Morality & Market Capitalism...

During the class discussion morality and market capitalism interested me in particular because the terms exhibit fundamental animal behavior from my perspective. Shows like "Meerkat Manor" and studies of penguin mating rituals display evidence constantly. The male penguin with the nicest pebble/rock for the female earns mating rights with her. Sound familiar? Meerkats discipline family members for breaking social rank, and attack or retaliate rival family groupings. Our society values materialistic stature and competes for family benefit in the workforce against environmental surroundings for an advantage. I think Morality is not a human construction because even in other animal groupings these boundaries of behavior are in place. The organisms do not term it as "morality" but they recognize their role and expectations within a group and often punishment (banishment) may occur for misbehavior, like our dysfunctional prison system. I don't think Market Capitalism is a human construction either because of its existence among other organisms in nature.

Electronic Red Apples....

The electron is definitely not a human construction because this particle of matter would exist even if humans did not. Our perception of electrons is the differing element, no pun intended. What we think we see in an ES microscope and the roles we believe electrons play in matter and function of materials is what changes and makes it constructed in our minds and reality.

This is similar to my stance on the color red. I think if humans did not exist, the thing which we perceive as "red" would still be an occurrence in the world but could be called by another title by another organism, however it would still be the same object. I feel the same way about Apples, and most fruit in general. These plants are a part of nature and would continue to exist whether or not we cultivated them for specific purposes, like consumption. Another organism may call them by another name, or the fruit could be poisonous to other systems of anatomy, but the object itself remains constructed by nature.

Partial Human Construction....

I think the number three is partially a human construction because without our existence, units of items would still be able to exist in such a formation. However it is us, the human race, who give it the title "Three" designating the formation from others by different titles. So, I think the certain grouping of items in such a way is not a human construction, while the title we give it is constructed. I hope that wasn't too redundant! Some of these are hard to explain, but that's the point I suppose.

I have a similar attitude toward Music. I feel that music is partly a human construction because when we hear something which provokes aesthetic emotion towards the sound we think of it in our terms as "music." However, songbirds chirping may also provoke this emotion and exists independently of us in nature. To the birds it is not music, but their language and means of communication. I really like Prof. Johnson's definition of music, "the creative organization of sound." It applies the term "organized sound" from our reading and adds the element of necessary creativity to make something new and likable to at least one other individual.

Time is another partial human construction because it may exist if we do not, but humans have constructed means to measure and value "time" as is passes at 60 minutes per hour into the future. I think moments are measured differently on each planet and solar system dependent upon orbit of the largest influencing gravitational body. The universe as a whole however, expands and ages independent of the smaller systems. If I had to choose only one and not a middle, I would pick not a human construction over entirely human construction because time would continue if humans became extinct and our clocks stopped.

Last Notes on Music....

Music is present in many forms and styles, some not yet discovered. I enjoy numerous genres of music, so I also agree proposals for any kind of definition must focus on common properties to music. The term Organized Sound, however does support the wide diversities in taste for certain sounds. However, the subject of “music” holds such variety and dynamic to choice that a precise definition is nearly impossible in order to correctly justify the phenomena of its power and use to civilization.

I'm still sticking to art and music as indefinable, in case you couldn't tell. Music is sacred to the human race in a way. I'm not sure we could function without it in society because its role to each individual differs so widely. Whether it's to calm one down or jolt one up, as an aid to concentration or an escape from a present situation, music is what we use and have consistently used over the ages.

Still Open - Ended...

I have re-read the music article, and I still think music is indefinable, as with art. Across cultures music holds different meanings and rules of composition creating totally different sounds and properties, but it is all recognized as music. There will always be attempts to create some complete explanation. However, we cannot define music with absolute rules; the equation must allow enough dynamic for future developments in creativity and also the mediums of expression.

Music as Art and Individual...

I read the article on music and still find it very difficult to agree with one definition or another. Music can take many forms and styles, some not yet discovered. I enjoy the numerous genres of music, so I also agree any kind of definition must focus on common properties to music. I like the term "organized sound," I think it simply emphasizes two major components of most music, however not all.

Some sounds are not organized, or reproduced by another musician, therefore takes away from the "neatness" of this term. I guess in this sense music has a scientific appeal to me. An artist will compose a piece with the hard work, skill, and intention to have themselves or another recreate (replay) that piece of music, just as a scientist would with new experiments. Birds chirping in nature was an example used in class of interpretive music. It has sound, and to the bird it's organized, but to our ears at first listen it may not be anything in particular. Then if one listens more closely may find rhythm, tone, and harmony with other birds; however, these 'nature sounds' may not be music to everyone just like techno and computer sounds are not considered music because the sounds are produced by an unconventional method.

