Midterm

4. Shannon Marie Holloway
5. For Yahoo Groups holloway_shannon and for blogger.com its holloway.shannon@gmail.com
6. holloway_shannon@yqhoo.com
7. http://shannon-philosophy.blogspot.com/
8. I have done all the reading except for, week five’s number three; the site still is and has
been non-functioning (shut down).
9. Yes I have.
10. Here are the completed 21 postings:

Fukuyama Film Quote as a Starting Point

"[I]f you tolerate too much you actually don't end up believing in anything"

This was a statement made by Francis Fukuyama in reference to religion, but I believe (an indicator of my own ignorance's) that this is a great jumping off point, and can be elaborated upon and extended to encompass a wide variety of things including the very structure of life itself. A good demonstration of this is to use something most people are exposed to as a child. A statement of positive encouragement and acknowledgment told to them when they are young. The statement that, "you are special". If that is told to one child, or lets say a hundred, then indeed in comparison to the overwhelming population that statement may become believable. However, if the majority of children are told this, then the statement and the belief is no longer existing in a realm small enough to allow such a self-serving (selfish) thing to be valid. Making the statement very inaccurate. The statement can only be meaningful on a small level where the individual is self- serving, intolerant and close-minded. If and when they come to the realization that they are not the only person that has been encouraged through the use of such a statement then they have the choice to either stay the way they are, or to expand their understanding therefore becoming tolerant leaving their belief null. Because indeed one child can be special, but if everyone is special, then no one is special.
So, tolerance, acceptance, openness disallows small-minded, shortsighted, ignore-ant, naive, childlike, one-dimensional thought in that thinker. All the while the others with a myriad of strict beliefs keep themselves pinned to things in the hope of stabilizing and securing safety under the delusion that they know what things are. They are able to exist under the umbrella of what is created by the former. Namely, a large singular body, a harmony of pluralistic existence wherein there are no ardent beliefs and instead of the rigid, a fluxing, flexible, flow; a fluidity. One that removes the pause of motion and the pining of something as one thing only. So in the mothering arms of tolerance there can be no belief, because everything is every changing: the scope, depth, dimension its a constant evolution in multiple directions.

Question??- So does this ever expansiveness and change create in itself a pattern? A something to the nothing?
Because the pervasiveness of not knowing can also overwhelm, and with something not being one thing even the mature thinker may once again search for a grip. Continuing the flip of the yin-yang.

Aldous Huxley

As if the name wasn't already great enough, the man himself only raises my already high opinion of him. He is, what has been referred to as a forward thinker, a man ahead of his time. Admittedly, it surprises me to hear him talk about issues that he felt were of importance in his day, because they are greatly saturated into our own time. For example, his observation of man becoming slave to technology, or his own creations. I see this as a large part of our current circumstance. Man no longer seems to retain his freedoms, but allows them to be diminished by his own devices, self-imposed and societal limitations, along with the continued misdirection of life through pursuant understanding by way of categorical thinking. These issues all holds a great deal of interest for me, and it is shocking to see how ill acquainted with them so many people are. The more that I learn the more I grow and so too does my amazement of how easy it is to not pursue critical thought and autonomy.
Around the same period of this movie, there was a book written by Herbert Marcuse entitled One-Dimensional Man (I highly recommend reading it). In it Marcuse alludes to this same point, concentrating on the political structure that facilitates, rationalizes and enables man in the forfeiting of himself and into accepting the being of nullification into a drone like state by the machines themselves. Even science is supportive of this, as it has been shown that nature nurtures soothing and healing by infusing us with energy, with life, by way of negative ions. While quite the opposite is true of machines who suck, and drain our energy, essentially our life force from us by transferring positive ions. Take time to notice the sensory and energy differences in your person and compare your experience with sitting in front of a computer/television and that of you in nature next to a stream of running water. I assure you the difference is astounding.

Question??? So, why then do we continue to isolate ourselves from one another reaching out with and existing within a technological grip? What is so attractive to us about detriments of the physical, mental, and social realms? We need to actively impact society so that we instill the importance of moderation, human and natures touch, and favor freedom and growth to that of enslavement. We are so afraid of that looming day when machines will rule the world with an iron fist that we miss what is going on this very day, who is to say that they already aren't? The most effective strategy of control is one where the oppressed is unaware to their domination.

Java

Most people still retain the childlike ideal of what freedom should be. However, understanding the social contract, as explained by Rousseau (one may do what ever he pleases when he is the only person that exists but once another person is in existence it behooves them to willingly sacrifice individual freedoms for the good of the whole.) A philosophy for a way to remain happy. Go after what you want in life, take command of your own destiny, carve out your niche because due to the overwhelming over-population of the planet freedom is not possible in every form to all varying degrees. The extent of ones "[f]reedom is what you do with what's been done to you" Jean Paul Sarte, and remember freedom is a state of mind.

de Cusa

When I was a child I was informed of the idea of eternity, a forever. I tried with all of my might at that young age to conceptualize what that meant. As I lay in bed I repeated aloud forever and ever and ever and ever until I would feel overwhelmed and frightened myself into silence. It was such a big idea one I could not understand nor fully comprehend. In this corporeal existence life is perishable, there are beginnings and endings with unexpected expirations, where nothing is ever lasting. To this day I can still see, "infinite is unknown because it escapes all comparative relation". Making the big picture just a blur. We cannot see its details with these mortal eyes or figure out its vastness its essence with such limited minds. There are binds within this matrix of congruent relations. We are merely seeing with the limited capabilities of our sensory devices and understanding as much as we can from the small amount of truth that makes it through such dense filters. "Wisdom and the seat of understanding are hidden from all living things." So, as far as our reach goes we reside inside blinded by our inclusion in it and our binds to it.
The more we learn the less we know, the un-defined allows the presence of the answer, and that is why "[f]or a man--even one very well versed in learning--will attain unto nothing more perfect than to be found to be most learned in the ignorance which is distinctively his". Knowledge like language is a channel through which we funnel a mass into a minor extrapolating portions of the whole. Showing to all nothing more than what we don't know.

Artificial Intelligence

First of all what is intelligence? We have established that IQ tests have been biased on many different levels including those of culture, and socioeconomic classes. It is also believed that tests merely assess your ability and aptitude at taking tests themselves, no more nor less. Also, every culture values different traits and attributes in the members of its society, a vast number of differing things that are "signs" of intelligence. So, then, to be perfectly honest we cannot agree what intelligence is or what the signs of it may be. So, if we can't decide on what it is then how are we to compare something to the unanswerable? It seems ridiculous.

Some points I find of interest follow:

