PHILOSOPHY 5

nowhere to be found

2006-02-02T13:09:00.000-08:00

my DON'T PANIC button, that is.

due to stupid superbowl sunday, productions for the guardians is moved ahead to saturday. which means that now i have to have a strip done by saturday afternoon, and i'm entirely out of ideas.

if writers get stuck with writer's blocks, artists get stuck with artist's blocks, and scientists get stuck every two minutes or so, i get stuck with the lack of ideas. on better days, i get stuck with the lack of funny ideas, but today i can't even come up with ANY idea. i think it's the lack of sleep combined with the continous hours of studying i've done in the past few days. all work and no play makes e1n a dull boy.

sam and his dad went to mexico yesterday on a business/pleasure trip. both aspects are probably true for his dad, but for sam i believe it would be entirely pleasure. the only business involved would be if he had to pay someone to give him some sort of pleasure. remember, sam: play it safe, don't do anything stupid, and don't die. this is not hongkong.

ayumi hamasaki's HEAVEN is playing on my ipod right now. it has never failed to fill up my mind entirely with black and white portraits of ayumi in that underground subway station. when that happens, however, i have problems thinking and doing what i'm doing, which is probably the reason why it took me about the entire length of the song (4:19) to finish just this one paragraph.

currently sitting at roundtable, eating lunch while watching serie A game between lecce and intermilan. i've been here for the past hour and everytime i look up from my powerbook screen onto the TV, all i've been seeing is someone getting carded, getting treated for injuries, free-kicks, throw-ins, goal-kicks, and other dead balls situation. never once in the past hour there had been one instance where i saw the ball moving except for when the replay was on. there was a stereotype that serie A is boring because the flow of game stops every twenty-seconds... let me rephrase that. there was a stereotype that serie A is boring because the game does not flow at all since it stops every twenty-seconds due to fouls or ball out of play that i refused to believe. it is therefore once again proven that stereotypes exist because they are true, or used to be true for a significant period of time in the past. people are not THAT creative.

one midterm down, no more to go. branson's quantum class only has takehome exam, which would be bad, but at least i get to do it at home, probably while watching monk or quantum leap.

i just looked up again and there was a replay on a goal for intermilan, scored by the used-to-be-famous portugal dude, luis figo. i looked up again and someone from lecce got red-carded. still no ball movement for me. this is ridiculous. they might as well be playing rugby and no one would be able to tell the difference.

*looked up*

foul again, i'm going to give up and go to class. screw this.

FINAL #15

2004-08-02T03:07:00.001-07:00

15. What was Kant's most significant contribution to philosophy? In what ways does a Kantian notion of truth alter the way religionists (of any persuasion) see or view ultimate reality? Use Kant to back up your point.

i believe that kant's most significant contribution is his categorical imperative. that is, categories that one can use to test one's action to determine whether it is moral or not. in general, kant's categorical imperative says that an action is only moral and should be done if one can apply the moral principle behind such action to be true for everyone else. principles that "survive" this test are the ones that form a person's duty, to which that person is obliged. the categorical imperative says "act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." in other words, an action is only moral if it can be universalized. kant incorporates the notion of universality, which is the meat of his argument.

in explaining the ultimate reality, kant claims that human beings are unable to know the noumenal world (the ultimate reality) because our knowledge are limited to what is known as the phenomenal world, the physical world as we see it. kant also claims that it is impossible to concieve the world in terms of god, immortality, justice, and freedom, but human beings do know that such things exist. kant's view on the ultimate reality is somewhat similar to that of saint augustine. while kant did not really incorporate god into his theory as much as augustine does, kant also admits that human beings ---though they believe that god exists--- do not have the knowledge to perceive it. this is similar to augustine who proposes the idea that the wisdom of god is beyond human reasoning and no matter how much they try, human beings can never fully understand the wisdom of god.

FINAL #14

2004-08-02T03:07:00.000-07:00

14. Why was LSD so important in the word of Stanislav Grof?

grof seems to regard highly the ability of LSD to do many different things. at JHU, he did a test on LSD to see its potential in treating different disorders such as alcoholism, drug addiction, and depression. aside from these medical purposes, grof claims that although LSD does not always cause spiritual experiences, but he is certain that his experiences were nonetheless spiritual. in fact, he continues on to proclaim that LSD has helped him reach somekind of a "spiritual equilibrium." grof also makes a remark that "he knew many religious teachers from different traditions whose deepest spiritual experiences were drug-induced." another reason that makes grof considers LSD as important is that its ability to give the user a vision of his/her previous life. he claims that one of his LSD trips brought him to a place where he finds himself in "another century, another culture, identified with another person." the details of these visions were so rich and clear grof claims that they cannot be possibly induced by imaginations only. he also believes that LSD can help a person recall his/her birth, due to the number of tunnel visions that many LSD users experience. he gives an example about an autrian psychologist who had a vision of his own birth and a strong smell of leather, which was later confirmed by his mother that he was born in a shop that made lederhosen.

FINAL #13

2004-08-02T03:06:00.000-07:00

13. Write a 700 word story using 6 philosophers from LOOKING AT PHILOSOPHY which discusses the issue of whether "man can know ultimate truth." You can create any fictional story you wish, but you must be accurate in describing how a philosopher may argue. For instance, don't have Nietzsche arguing FOR God and Saint Augustine arguing AGAINST God. Your discussion or fictional story is a way for me to see if you understand 6 different philosophers (of your own choosing) and their respective take on truth and man's capacity to know it. TAKE A RISK.

like bill and ted in "bill and ted's excellent adventure," i decided to go back in time and kidnap six philosophers from different era and bring them to my kitchen table to have a cup of tea together. and maybe some philosophical discussions. so i took with me heraclitus, plato, epictetus, st. augustine, immanuel kant, and friedrich nietzsche. some of them looked at each other with admiration, but some with contempt and disgust. i myself made six cups of tea and had them all seated. nietzsche seems to be getting agitated, so i started the conversation.

me: so gentlemen, i gather you all here tonight for some discussion regarding the ultimate truth. can us men know the ultimate truth?
augustine: that is not possible. only god holds the ultimate truth.
nietzsche: preposterous! surely men can.
plato: now, nietzsche, calm yourself down. i'm with you on this one, but i doubt we'll agree as to how.
kant: i have my doubts. and just how would you propose that man can know the ultimate truth?
nietzsche: man has the will to power. this world is pretty much the survival of the fittest; only those who are strong can survive. one simply has to strive and evolve for the better because only after one reaches the state of the ubermensch can one know the ultimate truth.
heraclitus: i'm sorry, what is ubermensch?
nietzsche: ubermensch is somewhat like a superman. it is the final evolution stage of a human being who has successfully carry out his will to power and gain domination over nature.
augustine: you seem to be forgetting about the concept of god.
nietzsche: god is dead. enough said.
augustine: what? how dare you--
nietzsche: my apology, augustine, but the christianity concept is for the weak. you christians are scared to face conflict. your teaching to "love thy enemies" are a concept against nature itself!
heraclitus: nietzsche is right. everything in this world happens as a result of creation and destruction process. there is no such thing as living peacefully. such a style of living will render the society stagnant.
nietzsche: thank you. and you yourself, augustine, why would you think that us men have no ability to know the truth? are you afraid to face the fact that we have free will and thus we do not need god?
epictetus: be careful with what you mean by free will there, nietzsche. you yourself believe that nature should be held with a high regard. are you not convinced that if freedom unites will and ability, then the only way for you to be free is to act accordingly to nature?
augustine: that is if you regard nature as the highest of all, epictetus. but that is where you are wrong, nietzsche. our free will was given by god. free will is a product of divinity. man may have free will and may act accordingly to his will, but no matter how hard man tries with his rational mind, he will never be able to understand the ultimate truth, the divine knowledge of god. the wisdom of god is beyond human rationality.
kant: i would have to agree with augustine on that. my synthetic apriori theory shows that there is a realm, a somewhat ultimate reality, beyond our physical world, that is just not perceivable by our mind. this ultimate reality is beyond our mind, but we know that it certainly exists.
plato: but how about the soul? socrates successfully had a slave boy finishing a complicated mathematical problem without giving the boy more education than just some simple logical questions. this proves that the boy KNOWS beforehand such knowledge. that inside his mind, the answer to the problem exists, he just doesn't know that it exists inside his mind. socrates' series of questions brought this answer out from the boy's mind and the boy becomes enlightened. i am certain that if we can bring out the truth from our minds, then we can eventually arrive at the ultimate truth.
augustine: but again, you are forgetting to take into consideration the concept of god. where do you get this ultimate truth hidden in your mind in the first place if not a divine being?
nietzsche: the concept of god contradicts what nature holds for us. nature teaches us to follow our passion, yet christianity tells us to not to. how can a concept that defies the course of nature can be correct?
epictetus: the ultimate truth that people seek is most likely to be in the form of happiness. now, even conflict is not needed to obtain such ultimate truth. if one is able to practice stoicism with a disciplined mind, and wanting simply what one has already have, then happiness, the ultimate truth, will be easily obtainable.
augustine: see, nietzsche. the concept of christianity does NOT defy nature in any way. like i have mentioned before, the wisdom of god is beyond our knowledge. we cannot use rational thought to justify things that god decides upon. this is where faith comes into play. you need faith if you want to understand the ultimate truth.
epictetus: now, i am not quite so sure about your god, augustine, but i agree upon the idea. there are things in nature that are within our control, but there are also ones that are beyond our control. our free will exists so that we can change those within our power, but for those beyond our power, all we can do is accept and understand the fact that we have no control whatsoever over those events.
nietzsche: that is ridiculous! men have domination over nature. the will of power will definitely allow men to force nature to bend accordingly to man's will.

at this point, i realized that nietzsche and augustine were not going to give up or give in. while the other philosophers seemed to be enjoying their tea, nietzsche and augustine seemed like they are ready to bring the fight to the next level: deathmatch. trying to avoid any unpleasantness, i stopped the discussion and used the time machine to bring these philosophers back to where they belong. maybe it would be better if they had never met.

FINAL #12

2004-08-02T03:05:00.002-07:00

12. Are drugs and mysticism connected? Yes or No? Either way use thinkers from Rational Mysticism to support your answer.

even after finishing rational mysticism, i am still not convinced that the visions that people are experiencing whenever they use drugs or hallucinogens are spiritual experience. hallucinogens produces hallucinations, just like the name says, and despite all the report from the studies of these drugs, i am still not convinced that these hallucinations are more than just hallucinations. i have never tried one myself, but if some people who use these hallucinogens are seeing objects that they cannot perceive completely, then maybe what these people are seeing is not much different than the little toy telescope that has an changing pattern whenever the objective lens is twisted. as for the case of those who did see clear and rich details (as in the case of stranislav grof), it is still possible that the LSD probably acts just as an enhancer to one's imagination.

regardless of my personal opinion, john horgan makes it clear that a good number of people do believe that drugs can propel human beings into a higher state of spirituality. horgan claims that indians from the native american church consume peyote cactus as sacrament, and ayahuasca also serves similar purposes for some sects in brazil. huston smith claims that drugs can help people experience such a state of spiritual experience that it will lead the user to strengthen their faith in their religion. but these people who regard drugs highly also have oppositions like ken wilber who claims that meditation proves to be a much safer method to reach enlightenment, yet able to bring one to the level of spiritual experience no drugs can induce. then there are people like steven katz who claims that drugs users do not experience mysticism; they are experiencing their "own consciousness."

personally, i would agree with katz that people who ingest drugs are experiencing drug experiences, not mystical experiences. if they take that to be something mystical and use such experience to better themselves, then good for them. but otherwise, drugs and mysticism are not related. the closest relation drugs and mysticism can have is that drugs, especially hallucinogens, enhances the imagination of the user and lets the user experience something of abstract nature and open to interpretation. this experience is then usually interpreted as a mystical experience.

FINAL #11

2004-08-02T03:05:00.001-07:00

11. How is Ken Wilber's philosophy similar to Huston Smith's? In what ways are they different?

both wilber and huston are proponent of perennial philosophy, which claims that despite the diversity and apparent contradictions of spiritual traditions across the world, there is one truth that is the same for all, hidden, and can only be extorted through mystical experiences. in perennial philosophy, implied is the notion that "mystical perceptions transcend time, place, culture, and individual identity."

although wilber and smith holds the same philosophical principle, the approach to it is different. wilber views science as "an ally" while smith doesn't. also, wilber does not take god into account in his approach to perennial philosophy like smith does. with regards to enlightenment these two also have different views; wilber thinks enlightenment is the final end that every one desires while smith thinks such a thing is not achievable and disregards its significance. ken wilber also differs from huston smith in their view on drugs use to catalyze mystical experience; wilber claims that such drug use is not safe and prefers meditation instead. wilber says that drugs "cannot lead to strable, long-term spiritual growth," while meditation provides a "more reliable route to mystical transformation."

FINAL #10

2004-08-02T03:05:00.000-07:00

10. What was John Horgan's chief critique of Ken Wilber?

though horgan claims that wilber is an admirable person, this admiration only leads him to seek flaws in wilber. one conclusion that horgan made is that wilber is "mean to bugs" because he swatted one. but this isn't the reason why horgan is dismayed by wilber. horgan feels that wilber is really self-centered, regardless of how much he tries to be modest. one phrase that leads horgan to this conclusion is the one he found in wilber's book when doing research: "i'm enlightened, and you're not." wilber seems to think that he is the only one who has the ability to reach such level of enlightenment, and horgan thinks this is arrogant. however, when confronted, wilber seems to have realized that people think he is arrogant when he blurts out "an arrogant asshole!" and then tries to play down the sarcastic praise horgan uttered.

another reason that horgan was quite dismayed by wilber, aside from the ego, was the fact that horgan found some inconsistencies in wilber's argument. horgan claims that although wilber declares that enlightenment is not "omniscience" but "ascience," the way wilber talks imply omniscience and not ascience. another response that wasn't quite convincing to horgan was that wilber seems to be "denying the implications of his own experience," when confronted with the topic on god. wilber even makes a claim that "not even dalai lama can sustain nondual awareness through deep sleep... as he can."

FINAL #09

2004-08-02T03:04:00.002-07:00

9. Why did Ramana Maharshi leave home at 17? What truth did he discover?

he decided to leave home because he realized that if he decides to live as a sadhu, then he cannot enjoy the convenience of home. therefore he must leave. after experiencing the awakening, venkataraman neglected his school work and began spending more time on meditation. he realized that in order for him to be able to find the truth, he must fully renounce the physical world. the realization or awakening came after at one moment he was overtaken by the fear of death. he did not know how that happened, but the thought of death produced an immense fear for him. feeling afraid, he decided to seek the solution to conquer his fear and arrived at the conclusion that the death of the body does not mean the death of him. he develops the idea of "I," in which I is the deathless self, the spirit of the body. he proclaims that what matters for one is the spirit, the I, and not the body. having discovered the truth that he is not his body (quite like descartes' "i think therefore i am"), he decided to renounce everything of the world and live as a sadhu. he did not even bother giving pleasure to the body because he believes that he is not his body and his body is therefore disposable and should not be subjected to pleasure.

FINAL #08

2004-08-02T03:04:00.001-07:00

8. In what ways is Errol Flynn more "honest" (think about this term before you plunge) than Ramana Maharshi in terms of life, nature, and truth? Be sure to substantiate your answer.

errol flynn, in his autobiography, exposes most if not all of the bad things he has done throughout his life, but not only that, he also admits that what he did was wrong. the one incident when he stole the jewels owned by the the woman he just slept with, he wrote down: "this is criminal. not the way to treat anybody. she has been wonderful, how the hell can you think of this?" at that moment, flynn had a struggle with his conscience. although flynn ended up committing the crime anyway, at least he did realize that he was doing something wrong.

sri bhagavan, never stole anything in his life like errol flynn. but one dishonesty that he commited was when he left the house to go to the holy hill, arunachala. ramana maharshi never actually admitted any struggle with his conscience when he was about to leave the house. he understands that "authority is very strong in a hindu household," but he did not feel guilty at all, leaving his entire family for an arguably selfish reason. sri bhagavan, knowingly lied to his family without any feeling of guilt. while it is true that there probably was a greater purpose to his leaving, yet he justifies lying to obtain something without even considering how his family feels about it. when later confronted by his brother, his response that claims he did not even know he was leaving seems like very inconsiderate to his family.

errol flynn has the guts to admit that what he did was wrong, while sri bhagavan uses excuses, sometimes divine ones, and never admits that he was being inconsiderate to his family for leaving home by guile.

FINAL #07

2004-08-02T03:04:00.000-07:00

7. How would Nietzsche criticize Ramana Maharshi's philosophical and ethical system of thought? Be accurate and use quotes to back up your assertions.

ramana maharshi's and friedrich's philosophical systems are quite the opposite of each other. one that is quite obvious is that ramana maharshi bases all his teachings on divine reasonings, while nietzsche claims that there is no such thing as a divine being and that human beings have power to control their own life. ramana maharshi claims that our true self is the I, the deathless spirit that dwells within our body, while the body itself is disposable and of no significant importance. nietzsche will completely criticize this view since he himself regards the physicality as being superior. while maharshi thinks that the deathless self, the spirit, is what we should concern about and that we "attach too much importance to the body," nietzsche thinks that it is wrong to deny one's passions. he claims that "to exterminate the passions and desires merely in order to do away with their folly... seems to us today merely an acute form of folly." this line depicts clearly nietzsche's admiration for passion and desires, and that one should act accordingly to one's passion and desires because only in such a way can one get to the higher humanity level, which is the superman.

ramana maharshi's belief in destiny will be one main point that nietzsche would criticize. maharshi's idea of destiny undermines nietzsche's concept of will to power. nietzsche believes that man can only evolve for the better if he can will himself to power, and to master nature as a final goal. but maharshi's idea of destiny makes such a concept unconvincing because no matter how much a man tries to will himself to power, if destiny does not allow, he will not gain dominance over nature. another difference would be nietzsche's anti-god system and maharshi's pro-god system. nietzsche claims that god is dead while maharshi holds in highest regard god and spirituality.