To me, music is much like art objects. We call a composer of paintings and staffs by the common term 'artist,' aside from painter, musician, or sculptor. Aside from my other opinions on defining music, I agree most that perhaps, like art, it should not be defined. Instead, be content that sound is music when we hear it and it provokes the common aesthetic emotion, just like art object to each individual. Whether the song sad or happy, and the painting cheery or woeful, the same connection is made to the piece making it music and art to the person experiencing it.

And the List Goes On....

1. WMDs
2. Saddam Hussein
3. Spread Democracy
4. Chaos will ensue if we leave
5. Iran

The top five reasons, if I listened correctly, to the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. All of them sicken me because the information slowly coming out to the public completely discredits each one. I don't believe the US public was naive about the war. I think many knew a conflict of this nature would be difficult and foreign policy is hardly ever simple. However, I also think the people remembered the Vietnam & Korean War and wanted to avoid another military mistake, while others recalled the success of Desert Storm. The public opinion of events may depend on the information given to them; they want to have support for elected officials and what representatives do for the people. When America was told more frequently about foreign threats, more terrorist attacks, and constant heightened alerts the public wanted to rally around what it was told, and the given intelligence, so the public opinion of Iraq was a little more than half. However, when the facts slowly and consistently trickled in, public opinion soon fell quickly.

This is not our victory nor should we want it to be, that would take away the last thread of hope to redeem this entire endeavor. Victory and success would never mean the same thing, or have the same look there for the Iraqi people in the same manner we, in America would expect it to have. Although this does not excuse the disaster unfolding before us, the time is now to finally do something right.

The Degrees of Duty...

"He who joyfully marches in rank & file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him a spinal cord would suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love ~ of ~ country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despicable & ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder." ~ Albert Einstein ~

He may have been a genius, and this quote does send a powerful message, but I do not agree with all the lines. I do hold great respect and dignity in the soldier who has made the choice of putting my life before their own, and a nation's conflict before one's own choices. This is even more astonishing to me when enlisting now will almost certainly mean a tour in Iraq, directly in harm's way. Everyone must have their reasons... best wishes to the troops & comfort to their families.

The Weight of Lies....

The Iraq War bothers me considerably. As a citizen, other than voicing my opinion and donating to drives for troop benefits I feel there is little I can do and this helpless feeling compounds the situation. I would feel confident enough in my state that others in this country feel the same. I am exhausted from this topic. Emotionally the people of this country seem so drained from the constant news and constant horror. Aren't administrators tired of all this? I was not alive for the Vietnam War, and that is a tiresome and sensitive enough subject let alone this disaster. This situation is deplorable not only for the American public morale, but devastates those in Iraq whom are our equals and to live one second in a war torn country for as long as that area has, I'm afraid to say I doubt we would survive. These people have not known peace for their entire existence. We have been involved in conflict of foreign policy, sure, however we never fight theses battles on our home soil among civilian territory. Yes, we have been attacked on home soil, but we have never waged a war here since the American Revolution. The American people are sheltered in many senses because they have never known what war really entails. Even media coverage only goes so far and now the government is attempting to narrow that coverage or divert its attention. I hope "victory," or more appropriately the complete eradication of former typical traditions, whether Islamic or not, is reconsidered because success will not mean green lawns and porch parties for these people. Instead it means total reconstruction of cities, neighborhoods, families, and lives demolished because of a lie.

It Struck a Chord....

In today's class an excellent example of harmony was used to describe an aspect of patriotism. Harmony is much better than the term unity because harmony implies different elements making a whole, instead of unity implying a single element for a single goal. In the comparison to music, harmony may require several different, but particular notes, and each combined together makes a certain noise. Each note is represented and heard, but together they create a single quite pleasant sound. This could be an interesting interpretation of the saying "to strike a chord," when describing an issue among a diverse group of people. The people may all disagree with the issue, but for different reasons. Even with different causes, a group may function together for a similar goal or a similar sound.