Cohon (Stanford University): "On the other hand, much of what we classify as intelligent is socially defined and can only occur within a social context; this is especially true of speech. Consequently, it may be that no real machine intelligence is possible in the absence of some sort of machine community or society of machines." I agree with Cohon and find this to be true, but he is saying that this does not exist, and it is that point with which I disagree. If the former is true, then machine intelligence is already in existence, because computers have a binary language (as basic as is) and their community we term the Internet. It is where millions of machines communicate, and what I would equate to the human version of the collective unconscious, a meeting of the minds.
Lloyd (U.C. Berkeley): "I don't see artificially constructed machines as being able to perform all of the functions which we would naturally attribute to human intelligence. There is artistic intelligence, there is mathematical intelligence, there is a kind of verbal ability, there is the ability to see the whole picture, the ability to see both sides of an issue. There are just so many aspects of human intelligence which are vital. I don't see artificially constructed machines as being able to perform all of the functions which we would naturally attribute to human intelligence. I do think that machines will be able to surpass us on some of these tasks, but not on intelligence per say, not on intelligence overall." What a nice idea, sweet with sentimental overtones of our specialness. However, I would have to again disagree. YES, a machine at this point may not be able to master all aspects, but as they evolve over time, just as man did, its capacities will expand and with their large memories and accessing skills they may be able to eventually do so and multi-task to create an uber computer. Until then they would have to rely on their interconnectedness. Just as one man is not a master of math, and art and all things they would specialize working together in a network to accomplish a combined tasks as is done in human relations.
Roth (Claremont McKenna College): "my guess is that artificial intelligence will not be capable of surpassing or even equaling human intelligence, especially if we look at the subtlety and the kind of nuances, the imaginative potential that there is of human intelligence. I'm looking more on the side of creativity. On the side of our intelligence that is laced with feeling, with aesthetic qualities". Art and creativity are subjective. One person can see something in a work of art or a creative writing piece or performance that another would not. If we had a computer programmed to take pictures or generate color paintings I am positive that one or more persons would see something of value and creatively unique in them. And if creativity is so unique, random, and special that it can not be reproduced, copied, or learned then I say that art students all over the world should be refunded their time, efforts, and funds. There are aspects of art that -seem- to be unique and inspired however the majority is a calculated regurgitation of sensory intakes, outputs that are simply process amalgamation and reconfigurations (concentrations on different, deeper or more superficial aspects). Which as someone who considers them self to be an artist, this is very hard to say.
Schwyzer (U.C. Santa Barbara): "It's such a frightening concept. Intelligence by itself is not very interesting. I think that some human should go along with that intelligence. It makes no sense to just have intelligence and nothing more. It's like having weight without size. We can have machines, but intelligence is a human attribute." I know someone who believes exactly the contrary to be true; that the height of our evolution will be to just intelligence, with no body, just brain so a physical world in the manner that we are now familiar would be vastly different. I see this already in existence with computers. They are simply the processes of thought, Woodruff (U.C. Irvine): "We are massively parallel, and we have all these interconnections in the brain which people are now trying to understand, stuff called neural net computing. I especially don't think that human intelligence is something that is essentially different from machine intelligence. Our brains thinking or electronics thinking are essentially the same thing." Mind blowing isn't it?
If we take this to be true then machines are already further evolved in many senses. The last element would be to combine the two. Dare I say cyborg? They are already in existence with lenses for our eyes telling us the correct way in which to see the world, pacemakers, prosthetic limbs, time travel to the future (i.e. technological communicatory devices that connect through time and space as well as vehicles that accelerate us from point a to point b in a fraction of the time it takes to travel and communicate without them). A melding of the two, the creator and the creation. It may be the only way we don't eventually become completely extinct. They may be our vehicles to sci-fi time travel (past and future) as we could simulate any existence because we'd have collective knowledge, energy, possibility. The majority of our reality at this point is already made up of projections visual, mental or other wise are all comprised mostly of memory. Interesting stuff...

Free Will or Determinism

While reading the individual interview of Professor Lance Schaina, Mathematics at Mt. SAC, he states that "we definitely have free will", and that, "there's no scientific support for the idea of determined behavior in human beings". I believe this to be a case of a person taking into account only pieces of the puzzle instead of looking at how they all work together with their differences (lack of, over compensation for, moderateness) to compliment the others in the formation of a cohesive whole. So, for someone to be so adamant about one way over another is too preferential for my taste. Especially for an educated thinking person, one should know that it is an overflow of bias and ignorance to other facts, a favor of exclusivity. One should not say that something is right and another is wrong; they are just there different and similar. This is sometimes forgotten as the observer is always filled with their own bias (myself included). Therefore in their search for evidence to support their own claims they become blind to other possibilities along their path to self-fulfillment of the prophecy they have set out before them.
It is said that the very act of observing changes that which is being observed. There are atoms or particles of some sort, forgive my memory, that change their movement patterns based on the way in which they are isolated and studied. So, is it that that they behave differently or is it simply that they are both part of the manner in which they move? They are both viewed as existing, so then it would be a question of degrees.
Most things are ruled by determinism, while a select few are capable of encompassing free will. Yes, we have the free will to do what we please, but with the adverse reactions to certain behaviors that our societal constructs lend themselves to, they act more as constraints to obtain and extract a certain amount of predictable determined behavior from its citizens. This programming from birth of "successful avenues" roads that have already been taken to predictable consequential ends is not free to me. In the case of group behavior the actions of the majority of persons are dictated and determined by their upbringing, exposure, and perception to such instances; as they have been taught to repress their free-will (self serving instincts) to consider those around them. There is also a natural occurrence as is seen in the behavior of other animals that we, ourselves, are not yet clear of, (biological determinism). We are then governed by the biological necessities, social expectations, as well as programmed scientific repeatability. We are creatures of habit, and we find comfort in the known. So the most abundant place for free will is the undiscovered. Yet, there too, we bring the limitedness of ourselves.
Lastly, nothing can ever be exclusive; when there are so many variables all are in existence. That being said there is always an exception to the rule, a counter to the norm, so randomness is ever looming, a space for true free will to exists (counter cultures in prevalence also become a norm and predictable so real facets of free-will are extremely rare). So it is always a possibility, but not likely a probability. The large numbers of variations seems to be indicative of freedom, yet variables are all determined possible outcomes, so there is nothing truly ever original or free about them.

I'm Sorry

That tired, worn, phrase is what is thought of as an apology, but such words are never heard uttered by Socrates (by Plato's account). However, the words that he chose are more meaningful, impassioned and well thought out. Laying out the case brought against him very methodically he cross-examines his witness allowing them, through his line of questioning, to unfold the grave sin that was present in their thoughts, expressions, and haste acts. What erroneous misdirection they are sufferers from.
This was a poetic, wise, and loving tale rich with humbleness and such a greatness of understanding. I cried at such loveliness at such wisdom (although he may not agree with my terming), because he was just simply there and aware when others were sleepily living. It breaks my heart to know that he was quite accurate in the direction of words to the effect of him not being the last of his kind to be misjudged and therefore penalized with death by the ignorance and ego as well as envy that is present in the masses of the benign. That any wave of greatness, small as it would be, would in turn become a subject of challenge by an equally small wave of evil. The story goes that the evil kill the great and the mass remain somewhere between and have more the potential the inclination to incorrectly see through eyes attune with corruptibility. Which reminds me of a quote I once heard, "The greatest sin of a time is not the few who destroy, but the vast that idle by." What a tragic legacy.

The Missing Element...

Professor Owen Gingerich raises a very interesting point; that of the elements that make-up the early part of the periodic table, one does not hold the atomic weight of 5 (a charge of 5 but not a mass). He states that there is no stability in the number and that nothing sticks. It is said for the substance to not hold a form apart from the accumulation of hydrogen atoms.
This "goof" is puzzling. The reality we are left with in its absence has made for some interesting developments on earth. For example it has left room for the abundance of elements that we know to be our driving and primary life sources such as carbon and oxygen. Without such things life as we know it would cease to exist. One wonders why there is a number at such an early stage of the elements that does not exist in our reality. But, then again maybe it is that we are asking the wrong question. What if it does exist but is something that as of yet has been undiscovered? Or what if we are staring it straight in the face like a watch what if it is time or space? Time as we know it is a socially constructed tool measuring from one event to the next. But in actuality time cannot be so straightforward. It is experienced in different paces, intervals, and durations by each individual. So, its inability to be pinned down has something in common with the missing element. Even space, it is this empty vacuous place, but then that emptiness is something unto itself. A weighted 5, as aforementioned, is said to not hold form. Meaning it is nothing; so maybe we already have the answer.