FINAL #06

2004-08-02T03:03:00.000-07:00

6. List ALL the posts you have done for this class (including EVERY POST YOU HAVE ONE).
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:04:14
Subject: Re: universe in a nutshell (1)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:44:18
Subject: Re: universe in a nutshell (2)
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 19:44:11
Subject: Re: the down side of physics
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 23:55:08
Subject: Re: Re: The Universe In A Nutshell: Pgs. 1-100 (1)
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 23:55:08
Subject: Re: Re: The Universe In A Nutshell: Pgs. 1-100 (2)
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 15:48:03
Subject: Re: history, destiny, and space
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 23:28:06
Subject: Re: Re: Wishing I took physics
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 21:23:50
Subject: Re: I little closer to understanding.
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 03:49:36
Subject: Re: Pseudo Scientific Critique, by Carlos Vasquez (Week 2)
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 18:48:25
Subject: Re: Re: Week One Post Three: Slightly Confused
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 22:01:57
Subject: on science and religion
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 01:07:20
Subject: Re: Re: Philosophy Done Well
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 00:39:42
Subject: Re: Re: on science and religion
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 21:32:19
Subject: Re: Re: The Black Hole
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 00:02:23
Subject: Re: Re: Do "I" exist?
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 03:49:21
Subject: Re: Re: changing the original sex (1)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 03:56:34
Subject: Re: Re: changing the original sex (2)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:44:47
Subject: Re: Re: Human sexuality
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 02:27:34
Subject: Re: Re: Is time travel possible
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:15:13
Subject: epigenetic predisposition
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 01:42:05
Subject: Re: The Noble Savage (1)
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 03:25:08
Subject: Re: Hawking Changes His Mind on Black Holes
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 03:29:58
Subject: Re: The Noble Savage (2)
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 02:09:37
Re: Simply fool the masses
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:05:08
Re: women : blank slate
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:02:34
Re: How did you think of that?
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:07:53
Re: Hawking says black hole theory was wrong
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:13:40 -0700
Re: Morals
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 19:41:38 -0700
Re: Purpose
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 22:39:46 -0700
ramana maharshi and destiny
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:23:37 -0700
Re: ramana maharshi and destiny
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 15:12:04 -0700
Re: Gay Rights
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 22:47:59 -0700
Re: ramana maharshi and destiny

-----------------------------------

6a. WHAT GRADE DO YOU DESERVE FOR THIS CLASS AND WHY?
i personally feel that cramming 18 weeks worth of materials into 5 weeks has proven very strenuous. prof. lane was right when he said that this is the single hardest introductory philosophy class in the united states. i thought i could get at least a B in this class, but the reading assignment from my ethics class is just as tedious as this class. i am unable to keep up with the workload on the B track and the ethics class in 5 short weeks, so now i'm on the C track. however, i feel that i deserve at least a C+ or B- for my work in this class, because even though i have not managed to finish any of the readings in the B track, i have often participated in the group discussion and tried to give intelligent discussion to the very best of my ability. also, i read thoroughly each book in the track and not just skim through it. i feel that skimming might help me answer the questions in the midterm and final, but won't give me a good insight on what i am learning. when i take a class i want to be able to learn something, not just to be able to answer questions.

FINAL #05

2004-08-02T03:02:00.002-07:00

5. List all the books you read for this class this semester? How fully? Be honest.
THE UNIVERSE IN A NUTSHELL by Stephen Hawking --- read thoroughly the whole book.
THE BLANK SLATE by Stephen Pinker --- read thoroughly the whole book.
MY WICKED, WICKED WAYS by Errol Flynn --- read thoroughly the whole book, except the chapter titled "?????".
Ramana Maharshi and the Path of Self Knowledge by Arthur Osborne --- read thoroughly the whole book.
LOOKING AT PHILOSOPHY by Donald Palmer --- read thoroughly the whole book.
RATIONAL MYSTICISM by John Horgan --- read thoroughly half of the book.

5a. LIST any extra credit films.
did none.

FINAL #04

2004-08-02T03:02:00.001-07:00

4. What track are you on (A, B, or C)?
i was on the B track but the workload of this and the ethics class i am taking this summer has put me off the B track so now i am on the C track.

FINAL #03

2004-08-02T03:02:00.000-07:00

3. What GRADE did you get on the midterm? You can use my email to you as confirmation, if you wish.
you passed me on my C track with a chance for a B if i answered the B questions, but i haven't had the time to, so that keeps me on the C.
to quote your email: "This is a very fine start. I will pass this for the B track, provided you answer the B questions in the next week or so. nice work. dave."

FINAL #02

2004-08-02T03:01:00.001-07:00

2. Your user name.
einztein_o07

FINAL #01

2004-08-02T03:01:00.000-07:00

1. Your real name.
Benedectus Juwono

Re: ramana maharshi and destiny

2004-08-02T02:39:00.000-07:00

Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 22:47:59 -0700

thank you, that makes it more clear.
in that case, i agree. we all have a changing future, and most importantly we have full control of our future.

Re: Gay Rights

2004-08-02T02:38:00.000-07:00

Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 15:12:04 -0700

the thing about gay marriages, is that most if not all of the evidence or facts used against it are mostly moral codes from the bible. now i am a conservative catholic, but for these kinds of issue that involves universality, i don't think using bible as moral guidence is correct, because the bible itself is not quite accepted universally. people who claims that gay marriages is wrong because blah blah blah and takes the blah blah blah from the bible, are people who have become so shallow as to thinking that their religion is the most correct one and deserves to be the moral guidance of the whole world. if the gay couple asking for marriage are catholics, then i would say that is wrong, because they believe in catholics teaching yet they go against it. but for those gay couple who don't believe in christianity, then it's up to them to do whatever they believe. i have no right to say it is wrong. it's like the case with catholic people not going to church and non catholic people not going to church. the former is ---i would say--- at fault because being a catholic means they are obliged to go to church. but the latter is not at fault because they have no obligation to.

Re: ramana maharshi and destiny

2004-08-02T02:37:00.000-07:00

Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:23:37 -0700

i'm sorry, but i'm still confused. i can accept your argument that knowing our destiny is an impossibility and thus making such assumption is false. i fully understand that the a conditional argument such as "if the earth is square then i am god" will always be a tautology (which will make me god, woohoo) since the PREMISE and CONCLUSION is both FALSE (the earth is never square and i am not a god). but my point is just to give another way of looking at sri bhagavan's argument, because he says "you cannot sit around and do nothing because you don't know what your destiny is." when someone said something like that, i automatically think: that means if we know what our destiny is, we can just sit around and do nothing? now, maybe sri bhagavan's argument is not biconditional (which means the converse is valid and sound as well), but if we assume it to be so, THERE IS A CONTRADICTION. if we assume it to NOT be so, then there's no argument, we'll be just accepting sri bhagavan's argument without dispute. now this contradiction is what leads me to NOT believe in such a thing as destiny.

also, if destiny keeps ---as you argue it to be--- changing, then what is the point of such a thing (destiny) to exist? in another word, it would make no difference whether destiny exists or not. i do not know what definition of destiny you went by, but i checked dictionary.com and found these definitions of destiny:

1. The inevitable or necessary fate to which a particular person or thing is destined; one's lot
2. A predetermined course of events considered as something beyond human power or control
3. The power or agency thought to predetermine events

and these are the definition of destiny i was using. BY DEFINITION, destiny means something that is PREDETERMINED, UNCHANGING. so if you say that destiny is changing, that by itself contradicts the definition of the word. think about it this way: destiny is a FINAL END. destiny is something that our life WILL EVENTUALLY COME TO (which is death, hahaha). if this final end keeps changing, then it won't be a final end. all i'm saying is that, if destiny EXISTS, then the life of a person will CONVERGE to that destiny, no matter what that person does. BUT, if destiny does NOT exist, then we have full control of our lives and nothing is predetermined. i find it contradictive if you say destiny exists but events are not predetermined. you can only go one way or the other, but not both.

aside from that, although i do not believe in destiny and i think events are not predetermined, there is one thing PREDETERMINED and INEVITABLE: our death. yeah, that's something i made fun of in the above paragraph. so i guess that's what the screenwriter was thinking about when they made the movie "final destination"

ramana maharshi and destiny

2004-08-02T02:36:00.000-07:00

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 22:39:46 -0700

i finished ramana maharshi last week, and had some things that have been bothering my mind lately. it's about destiny.

now, sri bhagavan believes that everyone has destiny, and of course, he did say that those who think they can just sit there and do nothing because their actions are predestined, make the wrong assumption that they know what their destinies are. i can accept that, and throughout the book, his arguments are really good, i like them. but i myself has never been a believer of destiny. as much as i believe that god exists, i also believe that we have been given free will, that we CHOOSE our actions, we DECIDE what we want to be, and thus we have FULL CONTROL of our destiny.

why do i believe this?

the idea of such a thing as a predestined life and course of actions to me leads to confusions, if not contradictions. first, sri bhagavan DID say that we don't know what our destinies are so we can't assume that if we sit there and do nothing, destiny will take its course and move us somehow. but LET'S SAY that we DO know what our destinies are. then what? here's an example. say i am destined to die on november 13th. it is something that is predestined, and i KNOW it. keep in mind that we're assuming i KNOW what my destiny is. well, being a jerk who is a strong believer of free will, i want to change my destiny. i don't want to die on november 13th. the easiest way to change my destiny is to kill myself before then. if i die sometimes earlier than november 13th, that means i have successfully proven that destiny (or fate) is a false concept. well, on august 1st, i got myself a handgun. i chose a place where there will be no distraction, no outsider interference made possible, no nothing, just me and the gun. i have made sure that the gun works perfectly. then i aimed the gun at my head, from point blank, and shot myself. BAM. now let's see what happens.

1. if destiny is a FALSE concept. then i will die. enough said.
2. if destiny is NOT a false concept. then i will NOT die. but then, how will this be possible, provided that i have chosen a place where there will be no distraction, no outsider interference made possible, no nothing, just me and the gun? will the bullet then somehow MISS my head, defying all physical law? but that's an impossibility. if laws can be defied at instances like that, then it will not be a law. say 300 people want to change their fates and decide to die like what i have done. will then be 300 exception of the newton physical laws? if we keep increasing the number, then we will no longer have any physical law. but this obviously doesn't make sense.

let's take a look at another example. ASSUME i KNOW that i am destined to win a nobel prize because of a paper i published during my 4th in college (which will be 2006). then because, again, i am a jerk and i want to not conform to my fate, i decided to NOT publish the paper, nor write it, nor thought about writing it. IF my actions are predestined, then somehow, there will be a chaotic sandstorm or whatever that will move my hands and fingers accordingly to type this ---let's say--- 80 pages paper that will eventually win a nobel prize. but what are the chances of that? if everyone in this world KNOWS about their fate and decides not to conform to it, that means if all the happenings in this world all this time have been in accordance to fate, then they have happened BY CHANCE. if that's true, then WOW, that sounds like too many things happening by chance. WAAAAY too many.

to put it in the context of sri bhagavan's argument, BUT WHAT IF WE DO KNOW OUR FATES? will unimaginable things occur just so that destinies can be fulfilled?

Re: Purpose

2004-08-02T02:35:00.000-07:00

Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 19:41:38 -0700

i agree. the meaning of life is relative, it's different for every person. to me, the meaning of life is living itself, but essentially living itself leads one to happiness. no matter whatever we go through, pleasure or pain, joy or sorrow, ups or downs, everything leads to happiness. of course the formers of those will definitely lead to happiness, but i think if one looks carefully at the latters, there is happiness in there, somewhere. maybe it's just me, but i think one can only live life to the fullest when one is able to be happy and thankful for the pain and sorrow that one suffers.

Re: Morals

2004-08-02T02:33:00.000-07:00

Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:13:40 -0700

i think morality is something deeper than just taking a bath together or eating snack in class. based on what you said, i think a japanese family in china would still take a bath together regardless of what people would think (given that they IMMIGRATE to china later on in their lives). so that's not really morality, that's CULTURE. and culture, of course one is different from another. but morality has to be something that is true for everyone, regardless of the culture. say, even the chinese or the japanese will not approve rape in the society, regardless of their view on taking bath with opposite sex.

my opinion, is that laws of morality are simply guidelines to live in the society. now, i'm saying laws of MORALITY. not other laws. of course in america you drive on the right side of the road, but this cannot be a guideline in england where everyone drives on the left side of the road. this is what i mean by other laws, not laws of morality. laws of morality would be something like "abortion is a murder," or otherwise since this is true in most if not all society. but even such law of morality has exception. imagine a strict society, in which everyone considers abortion as murder, illegal, immoral, and whatnot. when a woman is raped and the baby endangers her life, even such society would consider making her an exception to this law and let her have abortion anyway. so i think, there is no way to determine ABSOLUTE laws of morality, especially in such a diverse nation as america where everyone is entitled to their own opinions and FIRMLY holds their beliefs. morality is a guideline, and there are certain exceptions that can be made to it.

Re: Hawking says black hole theory was wrong

2004-08-02T02:32:00.000-07:00

Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:07:53

i believe it's the michelson morley experiment that proves the ether to be a wrong theory. i did this experiment last quarter in a small scale. basically if the ether do exists, the speed of light can be faster or slower than what it is right now, depending on the direction of light with respect to the "ether." well, the speed of light was constant either way, so the ether is false.
but hawking is right. no matter how mathematically consistent a theory is, as long as it hasnt been proven experimentally, it's hard to say it is a correct theory. after all, physics IS an experimental science.

Re: women : blank slate

2004-08-02T02:31:00.001-07:00

Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:05:08

i watched the "that 70s show" last night and remember red telling eric this: "son, if there's anything i've learned in life, it's this: a man can only rise up to the level of the woman he is with."
i'm a male, and i KNOW that is true. be nice to females, males.
this world isn't quite a male-dominated world after all. =)
trust me, the president might mr.bush. but when he comes home, mrs.bush owns him. haha.

Re: How did you think of that?

2004-08-02T02:31:00.000-07:00

Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:02:34

i use einztein o07, simply because i idolize einstein, and wish i could be as smart as him, but no matter how hard i study i'll never get up to that level, so i dont think i'd deserve to use the name "einstein" and changed it a bit to "einZtein." sounds the same, but not the same person. as for the o07, it's just because i think james bond is such a cool secret agent, but again, i don't want to plagiarize his 007 agent number so i picked o07. looks the same, but not exact. =)

Re: Simply fool the masses

2004-08-02T02:14:00.000-07:00

Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 02:09:37

i think the whole purpose of that is to make the kids in highschool curious and go to college for higher education. maybe highschool functions as an institution to separate the curious one from the not? when i was in highschool i see three different types of students: those who go to the teacher and ask a lot of things because they want to know MORE, those who go to the teacher because they don't know what they're doing, and those who want to leave the class as early as possible. the kids who want to know more end up studying seriously in college, because the stuff they want to know more got their interest. some even made it their religion. heh. some of those HS classes are actually what got me into devoting my whole life for physics.

FINAL

2004-08-01T07:26:00.000-07:00

1. Your real name.

Benedectus Juwono

-----------------------------------

2. Your user name.

einztein_o07

-----------------------------------

3. What GRADE did you get on the midterm? You can use my email to you as confirmation, if you wish.

you passed me on my C track with a chance for a B if i answered the B questions, but i haven't had the time to, so that keeps me on the C.
to quote your email: "This is a very fine start. I will pass this for the B track, provided you answer the B questions in the next week or so. nice work. dave."

-----------------------------------

4. What track are you on (A, B, or C)?

i was on the B track but the workload of this and the ethics class i am taking this summer has put me off the B track so now i am on the C track.

-----------------------------------

5. List all the books you read for this class this semester? How fully? Be honest.

THE UNIVERSE IN A NUTSHELL by Stephen Hawking --- read thoroughly the whole book.
THE BLANK SLATE by Stephen Pinker --- read thoroughly the whole book.
MY WICKED, WICKED WAYS by Errol Flynn --- read thoroughly the whole book, except the chapter titled "?????".
Ramana Maharshi and the Path of Self Knowledge by Arthur Osborne --- read thoroughly the whole book.
LOOKING AT PHILOSOPHY by Donald Palmer --- read thoroughly the whole book.
RATIONAL MYSTICISM by John Horgan --- read thoroughly half of the book.

-----------------------------------

5a. LIST any extra credit films.

did none.

-----------------------------------

6. List ALL the posts you have done for this class (including EVERY POST YOU HAVE ONE).

Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:04:14
Subject: Re: universe in a nutshell (1)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:44:18
Subject: Re: universe in a nutshell (2)
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 19:44:11
Subject: Re: the down side of physics
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 23:55:08
Subject: Re: Re: The Universe In A Nutshell: Pgs. 1-100 (1)
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 23:55:08
Subject: Re: Re: The Universe In A Nutshell: Pgs. 1-100 (2)
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 15:48:03
Subject: Re: history, destiny, and space
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 23:28:06
Subject: Re: Re: Wishing I took physics
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 21:23:50
Subject: Re: I little closer to understanding.
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 03:49:36
Subject: Re: Pseudo Scientific Critique, by Carlos Vasquez (Week 2)
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 18:48:25
Subject: Re: Re: Week One Post Three: Slightly Confused
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 22:01:57
Subject: on science and religion
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 01:07:20
Subject: Re: Re: Philosophy Done Well
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 00:39:42
Subject: Re: Re: on science and religion
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 21:32:19
Subject: Re: Re: The Black Hole
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 00:02:23
Subject: Re: Re: Do "I" exist?
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 03:49:21
Subject: Re: Re: changing the original sex (1)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 03:56:34
Subject: Re: Re: changing the original sex (2)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:44:47
Subject: Re: Re: Human sexuality
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 02:27:34
Subject: Re: Re: Is time travel possible
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:15:13
Subject: epigenetic predisposition
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 01:42:05
Subject: Re: The Noble Savage (1)
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 03:25:08
Subject: Re: Hawking Changes His Mind on Black Holes
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 03:29:58
Subject: Re: The Noble Savage (2)
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 02:09:37
Re: Simply fool the masses
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:05:08
Re: women : blank slate
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:02:34
Re: How did you think of that?
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:07:53
Re: Hawking says black hole theory was wrong
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:13:40 -0700
Re: Morals
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 19:41:38 -0700
Re: Purpose
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 22:39:46 -0700
ramana maharshi and destiny
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:23:37 -0700
Re: ramana maharshi and destiny
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 15:12:04 -0700
Re: Gay Rights
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 22:47:59 -0700
Re: ramana maharshi and destiny

-----------------------------------

6a. WHAT GRADE DO YOU DESERVE FOR THIS CLASS AND WHY?

i personally feel that cramming 18 weeks worth of materials into 5 weeks has proven very strenuous. prof. lane was right when he said that this is the single hardest introductory philosophy class in the united states. i thought i could get at least a B in this class, but the reading assignment from my ethics class is just as tedious as this class. i am unable to keep up with the workload on the B track and the ethics class in 5 short weeks, so now i'm on the C track. however, i feel that i deserve at least a C+ or B- for my work in this class, because even though i have not managed to finish any of the readings in the B track, i have often participated in the group discussion and tried to give intelligent discussion to the very best of my ability. also, i read thoroughly each book in the track and not just skim through it. i feel that skimming might help me answer the questions in the midterm and final, but won't give me a good insight on what i am learning. when i take a class i want to be able to learn something, not just to be able to answer questions.