We put the 'riot' in "Patriot"

I agree with many points made by Jenson in "Goodbye to Patriotism," however I still feel we cannot abandon the term entirely. I think there are many important traits humans display brought on by positive and negative events in the world motivated by patriotism in any sense of the word. I think many of us agreed on dismantling the first definition of patriotism whereas one is in support of their country and its decisions whether one personally agrees or not. The second definition slightly touches on this as well saying we may "politely disagree with the policies," while supporting the troops fighting for us, but may still experience some backlash for it. The second I don't necessarily think is always true either because mostly (it seems to me) as long as one supports the soldiers stationed around the world, some aspect of common understanding may be shared.

After the class discussion I still do not have a clear definition of patriotism, in modern terms. I think this is because over decades words may be the same, but they hold different meanings; or the word may become a different term. The most important use of patriotism to me is in the role of the citizen. If one chooses not to take an active role in their country that is their choice and right. However if one does want an active role, then I feel it is their duty to speak out and voice opinions to legislators. This government is supposed to be a tool for all of us to use aiding in a better life. A recent poll showed that an astounding number of the US public are against the war in Iraq and Vice President Cheney said "So?" When the administrators make decisions on our behalf without listening to us something is grossly wrong. Even if the decision is still made, the attempt to listen and work with the citizens is of the most importance to at least consider.

One compared a mother protecting her child to the government handling foreign affairs and policies. This is a good perspective because the mother is hopefully making a choice with the best intentions for the child until they are able to comprehend the full depth of the situation. The government makes choices on behalf of the people assuming most of the decisions are beyond the understanding of the average citizens, and this is why we elected them. However once we transfer the responsibility, it is their job and duty to uphold the promise they made to the people of our country, and it is our job and duty to hold them to that promise. I guess that is what patriotism means to me.

Q & A 7 Argument

I didn't like the argument presented in Q A 7 probably because it does not follow even if the first two premises are true. Instead of stating:

I. Humans are omnivorous by nature
II. Omnivores can digest meat
III. Therefore, it is morally permissible for humans to eat meat.

The argument should follow as:

I. Humans are omnivorous by nature
II. Omnivores can digest meat
III. Therefore, humans can digest meat by nature.

... or something of the like; any other interpretations?
Also, by being able to digest meat, what does it prove? That we should eat meat and its alright to crave it? That's fine because biologically it may be true, but we also may have evolved morally and are waiting for our bodies to catch up.

Appeal to Nature

This 'appeal to nature' reading gives me something to think about mostly because I did not consider it before. I always just assumed natural or organic is good and never thought about anything else as an alternative. I do use synthetic materials in my daily life such as fake leather and other goods like plastic, which may be very useful and not natural. Some may argue the evidence that real leather is a better, more durable material however I choose not to use leather and fur because of their natural property and where they came from, therefore artificial materials are of much use to me in this instance.

Also, there are substances like Aspirin, which is one of the oldest chemical compounds known to civilization, dating back to ancient Egypt. This is a compound found in nature but reproduced in a laboratory for mass production. How does one term artificial? There must be more to it than mere laboratory creation and also include behavior and human response. An example in class was how behaviors may be natural, but surprising because nature often goes against what we as humans observe to be normal (though our scope of history is so small compared to the history of the "natural world"). So if a behavior surprises us in a good or comfortable way it is considered natural, but if the reaction to certain conduct leaves society surprised negatively or in an uncomfortable manner then backlash will occur. Some examples of this may be divorce, promiscuity or non-monogamous relationships, homosexuality, and even vegetarianism because these examples have historically been noted as "unusual" when they very well may not be.

Brainless Cows? The Horror....

The discussion of brainless cows really made me cringe in class today. I mentioned how much of our food is altered from its natural state and then continually reproduced in such a manner. As a student of science, I can usually find the necessary point of such research but in this case I cannot.

Background:
The era of genetically modified food started with 'Golden Rice' which was altered to carry the beta carotene gene. It was done to hopefully help stop childhood blindness and other ails because rice is so vastly consumed and this type of rice is relatively inexpensive to produce and make available for plantation. There are always concerns of GM foods cross contaminating non-GM foods as well as escaping into nature. This has occurred recently, as GM corn for cattle contaminated a shipment of corn for human consumption. I can't remember what the corn was made to do for the cows, but I am guessing it had more starch in it to fatten them up faster. It only caused concern when people who had eaten the corn had an allergic reaction to a specific protein added to the corn. An open question but, what if no one had an allergic reaction? If the corn somehow made it into nature, as with GM animals (like glowing bunnies, fish, pigs, and primates) the devastation it may cause is somewhat immeasurable because 1) we haven't experienced one yet but, 2) as with any foreign species introduced into a new environment it may completely take over the ecosystem, as with zebra mussels or purple heather.