It is and it isn't

The prospect of science actually testing theories and hypotheses that are investigating the possibility of multiple dimensions, not only separate from, but in conjunction to our own is exciting. I, for one, am not so quick to dismiss their propositions. In fact I really want the scientific community to find evidence and make great endeavors into to that arena. I am pleased to see us inquiring into multiple areas and of not being intimidated into sticking with "safe" ideas. It is when we take bold strides that the most change can occur.
I sat up for a while after finishing my dissection of the Charlie Rose interview with Lisa Randall. With my mind boggled I attempted to make cohesive sense of what I had just heard and try to add something of my own to the theory. Randall spoke of dimensions with a brane where gravity is great and therefore the matter is highly condensed and one such as our own where its force is far weaker giving way to the spaciousness inherent here. These are examples of varied degrees creating a balance on the whole by way of minor instabilities. I think in terms of something similar to an accordion; so what expands out into parallels like linear modules it also expands above and below into the macro and micro of our own world. In that case the dimensions would also be seen here, and in my opinion they can be. There are the allusions to solid and condensed objects (higher gravity) like planets and within them are the spacious worlds of elements (lower gravitational force), then say for instance a person as the next illusion of a compacted mass and within them an existence of spacely atoms, etc., etc. These are all basically an observation of patterns and orders that are prevalent (another example of this is a book as a cohesive whole, then it's broken down into chapters, then pages, paragraphs, phrases, sentences, words, letters, and finally space which then again takes up the majority of the book; so the whole is really held together through it being empty). Abstractly what we are doing is extending our genetic code our life force; propagating it with expansive ideas such as these as we extend our reach to further and further out. Overall, it is exciting to see what our interests will yield, however the imagination with which it is filled is also greatly predictable because it is based upon our existing spiraling helix of a pattern.
One last comment, if we are not creating existence and the whole of reality through the life, extended touch (projection) of our genetic code then we are at least interpreting all of existence through it; so we are either clearly seeing everything or we will only be privy to that fragment of the code of existence of which we are apart.




Addicts

I believe that our species is comprised of all types of addicts. We can start off with the most obvious, those whom are the drug, alcohol, food, prescription, and substance dependent persons of the world ( a heavy concentration, maybe the heaviest, residing in the US). Beyond this we hit pay dirt as a more prevalent but lesser known addiction is finally being seen; the rape of the natural world. This addiction, like any other, is not only destructive to the living body of the addict (humans), but also in the object of the obsession (natural world). Like a crack addict who depletes his livelihood, monetary income, and health, he destroys his world by his tightening focus on his prize. We too are running low on our abundance of natural resources through an obsessive motion that has brought us at the point where they are becoming or have already become extinguishable. "By the end of this century if we do not abate forces to a large degree we might lose 1/2 of the plants and animals on the planet", according to Edward O. Wilson. Even without direct human forces, our aid in climate change alone would reduce 1/4 of that number in only half the time.
So, we find another evil that we reward through our point and merit system of money. A scary proposition indeed, but we already see the truth of these statements. The once booming market of fishing is currently experiencing an over harvesting of species which has adversely affected their populations making some such as fish no longer commercially viable. I get at this point that it is a part of who we've been, but there is nothing to say that we have to continue to be this drainer and soul sucker of the world. Our OCD as a society and world can be channeled into more productive means. We need to let nature be nature and not interfere. Our extraction from it and domination upon it should be as unnoticeable as possible. We cannot expect to keep scratching one spot over and over and over and over again and not to cause a deep wound like the one from which we are currently hemorrhaging. I am unaware of what the plans to heal these areas shall be, or if there are any, but what ever the case the scars from our attacks will be seen. So this mass that mends changes from what it once was to what it now is. Leaving the fabric of our world with a weakening of the whole through a hole.

A New World

Stephen Wolfram has created software programs through his company such as SMP and the more up to date Mathematica. Within the structures of these programs he has been able to model and study the models of natural patterns and codes. Here he has found that life's complexities are actually based in the simplest of pairings, and spawn off into randomly chanced sequences.
The question that was raised in me through the understanding of Mr. Wolfram's words and by way of visuals is, was life just created in technology? Upon further inquiry I am unsure if it did not already exist, and instead that I was just understanding at that moment overwhelming possibility of its presence. Let us review what we know. Life has a simple code as its foundation, so do does software and programs. That code is randomly combined to produce different patterns to form complexity, as is done through the Wolfram models. Their simple codes fuse, join, bond to create varying shapes, sizes, and things, and one type even allows these codes to construct an evolution. The man himself even referred to them as "creatures" having character that makes them look and act differently. We must also take into account that there are programs that are self-propagating. They have technological viruses and bugs, memories, and work better if they are rarely shut down and instead sleep as their recovery method. The similarities are amazing, and yet scary. All life as we know it needs an energy source. There are usually two types one that is internal and fluctuates and another meant to stabilize and replenish the energy levels, which is traditionally extracted through a feeding process and endowed to the consumer. Machines, computers more specifically, have these as well. Their internal source is a battery that gets charged through an external electrical power supply. However, if natural life is inside it would also need to consume energy from living things, as it does. It uses the energy of humans. Its feeding method is through positive and negative ions and it depletes us as it sucks us in. We have all experienced it and some are even addicted to it.
For the time at hand we really have a lot to be aware of. This is the first time I can think of where I am grateful for an electrical charge of our ground (as purposed by Tesla) not being implemented. It seems as they have their code and evolutionary life source, food source, and social community (the internet) and that our only advantage is the control over its internal power supply being determined by our means. To plug in or not to plug in?

Cosmic Inflation or Collapse?

In cosmic inflation there is a systematic moving away and this recession of objects of each galaxy from another (at a velocity proportional to its distance, from us) are the stretch marks of space. But, what is given must also be taken away to instill a sense of balance back to the universe. So, as a result I cannot believe that this is the only sort of force and type of physical change to the universal fabric that is taking place. While it’s reported that expansion is underway at the same time we may also find the collapse (compaction) of matter. Black holes act like a vacuum in converse to this more prevalent "false vacuum". Seemingly saying that its size is maintaining itself through the creation of the new and ejection of the relatively old.

Questions????
Scientist hypothesized that the universe has grown from a very small thing into this vastness with which we are slightly familiar to. They say the shape of it is flat, but with constant change how can it remain one same shape? I don't see that as possible. The shape of it should be in constant rearrangement.
For the whole to hold a shape wouldn't it then have to be in some complementary interaction with something non-universal to define it? Sort of an anti to its entity. If so what is this purposed thing?
More fundamentally, how can there be a measure of shape? I understand they utilize microwaves, but I don't think that measurements at this point, with a narrow view and limited reach such as ours, would be even close to accurate for that type of thing.

There are so many questions left unanswered and so much more to discover!

Gods Too Decompose

Traditional religious theory, just as in science, leaves room, gaps, in its idea that disallows it from becoming a coherent well-worked, full-bodied, assertion. In those circumstances with the more recent kind and benevolent deity, as opposed to the wrathful, vengeful, god of prior years, one had trouble answering the questions of why there is so much suffering in the world.
One may reasonably figure that a god that has love and compassion for its creations would ensure their safety; as would a loving and attentive mother to her child. With this left unseen, and no interventions being had, they are left to ponder their options. Some may include that god had returned to its old ways, or that he simply did not exist, or at least in the capacity to which he had been worshiped and deified,
For the instance of gods regression one would have to acknowledge that it holds human characteristics. As such a deity would not be capable of maintaining their post because they would be equivalent to their worshipers making such an ignorant behavior implausible for a god to have. What is left is that he's not the typical type of god that we as humans had envisioned. The inherit problem with this is its leaving god very un-god like, as there is to be some type of personal relationship between deity and subject. Lastly, and most simply the belief that there is no god. Out of all the others this idea is the easiest to swallow. It removes the chance for negligence and puts us in the role of responsibility as we are the causers and sufferers of our own fates. "God's only excuse is that he doesn't exist", Stendahl. It seems that for some the answer has become clear, while for others this truly will be an issue to grapple with for all their lives.