-----------------------------------

THE TOFU OF THE TEST:
ALL STUDENTS (whatever track, answer the following questions):

7. How would Nietzsche criticize Ramana Maharshi's philosophical and ethical system of thought? Be accurate and use quotes to back up your assertions.

ramana maharshi's and friedrich's philosophical systems are quite the opposite of each other. one that is quite obvious is that ramana maharshi bases all his teachings on divine reasonings, while nietzsche claims that there is no such thing as a divine being and that human beings have power to control their own life. ramana maharshi claims that our true self is the I, the deathless spirit that dwells within our body, while the body itself is disposable and of no significant importance. nietzsche will completely criticize this view since he himself regards the physicality as being superior. while maharshi thinks that the deathless self, the spirit, is what we should concern about and that we "attach too much importance to the body," nietzsche thinks that it is wrong to deny one's passions. he claims that "to exterminate the passions and desires merely in order to do away with their folly... seems to us today merely an acute form of folly." this line depicts clearly nietzsche's admiration for passion and desires, and that one should act accordingly to one's passion and desires because only in such a way can one get to the higher humanity level, which is the superman.

ramana maharshi's belief in destiny will be one main point that nietzsche would criticize. maharshi's idea of destiny undermines nietzsche's concept of will to power. nietzsche believes that man can only evolve for the better if he can will himself to power, and to master nature as a final goal. but maharshi's idea of destiny makes such a concept unconvincing because no matter how much a man tries to will himself to power, if destiny does not allow, he will not gain dominance over nature. another difference would be nietzsche's anti-god system and maharshi's pro-god system. nietzsche claims that god is dead while maharshi holds in highest regard god and spirituality.

-----------------------------------

8. In what ways is Errol Flynn more "honest" (think about this term before you plunge) than Ramana Maharshi in terms of life, nature, and truth? Be sure to substantiate your answer.

errol flynn, in his autobiography, exposes most if not all of the bad things he has done throughout his life, but not only that, he also admits that what he did was wrong. the one incident when he stole the jewels owned by the the woman he just slept with, he wrote down: "this is criminal. not the way to treat anybody. she has been wonderful, how the hell can you think of this?" at that moment, flynn had a struggle with his conscience. although flynn ended up committing the crime anyway, at least he did realize that he was doing something wrong.

sri bhagavan, never stole anything in his life like errol flynn. but one dishonesty that he commited was when he left the house to go to the holy hill, arunachala. ramana maharshi never actually admitted any struggle with his conscience when he was about to leave the house. he understands that "authority is very strong in a hindu household," but he did not feel guilty at all, leaving his entire family for an arguably selfish reason. sri bhagavan, knowingly lied to his family without any feeling of guilt. while it is true that there probably was a greater purpose to his leaving, yet he justifies lying to obtain something without even considering how his family feels about it. when later confronted by his brother, his response that claims he did not even know he was leaving seems like very inconsiderate to his family.

errol flynn has the guts to admit that what he did was wrong, while sri bhagavan uses excuses, sometimes divine ones, and never admits that he was being inconsiderate to his family for leaving home by guile.

-----------------------------------

9. Why did Ramana Maharshi leave home at 17? What truth did he discover?

he decided to leave home because he realized that if he decides to live as a sadhu, then he cannot enjoy the convenience of home. therefore he must leave. after experiencing the awakening, venkataraman neglected his school work and began spending more time on meditation. he realized that in order for him to be able to find the truth, he must fully renounce the physical world. the realization or awakening came after at one moment he was overtaken by the fear of death. he did not know how that happened, but the thought of death produced an immense fear for him. feeling afraid, he decided to seek the solution to conquer his fear and arrived at the conclusion that the death of the body does not mean the death of him. he develops the idea of "I," in which I is the deathless self, the spirit of the body. he proclaims that what matters for one is the spirit, the I, and not the body. having discovered the truth that he is not his body (quite like descartes' "i think therefore i am"), he decided to renounce everything of the world and live as a sadhu. he did not even bother giving pleasure to the body because he believes that he is not his body and his body is therefore disposable and should not be subjected to pleasure.

-----------------------------------

10. What was John Horgan's chief critique of Ken Wilber?

though horgan claims that wilber is an admirable person, this admiration only leads him to seek flaws in wilber. one conclusion that horgan made is that wilber is "mean to bugs" because he swatted one. but this isn't the reason why horgan is dismayed by wilber. horgan feels that wilber is really self-centered, regardless of how much he tries to be modest. one phrase that leads horgan to this conclusion is the one he found in wilber's book when doing research: "i'm enlightened, and you're not." wilber seems to think that he is the only one who has the ability to reach such level of enlightenment, and horgan thinks this is arrogant. however, when confronted, wilber seems to have realized that people think he is arrogant when he blurts out "an arrogant asshole!" and then tries to play down the sarcastic praise horgan uttered.

another reason that horgan was quite dismayed by wilber, aside from the ego, was the fact that horgan found some inconsistencies in wilber's argument. horgan claims that although wilber declares that enlightenment is not "omniscience" but "ascience," the way wilber talks imply omniscience and not ascience. another response that wasn't quite convincing to horgan was that wilber seems to be "denying the implications of his own experience," when confronted with the topic on god. wilber even makes a claim that "not even dalai lama can sustain nondual awareness through deep sleep... as he can."

-----------------------------------

11. How is Ken Wilber's philosophy similar to Huston Smith's? In what ways are they different?

both wilber and huston are proponent of perennial philosophy, which claims that despite the diversity and apparent contradictions of spiritual traditions across the world, there is one truth that is the same for all, hidden, and can only be extorted through mystical experiences. in perennial philosophy, implied is the notion that "mystical perceptions transcend time, place, culture, and individual identity."

although wilber and smith holds the same philosophical principle, the approach to it is different. wilber views science as "an ally" while smith doesn't. also, wilber does not take god into account in his approach to perennial philosophy like smith does. with regards to enlightenment these two also have different views; wilber thinks enlightenment is the final end that every one desires while smith thinks such a thing is not achievable and disregards its significance. ken wilber also differs from huston smith in their view on drugs use to catalyze mystical experience; wilber claims that such drug use is not safe and prefers meditation instead. wilber says that drugs "cannot lead to strable, long-term spiritual growth," while meditation provides a "more reliable route to mystical transformation."

-----------------------------------

12. Are drugs and mysticism connected? Yes or No? Either way use thinkers from Rational Mysticism to support your answer.

even after finishing rational mysticism, i am still not convinced that the visions that people are experiencing whenever they use drugs or hallucinogens are spiritual experience. hallucinogens produces hallucinations, just like the name says, and despite all the report from the studies of these drugs, i am still not convinced that these hallucinations are more than just hallucinations. i have never tried one myself, but if some people who use these hallucinogens are seeing objects that they cannot perceive completely, then maybe what these people are seeing is not much different than the little toy telescope that has an changing pattern whenever the objective lens is twisted. as for the case of those who did see clear and rich details (as in the case of stranislav grof), it is still possible that the LSD probably acts just as an enhancer to one's imagination.

regardless of my personal opinion, john horgan makes it clear that a good number of people do believe that drugs can propel human beings into a higher state of spirituality. horgan claims that indians from the native american church consume peyote cactus as sacrament, and ayahuasca also serves similar purposes for some sects in brazil. huston smith claims that drugs can help people experience such a state of spiritual experience that it will lead the user to strengthen their faith in their religion. but these people who regard drugs highly also have oppositions like ken wilber who claims that meditation proves to be a much safer method to reach enlightenment, yet able to bring one to the level of spiritual experience no drugs can induce. then there are people like steven katz who claims that drugs users do not experience mysticism; they are experiencing their "own consciousness."

personally, i would agree with katz that people who ingest drugs are experiencing drug experiences, not mystical experiences. if they take that to be something mystical and use such experience to better themselves, then good for them. but otherwise, drugs and mysticism are not related. the closest relation drugs and mysticism can have is that drugs, especially hallucinogens, enhances the imagination of the user and lets the user experience something of abstract nature and open to interpretation. this experience is then usually interpreted as a mystical experience.

-----------------------------------

13. Write a 700 word story using 6 philosophers from LOOKING AT PHILOSOPHY which discusses the issue of whether "man can know ultimate truth." You can create any fictional story you wish, but you must be accurate in describing how a philosopher may argue. For instance, don't have Nietzsche arguing FOR God and Saint Augustine arguing AGAINST God. Your discussion or fictional story is a way for me to see if you understand 6 different philosophers (of your own choosing) and their respective take on truth and man's capacity to know it. TAKE A RISK.

like bill and ted in "bill and ted's excellent adventure," i decided to go back in time and kidnap six philosophers from different era and bring them to my kitchen table to have a cup of tea together. and maybe some philosophical discussions. so i took with me heraclitus, plato, epictetus, st. augustine, immanuel kant, and friedrich nietzsche. some of them looked at each other with admiration, but some with contempt and disgust. i myself made six cups of tea and had them all seated. nietzsche seems to be getting agitated, so i started the conversation.

me: so gentlemen, i gather you all here tonight for some discussion regarding the ultimate truth. can us men know the ultimate truth?
augustine: that is not possible. only god holds the ultimate truth.
nietzsche: preposterous! surely men can.
plato: now, nietzsche, calm yourself down. i'm with you on this one, but i doubt we'll agree as to how.
kant: i have my doubts. and just how would you propose that man can know the ultimate truth?
nietzsche: man has the will to power. this world is pretty much the survival of the fittest; only those who are strong can survive. one simply has to strive and evolve for the better because only after one reaches the state of the ubermensch can one know the ultimate truth.
heraclitus: i'm sorry, what is ubermensch?
nietzsche: ubermensch is somewhat like a superman. it is the final evolution stage of a human being who has successfully carry out his will to power and gain domination over nature.
augustine: you seem to be forgetting about the concept of god.
nietzsche: god is dead. enough said.
augustine: what? how dare you--
nietzsche: my apology, augustine, but the christianity concept is for the weak. you christians are scared to face conflict. your teaching to "love thy enemies" are a concept against nature itself!
heraclitus: nietzsche is right. everything in this world happens as a result of creation and destruction process. there is no such thing as living peacefully. such a style of living will render the society stagnant.
nietzsche: thank you. and you yourself, augustine, why would you think that us men have no ability to know the truth? are you afraid to face the fact that we have free will and thus we do not need god?
epictetus: be careful with what you mean by free will there, nietzsche. you yourself believe that nature should be held with a high regard. are you not convinced that if freedom unites will and ability, then the only way for you to be free is to act accordingly to nature?
augustine: that is if you regard nature as the highest of all, epictetus. but that is where you are wrong, nietzsche. our free will was given by god. free will is a product of divinity. man may have free will and may act accordingly to his will, but no matter how hard man tries with his rational mind, he will never be able to understand the ultimate truth, the divine knowledge of god. the wisdom of god is beyond human rationality.
kant: i would have to agree with augustine on that. my synthetic apriori theory shows that there is a realm, a somewhat ultimate reality, beyond our physical world, that is just not perceivable by our mind. this ultimate reality is beyond our mind, but we know that it certainly exists.
plato: but how about the soul? socrates successfully had a slave boy finishing a complicated mathematical problem without giving the boy more education than just some simple logical questions. this proves that the boy KNOWS beforehand such knowledge. that inside his mind, the answer to the problem exists, he just doesn't know that it exists inside his mind. socrates' series of questions brought this answer out from the boy's mind and the boy becomes enlightened. i am certain that if we can bring out the truth from our minds, then we can eventually arrive at the ultimate truth.
augustine: but again, you are forgetting to take into consideration the concept of god. where do you get this ultimate truth hidden in your mind in the first place if not a divine being?
nietzsche: the concept of god contradicts what nature holds for us. nature teaches us to follow our passion, yet christianity tells us to not to. how can a concept that defies the course of nature can be correct?
epictetus: the ultimate truth that people seek is most likely to be in the form of happiness. now, even conflict is not needed to obtain such ultimate truth. if one is able to practice stoicism with a disciplined mind, and wanting simply what one has already have, then happiness, the ultimate truth, will be easily obtainable.
augustine: see, nietzsche. the concept of christianity does NOT defy nature in any way. like i have mentioned before, the wisdom of god is beyond our knowledge. we cannot use rational thought to justify things that god decides upon. this is where faith comes into play. you need faith if you want to understand the ultimate truth.
epictetus: now, i am not quite so sure about your god, augustine, but i agree upon the idea. there are things in nature that are within our control, but there are also ones that are beyond our control. our free will exists so that we can change those within our power, but for those beyond our power, all we can do is accept and understand the fact that we have no control whatsoever over those events.
nietzsche: that is ridiculous! men have domination over nature. the will of power will definitely allow men to force nature to bend accordingly to man's will.

at this point, i realized that nietzsche and augustine were not going to give up or give in. while the other philosophers seemed to be enjoying their tea, nietzsche and augustine seemed like they are ready to bring the fight to the next level: deathmatch. trying to avoid any unpleasantness, i stopped the discussion and used the time machine to bring these philosophers back to where they belong. maybe it would be better if they had never met.

-----------------------------------

14. Why was LSD so important in the word of Stanislav Grof?

grof seems to regard highly the ability of LSD to do many different things. at JHU, he did a test on LSD to see its potential in treating different disorders such as alcoholism, drug addiction, and depression. aside from these medical purposes, grof claims that although LSD does not always cause spiritual experiences, but he is certain that his experiences were nonetheless spiritual. in fact, he continues on to proclaim that LSD has helped him reach somekind of a "spiritual equilibrium." grof also makes a remark that "he knew many religious teachers from different traditions whose deepest spiritual experiences were drug-induced." another reason that makes grof considers LSD as important is that its ability to give the user a vision of his/her previous life. he claims that one of his LSD trips brought him to a place where he finds himself in "another century, another culture, identified with another person." the details of these visions were so rich and clear grof claims that they cannot be possibly induced by imaginations only. he also believes that LSD can help a person recall his/her birth, due to the number of tunnel visions that many LSD users experience. he gives an example about an autrian psychologist who had a vision of his own birth and a strong smell of leather, which was later confirmed by his mother that he was born in a shop that made lederhosen.

-----------------------------------

15. What was Kant's most significant contribution to philosophy? In what ways does a Kantian notion of truth alter the way religionists (of any persuasion) see or view ultimate reality? Use Kant to back up your point.

i believe that kant's most significant contribution is his categorical imperative. that is, categories that one can use to test one's action to determine whether it is moral or not. in general, kant's categorical imperative says that an action is only moral and should be done if one can apply the moral principle behind such action to be true for everyone else. principles that "survive" this test are the ones that form a person's duty, to which that person is obliged. the categorical imperative says "act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." in other words, an action is only moral if it can be universalized. kant incorporates the notion of universality, which is the meat of his argument.

in explaining the ultimate reality, kant claims that human beings are unable to know the noumenal world (the ultimate reality) because our knowledge are limited to what is known as the phenomenal world, the physical world as we see it. kant also claims that it is impossible to concieve the world in terms of god, immortality, justice, and freedom, but human beings do know that such things exist. kant's view on the ultimate reality is somewhat similar to that of saint augustine. while kant did not really incorporate god into his theory as much as augustine does, kant also admits that human beings ---though they believe that god exists--- do not have the knowledge to perceive it. this is similar to augustine who proposes the idea that the wisdom of god is beyond human reasoning and no matter how much they try, human beings can never fully understand the wisdom of god.

-----------------------------------

Re: The Black Hole

2004-07-18T09:34:00.000-07:00

it's not theoretical. it's been observed in other galaxies.

Re: history, destiny, and space

2004-07-18T09:33:00.000-07:00

i've been contemplating on that as well. if i hop out of bed in the morning with my left foot on the floor first, will my day be different than if i hop out with my right foot first?

there was an article somewhere about the discovery of parallel universe using laser beam interference. i don't remember what the link is but i will try to look for it and link everyone. =)
it was a really cool article.

there's a book by alan lightman, a physicist, called "einstein's dreams," which was a personal favorite of mine, and still is. he talks about different ideas on time. one of them talks about a world where time splits in three orthogonal directions, just like space. so everytime one is faced with a dilemma, his world splits into three. it's the chapter "19 april 1905," so if you ever see the book in a bookstore, try checking out that one. the closing statement was a good one:

"some make light of decisions, arguing that all possible decisions will occur. in such a world, how could one be responsible for his actions? others hold that each decision must be considered and committed to, that without commitment there is chaos. such people are content to live in contradictory worlds, so long as they know the reason for each."

if you like fantasizing and thinking about weird things like that, i suggest you try the book. ISBN 0446670111.

QUESTION TWO

2004-07-18T09:23:00.000-07:00

2. Which "track" are you on? "C", "B", or "A"? Don't hedge; beprecise. LIST HOW FAR YOU HAVE READ IN EACH BOOK; be exact. LIST ALLOF YOUR POSTS in the various groups. Be sure to copy and paste themhere.

i was on track B, until i realized that taking this class along with philosophy 12 at the same time means too much reading to do. i'd like to be on track B still, but i haven't gotten to touch the electric meme at all. i have read thoroughly stephen hawking's the universe in a nutshell, steven pinker's the blank slate, and errol flynn's my wicked, wicked ways (except for chapter "?????"). so i guess that drops me down to track C.

Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:04:14
Subject: Re: universe in a nutshell (1)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:44:18
Subject: Re: universe in a nutshell (2)
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 19:44:11
Subject: Re: the down side of physics
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 23:55:08
Subject: Re: Re: The Universe In A Nutshell: Pgs. 1-100 (1)
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 23:55:08
Subject: Re: Re: The Universe In A Nutshell: Pgs. 1-100 (2)
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 15:48:03
Subject: Re: history, destiny, and space
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 23:28:06
Subject: Re: Re: Wishing I took physics
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 21:23:50
Subject: Re: I little closer to understanding.
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 03:49:36
Subject: Re: Pseudo Scientific Critique, by Carlos Vasquez (Week 2)
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 18:48:25
Subject: Re: Re: Week One Post Three: Slightly Confused
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 22:01:57
Subject: on science and religion
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 01:07:20
Subject: Re: Re: Philosophy Done Well
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 00:39:42
Subject: Re: Re: on science and religion
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 21:32:19
Subject: Re: Re: The Black Hole
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 00:02:23
Subject: Re: Re: Do "I" exist?
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 03:49:21
Subject: Re: Re: changing the original sex (1)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 03:56:34
Subject: Re: Re: changing the original sex (2)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:44:47
Subject: Re: Re: Human sexuality
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 02:27:34
Subject: Re: Re: Is time travel possible
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:15:13
Subject: epigenetic predisposition
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 01:42:05
Subject: Re: The Noble Savage (1)
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 03:25:08
Subject: Re: Hawking Changes His Mind on Black Holes
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 03:29:58
Subject: Re: The Noble Savage (2)

MIDTERM

2004-07-18T09:03:00.000-07:00

STUDENT INFORMATION:

NAME: Benedectus Juwono

USERNAME: einztein_o07

EMAIL ADDRESS: einztein__o07@juno.com

********************************************

ANSWERS TO MIDTERM (also available in individual pages, link on the side under MIDTERM section):

1. Give me your real name and your username, as well as your classtime. How many classes have you missed? How many classes have youbeen tardy? Be honest. Online students skip this.