I gave some examples of GM foods such as the tomato and roses that one would have no idea it was modified unless they had taken a course in botany. Tomatoes now contain far too many and incomplete 'locks' which are the folds in the fruit containing the seeds, (cucumbers also have this, it's the middle part) and many commercial roses are anatomically incorrect, lacking many reproductive parts making it necessary to cultivate them by clones from the mother plant.

Which brings me back to the original concern:
Scientists are presenting research to the FDA taking steps to allow cloned beef and other animal products on our shelves. Moving forward from this they are now researching 'brainless' cows. As we conversed in class, often the focus is the suffering of the animals instead of the act of killing them. I doubt that by somehow producing 'brainless' cows you will convince many vegetarians, let alone vegans, to begin consuming meat. The animals are alive, and then are butchered for food, which is the same regardless of whether they have a brain or not. This is where many vegetarians have the issue of eating meat; for me, even though I may like the taste (as shown in my example of my fake bacon - facon) I simply do not want to be responsible for the death of an animal so I may eat because I am able to biologically (and psychologically!) be content only eating plant foods, along with 100% organic milk and eggs (cage-free as well, of course) which does not harm the animal if cared for properly and is a completely natural function. Instead you are giving PETA another reason to go to the extremes to stop such research, when extremes are not the correct path either. Derek compared potential laws against meat consumption to Prohibition, which is entirely accurate. We cannot outlaw something, even if it's well intentioned, when the vast majority of people disagree with it in some way. Can you imagine if the production of meat went into underground operations? The Horror....

Rat in a Microwave....

The discussion was good today as usual. It was interesting to observe how hard it was to stay on track once comparing the laws of animal rights to that of abortion. Also, I liked the point of "ill-gotten gains." We have to admit the enormous amount of knowledge gained from researching animals as well as the equally immense damage it has done to the lives of such organisms great and small. The best example in class was from Kyle, "If I put a rat in a microwave for pleasure, it is drastically different from putting a rat in a microwave for research." Many of Tom Regan's points came up like dog in a life boat ---> save the human, and mostly the class agreed.

There did seem to be a good balance of opinions in the class and comprehension of meat eaters and non meat eaters. Many did agree that the consumption of animals and animal products may be ethical as long as the practices allowing the products to be on our shelves were done humanely and within ethical living standards. Derek started the class off by rewording the question from "is it morally right for the average US citizen to eat meat" to "is it morally wrong etc..." It is important because it captures the issue within the question. It is easier to say no to the second than to the first which is probably the best answer, if I interpreted it correctly. The key with any diet is moderation, attention to portions, knowledge of where your food comes from, and what is in your food. A vegetarian would be just as unhealthy with an improper diet as would a meat eater. The food market should take in the sacrifice the animals make for our benefit and be respectful of it by urgently providing universal, ethically proper living conditions and preparation standards.

Not Convinced Yet...

After some scanning of pro-meat consumption articles, it is still hard for me to be convinced meat eating at the current rate is necessary and ethical now or in the future. Some points to consider for the meat industry however, is the type of iron compound in hemoglobin and in meat. It is a great source of the natural, high quality, necessary compound and also protein. Some meat cuts can be very lean and meat in one's diet is common, healthy, and natural of the human species and many others.

Although with this type of diet and any other diets the proper portions, balance, and variety is essential to overall health. I do not have any issue with people who eat meat properly and act consciously of their choices. We have teeth in such a way for a reason, and bears as a more extreme example, are also omnivores.

However, how this diet choice reaches our stores is providing much of the ethical problem in consuming meat for the average family. Factory farming provides many economical problems for the area hosting the manufacture and the treatment of the animals giving their lives is deplorable. Health standards plummet, and contaminations are common from the horrible monotony of factory job conditions and standards. If the public is educated to the benefits of proper moderation and variety of food groups in one's diet, even vegetarianism, the market should be forced to respond to please the consumer. The demand for more wholesome and organic food is an excellent example. The consumers should continue to hold the meat industry and all food regulation involvement to a high standard of quality. If meat consumption must continue after all, then at least we can look forward to proper ethical treatment of the animals and sanitary standards finally met with urgency.

more on factory farming...