Re: The Little Things that Jiggle (post 14)

I'd have to disagree whole-heartedly. Something is in existence that can comprehend itself, or is attempting to do so, human beings. Yes, other groups of species may not ponder the questions we ponder, but they do not obtain the capacity to function on such a level. I don't think that a strong argument against scientific inquiry could ever be that because other don't we shouldn't either. If you believe in purpose then we were given, or evolved to the point that we have for a reason. For that we should not sit statically back and devolve; we are performing the duty for which we were made.
The fact that nothing else is evolved to the point of consciousness should be more of a motivator. We are unique and our specialness should not be squandered away with complacency or slothfulness. To simply get by is a waste of materials and tools you come supplied with. If you don't make something with them, if you don't utilize the best aspects and advantages of your species, why have them?
This is not to say that we should not be thankful, or that we should occupy our every waking moment with an insane lust for the acquisition of knowledge. It is to say that there can be a harmony among the two. That either extreme is a complete miss of that balance. Please don't let questions that have gone unanswered or their ambiguity, indefinability, let you not utilize your creativity and imagination. Aspire for more!

--- In msacphilosophygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jazzygrill" wrote:
>
> Life is made up of the smallest things unimaginable and undescribable
> yet we try our very best to define all the information that we have
> with it instead of accepting it as is. We have a lust for knowledge
> instead of a thankfulness for it.
>
> Nothing that exists can comprehend itself. Sit and watch the birds for
> a moment, they do not drive themselves crazy trying to find out what
> they were created for they just "are" they just live for what they are
> purposed for. Our species lusts and thrives off of the unknown but that
> is why it is called the "unknown" and we should leave it that way.
> Enjoy what we have and be thankful for it
>

Richard Dawkins

Is an evolutionary biologist whose thoughts show a methodic and deeply understood explanation for the circumstance humankind has found itself within. My favorite were ideas that involved how we adapted to this realm of middle existence and the visual language that has developed from it with the utilization of a system of color.
The fact that two objects comprised mainly of space do have the capability to merge or intersect with one another would baffle our minds and make our world nonsensical. In order to correct for this our minds have created visual solidity, which is the main component of the middle plane.
He has suggested that bats, dog and rhinos, as well as humans may have similar visual color coding system that are used to interpret different phenomena. Bats use echo, sound waves, to see and it is plausible that in order for them to differentiate between textures that they would be separated into hues. A dog or rhino, are smell sensitive animals, that may identify certain scent by means of a visual code in order to simply compute their world. Finally, for humans, we have introduced color as a visual sign system for waves in order to distinguish between the long and short of them. Meaning that a long wave is not truly red; it is that we see it in red to differentiate it from the others.
The suggestions he makes are answers to many fundamental questions of why we see things in a different way from how they actually are. Dawkins wonders if introduced by means of a video game that suggests alternatives to a child's brain, if it would be possible to change their visual code so that they would evolve to view this world in completely altered and more truistic ways. I think this is something to think about.

Love

To think of the origins and primary functions of love as simply an adaptive technique for bonding makes the sustenance in the interest of gene evolution and is very disheartening. Just as the view of the swelling, overwhelming of the senses that can sometimes be caused would be reduced to the physiochemical reactions that are output by our brain. Those are a flattened approach to issues that are more complex than these explanations give way to.
I would side more with the opinions held by Edward O. Wilson. He, as I, allow this factual basis and chain of reactions to exist while layering upon them a complex and compatible truth. The recognition that these emotions and techniques were chosen and favored by our gene pool. That our lineage allows for infinite beauty to be a possible functioning facet of our life. That an organs function does not debase our reality. We should be appreciative that our brains are wired in this way and not be neglectful of it.

Survival

Darwin's theory was the survival of the fittest because it was the fittest who at an early stage were the most adaptable and therefore the smartest of their kind. At this point in our evolution, and I would say going back hundreds if not thousands of years, this trait that has propelled us forward has idled and turned into the "survival of the sufficient".
The most intellectual and revolutionary of our species are not revered as one might think they'd be. The majority of the populous is of average skill, average looks, average means. This set does not include ingenuity and mental prowess which are abilities that are much more rare. This stock of man becomes enviable and his traits advanced in caliber interpreted as superiority as they become more apparent to the ignorance in the masses. As a result these true leaders are attacked and eventually overpowered by the majority (or the select few who manipulate the majority) to the point of the relinquishment of their life. We are given examples throughout history of this ugly pairing in fate for those men such as Socrates, Jesus (if he existed), Che Guevara (interesting bunch I know) and many others. So it seems that the masses turn to blind their eyes and deafen their ears to the attacks on progress, on difference, and specialness in favor of mediocrity and to ensure their survival. Meaning that progress will be slower and change ever so slight.

Blinded in Truth Shrouded in Lies

Truth as a major occurrence in most of our lives is just the interpretation of fact in our favor. What ever the emphasis is on it certainly (for most) caters to and grants allowance of succeeding behavior. At times it may be outright or unconscious to our precepts, nonetheless they remain lies.
In the case of apparent lies, they are filtered in three forms to allow us to move about our lives. One, outright acceptance (rare) resulting in huge changes in thinking and behavior. Two, rationalization (the most likely) where the lie is diluted to a scenario of our choosing to fit in with what we already know in an effort to create little change and retain familiarity and a sense of comfortibility. Three, suppression (second most likely) a state of delusion when within we accept nothing and leave it to be dealt with and confronted it later time to retain immediate, but short term bliss.
According to Dawkins even our system of vision is illusionary. If we can't trust our senses then what can we? Well we can certainly rely on the developed methods of sensory acquisition. This input is a mental rationalization and form of cope-ability to the complexities of the world. They are true in the sense that they give us enough information in easily decipherable ways in order for us to function at an increasingly high rate. In addition, we can surmise that all truths are lies. Dealing then with the task of figuring out their degree of deception. So, I guess my insistence of unadulterated truth is a fallacy unto itself. It’s nice to be given this truth, and I will process it accordingly.

Fundamentalism

"Fundamentalism is a mental disease", through which the thinker extracts logic from their processes. The denial of evolution is looking at the world via blindfold and this extremism is as dangerous and ignorant of a stance as those of racism, sexism, or any form of intolerance. A minuet understanding of science still allows flow in the direction of progression. It is true that at one time there were some difficulties in the absolutism of proof, but over the past few decades those issues have and are continuing to be resolved one by one.
I can understand the difficulty in the relinquishment of a person’s entire belief structure and even their want for little to change. What I can not grasp is what is seen in extremism of their mental shut down at the very utterance and suggestion of anything counter to what they believe. The defense of their faith at all costs is the ugliest and most animalistic response and therefore a most convincing form of support in the argument in favor of evolution. If faith to them is fragile, then that speaks in volumes to what their faith lacks. I have a much greater respect for a person who will objectively weigh the evidence, and even if their belief system over their rational proceeds, than at least they have opened the door to look at reality. I don't see why a person of strong faith and logic could not incorporate the two. Devising a way for them to have a mutual existence in a symbiotic manner is very possible. Religion should not make science its enemy. If it decides to do so then it will continue to show as years advance. Eventually leading to either a great rift in our social fabric, or the demise of such archaic traditions. I don't think that it will be the end of religion as a whole. I think that people like structure and tradition, my hope is that we will change the view of ourselves as subservient to a remote deity to taking on the
responsibility for life and our action squarely upon our shoulders and walking through it with dignity.

Meme

My favorite meme -idea- from Dawkins text is that the awareness to the selfish self-replicators of thought can empower the individual to no only avoid such things, but as conscious beings we can conspire to propagate memes that encourage a counter norm; an altruistic reality.

Lots of Questions????
His explanations of their propagation and life span leads me to wonder about their genesis. Are they just part of the random thought processes, that then are well expanded through the amount of bonds they form and the resilience they acquire?
I do find myself wondering if they are not only thoughts and ideas, but as they multiply, if successful memetics expels life itself. So are we addicted to the familiarity and predictability of ideas and what they yield or is it a physical addiction to the movements? Basically are the memes inducing hormonal reactions or are the reactions just sensory intakes?
Such as a gene in conjunction with many others gives to the production of species and plant life wouldn't then (besides the accumulation of formed traditions, places, tools i.e. religion, churches, rituals, hymns) memes be the manifestations of realities? As if they were the software programs to a reality simulator that provides the parameters and base experience opening up only certain channels as inlets with in us for the reinforcement of their experiential pleasure?