**skipped**

2. Which "track" are you on? "C", "B", or "A"? Don't hedge; beprecise. LIST HOW FAR YOU HAVE READ IN EACH BOOK; be exact. LIST ALLOF YOUR POSTS in the various groups. Be sure to copy and paste themhere.

i was on track B, until i realized that taking this class along with philosophy 12 at the same time means too much reading to do. i'd like to be on track B still, but i haven't gotten to touch the electric meme at all. i have read thoroughly stephen hawking's the universe in a nutshell, steven pinker's the blank slate, and errol flynn's my wicked, wicked ways (except for chapter "?????"). so i guess that drops me down to track C.

Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:04:14
Subject: Re: universe in a nutshell (1)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:44:18
Subject: Re: universe in a nutshell (2)
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 19:44:11
Subject: Re: the down side of physics
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 23:55:08
Subject: Re: Re: The Universe In A Nutshell: Pgs. 1-100 (1)
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 23:55:08
Subject: Re: Re: The Universe In A Nutshell: Pgs. 1-100 (2)
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 15:48:03
Subject: Re: history, destiny, and space
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 23:28:06
Subject: Re: Re: Wishing I took physics
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 21:23:50
Subject: Re: I little closer to understanding.
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 03:49:36
Subject: Re: Pseudo Scientific Critique, by Carlos Vasquez (Week 2)
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 18:48:25
Subject: Re: Re: Week One Post Three: Slightly Confused
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 22:01:57
Subject: on science and religion
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 01:07:20
Subject: Re: Re: Philosophy Done Well
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 00:39:42
Subject: Re: Re: on science and religion
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 21:32:19
Subject: Re: Re: The Black Hole
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 00:02:23
Subject: Re: Re: Do "I" exist?
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 03:49:21
Subject: Re: Re: changing the original sex (1)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 03:56:34
Subject: Re: Re: changing the original sex (2)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:44:47
Subject: Re: Re: Human sexuality
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 02:27:34
Subject: Re: Re: Is time travel possible
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:15:13
Subject: epigenetic predisposition
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 01:42:05
Subject: Re: The Noble Savage (1)
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 03:25:08
Subject: Re: Hawking Changes His Mind on Black Holes
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 03:29:58
Subject: Re: The Noble Savage (2)

3. What does Hawking mean by "imaginary" time versus "real" time? How is the concept of imaginary time useful in understanding the implications of Einstein's theory of relativity? In addition explain the "brane" theory and how it relates to a geometric understanding of space-time.

imaginary time is simply a mathematical construct to "fill in the gap" for the 4th dimension that cannot be physically seen. since space is three dimensional and is described by three lines perpendicular to one another, there's a big problem when taking time into account as the fourth dimension; having a fourth dimension means that one has to pull another line perpendicular to the three already-perpendicular-to-each-other lines. but this is geometrically impossible. thus, the concept of real and imaginary time is introduced.

space, or as hawking puts it: "history," moves along the real time line. now, just like in the cartesian coordinate, imaginary time line is perpendicular to real time line just like y axis is perpendicular to x axis. the center where they intercept each other would be the zero point. since the imaginary time is perpendicular to the real time axis, on which the three-dimensional space moves, then this concept of imaginary time "behaves like a fourth spatial direction," (hawking 60) and makes possible what was once geometrically impossible.

now, why would one need the fourth dimension? einstein's general theory of relativity requires all three spatial directions and one time direction. but the use of real time causes time to behave differently than space; namely because one can move up or down any of the spatial directions, but in real time, one can only move up, that is, to the future. imaginary time axis behaves differently; one can move up or down that axis, one can increase or decrease on that axis, so as hawking puts it, this imaginary time axis does behave "like a fourth spatial direction."

the imaginary time, however, has no physical interpretation. it's just simply a mathematical construct that is consistent with established theories. since hawking is what he calls "a positivist," he does not need physical interpretation of things; he claims that for a positivist, physical interpretation means little to none, since they "cannot determine what is real." (hawking 59) what is important for positivists like hawking is to "find which mathematical models describe the universe we live in." (hawking 59)

the brane theory, is a theory developed by cambridge's paul townsend. branes, or more formally known as "p-branes," are basically objects having lengths in p-direction. so a one dimensional objects would be a p=1 brane, a two dimensional object would be a p=2 brane, and so on. the introduction of the concept of branes has given deeper insights on how the universe works; hawking said that "all the p-branes could be found as solutions of the equations of supergravity theories in 10 or 11 dimensions." (hawking 54) this tells us that if the theoretical p-branes do exist, then it is possible that the universe we are living in is 10 or 11 dimensional. but doesn't that seem too much? the universe we are seeing with our eyes are three dimensional, even with time as the fourth dimension, it's already hard to comprehend, let alone ten or even eleven dimensions. hawking provides a brief explanation for this: "the idea was that the other 6 or 7 dimensions are curled up so small that we don't notice them." (hawking 54) the introduction of the branes completely alter our geometric understanding of the universe; there seems to be more of the universe than what the eyes can see.

4. Hawking made the intriguing observation that M-theory has as much evidence for its claims as astrology, yet Hawking thinks astrology is more or less bogus. Why, then, does Hawking believe that M-theory is most likely correct and NOT claims of the paranormal? Read Hawking carefully before you leap.

simply put, the reason why hawking thinks astrology is "bogus" and the m-theory not is described in the opening of chapter 4, "predicting the future:" it is not so much about "scientific evidence or the lack of it, but because it is not consistent with other theories that have been tested by experiment." (hawking 103) as a positivist, hawking does not ask much for a theory or idea to be plausible; he doesn't even care whether the new theory can be physically interpreted or not; all he asks is for the theory to to be mathematically consistent both in itself and with other well-established theories. astrology cannot provide this, especially after the discovery that heavenly bodies revolve around the sun, not the earth. hawking expresses his doubts on astrology by questioning, "why should the positions of other planets against the background sky as seen from earth have any correlations with the macromolecules on a minor planet?" (hawking 103)

now, the m-theory, although has yet to be experimentally test, is more plausible for a positivist like hawking than astrology, since m-theory stems from scientific theories, and most importantly, is consistent. m-theory comes from the idea that the different existing string theories are just actually just "different expressions of the same underlying idea," (hawking 56) and this single underlying idea is the m-theory itself. string theory is known as the only CONSISTENT existing theory these days that --- if proven correct --- successfully unifies all four forces of nature. the theory is mathematically consistent both in itself and with other well-established theories as well. voila! exactly what a positivist is looking for. although string theory seems a little "bogus" as well since it's consistent only in ten or eleven dimensional universe, for a positivist like hawking --- as he said it himself --- "the question 'do extra dimensions really exist?' has no meaning." (hawking 54) consistency with established theories is the key concept that astrology could not provide for positivists like hawking, and although the m-theory seems to be not very "deterministic," it would be a more plausible one for hawking to accept.

5. How does superstring (or super membrane) theory reconcile Einstein's general theory of relativity with quantum mechanics? More precisely, how does superstring theory reduce the four forces of the universe (name them) into one super force?

early theories that tried to combine the four forces of the universe --- electromagnetic force, gravitational force, strong force, and weak force --- called the "supergravity theories," have failed because they result in infinity. the introduction of the concept of supersymmetry, which claims that each particle has a so-called "superpartner" whose spin is 1/2 greater or smaller than the particle itself, allows these supergravity theories to continues to exist, but not for long. supersymmetry cancels the "biggest infinities" (hawking 52) in supergravity theories, but no one knows whether the leftover quantities will be infinite or not. this uncertainty causes scientists to abandon the supergravity theories because theories that result in infinities are considered to be "fatally flawed" (hawking 52) and introduce the idea of string theory.

superstring theory is a theory that starts out by assuming that every particle in this universe is made out of tiny vibrating strings of energy, with different vibration modes on the string correspond to different particles. these strings that the string theory predicts to exist, are "one-dimensional extended objects," (hawking 52) which only have length dimension. if vibrations of the string correspond particles (namely bosons and fermions) and the strings have grassman dimensions, then as hawking claims it: "positive and negative ground state energy will cancel so exactly that there will be no infinities even of the smaller sort." (hawking 52) when one combines electromagnetic force with the strong and weak force, one still gets a consistent, finite answer from the theory, but when one takes gravity into play, one starts getting infinities. these infinities are the biggest obstacle to physicists who are trying to formulate ONE theory that explains everything in this universe, namely the TOE (theory of everything). string theory, however, manages to eliminate these infinities without much hassle like the old supergravity theories, thus making string theory the strongest candidate for TOE.

6. What is Steven Pinker's chief critique of the "blank slate"? Give six examples which illustrate Pinker's notion of epigenetic predispositions.

to be honest, i'd have to say that i don't quite understand this book, since biology is never really something i'm good at. most of the time i'm stuck trying to understand the biological terms that pinker uses. so i'll apologize in advance if i made any incorrect biological remarks or biological terms used out of place. but, if i did understand this correctly, then here's steven pinker's chief critique of the blank slate:

the idea of the blank slate is that human mind starts out as a blank slate, with nothing on it. so in a way, it is saying that human beings started out being equal. there is no initial differences that make one person's mind is any different from the other. male and female are equal
, race A and race B are equal, everything, basically is equal. then as one grows up, one experiences things from one's environment, and these experiences shapes an individual in a different way other environment shapes different individuals. in the end, we have unique individuals in this world, NOT because they started out differently, but because environment SHAPES them differently.

pinker argues that this idea is wrong. the slate is NOT blank. human beings DO possess human nature. pinker says that the mind when it first come to existence, DOES have biological differences caused by genetics. however, the reasons that the idea on human nature is really hard for the society to accept, is the four chapters of part III: fear of inequality, imperfectibility, determinism, and nihilism.

now, i'm not quite sure what "epigenetic predispositions" means, but i looked up the term "epigenesis" and got "the theory that an individual is developed by successive differentiation of an unstructured egg rather than by a simple enlarging of a preformed entity." (dictionary.com) so if i don't understand this wrong, epigenesis is basically theories like the blank slate theory, where individual starts out with a blank slate and fill it up with information as that individual experiences things. pinker is against such notion; there are some examples from his book, the blank slate, that help shows why he believes in human nature.

the first one that he brings up is a summary from his other book, how the mind works, in which he discussed "some simple logical relationships that underlie our understanding of a complete thought but are difficult to represent in generic networks." (pinker 80) pinker claims that human beings have such talents, that are almost impossible to possess if the slate is really blank. first is ability to distinguish between "a kind and an individual," such as a particular duck and ducks in general. second is talent called "compositionality," the ability to "entertain a new, complex thought that is just not the sum of simple thoughts composing it, but depends on their relationship," such as understanding "cats chasing mice" and not "mice chasing cats instead. third is the talent called "quantification," or the ability to differentiate between "fooling some of the people all of the time and fooling all of the people some of the time." fourth is talent called "recursion," or one's ability to "embed one thought inside the other," such as thinking that elvis lives, that people are thinking that elvis lives, that magazines report that elvis lives, and so forth. the fifth and last is the ability to "engage in a cateegorical reasoning," such as knowing that shrewds are not mice, although they might look alike.

another example that he discusses is with regard to violence. pinker argues that violence is just human nature, and not a "learned behavior" (pinker 310) like some people claim. the fact that aggressive parents have aggressive children cannot be used to conclude that environment causes the children to become aggressive as well. pinker argues that such claim is disregarding the possibility that "violent tendencies could be inherited as well," and continues on by saying that "unless one looks at adopted children and shows that they act more like their adoptive parents than like their biological parents," then one cannot make such claim about environment is causing the children to behave aggresively.

pinker also discusses the issue on gender, in which he claims that the minds of men and women ARE not identical. this is in no way saying that one is superior than the other, but simply saying that, as pinker put it, "it's better to have the male adaptation to deal with male problems and the female adaptations to deal with female problems." (pinker 344) an interesting example that pinker gives is about an 8-month-old boy who lost his penis and his parents decided to get him an artificial vagina and raised him as a girl. but apparently the girl, even at young age, "felt that she was a boy trapped in a girl's body and gender role." (pinker 349) pinker said that that "she ripped off frilly dresses, rejected dolls in favor of guns, preferred to play with boys, and even insisted on urinating standing up." in the end, she underwent another operations and now live as a man. this is an example that shows how environment could not shape what was originally male into a female, no matter how early in the development.

another idea that leads pinker into believing there is such thing as human nature, is the experiment done by psychologist laura petitto and her chimpanzee named nim chimsky. nim can imitate what petitto is doing, but cannot do it to perfection, or at the very least, reaching the intended goal. when petitto scrubs dishes, the main purpose is obviously to clean it. now, nim can also scrubs dishes like petitto, but the thing that nim does not have in mind is that the purpose of scrubbing is to clean the dishes. pinker also provides an example from rodney brooks about a robot imitating a person opening a jar and then wiping his brow. of course, the intended action (primary) is opening the jar, while wiping brow is not an important action (secondary), but how can the robot know which one is important and which one is not? pinker claims that the answer is that the robot "has to be equipped with an ability to see into the mind of the person being imitated, so that it can infer the person's goal and pick out the aspects of behavior that the person intended to achieve the goal." (pinker 61) this ability is an ability that even the most sophisticated robot cannot have, and this is what leads pinker into thinking that the slate must have this ability INNATELY and therefore cannot be blank, for this is not an ability that one can learn.

7. How would a sociologist (one, for instance, who leans heavily in favor of the NURTURE argument) critique Pinker's argument in the Blank Slate. You may need to do web research on this one.

steven pinker provides both valid and sound arguments to the case against nurture, with factual evidences that are just hard to refute, that are just so convincing that any sociologist would have trouble arguing back.

a sociologist in favor of the nurture argument would most definitely bring up the case about separated twins. they would insist on arguing that if behavioral genes are truly hereditary and are the sole player in shaping the twins behaviors, then when they are separated and exposed to two extremely different way of living, they should end up being exactly the same. a number of studies, however, shows that they are never exactly alike. there are quite astonishing similarities between them, but they are not as similar as those kept in the same environment. pinker of course, would argue that the genes heritability chances are not exactly 50-50. the number is around 50% but never exactly reaches 50. this is still much more even compared to siblings, whose heritability probability can sometimes even be 80-20. pinker's nature argument would claim that in the end, environment matters not. however, with the fact that cases where twins with different environment have perfect similarity are coexisting with cases where twins with different environment have a little bit of differences, one cannot completely disregard that environment DOES play role in shaping an individual.

a controversial study done by john watson reveals that one can condition a behavior on a child. (PBSonline) watson exposes a few-months-old child named albert to a white lab rat and albert was not afraid of the rat. he found out, however, that upon hearing loud noise, albert was scared and started to cry. a couple months later, albert was again given the rat, but now everytime albert tried to touch the rat, watson makes the loud noise that albert was afraid of. after done repeatedly, even seeing the rat makes albert cry. the effect does not stop there; everytime albert sees something white and furry, he cries. this study, although considered unethical, revealed that environment does play a role in shaping an individual.

another study reveals that "sense of humor is a learned trait," in a study conducted by the twin research unit at the st. thomas hospital in london (university of wisconsin-whitewater article). the 127 pair of female twins were asked to rate cognitive humor from 0 to 10 separately, and surprisingly, "the identical twins provided no more common responses to the joke than the fraternal twins." often times, the fraternal twins were even "closer in agreement" as to which cartoon is funny and which is not. a study on different types of jokes also seems to show that "humor appreciation varies with age and personality." which is quite an interesting observation, since robert ploming claims that most twin studies "almost always show genetic effects."

these are some facts that a sociologist might want to use in an argument against pinker's nature argument.

8. How does the theory of evolution help explain human behavior? Use 5 examples of your own choosing to illustrate your point.

the main concept behind the theory of evolution is what is usually known as "the survival of the fittest" or natural selection. basically a trait that is the fittest in the society survives and is passed down to the next generation. now, this theory can be used to analyze human behavior since the theory argues that human behavior revolves around the one tendency: maintaining the existence of one's traits in the society. and to do this, one needs to create offspring. as pinker put it, "in the game of evolution, is it better to be monogamous or polygamous? gentle or aggressive? cooperative or selfish? indulgent with children or stern with them? optimistic, pragmatic, or pessimistic?" (pinker 52) the theory of evolution helps one understands why one action is preferred over the other.

a couple examples of this is given by pinker in the blank slate page 53:

"an eye for beauty, for example, lockes onto faces that show signs of health and fertility --- just as one would predict if it had evolved to help the beholder find the fitterst mate."

"the emotions of symphathy, gratitude, guilt, and anger allow people to benefit from cooperation without being exploited by liars and cheats"

"a reputation for toughness and a thirst for revenge were the best defense against aggression in a world in which one could not call 911 to summon the police."

pinker also explains this concept in terms of proximate and ultimate cause. proximate cause is the "mechanism" that drives one into commiting an action, and has the properties of being impromptu and temporary. ultimate cause, on the other hand, is the "adaptive rationale" that furthers the proximate cause. in other words, ultimate cause is like the final end, the final purpose, of an action. pinker gives an example for both causes; in the case of procreation, proximate cause would be the lust that drives one to have sex, and ultimate cause would be the need to reproduce. (pinker 54)

pinker claims that the concept of proximate and ultimate cause is "indispensable" in analyzing human behavior, particularly when one asks the question "why did that person act way he/she did?" although it seems like ultimate cause will likely be the reason people do what they do, in most cases, proximate cause becomes the main reason for one's action. in some examples that pinker offers, he said that in cases of procreation where proximate cause overwhelms ultimate cause, people can "covet their neighbor's spouse" or "prefer a sexy and dangerous partner to a plain but dependable one."

some other pertinent examples i've heard in some biology classes i've taken are about birds or bees, not humans. some birds chirp at 3 or 4 in the morning because males and females of their species forage at that time and so the females usually start chirping to attract the male species to come and procreate because that's the only way they could prevent the extinction of their species. a negative side effect would be for some people like me who don't go to bed until 3 or 4 in the morning and then aren't to sleep well because the birds keep chirping until past sunrise, causing unnecessary frowns and grouchiness when waking up the next day.

another example i've heard is about an experiment with two monkeys. while monkeys are not human beings, both species are quite alike in behavior. this one experiment i've heard puts two monkeys in one cage, but they are separated by metal bars so they can still see each other, but not trespass each other's territory. now the scientist puts a banana on top of one monkey, let's say monkey A, but makes it too high for monkey A to reach. the only way monkey A can get the banana is if monkey B pulls a string that is located in monkey B's territory. so like the brief example pinker gives about cooperation, these two monkeys have to learn to help each other in order for them not to die from starvation. what is interesting is that monkey A never tries to cheat monkey B by keeping the banana all for himself and not sharing. maybe this is because monkey A realizes that if he does that, next time the banana is up there again, monkey B will refuse to pull the string. so from this example, cooperation is a trait that is being promoted by natural selection, while cheating is weeded out.