In the discussion of agnosticism and atheism, it is interesting to think about the compatibility of religion and the presence of evil in the world. Most apparently, in my knowledge, for example is Christianity. With the ideal of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-merciful God how then can evil and sins be explained beyond human nature and balance? For all religion, let alone humanity, in order for us to distinguish good from evil we must have both; but this balance could be argued as created by god or cultures of the world. I really liked the point in class of the powers of god limited from possessing both qualities, to simply omnipotent. It could be argued the same moral sophistication, if not more, would apply to deities as humans, but the same behavior at a more powerful level would also apply. This reflects a slight resemblance of Greek and Roman mythology in explaining the behavior of gods, to me.

That line of thought relates to the other point of religion, more specifically god(s) being a tool created by mankind, much like a saw, or the class example of an ax. We use this tool or ideal, to instill into people that one should follow and live by good because of the nature of evil and also, by the way, because this god said so through no verifiable and specific evidence. Then, if humans did not exist, would god? Naturalistically speaking, god would not exist, as the heavens may not exist now, other than in our own imagination. So then and there it may be a real thing in terms that we all make our own "heaven" and "hell" within ourselves and actions based on the morals of cultural upbringing and acceptance truly guide our beings and the idea of a god makes it easier or more important to follow.

Siding with Knowledge

After all of the reading, it is still difficult for me to determine which is more rational, atheism or agnosticism. I would conclude atheism is more logical just because of all the discussions from naturalism versus supernaturalism, which is why I suspect we read and discussed that material to prepare for this reading and thought process. From the evidence I have experienced and observed in my life time it would be easier for me to draw conclusions that a God, especially in the Christian sense, does not exists, instead of proving that one did exist.

Agnosticism is easy for me to relate with because I like the use of it in terms as a stance of knowledge which is touched on in the main reading a bit less than the article posted on Prof. Johnson's blog but makes the same correlation. It is easier to assert that one has knowledge of a general view and when evidence presents a different conclusion one may effectively observe and review their position accordingly without probable attachment. For theists however, their emotional attachment to what they believe in is more sided or drastic involvement because they are not in middle ground and most likely have deep ties to the belief with family and friends. In other words, it would be much more difficult for a theist to adjust their lifestyle around a challenge to, or a loss of, their faith in the religion they follow. Partly this may be because many religions teach to remain firm in one’s faith despite its temptations and challenges. I choose to side with knowledge in order to trust what I've learned and agree is real with my peers. In many ways I choose a more naturalistic view to label myself with before I would term it as agnostic.

Atheism / Agnosticism Posting

I like the About.com article posting because it looks at how to distinguish Atheism from Agnosticism, and vice versa in a simplified manner. The other required reading also examines the rationality of the argument atheism versus agnosticism, however this piece simply focuses on Agnosticism holding its own ground as a valid category and stance on the "knowledge of whether gods may exist or not instead of a belief in whether god does or does not exist." The author Austin Cline makes a point that there may be theistic agnostics, who "may believe in a god without claiming to know for sure the god exists," or atheistic agnostics which claim "to disbelieve gods exist but claim to not know for sure."

I also concur the degrees of agnosticism make it well-suited for either theism or atheism. In many ways one could compare it to the social classes of our society, particularly the great variances of middle class; upper and lower. Negative social views plague that of lower classes as they do for atheists. They may be seen as narrow minded, however theists may be seen in this light just as easily for their persistent history of moving into territories and converting individuals, disrupting traditional belief and custom because the theists way was the right and only way to live. I do not think it is fair to hold anyone absolutely to their prior belief of theology without waiver because part of human nature is growth of knowledge and resources, and from discussions of naturalism and supernaturalism, none of us may rationally be certain of the belief in deities or god(s).

Theory of 21 Grams

To clarify my last post, energy is included in physics. I am not quite sure what I mean by my fundamental belief in energy controlling or explaining everything. I suppose it is a big part of why I took this course. One could consider energy in the scientific or psychological point of view. Have you ever entered a room and immediately felt the mood of the space set by those already there? This is an example, I would suppose, of the emotional or psychological use of energy transfer.

Within physics, the law of energy which states matter can neither be created nor destroyed, I think many unexplainable things can be understood at least partly. Certain occurrences and testimonials of experiencing the supernatural could be because of energy displacement, voltage irregularities, and magnetic fields. Also, evidence of the "soul" or spiritual part of ourselves has been linked to science with the 21 gram theory. However, this is another theory which has scientific roots and was carried out with a huge helping of faith, and yes I do mean the term with all the baggage.