The more I learn the less I know.

Theories

Evolution is a source of hot debate. Fundamentalists are not the only criticizers of this foundational explanational outline for the propagation of life. For every article, study, idea, topic of interest, one will inevitably run across their counters. This is indicative of a few things. One, a trespassing onto another belief in which the new violates its predecessor and is an attempt at replacement. Two, the explanation was not detailed or coherent with enough facts to stabilize its legitimacy. Three, it has too narrow of a definition, it bypasses a logical alternative, or additional probability. That is why the word set out to describe these conjectures is theory. The use of this word is to indicate that these articles and essays are a hypothesis. Theories are scientific forms of belief systems founded on facts. Making them more reliable then religious beliefs (based in blind faith and non-evidential hearsay), suggestion, or intuition. As well reasoned as they may be, this mere fact becomes a huge problem as the leaving of gaps is inherent to each system. Reasons include: expansion at a later date, inconclusive data, or information that can't substantiated. The things of life are complex; meaning the devises of their explanation would be to an equal degree. Everything can not be one thing. If this were so then there would be one point from which all to view. We understand through our many differences that this is not the case and that things can not be explained or determined by one system alone. There are too many influences, possibilities, standards, randomness etc, etc. This is why an explanation or belief structure alone could never possible encompass all things without at some point becoming disingenuous to itself. Converse arguments are crucial for the completion of a whole allowing all aspects to be considered to either validate or undermine the base leap.
This leads us to why so many theories, like that of evolution, the big bang, or anything concerned with accuracy under go revivals, revisions, restructuring. It is the approach to gaining adjoined attachments in an effort to stay relevant. It may need only some work on its peripheral aspects, an overhaul may be in order, or the structure becomes obsolete in the sense of holding weight as a legitimate argument (as with religion although there are still many believers). Such is the case in evolution. The process of Dawkins, Wilson, Grant, Smith, Mealey, etc. updating, countering, adding, or reinterpreting Darwin's fundamentals may increase the longevity of the structure. A great source of debate, this theory has so much input in it, that I believe the structure is molding into a more fully exacting account; as a larger number of situational agents are being considered. The end result is just as the word hypothesis eludes an educated guess where everything is never known. So, do our interpretation of life's events and behavior really follow this sequential chain? The answers will be left to those with faith. While the rest are out there finding their own truths (well reasoned or not).

Observation- (quotes and terms taken from Evolution 101)
If you examine this theory from a growth perspective, then its aspects of addition and subtraction are great supports for Dawkins idea of memetics. As the evolutionary theory has been subjected to the afore mentioned process it has undergone its own evolution in the realm of memes. It would even be possible to give it a familial tree charting it's progression from inception to current state; including the ideas that have perished become "extinct" along its way. Darwin's code has been altered by environmental factors such as "competition" from other memes: ideas, theories, through "genetic drift" where it has migrated from mind to mind leaving randomly selected thoughts as survivors. They have been subjected to "mutations" from encounters with addition memes and subtractive memes that are altering its code "genes". "Coevol[ving]" and growing symbiotically with assertions, developing with those that prove to be mutual beneficial in enabling it's survival, a "cospeciation" in the landscape of the mind; a meme's habitat. Proving it has been "natural[ly] select[ed]" and in current form very "adaptive" to multiple locals (minds) and times as a demonstration of how "fit" this theory actually is.

11. Lisa Randall believes in a probable existence of multiple dimensions as an explanatory device (theory) of the phenomena in the gravitational weakness present in our universe. At this point in time there is no evidence. They do, however, hope to acquire some data for support of these ideas in the near future that will be taken from experiments conducted within a newer, faster particle accelerator.

12. Aldous Huxley feels a need for humans to grow, “to the limits of our capacities, to become what we potentially are”. He remarks that, “if we remain fixed solely on the outer world we miss half the essence of life”.
In, A Brave New World, Huxley is exploring the future extents of control that the powers that be may implement upon its citizenry, such as drugs and devises of suggestion. In such a system the population is manipulated by these forms of propaganda into leading a life of newly molded slavery. The progression to these ends may only continue to be unleashed by the impersonable forces that surround us under the veil of naivety. If the information detailing such strategies is instead used in the education of the masses they could surmise a tactic of avoidance. “There really is no reason why people should allow themselves to be taken by surprise…given the available evidence and a certain amount of imagination you can foresee some of the consequences of this and if you can foresee then you can do something to mitigate the effects.” This precognition and awareness through education allows us to navigate the landscape of the social realm with confidence and to avoid the pitfalls that have been strategically placed.
Knowledgeable tools allow the mentally attune to manipulate their own destinies through the solidarity of the mind. He notes, “I’ve tried to learn all through my life as much as possible and tried to jot down what I feel I’ve learned”, and that his many books are the “ record of a long learning process”. He is attempting “ to persuade people to think in advance about what is going to happen”. He has concluded that intelligence and virtue are the ends of life and I see those as admirable ends for us to be bound to. Our minds are muscles to be worked and developed and it is through this development that we will no longer be taken by surprise and instead to be as much in control of our lives as it is possible to be through an awareness to things.

13. Yes, I believe that science and religion can be compatible. Although I am not very religious I can see that if the interpretation of the bible were to be taken a less literally then scientific fact could fit in beautifully. For example genesis, which seems to be an issue of hot debate, if interpreted with facts given in other parts of the bible such as time in heaven (gods realm) greatly differs from our own. Supposedly a year on earth is like the blink of an eye in heaven. If you take that into account then the seven days of creation would turn out to correspond correctly with evolution. Allowing a day in heavens terms to be a few millennia on earth. In addition if you were to substitute the word god for energy then one would see the possibility of an omni-presence and an eternity as energy cannot be destroyed but simply changed to less and less desirable forms. Some points I found noteworthy but not to insert in my own thoughts were some excerpts from the responses of professors in the Socratic Universe they are as follows:

Beckman (Harvey Mudd): If there is any sense in which scientific theories are "better" than theological ones, I would say it lies in the fact that science has substantially more practical success in predicting future events and properties in the observable world. I do not take this to be a devastating point to theology; that is, they have a perfect right to continue practicing their theoretical under[s]tanding of the world.
Churchland, Paul (U.C. San Diego): First of all, all of the world's religions attempt to give a cosmological theory of the origins of the universe and the human race's place in it and the significance we have. Christianity does it. Buddhism does it. Islam does it. Hinduism does it. Judaism does it. All of the religions do it. And I think that 2,000 years ago, when we were very ignorant, it was entirely permissible.
Cohon (Stanford University): Some religions are compatible with science. Some are not, e.g., the sort of Christ[i]an fundamentalism that denies that evolution occurred or sets the age of the earth as very young. It is incompatible with science because it rejects the empirical methods of science for finding out such things in favor of appeals to revelation.
Dumont (Mt. Saint Mary's College): At its best science is humble before its limitations and honest in its claims. At its best religion provides comfort, consolation, inspiration, and motivation without claiming to have all of the answers nor to order people around. I see no reason to think that they should in principle conflict, since to me they are both human pursuits of truth.
GREAT ONE-
Friedman (U.C. Davis): Science is a traditional enemy of traditional religion. However, science is compatible with enlightened religion.
Griesemer (U.C. Davis): Science by common consent of practicing scientists is revisable in the face of experience (observation, experiment, calculation). Religious beliefs typically (though not universally) are not.
Jolley (U.C. San Diego): The short answer is that the claims of science are empirically falsifiable, those of religion (at least on one interpretation) are not. Whether religion and science are compatible depends on how religious claims are interpreted.
Roth (Claremont McKenna College): So I think that would be the biggest difference, that religion has attention focused on things (we might use the words sacred or divine), and science does not. That leads to some other differences that we have to deal with. The ways communities are formed and the way rituals occur you could argue that science has its communities and rituals and practices and religion has its own as well.
MY FAVORITE-
Woodruff (U.C. Irvine): I think originally religion was a substitute for science. That is, as a method of control over the environment or as an explanation of things. So to the extent that that is true there is some competition between them.