9. Your teacher repeatedly says, "philosophy done well is science; philosophy done poorly is religion/theology." What does such a statement mean and what are its ultimate implications (online students may have to do some web research on this one, as well). Try doing a http://www.google.com search.

i remember having a discussion in one of the posts about that one particular quote. i have taken philosophy for three quarters in ucsd, an introductory one (but none like this class), one on metaphysics, and one on logic, and after all these exposure to philosophy, i've come to a conclusion that philosophy is a study to understand basically everything in this universe. philosophy encompasses morals, ethics, science, religion, even mathematics; it seems to me like philosophy is the root of all kinds of studies. in philosophy, one asks questions and expects RATIONAL answers, which is probably why logic is one of the most fundamental field to begin with when one studies philosophy. why asking questions? because one wants to find the truth. there are many things around that we human beings do not understand; why does this event happen? why does he behave like that? what determines right and wrong? philosophy simply seeks the truth, some explanation to questions like those that logically makes sense. and philosophy is "done well," when the answer to a question it proposes is answered rationally.

so the bottomline is, philosophy is a study that promotes questions to help people better understand the universe and themselves, and seeks rational answers to the questions. science, of all fields that branched from philosophy, is the main competitor in providing rational answers. questions promoted from the study of philosophy such as "why is the sky blue" and many others have been answered rationally and logically by science. furthermore, science also gives PROOFS with factual information, and we all know that factual information must be true. thus, science is "philosophy done well," for it provides rational answers that philosophy seeks by promoting questions.

religion or theology on the other hand, also provides answers to questions that philosophy asks. but unfortunately, theological answers are mostly based on intangible things such as faith that cannot be rationally proven. also, when theology provides answers, they are quite limited since their answers revolve around a divine being, whereas science can be more flexible since they do not have to center their answers around one concept. theology does not provide the answers that philosophy seeks: rational answers. this is why theology is considered "philosophy done poorly;" the answers it provides cannot be proven by facts answers that science provides.

10. How does a purely materialist explanation of the universe help one in trying to answer philosophical questions? Give several examples and flesh out your answers.

like the answer i have provided before for question nine, i still think that philosophy is a field of study that seeks the truth through rational answers to the questions it proposes. materialistic explanations are usually accompanied with facts, or experimental evidence, and those are the rational answer that philosophical questions seek. it is of what nature i do not know that rationally logical answers are much more easier for one to accept, rather than answers that are based on intangible concepts; probably the tangibility? i guess it is much more easier for one to accept an explanation if one can construct a tangible depiction of it in his/her mind.

in the metaphysics class i took in january, i was introduced to two philosophical issues that are still being questioned until now: time, and the mind and body problem. the philosophy of time is simple; it basically asks what time IS and how does it behave, exactly. however, there is still no good, rational answer that can answer that question. the mind and body problem is about how an intangible concept such as the MIND can have control over something as tangible as the BODY. what connects the mind to the body? does the mind really exist, or is it just a bunch of chemicals in the brain?

well, i think stephen hawking's the universe in a nutshell and steven pinker's the blank slate have attempted to provide the rational answers to these two different field of philosophy. hawking in his book talks about time, and even introduces the idea of an imaginary time that makes physical theories of the universe consistent with one another. sounds really intangible, but if it is consistent mathematically, chances are it can be the correct idea. the answer is still unclear, since physicists haven't really gotten up to the point where they can give experimental evidence to a claim on what time really is, but at the very least, physics provides the ground to providing the philosophy of time potentially rational answers.

pinker's book also attempts on providing some rational explanation to the mind-body problem. i remember talking about dualism in the metaphysics class, which is also mentioned by pinker in his book. although not directly talking about how the mind is connected to the body, pinker certainly provides some insights in his argument regarding the ghost in the machine. behaviorism, which belongs to monism (who believes that there is only one substance) is also discussed by pinker, and how evolutionary theory can be used to explain this. pinker also briefly mentions descartes, who is a dualist, and his famous line "i think, therefore i am" in his discussion on nature vs nurture. so in a way, pinker touches many of the philosophical aspect of the mind-body problem.

11. In what ways was Errol Flynn a philosophical hedonist? Support your answer with pertinent quotes.

being a hedonist means having a belief that anything that results in pleasure is good, and errol flynn's way of living, all the way from when he was still a child, entirely reflects his philosophical hedonism, for his actions are always geared toward pleasure and no other.

this "seeking pleasure" habit of his can be seen mostly from his experiences with women. in most if not all of his affairs, he never considers the consequences of his actions; all he head in mind was something along the lines of "if it gives both you and me a pleasure, then let's go for it." one affair he had with elsie when he was in northshore sydney grammar school he described as being "much more interesting than algebra." (flynn 43) another affair with a lady named maura was considered "one of [his] most wonderful nights," (flynn 56) although he knew that maura was married to a high government official. then with maihiati, whom he found in the jungle, flynn considered her so "desirable" (flynn 71) that he disregarded a letter from his dad about not having a relationship with a native. his hedonistic idea, however, is probably most easily seen in his short relationship with mayako, whome he met aboard thd D'Artagnan: "i decided that if she were so ill that she might die, and so young and so beautiful, she certainly should have a fling before passing away. i doped the situation this way: if she was really that ill, she would want one too. i was right." (flynn 167)

another example of flynn's hedonism is shown during his childhood. he would skip classes and not study, unlike other kids. what was considered "good" during that era was probably the whole idea of going to school, getting a degree, and then work, but for flynn, who was a hedonist, what doesn't provide pleasure is not a real "good." he said that "it was fun skipping out, fooling the headmasters, taking off at night after a romantic leap to the ground." (flynn 43) flynn cares not about the consequences of his actions, what matters for him is the maximization of pleasure.

12. How did Flynn view women in general? Be sure to be accurate in your answer.

being a hedonist, one who seeks to maximize pleasure, errol flynn seems to find pleasure in women as well. not necessarily in sexual relationship, but more in beauty. in every single one of his encounter with a woman in my wicked, wicked ways, errol flynn always makes reference to beauty, such as: "pretty," "slender," "lovely picture, arms outspread, lovely full breasts," "there is nothing hard or cold about the flesh of the heathen chinee," "the most spectacular sight," and many other.

despite his admiration toward female beauty, flynn makes a strong remark that love between man and woman is not something that comes out from communication. his relationship with tuperselai, in which he hardly talks to her because he has problem talking in tuperselai's language, went smoothly, and the moment they made love, he described it as "a beautiful thing," and "one of [his] most precious poetic moment." (flynn 105) flynn's conclusion from such a beautiful love without much communication is that "a man and a woman should never speak the same language." (flynn 106)

flynn reveals his view on women clearly in page 248 after his troublesome relationship with his first wife, lili damita. flynn considers that "women try to make the man a personal prize," while from the way he sees it, "if you love someone, you will love him enough to want to see him free and unfettered." flyn also ridicules the concept of monogamy; he claims that "it is no man's natural state to be monogamous. neither is it woman's." more strongly, he argues that monogamy is "nothing more than a travesty on human nature."

13. In what ways was Flynn a "philosopher"? Be specific.

being a philosopher, means contemplating and questioning things that one experiences. of course this kind of loose definition would make everyone a philosopher, but everyone IS a philosopher; most of them just don't realize or intend to make it an occupation.

flynn was a philosopher, because in fulfilling his hedonistic life, he pondered and questioned events that he encountered. not just that, he also analyzed those events so he could obtain a rational answer for his questions. these analysis can be seen in the remarks he made with regards to a situation that he is facing. he refuted the thought that he's ignorant by making a strong claim in the prologue: "what makes anyone think that i am less concerned for the verities of the world than anyone else? was it all a prank that i went to loyalist spain, that i sided with castro, that i've plumbed the sea depths, and traveled the world?" (flynn 22)

even at young age, he made an amazing philosophical remark, although he probably has yet to realize it, or maybe just because he was naive. in the incident where he hooked up a half-dozen ducks with a greased string, his father called him a "cruel little devil," a remark which he replied with "you cut open animals all day long in your laboratory. what did i do wrong?" (flynn 32) that astonished his father. young flynn might not realize it, but at this age he was confused at what is right and what is wrong. he figured this much: if someone does something over and over again and no one complains about it, then it can't be the wrong thing to do.

another example was during his affair with maihiati, the young girl he found in the jungle, when he was having moral guilt over having a relationship with a native. flynn got over his guilt and concludes that there is no reason for him to follow the dictates of people "who lived in other lands on the other side of the world." flynn also develops a contemplating mind, as he said: "i had already been wondering about the various sets of moral values that we humans put around our emotions, most of them so varying in different cultures and backgrounds."

his letters to his father was also a media for him to channel his pondering mind. in one of the letters, he came to a conclusion that "the most vital thing in life is to be able to undertand something about it." (flynn 101)

flynn's best friend, koets was considered a big influence for him. maybe in a way that they had gone through many things together, but at the end of the chapter "seven seas to england," flynn made a remark that koets. to flynn, koets had been a great help in understanding more about life, which eventually shaped his hedonistic character. flynn said in reference to koets: "he showed me the difference between cupdity and generosity. he showed me the complete irrelevance of the existence that we humans have while on earth. from koets i learned to take from this brief span the unimportance of being earnest. i learned from him to laugh at the worst disasters." (flynn 175)

Re: The Noble Savage

2004-07-18T08:59:00.000-07:00

yeah
his style of arguing reminds me of socrates. if you read plato's PROTAGORAS AND MENO, you'll see why socrates is so cool. haha.
the way socrates argues is basically by asking related questions that sounds logical and the person asked can only agree with socrates, because here is nothing illogical in his statements. however, in the end, socrates uses all these correct statements and reveals a contradiction in them. he's a genius, one of my favorite greek philosopher.

Re: Hawking Changes His Mind on Black Holes

2004-07-18T08:54:00.000-07:00

hmm. interesting. i wonder if the lecture in ireland next week will be available in text form on the net.if anyone has any information that follows this up, let me know. thanks =)

QUESTION THIRTEEN

2004-07-16T03:40:00.000-07:00

13. In what ways was Flynn a "philosopher"? Be specific.

being a philosopher, means contemplating and questioning things that one experiences. of course this kind of loose definition would make everyone a philosopher, but everyone IS a philosopher; most of them just don't realize or intend to make it an occupation.

flynn was a philosopher, because in fulfilling his hedonistic life, he pondered and questioned events that he encountered. not just that, he also analyzed those events so he could obtain a rational answer for his questions. these analysis can be seen in the remarks he made with regards to a situation that he is facing. he refuted the thought that he's ignorant by making a strong claim in the prologue: "what makes anyone think that i am less concerned for the verities of the world than anyone else? was it all a prank that i went to loyalist spain, that i sided with castro, that i've plumbed the sea depths, and traveled the world?" (flynn 22)

even at young age, he made an amazing philosophical remark, although he probably has yet to realize it, or maybe just because he was naive. in the incident where he hooked up a half-dozen ducks with a greased string, his father called him a "cruel little devil," a remark which he replied with "you cut open animals all day long in your laboratory. what did i do wrong?" (flynn 32) that astonished his father. young flynn might not realize it, but at this age he was confused at what is right and what is wrong. he figured this much: if someone does something over and over again and no one complains about it, then it can't be the wrong thing to do.

another example was during his affair with maihiati, the young girl he found in the jungle, when he was having moral guilt over having a relationship with a native. flynn got over his guilt and concludes that there is no reason for him to follow the dictates of people "who lived in other lands on the other side of the world." flynn also develops a contemplating mind, as he said: "i had already been wondering about the various sets of moral values that we humans put around our emotions, most of them so varying in different cultures and backgrounds."

his letters to his father was also a media for him to channel his pondering mind. in one of the letters, he came to a conclusion that "the most vital thing in life is to be able to undertand something about it." (flynn 101)

flynn's best friend, koets was considered a big influence for him. maybe in a way that they had gone through many things together, but at the end of the chapter "seven seas to england," flynn made a remark that koets. to flynn, koets had been a great help in understanding more about life, which eventually shaped his hedonistic character. flynn said in reference to koets: "he showed me the difference between cupdity and generosity. he showed me the complete irrelevance of the existence that we humans have while on earth. from koets i learned to take from this brief span the unimportance of being earnest. i learned from him to laugh at the worst disasters." (flynn 175)

QUESTION TWELVE

2004-07-16T02:23:00.000-07:00

12. How did Flynn view women in general? Be sure to be accurate in your answer.

being a hedonist, one who seeks to maximize pleasure, errol flynn seems to find pleasure in women as well. not necessarily in sexual relationship, but more in beauty. in every single one of his encounter with a woman in my wicked, wicked ways, errol flynn always makes reference to beauty, such as: "pretty," "slender," "lovely picture, arms outspread, lovely full breasts," "there is nothing hard or cold about the flesh of the heathen chinee," "the most spectacular sight," and many other.

despite his admiration toward female beauty, flynn makes a strong remark that love between man and woman is not something that comes out from communication. his relationship with tuperselai, in which he hardly talks to her because he has problem talking in tuperselai's language, went smoothly, and the moment they made love, he described it as "a beautiful thing," and "one of [his] most precious poetic moment." (flynn 105) flynn's conclusion from such a beautiful love without much communication is that "a man and a woman should never speak the same language." (flynn 106)

flynn reveals his view on women clearly in page 248 after his troublesome relationship with his first wife, lili damita. flynn considers that "women try to make the man a personal prize," while from the way he sees it, "if you love someone, you will love him enough to want to see him free and unfettered." flyn also ridicules the concept of monogamy; he claims that "it is no man's natural state to be monogamous. neither is it woman's." more strongly, he argues that monogamy is "nothing more than a travesty on human nature."

QUESTION ELEVEN

2004-07-16T02:09:00.001-07:00

11. In what ways was Errol Flynn a philosophical hedonist? Support your answer with pertinent quotes.

being a hedonist means having a belief that anything that results in pleasure is good, and errol flynn's way of living, all the way from when he was still a child, entirely reflects his philosophical hedonism, for his actions are always geared toward pleasure and no other.

this "seeking pleasure" habit of his can be seen mostly from his experiences with women. in most if not all of his affairs, he never considers the consequences of his actions; all he head in mind was something along the lines of "if it gives both you and me a pleasure, then let's go for it." one affair he had with elsie when he was in northshore sydney grammar school he described as being "much more interesting than algebra." (flynn 43) another affair with a lady named maura was considered "one of [his] most wonderful nights," (flynn 56) although he knew that maura was married to a high government official. then with maihiati, whom he found in the jungle, flynn considered her so "desirable" (flynn 71) that he disregarded a letter from his dad about not having a relationship with a native. his hedonistic idea, however, is probably most easily seen in his short relationship with mayako, whome he met aboard thd D'Artagnan: "i decided that if she were so ill that she might die, and so young and so beautiful, she certainly should have a fling before passing away. i doped the situation this way: if she was really that ill, she would want one too. i was right." (flynn 167)

another example of flynn's hedonism is shown during his childhood. he would skip classes and not study, unlike other kids. what was considered "good" during that era was probably the whole idea of going to school, getting a degree, and then work, but for flynn, who was a hedonist, what doesn't provide pleasure is not a real "good." he said that "it was fun skipping out, fooling the headmasters, taking off at night after a romantic leap to the ground." (flynn 43) flynn cares not about the consequences of his actions, what matters for him is the maximization of pleasure.

QUESTION TEN

2004-07-15T06:52:00.000-07:00

10. How does a purely materialist explanation of the universe help one in trying to answer philosophical questions? Give several examples and flesh out your answers.

like the answer i have provided before for question nine, i still think that philosophy is a field of study that seeks the truth through rational answers to the questions it proposes. materialistic explanations are usually accompanied with facts, or experimental evidence, and those are the rational answer that philosophical questions seek. it is of what nature i do not know that rationally logical answers are much more easier for one to accept, rather than answers that are based on intangible concepts; probably the tangibility? i guess it is much more easier for one to accept an explanation if one can construct a tangible depiction of it in his/her mind.

in the metaphysics class i took in january, i was introduced to two philosophical issues that are still being questioned until now: time, and the mind and body problem. the philosophy of time is simple; it basically asks what time IS and how does it behave, exactly. however, there is still no good, rational answer that can answer that question. the mind and body problem is about how an intangible concept such as the MIND can have control over something as tangible as the BODY. what connects the mind to the body? does the mind really exist, or is it just a bunch of chemicals in the brain?

well, i think stephen hawking's the universe in a nutshell and steven pinker's the blank slate have attempted to provide the rational answers to these two different field of philosophy. hawking in his book talks about time, and even introduces the idea of an imaginary time that makes physical theories of the universe consistent with one another. sounds really intangible, but if it is consistent mathematically, chances are it can be the correct idea. the answer is still unclear, since physicists haven't really gotten up to the point where they can give experimental evidence to a claim on what time really is, but at the very least, physics provides the ground to providing the philosophy of time potentially rational answers.

pinker's book also attempts on providing some rational explanation to the mind-body problem. i remember talking about dualism in the metaphysics class, which is also mentioned by pinker in his book. although not directly talking about how the mind is connected to the body, pinker certainly provides some insights in his argument regarding the ghost in the machine. behaviorism, which belongs to monism (who believes that there is only one substance) is also discussed by pinker, and how evolutionary theory can be used to explain this. pinker also briefly mentions descartes, who is a dualist, and his famous line "i think, therefore i am" in his discussion on nature vs nurture. so in a way, pinker touches many of the philosophical aspect of the mind-body problem.