When the experiment was performed it was done so under conditions which would currently be considered possibly unethical and certainly imprecise. The theory basically states that when an individual dies, the body mass decreases to 3/4 an ounce, or 21 grams. This experiment would be difficult to replicate and the weight loss could be explained by many things including the ceasing of the heart beat. It causes the blood to stop circulating and the exchange of oxygen with carbon dioxide; liquids begin to evaporate because the gaseous exchange once contributed to regulating temperature of the body and blood no longer does, thus explaining the loss. On an experiment done with dogs as subjects, no loss was measured, and this could be because dogs pant to keep cool, whereas humans sweat. I am prone to think this theory could be another perfect example of naturalism vs supernaturalism which attempts to use science for the leap of faith to bridge the gap.

Naturalism Article

I read the article Prof. Johnson posted on 2/26 by Craig Lee Duckett and really liked it. It certainly helped to explain the distinct naturalist, empirical, or skeptic point of view opposite of supernaturalism. I think its another well written piece with some emotion or moderate excitement to it, which this topic is prone to. I share a lot of the same points like assessing my environment and given situations by what I can naturally observe and explain first, then move on to other possible explanations.

I went to church as a child, but was always more interested in the natural world around me. From this fascination I chose an education in biology and philosophy. I love the way this has influenced my understanding of the world around me and how I make decisions and draw conclusions. To me, most everything can be explained by the physical world around us which we all agree is real. I only think my upbringing as a child makes me ponder the possibility of specific religious supernatural events; however I firmly remain agnostic after every examination. When something cannot be answered by any logical measures at the moment and I become thoughtful of the supernatural, I rely on the laws of energy. The most important base of these laws is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. I feel that energy is the base of everything and this with the laws of physics can logically explain numerous occurrences including supposed evidence and interactions with the afterlife or supernatural world.

I am not threatened by various religions holding their own interpretation of truth above my own incomplete notion, and I strive to always be tolerant and open minded of any view. I think if I were to be part of those emotions it would hinder my ability to have an educated exchange of views in a beneficial conversation. I think individuals taking supernaturalism as far as hindering the health of their family and themselves by not using surgery or medicine is just as dangerous as unethical scientists pushing the limits of humanity.
.

Passionately Neutral...

In my opinion class was great yesterday. I don't think I had been present for a session in which almost everyone had something to say and helped the discussion. It was interesting to hear everyone's take on the reading and how the outcome of class was a general agreement and understanding of the terminology brought forward, such as faith vs courage. I liked listening to the different majors and experiences of fellow students and how this shaped their stance on the reading of culture wars. It was very important we were all discussing these terms and the baggage which come with them as well as other words to use instead. I'm glad people can consider that there are individuals working in the scientific community who would characterize themselves as religious, and of any sect, not just Christianity.

I think the article seemed quite biased away from supernaturalism, more so than just looking for the "ideological, neutral public space for secular services." It just doesn't seem like the author was really in neutral ground when composing the article, which is completely fine, I'm merely touching on my notion of the writing, which was passionate of the topic. I think the most important point of the second section is what we mostly talked about in class. The priority to stop this gap in our culture is the need for legislature to base law and public policies on what we may all agree is real and existing on this Earth and what we may all collectively know to be true.

It's All Relative...

I thought of more examples for biological time discussed in class. I loved the point made of dogs adjusting to household environments. This was true in my own house, as my dog would wait at the top of the stairs within ten minutes of me walking through the door from school. She adjusted her behavior when I would leave earlier or later in the day depending on the school or time of class, for example when I came home from high school versus college. These animals have adjusted their innate biological clocks around our busy schedules and still do not need physical calendars. It is all within their natural instinct to stay tuned to the patterns of nature and their environment.

Salmon don't necessary adjust around our presence directly but they are known for the prominent trait of going back to the river in which they were born only having been there once before. The fish know when to go back and how to get there. Somehow they also use their environment and biological senses following patterns to return to their birthplace the appropriate year. The example of the cicada bugs is excellent too because they emerge from the ground after 17 years of metamorphosis. These organisms may have no idea that much "time" has passed, and considering the shorter life spans, it may seem moments pass much sooner because biological changes occur faster than our own.