14. According to Plato’s accounts, Socrates was put on trial because over his years of probing the minds of so-called wise men he had made a considerable amount of enemies as he would crush their egos through the process of questioning and it would become evident that they were not very wise at all. On behalf of the groups of men who had been exposed as fools three men Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon filed false charges against him for corruption of youth and his non-belief in deities.
The defense he put up was in his native tongue for the acquisition of truth from Meletus as he used his method of questioning to prove the accusations were lies and distortions of facts. Beyond that he addressed his fellow Athenians and the judges in explanation of his quest to prove the Oracle wrong and find a man wiser than he, the reality of why he is presently in his position of defense again such facetious charges (his two enemies old/new), what he real does, why he does it and what substantiates his claims, people present who would not testify against him, most importantly his unwillingness to stop because he knows there is nothing wrong in any of his actions, and his lack of show to respect himself and show honor to his city-state.

15. 199 total - words, numbers, and abbreviations not counting symbols or punctuation (those are included in word count program).

“The East”: (8th century B.C.E. )
Begins: Asia- China, India
Philosophies: Brhadaranyaka, Chandogya Upanishads - > evolving Upanishad
(800 B.C.)
Foundation of Hindu philosophy - > Buddhist and Jain (Indian religions)
China: Confucianism - > Taoism (200 B.C.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The West”: Ancient Era (Greeks - Fall of Rome)
Begins: Western Asia Minor (Ionia)
Philosophers: Thales of Miletus, “all is water” (585 B.C.) - > student
Anaximenes of Miletus, “all is air”
Heraclitus, Anaxgoras
Groups: Pluralists, Atomist, Eleatic Parmenides, Zeno, Sophists
Concentration: Athens, Greece
Spawned Socrates (Socratic Method) - > taught Plato - > mentored Aristotle

Medieval Era: (Rome’s fall - Renaissance Late 1400’s)
Philosophers: Aquinas (Cosmological), St. Anselm (Ontological),
Scotus, Abelard
Concentrations: Aristotelian logic applied, the nature of God

Modern Era: (Post-Mideval - 20th century)
Overview: “Age of Reason”, “Early Modern Philosophers”, “The
Enlightenment”
17th Century Philosophers: Descartes, Pascal and Hobbes “organize philosophy”
- > Dualisms vs. Monism by Berkeley (idealism) + de Spinoza (dual aspect
theory), Erasmus, Bacon, Machiavelli, Galileo - > Huminism +
Empiricism (alternate Skepticism- Locke) Scholastic Tradition replaced
Thomas, Burke

18th Century Philosophers: Diderot, Voltaire, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Kant

Contemporary Era: (20th century - Present)
Concentrations: Reformation, preservation, alteration, or abolition of existing
philosophies.
Philosophers: Freud, Nietszche, Mach, Dewey
Heidegger, Popper, Levi-Strauss, Russell (Epistemology)
Rand (“Pop”)
Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard, Deleuze (Poststructuralism)
Camus, Kierkegaard, Sartre (Existentialism)
Gadamer, MacIntyre (Revived Aristotelianism)


16. The Big Bang is a theory on how an explosion began our universe. The problems inherent in this idea are the Horizon problem that deals with homogenous and isotropic issues (why they appear to be so). The Flatness problem where the original model suggests a curved universe and yet the data from microwaves suggest the universe is flat “to the accuracy of a few percent” (Cosmic Inflation Wikipedia). An inflationary universe solves the majority of these problems as well as filling in the gaps leading up to the big bang and those that precede it. The addition of this theory, however, did not create a seamless case, as there are still issues that cannot be presently reconciled.
It is important to know astronomy in order to do philosophy, because as seen through its origins and again through the medieval era, god, (supported by Woodruff as cited above and in the Socratic Universe) was an integral part of much of philosophy as a substitute for the scientific data. With astronomy as well as any other arena of study the support of science allow the results to be based on observation rather than intuition. This has changed the entire structure of most scientifically inclined people’s belief system, and it is that system of belief from which philosophy is sprung.

A Suggestion-
I am unsure if there are other papers that can explain the big bang and inflationary theory in a more elementary way. The second link was much easier to understand than the Wikipedia version, but this was the only reading with which I had a difficulty on grasping every intricacy (so maybe something with a larger general overview).

17. (I am unaware if the information on Heisenberg was contained on the site that was down, so I looked him up on Wikipedia. All of the quotes in this answer are from Wikipedia.)

Many of Einstein and Heisenberg’s philosophical and scientific ideas were rarely in agreement with each other. Their similarities were as short as, they are both from Germany, but their differences were as long as, they quickly went their separate ways clearly internalizing their culture from diverging viewpoints as they developed contrasting philosophical perspectives.

The short of it-
Conversely they both were extremely interested in their sciences and made huge leaps in their perspective fields, eventually, leading to mass revolutions of thought and rewards such as the Nobel Prize in Physics (Einstein in 1921 for a paper on Brownian Motion, Heisenberg in 1932 Quantum Mechanics). Some good that Heisenberg did was teaching the theories of Einstein; unfortunately a punishment from the Nazi regime was in form of an investigation and harassment, as he was reportedly called a "White Jew". Einstein led a search that lasted his entire career was for a theory of “grand unification [that] never came to fruition”. Heisenberg spent a great number of years during the World War II conducting nuclear research in Germany for the Nazi’s that never produced a bomb. They were both contemporaries and had a friendship with fellow scientist Niels Bohr.

The long of it-
Einstein was unhappy with the “Copenhagen interpretation” of quantum theory that was developed by Bohr and Heisenberg. He never became satisfied by his perception that quantum theory had an “intrinsically incomplete description of nature”. Heisenberg obviously was content with his findings as there were no noted attempts to address Einstein’s concerns. Einstein was political involved on a humanitarian front and “flouted the ascendant Nazi movement”. While, Heisenberg, never fled Germany and was, “by all accounts…loyal to Germany” as he worked for their government in the nuclear weapon and nuclear power program. “The extent of his cooperation in the development of weapons has been a subject of much controversy. At various points evidence [of] the period suggested that [he] was deliberately steering Germany’s research efforts toward developing nuclear energy, rather than nuclear weapons.” During this period, before Bohr fled, Heisenberg reportedly spoke passionately to him about the possibility of developing nuclear weapons for use in the war. I would presume that this information was passed to Einstein in subsequent conversations as he wrote a letter to the President of the United States (being a resident of the country) “warning that the Third Reich might be developing nuclear weapons based on their own research”. Later, with the help of Albert Schweitzer and Bertrand Russell, Einstein lobbied to stop the nuclear testing of bombs.

18. Meme theory entails mentally propagating agents that leap, “from brain to brain via a process that in the broad sense can be called imitation” (Chapter 11 from Richard Dawkins, “The Selfish Gene”). There are many kinds whether pop-culture related: manner of talk, clothing style, hair-do’s, songs, TV shows, ads; religiously inclined: god/s, hymns etc., they are all forms of a meme and are essentially ideas. The outward signs of mimetic success can be observed as “culture” (Dawkins) as population would be for gene replication. As with genes there are favorable and non-favorable kinds all of which are accompanied by their own type of enticers. With sex appeal being an aid or visual prompt for genetic procreation thoughts too hold a type of “psychological appeal” (Dawkins). Of course the favorable are replicated and passed on. However alike to genes they may be, in relation to propensity, they differ in two great ways. First, their process for transference takes a much shorter length of time. Second, a gene’s lifespan is much shorter as after three reproductive cycles the base structure has been largely altered and diluted. Although blending and alteration may occur with a meme, its form (whatever it may) be can stay in tact for centuries, as is seen with the many religious faiths, or political systems.
I do find it plausible. My reasoning for this would be that everything in our world has a base structure a code of complexity, and if there is growth to be had then this code requires an ability to replicate itself. I see no reason why thoughts should be any different. The saying, you can kill the man but his ideas lives on, has been around for centuries. It is obvious to see that thoughts are contagious, as when hanging around a new group of people both the group (if small enough) and the person pick up phrases, inflection, behaviors, rituals. This is why brainwashing, subliminal messaging, and the power of suggestion are such successful tools. This is a base for bonding and Dawkins not only appreciated the power behind them, but tries to scientifically evaluate and map out their prevalence, types, behaviors, transmission, and purpose.