QUESTION SEVEN

2004-07-15T06:12:00.000-07:00

7. How would a sociologist (one, for instance, who leans heavily in favor of the NURTURE argument) critique Pinker's argument in the Blank Slate. You may need to do web research on this one.

steven pinker provides both valid and sound arguments to the case against nurture, with factual evidences that are just hard to refute, that are just so convincing that any sociologist would have trouble arguing back.

a sociologist in favor of the nurture argument would most definitely bring up the case about separated twins. they would insist on arguing that if behavioral genes are truly hereditary and are the sole player in shaping the twins behaviors, then when they are separated and exposed to two extremely different way of living, they should end up being exactly the same. a number of studies, however, shows that they are never exactly alike. there are quite astonishing similarities between them, but they are not as similar as those kept in the same environment. pinker of course, would argue that the genes heritability chances are not exactly 50-50. the number is around 50% but never exactly reaches 50. this is still much more even compared to siblings, whose heritability probability can sometimes even be 80-20. pinker's nature argument would claim that in the end, environment matters not. however, with the fact that cases where twins with different environment have perfect similarity are coexisting with cases where twins with different environment have a little bit of differences, one cannot completely disregard that environment DOES play role in shaping an individual.

a controversial study done by john watson reveals that one can condition a behavior on a child. (PBSonline) watson exposes a few-months-old child named albert to a white lab rat and albert was not afraid of the rat. he found out, however, that upon hearing loud noise, albert was scared and started to cry. a couple months later, albert was again given the rat, but now everytime albert tried to touch the rat, watson makes the loud noise that albert was afraid of. after done repeatedly, even seeing the rat makes albert cry. the effect does not stop there; everytime albert sees something white and furry, he cries. this study, although considered unethical, revealed that environment does play a role in shaping an individual.

another study reveals that "sense of humor is a learned trait," in a study conducted by the twin research unit at the st. thomas hospital in london (university of wisconsin-whitewater article). the 127 pair of female twins were asked to rate cognitive humor from 0 to 10 separately, and surprisingly, "the identical twins provided no more common responses to the joke than the fraternal twins." often times, the fraternal twins were even "closer in agreement" as to which cartoon is funny and which is not. a study on different types of jokes also seems to show that "humor appreciation varies with age and personality." which is quite an interesting observation, since robert ploming claims that most twin studies "almost always show genetic effects."

these are some facts that a sociologist might want to use in an argument against pinker's nature argument.

QUESTION SIX

2004-07-15T03:51:00.000-07:00

6. What is Steven Pinker's chief critique of the "blank slate"? Give six examples which illustrate Pinker's notion of epigenetic predispositions.

to be honest, i'd have to say that i don't quite understand this book, since biology is never really something i'm good at. most of the time i'm stuck trying to understand the biological terms that pinker uses. so i'll apologize in advance if i made any incorrect biological remarks or biological terms used out of place. but, if i did understand this correctly, then here's steven pinker's chief critique of the blank slate:

the idea of the blank slate is that human mind starts out as a blank slate, with nothing on it. so in a way, it is saying that human beings started out being equal. there is no initial differences that make one person's mind is any different from the other. male and female are equal
, race A and race B are equal, everything, basically is equal. then as one grows up, one experiences things from one's environment, and these experiences shapes an individual in a different way other environment shapes different individuals. in the end, we have unique individuals in this world, NOT because they started out differently, but because environment SHAPES them differently.

pinker argues that this idea is wrong. the slate is NOT blank. human beings DO possess human nature. pinker says that the mind when it first come to existence, DOES have biological differences caused by genetics. however, the reasons that the idea on human nature is really hard for the society to accept, is the four chapters of part III: fear of inequality, imperfectibility, determinism, and nihilism.

now, i'm not quite sure what "epigenetic predispositions" means, but i looked up the term "epigenesis" and got "the theory that an individual is developed by successive differentiation of an unstructured egg rather than by a simple enlarging of a preformed entity." (dictionary.com) so if i don't understand this wrong, epigenesis is basically theories like the blank slate theory, where individual starts out with a blank slate and fill it up with information as that individual experiences things. pinker is against such notion; there are some examples from his book, the blank slate, that help shows why he believes in human nature.

the first one that he brings up is a summary from his other book, how the mind works, in which he discussed "some simple logical relationships that underlie our understanding of a complete thought but are difficult to represent in generic networks." (pinker 80) pinker claims that human beings have such talents, that are almost impossible to possess if the slate is really blank. first is ability to distinguish between "a kind and an individual," such as a particular duck and ducks in general. second is talent called "compositionality," the ability to "entertain a new, complex thought that is just not the sum of simple thoughts composing it, but depends on their relationship," such as understanding "cats chasing mice" and not "mice chasing cats instead. third is the talent called "quantification," or the ability to differentiate between "fooling some of the people all of the time and fooling all of the people some of the time." fourth is talent called "recursion," or one's ability to "embed one thought inside the other," such as thinking that elvis lives, that people are thinking that elvis lives, that magazines report that elvis lives, and so forth. the fifth and last is the ability to "engage in a cateegorical reasoning," such as knowing that shrewds are not mice, although they might look alike.

another example that he discusses is with regard to violence. pinker argues that violence is just human nature, and not a "learned behavior" (pinker 310) like some people claim. the fact that aggressive parents have aggressive children cannot be used to conclude that environment causes the children to become aggressive as well. pinker argues that such claim is disregarding the possibility that "violent tendencies could be inherited as well," and continues on by saying that "unless one looks at adopted children and shows that they act more like their adoptive parents than like their biological parents," then one cannot make such claim about environment is causing the children to behave aggresively.

pinker also discusses the issue on gender, in which he claims that the minds of men and women ARE not identical. this is in no way saying that one is superior than the other, but simply saying that, as pinker put it, "it's better to have the male adaptation to deal with male problems and the female adaptations to deal with female problems." (pinker 344) an interesting example that pinker gives is about an 8-month-old boy who lost his penis and his parents decided to get him an artificial vagina and raised him as a girl. but apparently the girl, even at young age, "felt that she was a boy trapped in a girl's body and gender role." (pinker 349) pinker said that that "she ripped off frilly dresses, rejected dolls in favor of guns, preferred to play with boys, and even insisted on urinating standing up." in the end, she underwent another operations and now live as a man. this is an example that shows how environment could not shape what was originally male into a female, no matter how early in the development.

another idea that leads pinker into believing there is such thing as human nature, is the experiment done by psychologist laura petitto and her chimpanzee named nim chimsky. nim can imitate what petitto is doing, but cannot do it to perfection, or at the very least, reaching the intended goal. when petitto scrubs dishes, the main purpose is obviously to clean it. now, nim can also scrubs dishes like petitto, but the thing that nim does not have in mind is that the purpose of scrubbing is to clean the dishes. pinker also provides an example from rodney brooks about a robot imitating a person opening a jar and then wiping his brow. of course, the intended action (primary) is opening the jar, while wiping brow is not an important action (secondary), but how can the robot know which one is important and which one is not? pinker claims that the answer is that the robot "has to be equipped with an ability to see into the mind of the person being imitated, so that it can infer the person's goal and pick out the aspects of behavior that the person intended to achieve the goal." (pinker 61) this ability is an ability that even the most sophisticated robot cannot have, and this is what leads pinker into thinking that the slate must have this ability INNATELY and therefore cannot be blank, for this is not an ability that one can learn.

Re: The Noble Savage

2004-07-15T01:43:00.000-07:00

heh, i'm confused as well, but i thought i should share my understanding of that part of the book. now, i don't know if this is the correct understanding or not, but here's what i got from that part.

what pinker said about the noble savage is basically this: there's a theory called the NOBLE SAVAGES. sounds like an oxymoron to me at first; i mean, how could savages be noble? but that's the idea. i think margaret mead was the one who started a theory on this, although like pinker wrote in the book, there's been reference to "noble savages" from the likes of dryden and rosseau (did i spell it right?). what the theory says is that HUMAN BEINGS ARE INNATELY GOOD. then as they're exposed to riches and whatnot, they become greedy. but if they're put in a place that won't expose them to greediness, or in another word by letting them to be savages, then they're good. i think pinker mentions something about in nature, human beings are in a quest for brotherhood, and therefore live in peace. but then a study was conducted and they found out that savages are actually brutal, like that example about father beating up daughter to death if she turns out not virgin at the day of marriage. so basically yes, i think what the noble savage theory says is that human beings are peaceful in nature, but violent when brought to civilization.

now, i think pinker OPPOSES this view. the very fact that he brought up the study about savage brutality shows that he's trying to claim that this idea is wrong. on the talk about babies, to me he's like giving justification for both view. like you said: if babies are innately good, then they are evil because society corrupts them, but if babies are innately bad, then they are evil because they are not well disciplined. i think it's more like ideas on how to handle either one of the two situation presented. if the noble savages is a correct theory, then society is at fault, but if it's wrong, then society is not at fault (environment cant be blamed), but the parents are at fault because they cannot "tame" the violence in the baby.

just a personal opinion, i think babies are innately violent. i mean, look at the way they try to grab their parent's attention. they cry, kick, scream, throw stuff all over the place, spit out the food you're trying to feed them. now, i'm not saying i hate babies, i like them. it's just that they ARE naturally violent. it's not EVIL that these babies are going to learn as they grow up, it's MANNERS and how to be GOOD. if you let babies grow up without properly teaching them how to behave, MOST LIKELY they'll be bad people. so in this case, nature says "baby bad" but nurture makes "baby good," or at least that's what i think.

epigenetic predisposition

2004-07-14T21:18:00.000-07:00

is it just me or is anyone else confused about "epigenetic predisposition?"

i've read the blank slate, but i couldn't find any word that says epigenetic predisposition. so it's either i was blind and completely missed it, or something we'd have to look up ourselves. i couldn't find it in the index either. but i took the initiative to look it up at dictionary.com and here's what it says about "epigenetic"

"The theory that an individual is developed by successive differentiation of an unstructured egg rather than by a simple enlarging of a preformed entity."

correct me if i'm wrong, but here's what i'm able to conclude: in a way, epigenetic predisposition is basically a concept like the blank slate itself? that every organism starts out as being empty, and then as it grows, it is shaped by its environment, but it has no innate talent whatsoever? if this is correct, then the blank slate theory is a "nurture" theory.

then, after talking in length about blank slate, its implications and whatnot, in the last chapter, he finally made his argument. basically he said the blank slate theory sucks. this implies that he's a "nature" theory guy, for he said himself that blank slate theory posits a vaccum in human nature (pinker 421), and then continues on to say that it is ok to acknowledge human nature (422).

but here's what i don't get: pinker claims that "the vacuum that [blank slate] posited in human nature... did nothing to prevent their genocides," (421) and then talks about how it "perverts education, childrearing, and the arts into forms of social engineering." so basically, from what i get, he is against blank slate and its consquences. now, in chapter 8 "the fear of inequality" pinker also talks about what happens if the slate "is not blank." (141) he said that there will be "three evils" that could ensue from it: prejudice, social darwinism, and eugenics. so, speaking frankly, for a "nurture" person, the slate is blank, and for a "nature" person, the slate is not. since pinker is a "nature" person, does that mean he OKs the three evils? because if he claims that the slate isnt blank, then the implications are the three evils, and thus he must be ok with it, right?

honestly, i've never liked biology since i was exposed to it in elementary school, which is why i'm a physics major, so i would really appreciate it if any of you guys who actually understands this whole biology stuff pinker uses in his arguments could make things clear for me.

thanks ~_~

QUESTION EIGHT

2004-07-14T04:15:00.000-07:00

8. How does the theory of evolution help explain human behavior? Use 5 examples of your own choosing to illustrate your point.

the main concept behind the theory of evolution is what is usually known as "the survival of the fittest" or natural selection. basically a trait that is the fittest in the society survives and is passed down to the next generation. now, this theory can be used to analyze human behavior since the theory argues that human behavior revolves around the one tendency: maintaining the existence of one's traits in the society. and to do this, one needs to create offspring. as pinker put it, "in the game of evolution, is it better to be monogamous or polygamous? gentle or aggressive? cooperative or selfish? indulgent with children or stern with them? optimistic, pragmatic, or pessimistic?" (pinker 52) the theory of evolution helps one understands why one action is preferred over the other.

a couple examples of this is given by pinker in the blank slate page 53:

"an eye for beauty, for example, lockes onto faces that show signs of health and fertility --- just as one would predict if it had evolved to help the beholder find the fitterst mate."

"the emotions of symphathy, gratitude, guilt, and anger allow people to benefit from cooperation without being exploited by liars and cheats"

"a reputation for toughness and a thirst for revenge were the best defense against aggression in a world in which one could not call 911 to summon the police."

pinker also explains this concept in terms of proximate and ultimate cause. proximate cause is the "mechanism" that drives one into commiting an action, and has the properties of being impromptu and temporary. ultimate cause, on the other hand, is the "adaptive rationale" that furthers the proximate cause. in other words, ultimate cause is like the final end, the final purpose, of an action. pinker gives an example for both causes; in the case of procreation, proximate cause would be the lust that drives one to have sex, and ultimate cause would be the need to reproduce. (pinker 54)

pinker claims that the concept of proximate and ultimate cause is "indispensable" in analyzing human behavior, particularly when one asks the question "why did that person act way he/she did?" although it seems like ultimate cause will likely be the reason people do what they do, in most cases, proximate cause becomes the main reason for one's action. in some examples that pinker offers, he said that in cases of procreation where proximate cause overwhelms ultimate cause, people can "covet their neighbor's spouse" or "prefer a sexy and dangerous partner to a plain but dependable one."

some other pertinent examples i've heard in some biology classes i've taken are about birds or bees, not humans. some birds chirp at 3 or 4 in the morning because males and females of their species forage at that time and so the females usually start chirping to attract the male species to come and procreate because that's the only way they could prevent the extinction of their species. a negative side effect would be for some people like me who don't go to bed until 3 or 4 in the morning and then aren't to sleep well because the birds keep chirping until past sunrise, causing unnecessary frowns and grouchiness when waking up the next day.

another example i've heard is about an experiment with two monkeys. while monkeys are not human beings, both species are quite alike in behavior. this one experiment i've heard puts two monkeys in one cage, but they are separated by metal bars so they can still see each other, but not trespass each other's territory. now the scientist puts a banana on top of one monkey, let's say monkey A, but makes it too high for monkey A to reach. the only way monkey A can get the banana is if monkey B pulls a string that is located in monkey B's territory. so like the brief example pinker gives about cooperation, these two monkeys have to learn to help each other in order for them not to die from starvation. what is interesting is that monkey A never tries to cheat monkey B by keeping the banana all for himself and not sharing. maybe this is because monkey A realizes that if he does that, next time the banana is up there again, monkey B will refuse to pull the string. so from this example, cooperation is a trait that is being promoted by natural selection, while cheating is weeded out.

QUESTION NINE

2004-07-14T04:11:00.000-07:00

9. Your teacher repeatedly says, "philosophy done well is science; philosophy done poorly is religion/theology." What does such a statement mean and what are its ultimate implications (online students may have to do some web research on this one, as well). Try doing a http://www.google.com search.

i remember having a discussion in one of the posts about that one particular quote. i have taken philosophy for three quarters in ucsd, an introductory one (but none like this class), one on metaphysics, and one on logic, and after all these exposure to philosophy, i've come to a conclusion that philosophy is a study to understand basically everything in this universe. philosophy encompasses morals, ethics, science, religion, even mathematics; it seems to me like philosophy is the root of all kinds of studies. in philosophy, one asks questions and expects RATIONAL answers, which is probably why logic is one of the most fundamental field to begin with when one studies philosophy. why asking questions? because one wants to find the truth. there are many things around that we human beings do not understand; why does this event happen? why does he behave like that? what determines right and wrong? philosophy simply seeks the truth, some explanation to questions like those that logically makes sense. and philosophy is "done well," when the answer to a question it proposes is answered rationally.

so the bottomline is, philosophy is a study that promotes questions to help people better understand the universe and themselves, and seeks rational answers to the questions. science, of all fields that branched from philosophy, is the main competitor in providing rational answers. questions promoted from the study of philosophy such as "why is the sky blue" and many others have been answered rationally and logically by science. furthermore, science also gives PROOFS with factual information, and we all know that factual information must be true. thus, science is "philosophy done well," for it provides rational answers that philosophy seeks by promoting questions.

religion or theology on the other hand, also provides answers to questions that philosophy asks. but unfortunately, theological answers are mostly based on intangible things such as faith that cannot be rationally proven. also, when theology provides answers, they are quite limited since their answers revolve around a divine being, whereas science can be more flexible since they do not have to center their answers around one concept. theology does not provide the answers that philosophy seeks: rational answers. this is why theology is considered "philosophy done poorly;" the answers it provides cannot be proven by facts answers that science provides.

QUESTION FIVE

2004-07-14T03:29:00.000-07:00

5. How does superstring (or super membrane) theory reconcile Einstein's general theory of relativity with quantum mechanics? More precisely, how does superstring theory reduce the four forces of the universe (name them) into one super force?

early theories that tried to combine the four forces of the universe --- electromagnetic force, gravitational force, strong force, and weak force --- called the "supergravity theories," have failed because they result in infinity. the introduction of the concept of supersymmetry, which claims that each particle has a so-called "superpartner" whose spin is 1/2 greater or smaller than the particle itself, allows these supergravity theories to continues to exist, but not for long. supersymmetry cancels the "biggest infinities" (hawking 52) in supergravity theories, but no one knows whether the leftover quantities will be infinite or not. this uncertainty causes scientists to abandon the supergravity theories because theories that result in infinities are considered to be "fatally flawed" (hawking 52) and introduce the idea of string theory.

superstring theory is a theory that starts out by assuming that every particle in this universe is made out of tiny vibrating strings of energy, with different vibration modes on the string correspond to different particles. these strings that the string theory predicts to exist, are "one-dimensional extended objects," (hawking 52) which only have length dimension. if vibrations of the string correspond particles (namely bosons and fermions) and the strings have grassman dimensions, then as hawking claims it: "positive and negative ground state energy will cancel so exactly that there will be no infinities even of the smaller sort." (hawking 52) when one combines electromagnetic force with the strong and weak force, one still gets a consistent, finite answer from the theory, but when one takes gravity into play, one starts getting infinities. these infinities are the biggest obstacle to physicists who are trying to formulate ONE theory that explains everything in this universe, namely the TOE (theory of everything). string theory, however, manages to eliminate these infinities without much hassle like the old supergravity theories, thus making string theory the strongest candidate for TOE.