This example would take Einstein's point of relativity into consideration because time needs a frame of reference to begin a comparison. "Soon" for example, could mean any number of time spans. In the frame of a year one to three months may be considered a while, but in the frame of ten years this span of time seems quicker. It's the patterns which show change. The patterns of nature show end of one cycle and beginning of another. Paying attention to sun, stars, and seasons is what makes the passage of "time" relative. I liked how comparisons to this point were made with parallel time. It may be possible different creatures are experiencing a parallel time because the organisms are passing through our time at an accelerated rate compared to our frame of reference represented by our longer life span. Another favorite point in this discussion was the passage of time described as a flow of moments is merely a human metaphor in comparison to a river. This just shows more examples of the concept of time being based on the patterns of nature.

Considering Calendars...

Wednesday's class discussion was really interesting. I hadn't considered the comparison of calendars to show passage of time as much as biological change. One can consider calendars month to month within one culture as the human need to document events. We write down upcoming appointments to remember as well as common reoccurring events like birthdays. Different cultures may follow a different calendar but use it for the same purpose, the most recent occurring event is the Chinese New Year,which begins later than the Western Calendar. It also seems interesting we follow this type of calendar, with leap years and uneven months when ancient civilizations had much more accurate means of following and recording the passage of time, such as the Aztec and Mayan calendars. These systems of tracking "time" were based on Earth's natural cycles and astrological patterns in the sky.

Nature does not need calendars to follow time because it transcends the passage of what humans consider as time, on one of its lower levels of interpretations. This is probably why I like to think of "time" in terms of nature and biological change. To me, calendars are accurate, but not precise enough to rely on. All other species on this planet follow a distinct and precise pattern of behavior based completely on their innate senses and surrounding environment. As humans, with technology and endless forms of entertainment as means of distraction, have lost much of this ability. I know calendars and clocks are necessary now because we have evolved as a species and have jobs for example. However I think cultures used to keep calendars almost as a hobby because we felt the need to record events in our lives making a record of "our time" among everyone else's.

"There is Time to Kill Today..."

I agree with Kant’s explanation of time as a form of phenomena which we merely perceive moments and events within. This interests me because of the many different ways we are all trying to understand it and make our own conclusions and agreements or disagreements. This reminds me also of Einstein’s theory of relativity, slightly, and how moments of perceived “time” seems different to each organism at each given interval. I have heard the phrase “time stood still,” and many of us, including me, have felt this way. Another is how “time flies by” when we are actively enjoying an activity or event. I agree time is so much more than a four letter word.

I also like the causal theory and how Event A and B are related. It makes sense to me, and I understand how outgoing events originate from a single correlated event however, incoming may not be. Hume’s stance on cause preceding effect is something I can relate to, it does seem conventional, but I have had a sense of an action before it took place, although that would make one wonder if the sense in turn made the event happen, even if it is not originally considered an event. I can’t really imagine incoming, correlated events such as the rock and pond example reversed.

Possibly conflicting with this is the concept of parallel time and parallel universes. This does seem completely within reason to me somehow, probably based on my understanding of how we all have different perceptions of the world we live in, like realism, but also every action causing an equal and opposite reaction. I like the thought of circular time, just because an event is a cause which makes an effect, which in turn would become a cause for another effect and so on. I cannot picture “time” or events not occurring, because nothing is still something if it is in mind and therefore either time or something within “time” would always take place.

We Run to Catch Up with the Sun...

I wish I had been in class for the discussion of the time reading. I don’t think we realize how valuable it is until we are absent, although this may be another reason for maintaining blogs because reading other’s opinions has helped a considerable amount.

I agree time does exist, at least to the organisms on Earth because we grow up and age. I also like the example of breathing one student discussed. At its fundamental use, the breath is an event which helps one to continue its life processes and also aging. Events compiled together display motion and order which could be an arrow display of time. Age alone shows change in oneself from beginning to end and we begin to age the moment we are born; in some manner we begin to die the moment we are born.

Descartes had an interesting view of time in which God recreates our body in each instant successively because we do not have temporal endurance but rather spatial extension (I hope everyone may consider that religion may play no part here necessarily). This theory can be supported by the aging body because we are never the same moment to moment. For example, a cell dies and a new one takes its place, our hair follicle produces another protein molecule, our DNA becomes a little more worn from replication; all showing age although the later in mitochondria shows age most. I think realism would support his view the most because this line of thinking could coincide with an organism’s reality being different at every instant as well independently of one another, as aging affects us all differently.

