternity. I do have to say that it would be quite painful to believe such a theory, but it is quite interesting to discuss amongst peers about this abstract concept.