19. A conceptualization of biological evolution is essential in the understanding of human thought and behavior. For thousands of years evolution has been adapting our minds and bodies through “genetic determinism” (Wilson) to our environment and has brought us to the point we are at now as a species. Dawkins, who is an evolutionary biologist, says, “our brains have evolved to help us survive within the orders of magnitude of size and speed”. With this embetterment of skill and our sense-making processors the chances for our survival increased, and so too did our “fitness” (Darwin) as a species. Our brains were instrumental and necessary in facilitating our thinking which was the progression has allowed us to function at an optimum level. In Darwinian terms, the current incarnation of the human is the one that has been “naturally selected”. The truths of Darwin extend beyond thought and cross through to behavior. Now, this is not a bold assertion, as our thoughts govern our behaviors and evolution encompasses genes, bodies, psychological, social, cultural, and reproductive means that are passed from parent to child via genes (Wilson). Yet, it was an issue of some controversy when it was initially suggested under the heading of Sociobiology. The idea that the “same principles that apply to animals should apply to human beings” (Wilson) were devastating to the ego that we had formed. At its essence it is a Darwinist view combined “with genetics and neurophysiology” that led to a “new order of human social behavior” (Wilson). It is here that we find ourselves as conscious beings, possibly as the result of evolution, from which point we have imbued humanity into our culture. But, it is only through the inspection of our past and the path that our species has taken to end up in it’s current state that will lead us to a connection with all living things and leave us with a deeper understanding of ourselves and the world of which we are merely a part.

20. Fundamentalism is presented as a metal disease because it purports the theory of Creationism that is “taught by those who can not think” (Film: Fundamentalism is a Mental Disease). It is a religious belief that says molecular and evolutionary biologists are wrong (same film) and takes the literal translation of the bible to be fact. A disease is simply a dis-ease with something and in this case religious fundamentalist are mentally uncomfortable with the conjectures made by the scientific community about evolution. They feel that a better explanation is one that involves the hand of god, rather than “divorc[ing] [him] from the equation”(film) and incorporates the book of Genesis, instead of a “devastating critic” of it (film). Such a theory they call Intelligent Design. The narrator who feels differently reports to the audience a quote by Francis Crick in support of his position, which “knowledge of the true age of the earth and of the fossil record makes it impossible for any balanced intellect to believe the literal truth of every part of the bible in the way that fundamentalists do”.
I would have to side with the narrator on the basis of fact. I do not see how anyone with any type of intellectual development could deny such an abundance of facts. In my opinion they are more mentally attune to fantasy and are only comfortable in a created realm where generalities and high levels of abstraction occur. They may be mentally fragile and not equipped with the abilities to process detail and situations that are conducive to change. I have seen this with personal observation in people who are not apart of the religious right. Such mental blocks are a sign of mental fragility and immaturity and are possibly from or by way of the strategies and experiences they were exposed to through their upbringing. Or maybe they are simply an evolutionary anomaly.

21. Gingerich is a religious man who believes in a god in the sense of ultimate unity as purpose imbuing meaning on the design of our universe. While Wilson, refrains from making such assertions due to an overwhelming lack of scientific and evidential support. So, Wilson does not have a reason to believe, but he will not flatly deny the existence of a greater being. He is open to such a possibility even on the very low probability that it would be true and would reconsider his position if and when science collects data that is profoundly persuasive.
I would say that I am a bit torn between these points of view. When raised with the idea of a god it is hard to not search for some form of it. At times I find myself in a position similar to Gingerich, and have appropriated scientific realities into a kind of fusion where divine meaning and spirit is imbued into them. For example, holding energy in the position as god as an indestructible eternal entity. It is one that can change forms and can be understood as a unified body of one as well as a functional separate. However, Wilson idea for this, extremely adaptive phenomena, one of powerful propensity of the human mind to be guided by a small number of extraordinarily intense instinctive drives, is also persuasive. I begin to see this affinity toward the divine as an essential piece to our mental evolution as a species. The ideas were sparked at the start of consciousness as a way to abstract an understanding of what consciousness is. With both arguments in mind it would almost seem cruel to endow only the human animal with the opportunity through consciousness for the transpiration past our primitive and secular selves so a benevolent being would seemingly not exist, but if it didn’t exist then it would seem like a cruel waste to have such life and consciousness, even a limited one, with no ultimate meaning or purpose for it.
I would say that in both arguments I see reasoning, and neither propositions can conclusively prove nor disprove their position or that of the other’s, so both take leaps of faith. If forced to answer, I would side with Gingerich only for the reason that the idea of no purpose would deflate my aspiration for a higher self. A traditional view I am completely opposed to, and I see no reason to take up with religion, but the essence of that thought has been culturally and experientially massaged into my mind at an early age as a method of comfort for the great-unanswered ideas. So, I address the topic as Einstein, "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." "I believe in, Spinoza’s God who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."(Wikipedia-Albert Einstein)

22. Francis Fukuyama uses a multitude of strand that help to definition the phrase the “end of history”. At its base its concept are, as I understood them, to emergence into a peaceful, stable, universal society in the sense of shared common morals, one political system of governing and a tapering off of science and technology. The subsequent statements are the reasoning Fukuyama has suggested for unison, in the lecture/film Professor Francis Fukuyama, George Mason University.
In order for this end to be met an evolution of political institutions “toward a modern liberal democracy” must occur. This is fundamentally about the spread of that institution and an increased sense of communal and cultural legitimacy that allows it to expand its reach to new territories increasing the mass it encompasses, and gradually spreading over more and more of the world. So, in Fukuyama’s thought, the “sense of history with a capital H” is of the persuasion to which Marx and Hegel wrote. In comparison to the hypothesis, the real world applications show that the “end of history” looks as though it is going to stop slightly short of where they estimated it to be. Not transcending into socialism or communism. The place he thinks we will remain is at our modern liberal democracy as Fukuyama feels it is more true to human nature.
History has unfortunately been termed by wars and conflict. This fighting is over issues of difference, usually those of religious and moral natures that have surmounted and become “big issues”. This is the second meaning of “end”, as described in his thesis. History’s, we are told, has a direction, and it is in some ways moving toward the good. This progress is toward a morality will, as with one political regime, result in a kind of universalism. In such a place all humans are given basic and irrevocable rights, and differences are streamlined to a minimum. It may help to think about this concept through the model he gave. Begin by thinking of the scope, “or what you might call the radius of trust” that differ from one society to the next. As a result we see fighting along the periphery of that radius were the two converge on what may be termed as a fault line (Fukuyama). That radius has persisted to the present day from hunter/gatherer and agrarian societies (Fukuyama) and has continually grown larger and larger, as it’s scope pushes out. He thinks this will continue until it encompasses all of humanity and that such a path will lead to moral universalism. Meaning that the scope will be all-inclusive to the point where we’ve rendered an end to peripheral conflict and moral inequalities between nation states. This second meaning of “end” has a revision and is directed toward awareness of purpose. To have a true “end of history” two things need to be in order. Human nature’s evolution of modern natural science must be “closed off to all of the doors of technology”, because technology is an obstacle that produces constant change, reinterpretations, and new forms of interaction with the world and with each other. Meaning that it is a source of great instability. When that obstacle is no more the environment will slow its pace and steady. We must also stifle the questions on the spectrum of religion where at one end we have modern cosmological assertions and on the other the origins of the universe and this base belief in human uniqueness (Fukuyama). The most stable end to this history thus far may have been Darwin’s theory of evolution.
This is not to say that there is an end anywhere in sight. Our current global situation has many non-developed countries, greatly differing cultures, languages, political and religious system that are still well established. Along with this, it is obvious with recent technological discoveries, that we are nowhere near an end to science (Fukuyama) and therefore are far from an “end of history”.