Re: Is time travel possible

2004-07-14T02:32:00.000-07:00

speaking of time travel, i remember an argument given by a philosophy professor at ucsd, prof. craig callender, when i took his metaphysics class once. if i'm not mistaken, i think prof. lane taught at ucsd for quite some time, so i'm wondering if you know him, prof.lane? craig callender, he's written a book called "introduction to time" that's sorta like a picture book that talks about the philosophy of time. if you do know him, i wonder if you two has ever discussed this, because prof. callender seems to be particularly interested in philosophy of time, as he has always brought this up in the two classes i've had with him.

we were discussing the philosophy of time, like what time is and how one defines time and whatnot, and we got to the point about time travel. the ideas i get from TV, is that it's not logically contradictory to go back to the past to change the present, or even the future. we've seen movies like terminator, back to the future, and many others that use time travel as the main idea. now, his argument is one that i find really interesting, although it's still quite hard for me to grasp. he proposes that time travel with the idea "going back to the past to change the present" is logically impossible.

why?

this is what he argues. let's take terminator 2 for example. so the robots send a machine to the past to kill john o'connor, and then the old john o' connor sends arnold schwarznegger back to protect the young john oconnor. well, according to prof. callender, the old john o'connor does not need to send arnold back to protect him, BECAUSE HE ALREADY EXISTS AT HIS PRESENT. the idea is that since he already exists AT THE PRESENT, that means IN THE PAST, that bad robot sent to kill him DID NOT SUCCEED, for if that robot SUCCEEDED, he wouldn't have been there IN THE PRESENT. so in a way, what prof. callender proposes is that no matter what you do, you CANNOT go back to the past to change the present, because the present HAS EXISTED. if you had gone to the past and change it, THIS PARTICULAR present would not have existed, it would have been some OTHER present. and then, if the present is already the OTHER present you want, then you wouldn't have gone back to the past to change it. so the bottomline is, it's ONE BIG MESS OF CONTRADICTION.

another way to think about it is this: say once in the past, you're offered $1 million, but you rejected it because you thought it was a scam. well, now, at the present moment, your life is hellish. you're poor, you have 4 kids, your wife/husband left you. so you want to go back to the PAST and accept that $1 million instead of rejecting it, hoping to change the PRESENT life you dread so much. BUT. if you HAD GONE back to the past and change it, then you wouldn't be living the life you're living right now. if you HAD GONE back to the past and change it, then you'll be rich RIGHT AT THIS MOMENT. and if you're rich, there's no need to go back to the past. it's circular. if this is still confusing, let's say you want to change the past. then you work hard to invent a time machine that will bring you to the past. after years of hardwork, you succeeded. then you go back to the past and accept the money. but then, as your PAST SELF proceeds in time, your past self won't have any need to go back to the past and hence your past self would not have invented the time machine. but your past self is YOU, and if you end up not inventing the time machine, how did you go back to the past and make that change of decision?

a comic strip i've read is about this one guy who's broke on monday and decides to borrow money from his future self, him on friday evening after getting his paycheck. so he borrows the money, goes shopping, and eats at a restaurant. at the end of the week, he's broke again, but the question is: does he get the paycheck that he has already spent since monday? if he doesn't, then he couldn't have borrowed the money on monday because on friday he doesn't get a paycheck. if he does, then he's getting 2 paychecks and that just doesn't make sense since he has already borrowed it on monday. if he keeps doing this over and over, that is, keeps borrowing money from his future self, then what happens if he borrowed money from his friday self but then he died on wednesday? will it be an infinite regress?

QUESTION FOUR

2004-07-14T01:39:00.000-07:00

4. Hawking made the intriguing observation that M-theory has as much evidence for its claims as astrology, yet Hawking thinks astrology is more or less bogus. Why, then, does Hawking believe that M-theory is most likely correct and NOT claims of the paranormal? Read Hawking carefully before you leap.

simply put, the reason why hawking thinks astrology is "bogus" and the m-theory not is described in the opening of chapter 4, "predicting the future:" it is not so much about "scientific evidence or the lack of it, but because it is not consistent with other theories that have been tested by experiment." (hawking 103) as a positivist, hawking does not ask much for a theory or idea to be plausible; he doesn't even care whether the new theory can be physically interpreted or not; all he asks is for the theory to to be mathematically consistent both in itself and with other well-established theories. astrology cannot provide this, especially after the discovery that heavenly bodies revolve around the sun, not the earth. hawking expresses his doubts on astrology by questioning, "why should the positions of other planets against the background sky as seen from earth have any correlations with the macromolecules on a minor planet?" (hawking 103)

now, the m-theory, although has yet to be experimentally test, is more plausible for a positivist like hawking than astrology, since m-theory stems from scientific theories, and most importantly, is consistent. m-theory comes from the idea that the different existing string theories are just actually just "different expressions of the same underlying idea," (hawking 56) and this single underlying idea is the m-theory itself. string theory is known as the only CONSISTENT existing theory these days that --- if proven correct --- successfully unifies all four forces of nature. the theory is mathematically consistent both in itself and with other well-established theories as well. voila! exactly what a positivist is looking for. although string theory seems a little "bogus" as well since it's consistent only in ten or eleven dimensional universe, for a positivist like hawking --- as he said it himself --- "the question 'do extra dimensions really exist?' has no meaning." (hawking 54) consistency with established theories is the key concept that astrology could not provide for positivists like hawking, and although the m-theory seems to be not very "deterministic," it would be a more plausible one for hawking to accept.

QUESTION THREE

2004-07-13T23:41:00.000-07:00

3. What does Hawking mean by "imaginary" time versus "real" time? How is the concept of imaginary time useful in understanding the implications of Einstein's theory of relativity? In addition explain the "brane" theory and how it relates to a geometric understanding of space-time.

imaginary time is simply a mathematical construct to "fill in the gap" for the 4th dimension that cannot be physically seen. since space is three dimensional and is described by three lines perpendicular to one another, there's a big problem when taking time into account as the fourth dimension; having a fourth dimension means that one has to pull another line perpendicular to the three already-perpendicular-to-each-other lines. but this is geometrically impossible. thus, the concept of real and imaginary time is introduced.

space, or as hawking puts it: "history," moves along the real time line. now, just like in the cartesian coordinate, imaginary time line is perpendicular to real time line just like y axis is perpendicular to x axis. the center where they intercept each other would be the zero point. since the imaginary time is perpendicular to the real time axis, on which the three-dimensional space moves, then this concept of imaginary time "behaves like a fourth spatial direction," (hawking 60) and makes possible what was once geometrically impossible.

now, why would one need the fourth dimension? einstein's general theory of relativity requires all three spatial directions and one time direction. but the use of real time causes time to behave differently than space; namely because one can move up or down any of the spatial directions, but in real time, one can only move up, that is, to the future. imaginary time axis behaves differently; one can move up or down that axis, one can increase or decrease on that axis, so as hawking puts it, this imaginary time axis does behave "like a fourth spatial direction."

the imaginary time, however, has no physical interpretation. it's just simply a mathematical construct that is consistent with established theories. since hawking is what he calls "a positivist," he does not need physical interpretation of things; he claims that for a positivist, physical interpretation means little to none, since they "cannot determine what is real." (hawking 59) what is important for positivists like hawking is to "find which mathematical models describe the universe we live in." (hawking 59)

the brane theory, is a theory developed by cambridge's paul townsend. branes, or more formally known as "p-branes," are basically objects having lengths in p-direction. so a one dimensional objects would be a p=1 brane, a two dimensional object would be a p=2 brane, and so on. the introduction of the concept of branes has given deeper insights on how the universe works; hawking said that "all the p-branes could be found as solutions of the equations of supergravity theories in 10 or 11 dimensions." (hawking 54) this tells us that if the theoretical p-branes do exist, then it is possible that the universe we are living in is 10 or 11 dimensional. but doesn't that seem too much? the universe we are seeing with our eyes are three dimensional, even with time as the fourth dimension, it's already hard to comprehend, let alone ten or even eleven dimensions. hawking provides a brief explanation for this: "the idea was that the other 6 or 7 dimensions are curled up so small that we don't notice them." (hawking 54) the introduction of the branes completely alter our geometric understanding of the universe; there seems to be more of the universe than what the eyes can see.

Re: Human sexuality

2004-07-13T16:54:00.000-07:00

about change, things ALWAYS change, there's no way you can stop that.

i'm pretty sure the majority of people ARE afraid of change, but i don't think it's because they think change is bad. it's more that when something CHANGES, there's an element of uncertainty in there. it is uncertain whether the change is for the better, or for the worse. now, people aren't afraid that change is bad, but rather, they're afraid of that uncertainty element in it. i'm sure you all agree that everyone (most if not all) wants to live a happy, stable life. stability then, cannot be reached in a society where changes happen so often. that's why liberal (radical changing) movement are always likely to be opposed, not because people are afraid that the change is bad, but because people are quite happy with stability of their lifestyle at that moment that they're not willing to risk the stability for something that has no certainty. it's kinda like when you're offered a job all the way in minnessota. it says great pay, benefits and whatnot, and from the promises, it's definitely better than your current job. but you have a family. now, no matter how liberal you are, you'll have to consider your kids moving to a new school, them adjusting to new lifestyle, you adjusting to new environment. the weather, the traffic, the convenience that you might not get compared to california, all those kinds of things. you'll have to sacrifice the current stable life you're living for something that SEEMS better but you're not yet certain; that's why people are so afraid of changes.

Re: changing the original sex

2004-07-13T16:53:00.000-07:00

about sex change, i don't even know what to say. i just can't understand what those people are thinking. not that i'm saying they're wrong or anything. i mean, we've all got free will, so if they want to get their sex changed, that's none of my business, i'm not gonna say it's right or wrong. it's just that, i can't think of them doing that for any other reason that sexual pleasure, and i just think it's weird, doing something so radical, so drastic of a change, just for sexual pleasure. it's not like one can't get pleasure without doing that, no matter whether that person is homosexual or heterosexual.

my friend sent me a link of a korean male who had his genital removed and replaced with an artificial female genital (i don't want to write those out because i don't know how comfortable people in this list are with those words). the video is 11 minutes long and i managed to watched in horror for 10 minutes before i successfully freed myself from paralysis to close media player and ran to the bathroom to regurgitate. my roommate told me i was not moving or blinking for the whole 10 minutes. it was just so...... gross. i've never had problems with blood or any kinds of surgery they had on tv. not even sites like rotten.com can make me grossed out, but this sex change video.... damn. it just looked sooooo painful. unnecessarily painful.

Re: changing the original sex

2004-07-13T16:52:00.000-07:00

so i'm barging into another heated discussion =)

i agree with michelle, but i'll take the extreme end. i think even with peer pressure, or environmental pressure. FREE WILL is still there. not just a little, but everything IS due to free will.

don't believe me? let's see.

what causes a woman to have to get an abortion? premarital sex. why do people have sex? because they have the drive to. HOWEVER, they can choose NOT to. you can see real-life examples of free will whenever you have the ability to MAKE a choice. you have a choice NOT to have sex before marriage, if you're so afraid of getting unplanned pregnancy. i'm almost 20 years old, and i'm not embarassed to admit that i'm still a virgin. i have a girlfriend, yes, but she's also still a virgin, and there you have free will: we CHOOSE not to have sex until we're married. just because we have pressures from the society, environment and whatnot, and we have the drive to procreate, does NOT mean that we have no free will. being pressurized is not an excuse to make a wrong decision. say you're being pressurized by the whole world to abandon your parents for the rest of your life, would you do it just because you're being "pressured?" if you've got issues with your parents, then that's another ballgame, but just because you're being pressured? sorry, but i think choosing to do something because of peer pressure is stupid. i myself have been getting these pressures since a couple year back: weed, cigarette, sex, streetrace, alcohol, but i've always managed not to give in. free will in action, nay?

now about society pressuring one to get an abortion, or as you said "circumstances." true that circumstances, culture, established moral and ethical values, and other crap like that pressure a woman to get an abortion. but again, consider whether she has a choice or not. does she have a choice NOT to get an abortion, despite all this pressure? YES SHE DOES. if she has a choice, then she has free will. it's not whether one has free will or not, not whether one chooses freely or not; it's whether one GIVES IN to the pressure or not. if you're pregnant, have no money to start a family, pressured by this and that and whatnot to get an abortion, that doesn't mean you're not doing it freely. if you want, you can choose to keep the child and work or something. it's gonna be a hard, or rather hellish, life, but it's the consequences; you perform an action, you bear the consequences. i personally have no stance on whether abortion should be legalized or not. i believe this is an issue where both yes or no is an appropriate answer, depending on the situation. but i cannot accept an argument that claims that one gets an abortion not because she freely chooses it.

on a side note, i also don't think keeping a child from premarriage pregnancy would be bad. of course the parents will be living a hard life, but as long as the child is brought up well, he/she can be a great person. there's a story which details i vaguely remember. it's about a poor old lady who's giving birth to her ninth (or 12th, i dont remember) child. she contemplated on whether she should get an abortion or not because she's the only one feeding her children, her husband left her already. she decided to keep this child, and it turned out to be a good decision, since if she had chosen otherwise, mozart wouldn't have been born.

Re: Do "I" exist?

2004-07-13T01:40:00.001-07:00

i've been absent from discussion for a week because my internet was being funky the whole week, now time for me to barge in discussions again. woohoo. =)

on existence, i do agree that the SOUL is what matters, and as much as i believe that my soul exists, i was disheartened as well when reading about how human feelings are nothing but a bunch of chemical reactions.

now, in this ongoing discussion, jrpandy mentions something about "brain." here's my take on this: brain is like, the central processing unit (CPU) of our body, in analogy to a computer. it's like that pentium IV 2.0GHz chip that is plugged into your motherboard and basically runs your computer. that's the brain. soul is different. and know that we're BETTER and DIFFERENT from a mere computer because of the fact that we DO have a soul. think about it this way. without a soul, we wouldn't be any different than a computer, because in "the blank slate" pinker talks about how scientists have been working to create computers that can act and think like a human. we think, computers think. we calculate, computers calculate. we take inputs and spit out outputs, computers take inputs and spit out outputs. BUT. this is where the computers are being defeated: computers cannot make INITIATIVE WITHOUT A GIVEN INPUT. that's the thing about computers. THEY CANNOT GIVE OUT OUTPUTS UNLESS THEY'RE GIVEN INPUTS. we human beings, are still able to do something even without input. if i want to, i can suddenly run around the block in my boxers for no apparent reason, just because i feel like it. i can grab my girlfriend and kiss her passionately, just because i feel like it. i can look at the starry night sky for hours, just because i feel like it. when doing these things, i don't need inputs such as "going nuts," "feeling horny," or "it's boring and hot inside the house" to do these things. i can do it even without thinking or "inputting" ANY of these. if you input these keywords on a robot, the robot would probably do exactly the same, but that's where the differences reside: THE ROBOT NEEDS THE INPUT FIRST.

people have often said to me that it's not good to do things "just because i feel like it," and i used to agree with it. it's not good doing something for no apparent reason. but now after reading "the blank slate" i think i'm starting embrace doing something "just because i feel like it," because that way it proves that my SOUL still exists.

and that i'm better than a robot.

anyone gonna go watch I,ROBOT?? i'm going. =D
maybe we should get together and watch that movie. it's gonna be hella cool.

Re: on science and religion

2004-07-13T01:40:00.000-07:00

ha ha ha.
quite true, actually.
but it also depends on whether the scientist is lazy or not. if he is i
bet he'd rather drive down to his lab and sleep there on the floor with
his oscilloscope and whatnot.

and the religionist, will keep thinking, "god wants to test my faith.
i'll not move from here."

=D

Re: Philosophy Done Well

2004-07-13T01:39:00.001-07:00

i think the whole thing about "philosophy done well is science" comes down to this:

philosophy QUESTIONS things. philosophy WANTS answers. and unlike theology, science GIVES answers.

now, theology may give answers too, but the answers in theology requires understanding that just usually don't make logical sense. it's something like "it happens because it's meant to be. it just HAS. there's no need for explanation." or something of that nature. well, the problem is, philosophy is based on RATIONALITY. LOGIC. so philosophy will be happy if the answers to their questions are LOGICAL and RATIONAL. if the answer is something that --- even though might actually be correct --- makes no logical sense, then philosophy just won't accept it, because it does NOT answer the questions they ask in the first place. it's easier to believe facts than to believe faith. that's why science is much more acceptable than religion.

but then again, it does sound cruel to isolate theology as "bad" philosophy.

that's why if you read professor lane's post a while ago, he said that he USED to say theology, but he corrected that and said "philosophy done bad is.... well, philosophy."

on science and religion

2004-07-13T01:39:00.000-07:00

i've said before that i'll post up a speech from dan brown's angels and demons. now since the discussion on science and religion is brought up again, and i've just found the book, here it is:
just a note, i do not leave out words. these are the exact quote. the ellipses are there in the book as well. just so you know the context of the story, this speech is given by one representing the vatican church.

"to the illuminati, and to those of science, let me say this. you have won the war.

"the wheels have been in motion for a long time, your victory has been inevitable. never before has it been as obvious as it is at this moment. science is the new god.

"medicine, electronic communications, space travel, genetic manipulation... these are the miracles about which we now tell our children. these are the miracles we herald as proof that science will bring us the answers. the ancient stories of immaculate conceptions, burning bushes, and parting seas are no longer relevant. god has become obsolete. science has won the battle. we concede.

"but science's victory, has cost every one of us. and it has cost us deeply.

"science may have alleviated the miseries of diseases and drudgery and provided an array of gadgetry for our entertainment and convenience, but it has left us in a world without wonder. our sunsets have been reduced to wavelengths and frequencies. the complexities of the universe have been shredded into mathematical equations. even our self-worth as human beings has been destroyed. science proclaims that planet earth and its inhabitants are a meaningless speck in the grand scheme. a cosmic accident. even the technology that promises to unite us, divides us. each of us is now electronically connected to the globe, and yet we feel utterly alone. we are bombarded with violence, division, fracture, and betrayal. skepticism has become a virtue. cynicism and demand for proof has become enlightened thought. is it any wonder that humans now feel more depressed and defeated than they have at any point in human history? does science hold ANYTHING sacred? science looks for answers by probing our unborn fetuses. science even presumesto rearrange our own DNA. it shatters god's world into smaler and smaller pieces in quest of meaning... and all it finds is more questions.

(ironically, it's true. haha. answering questions gives us even more questions)

"the ancient war between science and religion is over. you have won. but you have not won fairly. you have won by so radically reorienting our society that the truths we once saw as signposts now seem inapplicable. religion cannot keep up. scientific growth is exponential. it feeds on itself like a virus. every new breakthrough opens doors for new breakthroughs. mankind took thousands of years to progress from the wheel to the car. yet only decades from the car into space. now we measure scientific progress in weeks. we are spinning out of control. the rift between us grows deeper and deeper, and as religion is left behind, people find themselves in spiritual void. we cry out for meaning. and believe me, we DO cry out. we see UFOs, engage in channeling, spirit contact, out-of-body experiences, mindquests --- all these eccentric ideas have a scientific veener, but they are unashamedly irrational. they are the desperate cry of the modern soul, lonely and tormented, crippled by its own enlightenment and its inability to accept meaning in anything removed from technology.

"science, you say, will save us. science, i say, has destroyed us. since the days of galileo, the church has tried to slow the relentless march of science, sometimes with misguided means, but always with benevolent intention. even so, the temptations are too great for man to resist. i warn you, look around yourselves. the promises of science have not been kept. promises of efficiency and simplicity have bred nothing but pollution and chaos. we are a fractured and frantic species... moving down a path of destruction.