Borrow claimed time did exist, however it did so independently of motion and change, therefore time exists whether or not an event takes place. I think this is interesting because earlier in the reading the discussion of “zero” seemed to imply the existence of nothing and Borrow’s claim supports this mathematical need. It is minding bending to consider the existence of nothing, and I would relate this to the existence of pure, empty, space; it must be something to be in mind remember. I do not agree time is a container for all events in the way he does because the events display an arrow of direction in an ordered sequence, of “time” and to me this is a direct relation. In short, I think for this section of the reading I agree somewhere between Descartes and Leibniz.

" What I am to You, is not what You mean to Me "

I really enjoyed the discussion of perception and viewing an object, such as an apple, from different perspectives. It was very interesting thinking of properties missed by our senses which may be limited in comparison to senses of another organism. Some of these properties included texture and smell which may be distinct to us as human, and even person to person because some may have a more developed taste and others more developed sense of smell. However, none of these perceptions match that of the apple's perception, which may be the only true way to determine the reality of the apple because without it our perspective will remain objective, merely speculating from our experience the existence of the apple, but not its complete existence.

These apple discussions lead the class to talking about personalities and our social circles in which we view the properties of our friends. This is a great use of how realism could argue the of use perspectives to represent to differences in our perceptions of our loved ones and its impact on their reality and ours. We have all been asked to describe a person to another and possibly discussed later someone would not use the same description of the individual. Here constructivism plays the role, I think, because we use our perspective to construct our perceptions and knowledge of our social lives. We then use this knowledge to gage our relationship with people and determine its positive or negative impacts on our lives, our reality. In this case, different from apples, we may ask the individual about themselves, however their own view on their personality could still find disagreement of our experience with them and our senses.

(The title of this posting is from the Damien Rice song "Volcano")

The Unexperienced World

I like the discussion of perceiving the unperceived reality. Merely having the notion, or conceiving the thought of something therefore makes it a perception in the universe. It is empowering to take to heart anything one can dream up, they could possibly make their reality. Our individual perceptions come together on what overlaps and this creates the world in which we live and share, however where our experiences differ creates the gray.

I think the world does exist independent of us because, as the Neptune example in class, there are places and creatures which some people know to exist in their experiences which I will never experience for myself, however they do exist and I accept their existence despite my personal lack of seeing or experiencing it for myself. This last statement could lead into the notion seeing is believing but this is not my goal for right now.

The Earth exists independent of us as it did before we got here or evolved to the point as which we are now. However, where we have settled and developed our perceptions into technology, we actively make more comfortable, whether by raising food and shelter for survival, or aesthetically pleasing to inhabit with the community. I also think our perceptions are meant to be shared and developed because we are a communal species seeking knowledge and means to thrive in the environment which we live.

Live in the Moment?

Realism upholds one's reality is only a fragment of time and through each observation we can come closer to the understanding of a "true" reality. It transcends time, space, and holds each perspective a whole different object to contend with (if my understanding is correct!) Has anyone ever heard the phrase "live in the moment?" This, in my opinion, could possibly label a person realist, causing them to pause and think of their own reality. I think it is possible; theoretically, we all experience our own reality, our own take on what happened during the day or their experience in a given situation.

I would like to compare it to someone grasping a magazine in between two people; each person sees a different side, and yet they are still observing the same magazine. Each person can describe a completely different view, yet still experiencing the same object. However, I am unsure if one could then say the magazine is the same object. Is it merely different perspectives on the same issue, or a different issue for each person entirely because it was viewed from a different angle. This leads to Perspectivalism, is this the way the world is? slightly off topic perhaps, but leading to understanding, for me, all the same.

Glasersfeld's examples of constructivism are summarized by an organism's experiences on daily terms which forms relationships on previous encounters and are structured, then formed into knowledge, creating the reality in which the organism lives. This is used to guide the organism when faced with a similar task the creature may refer to its categorized moments and outcomes.

Realism is unrealistic because the basic fundamental argument of it is impossible to completely define based on the notion of human understanding...it is a bottomless task, therefore illogical. The theory of realism itself is not found in nature, but instead constructed by humans, therefore nullifies itself. I think it is completely possible we, the human race, have constructed the world around us purposefully for comfort, efficiency, and aesthetically. We want to learn, and actively build knowledge to refer to in the future, for our fundamental purpose of survival.

I wonder how the Realist and Radical Constructivist's views of mental illness differ; as in how they view the patient's reality and experience.