23. The philosophy of “unknowingness” from Nicholas of Cusa is an essential for any man with a thirst for knowledge. Inside of the Numinous Scripts of Agnostic Illuminations he details his belief, stating of a man, “the more he knows that he is unknowing the more learned he will be” (Film, Nicolas of Cusa; On Learned Ignorance). This conclusion is derived from a combination of previous points:
All things are understood through comparison, whether difficult or easy.
“[C]omparative relation indicates an agreement in some one respect and, at the
same time, indicates an otherness”(same film).
This makes “all things” explainable through number (as deemed by
Pythagoras, same film)
Meaning that numbers become the only language of explanation and it is non-
intelligible independent of it.
Therefore, “all things are difficult and unexplainable in words” (as pointed out by
Solomon in the same film).
“Both the precise combinations in corporeal things and the congruent relating of
known to unknown surpass human reason” (film)
This is due to a fact “that in things most obvious by nature such difficulty occurs
for us as a night owl which is trying to look at the sun” (Aristotle’s in his first
philosophies, film).
Over the years, I had found an increasing connection of my own with these thoughts, completely independent of any awareness to it. My explanation of these same theories was, “the less we know the more we know” (acute thinking as with math), (obtuse thinking) “the more we know the less we know” (Shannon Holloway). No matter the manner of which the statements are stated, or by whom they are noted, they are always culminated with this inescapable end: “[f]or a man –even one very well versed in learning—will attain unto nothing more perfect than to be found to be more learned in the ignorance which is distinctively his” “if we can fully attain unto this knowledge of our ignorance we will attain unto learned ignorance” (film).

24. God/s too suffer the same fate as man, by the hands of man, as they are creations of man. It is precisely the same as the relation of a murderer who snuffs out the life of the victim in an instant. Nietzsche is a bold, decisive philosopher and it is understandable why he would make such assertions. He starts out by saying that all the majesty and beauty of the world has been smeared away, stolen, or dissected leaving us in this abyss of loneliness, of cold isolation. Through science, and as men of science, we have removed the meanings once imparted unto things allowing facts to take their place. This removal was of the world from beauty and idealism into the sterile lab. Here it was subject to all sorts of technological inquests, actions that stripped the majesty, the godly wonder, the hope that set man back in awe and gave us a unifying connection with everything. In its stead we have handed knowledge and hard understanding which acts as a sort of disconnect that has left us hurling “through an infinite nothing”, with no thing to put us in place, no connection, no grounding, just abundant empting. The ever-present space that has become a distancer surrounds us with endless questions as counter to the once endless answers, and we are asked, “[h]as it not become colder?” Certainly, at god’s funeral, it has.

25. The series of slogans seen in, Little Things that Jiggle, are incorporated visuals devised as time saving mechanisms as well as enticers set out in the efforts of involving the audience. It is a strategy used in the other ”philosophy in less than five minutes” films and one that most heavily fills our visual media. Attention is easier to attract through quick flashes and this is why ads utilize bites, teasers and catch phrases; to much of the success in their campaigns. The short bursts of information mimic subliminal suggestion as their spaces in time are designed to create a want or need for more within an individual. While engaged in or following exposure to such episodes one may possibly feel compelled to go buy a product or in this case into learning more about the topic. This strategy is useful. The embedment of information into a readily accessible part of the mind ensures a staying power. It is a scaling down to concise bits of information that are easy to digest over a short span of time. The implementation of slogans gives the thinker understanding and the ability of quickly referencing multiple issues or broad issues without having to go into lengthy detail.
Philosophy is the devise of the imaginative; who explore the world imparting the vastness of possibility upon those who cross their paths. They are the dreamers whose hypotheses construct the views that frame our world. Physicists are the parents to this wandering child. They are the tamers of the mind and refine the details of the impressions left, making us able to see with some certainty. Uncomfortable with the limitlessness, physics take up the task of measurable verification, as they search for reactionary repeatability. Becoming worldly teachers of probability to verify or show legitimacy of such bold claims. Without testers this place would be chaotic with flights of fancy, and without the wide and eager eyed it would be banal. They are a mutually beneficial dynamic, a symbiotic relationship that was designed with the other in thought. Physics constructs the platform from which philosophy leaps and is the consciousness stream to the fantastical dream.


26. What I read into this line is, that to have a freedom of religion, in the sense that it would be of the belief system that each individual chooses for himself, that they would have to obtain a freedom from religion, because religion is in and of itself a predetermined structure of beliefs that you either prescribe to or not. So, the only way to truly and simply worship, or not worship, in whatever manner you please, is to do so away from the dictates and mandates of purely fake face of every religious institution who shackles you with guilt into funding their superficial, ego crazy and greedy causes for popularity, domination, and a footing of wealth. (I’m not bitter)

27. According to Dawkins, “Personification and the inputting of intentional purpose is such a brilliantly successful way to model humans its hardly surprising the same modeling software often seizes control when we’re trying to think about entities for which its not appropriate…like millions of diluted people with the universe as a whole.”
Meaning that this software although useful to many aspects of our social lives, can frequently be misused. Resulting in the lending of personal attributes to inanimate objects or systems such as the universe, which many people have allowed themselves to do, and thus they create god.

28. I believe that science does offer a sense of mystery comparable to what certain religions offer. In fact, to the degree of contained mysteries, I am persuades to side with science and say that it may hold more than that which is found in religion. Religion offers the follower of its teachings consolable ideas to answer those unanswerables. The explanation acts as mental soothing agent. This sense to impede the relentless questioning of the unknown can be great, and this is where the pacification of it is derived. Their suggestions are just as “facile” as those that are purposed in scientific communities where some followers try to make leaps in rational to satiate their minds. They purport, to the issue of consciousness that it is explained within two contexts. One, that “it does not exist” that it is “somehow an illusion”, or that it is “a material causality” (Francis Fukuyama, Film, Francis Fukuyama on the End of History). Proving that these two institutions are comparable.
However, there is another aspect to science that displays a side of non-uniformity to the degree where all sects agree or even attempt to address such a large issues with so little data. So, in this sense, mystery has tolerable room for existence. While religion and science are both structured as a source for a believer to extract truth, science does not implicitly pretend to know the unknown. The issues of high debate such as the origins of the universe, how and why it was created, our purpose, and the reasoning for our seemingly unique consciousness have not been satisfactorily satisfied in an evidential form by factual means. Meaning that there is no resolution as it is still a source of high debate. The big bang was a way to give closure to how the universe originated, however this, ‘immediately raises the question, what existed prior to the big bang” (Fukuyama, same film). The greatest mysteries of life shroud every answer. This essence of theirs is only contained in science (out of the two choices). Their magnitude otherwise has been diluted by quickly and simply answered retorts by reactionary consolatory devices that don’t take in mind the magnitude of the questions it purposes reconciliation toward. You have a comparable sense of mystery within the two modes of belief, but it is my belief that the mysteries of science far outweigh those in religion. It seeps into everything, as it is not erratically stomped out by fantastical means.

29. According to Stephen Wolfram, Cellular Automata is a new kind of science. The revelation came to him as a particle and cosmological physicist who was attempting to figure out “how does anything complicated get produced in nature. Unable to obtain satisfactory results from his sophisticated math of particle physics he made an effort to get out of thinking in rules made by the “constructs of human mathematics”. He decided to use “computer programs who can think in and still implement arbitrarily general rules, because such programs might actually be what nature is using”. He took a simple code such as a single black cell and showed that it can yield, through a simple rule, seemingly random yet complicated patterns and behaviors. The implications of this took him years to come to terms with, and in doing so it “gradually overturned almost everything [he] thought [he] knew about the foundations of science”.