"who is this god science? who is the god who offers his people power but no moral framework to tell you how to use that power? what kind of god gives a child FIRE but does not warn the child of its dangers? the language of science comes with no signposts about good and bad. science textbooks tell us how to create a nuclear reaction, and yet they contain no chapter asking us if it is a good or bad idea.

"to science, i say this. the church is tired. we are exhausted from trying to be your signposts. our resources are drying up from our campaign to be the voice of balance as you plow blindly on in your quest for smaller chips and larger profits. we ask not why you will not govern yourselves, but how can you? your world moves so fast that if you stop even for an instant to consider the implications of your actions, someone more efficient will whip past you in a blur. so you move on. you proliferate weapons of mass destruction, but it is the pope who travels the world beseeching leaders to use restraint. you clone living creatures, but it is the church reminding us to consider the moral implications of our actions. you encourage people to interact on phones, video screens, and computers, but it is the church who opens its doors and reminds us to commune in person as we were meant to do. you even murder unborn babies in the name of research that will save lives. again, it is the church who points out the fallacy of this reasoning.

"and all the while, you proclaim the church is ignorant. but who's more ignorant? the man who cannont define lightning, or the man who does not respect is awesome power? this church is reaching out to you. reaching out to everyone. and yet the more we reach the more you push us away. show me proof there is a god, you say. i say use your telescopes to look to the heavens, and tell me how there could NOT be a god! you ask what does god look like. i say, where did that question come from? the answer are one and the same. do you not see god in your science? how can you miss him? you proclaim that even the slightest change in the force of gravity or the weight of an atom would have rendered our universe a lifeless mist rather than our magnificent sea of heavenly bodies, and yet you fail to see god's hand in THIS? is it really so much easier to believe that we simply chose the right card from a deck of billions? have we become so spiritually bankrupt that we would rather believe in mathematical impossiblity rather than in a power greater than us?

"whether or not you believe in god, you must believe this. when we as a species abandon our trust in the power greater than us, we abandon our sense of accountability. faith... ALL faiths... are admonitions that there is something we cannot understand, something to which we are accountable... with faith we are accountable to each other, to ourselves, and to a higher truth. religion is flawed, but only because MAN is flawed. in the outside world could see this church as i do... looking beyond the ritual of these walls... they would see a modern miracle... a brotherhood of imperfect, simple souls wanting only to be a voice of compassion in a world spinning out of control.

"are we obsolete? are these men dinosaurs? am i? does the world really need a voice for the poor, the weak, the opressed, the unborn child? do we really need souls like these who, though imperfect, spend their lives imploring each of us to read the signposts of morality and not lose our way?"

just a note i thought i should give: i'm quite sure this does not reflect the thoughts of the vatican church, since this is just a fiction. but this reflects the thought of the vatican church IN the novel, and the author as well. myself, i like the speech. i think it has a great message, for both in the scientific community, and the religious community. =)

p.s. apology on any typo ^^"

Re: Week One Post Three: Slightly Confused

2004-07-13T01:38:00.001-07:00

i'm also raised in a strict catholic family, and i'm still a conservative catholic, as is my dad, but i still enjoy science much more than theological discussion.

there's nothing bad about a religious scientist, right? =)

plus, i think eventually science will be the one to prove god's existence.

Re: Pseudo Scientific Critique, by Carlos Vasquez (Week 2)

2004-07-13T01:38:00.000-07:00

i don't know karma, nor do i believe in it, but i do know for sure that life is in balance.

the way i see it, everything in this world is in balance. chinese people have the yin-yang stuff, buddhists believe in karma (it IS buddhists, right? apology if i'm wrong. i'm uncertain on that), scientists (and even old days alchemists) believe in laws of conservations. there are a lot of things in this world that's sorta give us a hint that this world is a place of balance. life has its ups and downs, but in the long run, there will be no more ups than downs or vice versa. the "treat others as you would like to be treated" thing you were talking about, i think that's what the society call "the golden rule," isn't it? it's definitely a personal favorite of mine, it's just that in reality i've been experiencing being treated less by people i treat well. but it doesn't matter. if i use the golden rule and expect the same from others, then i would be doing nothing different than those people out there. but nevermind that, it's just the way i like to live my life. =)

that's one interesting bit you raised, though. why is killing ants or plants not as bad as killing fellow human being? true that we have minds and all this other junk that makes us superior compared to them, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't appreciate them. actually, it is something that's been bothering me all this time. what makes us so superior compared to animals? that we're intelligent beings? how is being able to learn science and other stuff, read, write, and all this crap makes us more intelligent than the animals? i mean, if you look at it from a different perspective, they're probably more intelligent than us. we can't build an underground tunneling system with bare hands like the gophers can. we can't lift something ten times our weight like ants can. we can't crawl up the wall like some bugs can (spiderman is one of them animals, so he's excluded). we can't see as well in the dark as bats. so in other ways, these animals are superior to us. and plants. damn. plants are awesome. WHO CAN MAKE THEIR OWN FOOD WITHOUT MOVING A SINGLE LIMB? none. if any, plants should be more superior than us. they can grow anywhere there's soil, and they don't depend on us to feed them.

so again, why are we considered superior?

Re: I little closer to understanding.

2004-07-13T01:37:00.002-07:00

the PBS program, i believe that's brian greene's THE ELEGANT UNIVERSE.

a friend of mine, fellow physics major, actually bothered to spend money buying the three-set DVD of the elegant universe. one night she and i watched all three dvds and came to two conclusions. one is that string theory is definitely awesome. two is that brian greene is the most annoying physicist in the whole world. =P

i believe that most if not all of the physics majors in my class who have seen that program ends up hating brian greene. poor guy.

if you're interested in it, i suggest you read the book: the elegant universe by brian greene. the book is so much better than the pbs show.

Re: Wishing I took physics

2004-07-13T01:37:00.001-07:00

it's not that it's gratifying, really.
like philosophers, scientists seek the truth. there are unexplained things in this universe that arouse questions, and philosophers and physicists are trying to find the answers to those questions. philosophers do it with logic and reasoning, while scientists use experimental facts. in the end, what they want is the same thing, THE TRUTH.
if it is gratifying, it would be for discovering the truth, not for proving whatever is already established to be wrong.

i think it's pretty frightening, instead of gratifying. if, say, one day, a scientist discovers the experimental evidence that god does not exist. fact. consistent. proven both mathematically and observatory. do you think he would run around screaming eureka? he'll withhold it for himself and it won't be until a few years later that the public hears about this. i mean, this scientist basically has more than half of the people in the world going against him. and if this example about god is too extreme, what about if the scientist discovers a way to create life? what about if the scientist discovers a power greater than the H-bomb that could wipe out an entire island without trace? it would be terrifying, rather than gratifying, for him.

aside from that, in the scientific community, controversial ideas that defies a well-established believe, usually do not survive for long. string theory, which is now the best theory physicists ever come up with to unify all 4 forces of nature, were turned down and rejected as being completely ridiculous when it first came out. it took a couple tries and support from many other scientists before it could become as elegant as it is now. so the bottomline is, it's not all that gratifying to prove something well-established wrong. =/

man, i wish it were that gratifying. =)

Re: The Universe In A Nutshell: Pgs. 1-100

2004-07-13T01:37:00.000-07:00

that "huh" probably indicates that he/she doesn't get what the otherperson is saying. =)

Re: The Universe In A Nutshell: Pgs. 1-100

2004-07-13T01:36:00.000-07:00

i've just finished the first three chapters of the book, and apparently
my previous posts were basically saying some of the things that are
already said in the book. sorry for being redundant. i should have read
the book before writing anything.

speaking of philosophy and science, as prof. lane said, that philosophy
done well is science. in physics, however, all theories, such as the
string theory and M-theory, are basically philosophy. that's what
theoretical physicists do: they make up theories. or, they PHILOSOPHIZE
theories. consistent ones, of course. but basically, what i've learned
after two years of undergraduate experience in studying physics, is that
all theories that have yet to be tested, is not yet physics. theories
that remain to be tested are philosophy. after it gets tested and proven
correct or incorrect, then it is physics, because physics is an
experimental science to begin with.

i particularly like the discussion about time and the beginning of the
universe in this book. even hawking himself brought up immanuel kant in
the discussion. so in a way, this book can be considered a philosophy
book, despite all of the scientifical nitty-gritty in it.

continuing on...

Re: the down side of physics

2004-07-13T01:33:00.000-07:00

i have yet to start reading universe in a nutshell, which is the assigned reading for this week, so pardon me if i said anything that doesn't make sense. but i WILL read it tonight, and hope i'll be done by tomorrow night. then i'll have more things i can say =D

as far as i know, the universe we're living in right now is expanding, not contracting. but if hawking himself says something about the contraction of the universe, then i'm sure he has valid reasoning. after all, he IS the world's smartest physicist, and i'm just a mere undergraduate student. physicists, namely astrophysicists, have been studying dark matter and dark energy, which make up quite a huge proportion of the universe. i think it's around 90% of the universe. and these dark matter and dark energy are what cause the universe to expand. i'm sure www.wikipedia.com has a better explanation of dark matter and dark energy. just go there and type it in.

if you say "as we moving further into the microscoptic scale, there seems to be no reason for us to discover further more," i would have to disagree. have you heard of cold fusion? have you even heard of fusion? well i'm sure the latter you have. in nuclear plants, what is happening is FISSION. fission is the process by which a stable uranium-235 atom take on one or more extra neutrons and become unstable. the instability of the new isotope then causes the nucleus to split apart and produce a massive energy. do this with a huuuuuge number of U-235 atoms, and we've got the energy that powers some parts of the united states. but the bad thing about fission is, as we all know, the nuclear waste. their half-lives are long enough that a significant amount of them will affect human beings severely. so now they're trying something much safer: FUSION. fusion is the process by which deuterium (hydrogen-2) and tritium (hydrogen-3) combine to form a helium atom, a neutron, and about three times as much energy as that being produced in fission process. more energy, better for everyone. plus, fusion don't leave nuclear waste. the problem with fusion is that it requires a HUGE amount of energy to begin with. (this has to do with the repulsive coulomb force of the tritium and deuterium that i don't think anyone would be particularly interested in) that's why now they try to figure out COLD FUSION. cold fusion is basically fusion, but at lower energy. the most ideal would be such fusion at room temperature. but of course this is still theoretical, and physicists are still trying to figure out HOW to get the fusion started at such a low energy. if this succeeds, we could produce enough energy to power the whole united states, and maybe the world, that doesn't cost so much, and doesn't leave nuclear waste.

speaking of saving money on your electric bill. =)

if you want a better explanation on cold fusion, wikipedia has a good explanation for it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

and here are some articles on cold fusion that i would suggest those who are interested to read, because obviously they give a much better explanation and argument than mine.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/coldfusion.html
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-4/p27.html

on account of why we physicist are interested in discovering what happens during, before, and after the big bang, given that the big bang was what actually happened, here's my say on it:

firstly, some physicists, like myself, do these funky and weird uninteresting-to-most-people things for the knowledge. it may sound naive, but knowledge itself for me is quite a satisfaction. when you do research on something, and one night you DISCOVER something, until you run around in your bathrobe screaming eureka and telling everyone in the building what you discover, YOU are the ONLY ONE in the WHOLE WIDE WORLD who knows. THE ONLY ONE. no one else knows until you tell them. is that not satisfying?

secondly, we physicist answer the HOW's of things. physicists don't make this world a better place, that's what humanitarians do. physicists don't make devices to help improve your life, that's what engineers do. physicists don't make your medicine, that's what chemists do. some physicists invent things, but inventing is NOT what a physicist mainly do. physicists explain how flow rate leads to pressure difference, then engineers take this and build airplanes. the reason why airplane wings are more curvy on one side is because the curvy side has more survace area than the flat side. this way, since air flows from the front to the back, the flow on the curvy side has to have a greater velocity (it covers bigger area at the same period of time). greater velocity leads to less pressure. so the flat side has more pressure. this is what physicists discover. then engineers take this and say "okay, then the flat side of the wings will be at the bottom and the curvy side will be at the top. that way when going at a high speed, the airplane will be pushed UP and will fly away." to better this, engineers then design the rudder system. if you've ever been on the passenger side of the car going above 55 on the freeway, roll the window down and stick your palm out. palm, not arm. flat palm, thumb facing the front of the car, pinky facing the back. if you tilt your palm down, meaning the thumb is now at a lower position than the pinky, your palm will be pushed down by the air flowing through your palm. tilt your palm up, and your palm will be pushed up. this is analogous to how rudder in airplanes work.

what makes life better is other people. what we physicists do is to HELP these other people make life better. how they want to use what physicists discover, is entirely up to them. politicians sometimes use scientific discoveries for propaganda. defense department is interested in more killing power. etc. this is why, in regards to earlier post on how einstein shouldn't be blamed for the manhattan project that spat out the atomic bomb, i would have to agree. einstein's discovery about mass as energy was purely scientific discovery. i highly doubt that he was even a part of the manhattan project. if anyone were to be blamed, it would be the person who gives the order to drop the bomb (i don't quite remember who). or oppenheimer, who was the head of the project. but it's all in the past. there's no point in blaming.

has anyone read "angels and demons" by dan brown? i would recommend that book. it's a fiction, but towards the end, there's a great speech about how science, which is based on facts, and religion, which is based of faith, are not supposed to prove each other wrong, but are supposed to go together, hand-in-hand, because science NEEDS religion, and religion NEEDS science. i couldn't find my book right now since my room's a mess, but after i find it i'll send out the quote.

also, there was a question: "if we know one day the entire universe is going to end, what's the point of fighting for survival now?"
what's the point of fighting for survival now? it is LIFE. OUR LIFE, the way it is right now. what else could we cherish and be thankful more than our lives? death is a state of nothingness; as epicurus put it, "since so long as we exist, death is not with us; but when death comes, then we do not exist." there is NOTHING to expect in death, but in life, there are numerous things to expect. life in itself is great, because it holds endless possibilities. your life can turn for the better, or the worse; while in death, it's just nothingness. an unchanging state. of course death is inevitable, but as of now, you live. you exist. your existence has a meaning. your existence is acknowledged by this world, by the people around you. every second that passes holds a possibility of something happening, and this is what makes life exciting. why is it not worth fighting for? =)

sorry for another long post. i hope i don't bore anyone. =/

Re: universe in a nutshell

2004-07-13T01:32:00.000-07:00

what got me into physics? frankly, i don't quite know how to answer that. people have been asking me the same question and my answer has always been the same: i don't know.

but if i were forced to write an answer, i would say it's the endless possibility of discovery; and one that particularly interests me, is the higgs boson. also known as the god particle.

back in the days when max planck was still alive, he geared his kids toward non-physics related professions, because that time, everyone thought physics was dead. there's nothing else new to be discovered. everyone thought that universe was already well-explained by what is now called the standard model. that, was until some guys fiddled with a barbecue grill and published a paper on blackbody radiation. i don't quite remember the nitty-gritty of the mathematical calculation, and i'm sure no one in this group cares about the math, but blackbody radiation was the first evidence that there's something not right with the classical model. a blackbody is basically a dark-opaque body that absorbs radiation incident on it, and is a part of the study of thermal radiation. radiation incident increases the kinetic energy of atoms in the body, therefore increasing the temperature. the heated body then also emits radiation. the better absorber the body is, the better emitter it is also. barbecue grill is an example of a blackbody. when the power radiated by the blackbody is being studied, the plot of the spectral distribution as a function of wavelength of the blackbody should have followed the raleigh-jeans law, if the classical model was right. well, it didn't. raleigh-jeans law says that for small wavelength (approaching zero), the energy density of a body would approach infinity, which doesn't make sense since the wavelength is proportional to the temperature of the body. so there's something wrong here. planck then sets up a law that fits perfectly the plot of the spectral distribution. this discovery, along with einstein's prediction of photoelectric effect, gives birth to quantum mechanics, which is one step forward to providing an explanation on how the universe works.

these kinds of things intrigues me, really. physics is like a field of endless discovery, and as long as you pay attention to what you're doing, and be honest, even the smallest mistake you make can turn out to be the next greatest discovery. the theories that exist right now are the ones that have been proven to be correct, or the ones that are waiting to be tested. but sometimes even the correct ones can turn out to be wrong, if tested to the extremes. the most elegant theory right now is the string theory, that basically unifies all the three forces of the universe with gravity. something that even einstein could not do. unfortunately string theory, as mathematically correct and elegant as it is, has not been tested due to the immense amount of energy in needed in the accelerator in order to see the strings. the biggest accelerator is set to run in 2007, the large hadron collider (LHC) in geneva, switzerland, that can go up into the Tera-electronVolts range of energy. but even that is still not enough to see the strings postulated in string theory.

but the higgs boson, the god particle that almost all highenergy physicist is looking, is thought to be in the TeV range, so hopefully the higgs will show up in LHC. higgs boson is basically a particle that is thought to give other particles their masses. the higgs particle interacts in a higgs field, which creates a so-called "attractive force" that makes other subatomic particles pile up around it. as more particles pile up, mass is created. i'm not completely sure how this works, as i'm still far in my studies, but it's really interesting. if you'd like to know more, googling up higgs boson or higgs particle will give you sites that give better explanation. a professor of mine in ucsd, Vivek Sharma, along with his colleagues in the HEP department in ucsd, is an active higgshunter, and will be working in the LHC after it runs. if the higgs boson is discovered, then we're one step closer to explaining the universe.

sorry, i shouldn't rant about physics here in a philosophy group. but yeah, all this cool stuff is why i'm interested in physics.

speaking in philosophical term, i think quantum mechanics also brings us (who believe) one step closer to god. if you like philosophy and you try to study quantum mechanics, you'll understand why i say so. if god created the universe, then god knows how the universe works. this way, if we're closer to understanding the universe, then we're closer to god. =)
maybe it's like what some scientists have been saying: that god is pure immense energy, and our souls, or spirits, are also pure energy. thats why when we die and our souls return to god, it's like the conservation of energy.

ok, i've been talking too much.

re: universe in a nutshell

2004-07-13T01:24:00.000-07:00

physicists aren't always boring. =)
i myself is a physics major, and when i started my first year in ucsd i thought people in my class would be nerds and the professors would be too. but i was completely wrong. the 25 physics majors in my class are the coolest people i've known during my 2 years in ucsd. we hang out, have good laughs, talk about stuff people talk about daily, watch movies, play frisbee, go to beach, it's great. and the faculties, they're plain awesome. they're far from my expectation to be "distinct" and "isolated." they're totally down to earth. they share jokes with us, make fun of us and let us make fun of them, play sports with us, talk about non-physics stuff.

physics is anything but boring =)

if you're looking for more good readings, try einstein's dreams by alan lightman. and driving mr. albert by michael paterniti.