What was the most interesting film you watched this term?

12. What was the most interesting film you watched this term?

The most interesting film that I’ve watched during this term would definitely be “The Time Machine.” It portrayed the idea of a time machine actually becoming a reality, which I never thought would even be possible. The very thought that we will be able to communicate with the future through short brief messages was just outrageous and incredible. Interestingly, the time machine that was theorized in the film cannot allow anyone to travel through time, or even talk to anyone in the past, but only with the future. The theory was that we would only be able to communicate with however long the machine was turned on. So if the time machine was turned on today, then we would only be able to receive messages from the future. This film overall gave me the chills just thinking about communicating with our future selves and being able to actually “time travel.”

Science & Philosophy

11. Why is science so important when doing philosophy?

Many believe that science and philosophy do not correlate. It is quite easy to be tricked by the way they portray themselves throughout history and the arguments that these two concepts had against each other. Although it is seemingly impossible for these two to be related, there are actually many contributions and reasons to why science is important to philosophy.

                One would have to be that by knowing how our brain functions, we will get a step closer to how our consciousness works. This idea of researching the brain for knowledge of the consciousness comes from neurophilosophy, mainly contributed by Patricia Churchland. This form of philosophy incorporates both science and philosophy to work together to come up with even greater theologies and ideas. As we study and dive deeper into how our brain functions and works, it’ll be easier to have a peak at the understanding of consciousness and what influences our thinking. Study of psychology also will help us determine the main factors of influence on our behavior as well as our philosophy. Because science strengthens our understanding of the mind, it is most definite that science is extremely important to philosophy.

                Another reason would have to be the fact that philosophy relies on science for approval.  Philosophers often tend to ask questions that are very scientific and logical. For example, when a phenomena such as what happened in the film “Voodoo Voodoo” where miracles happen after a chant, they would rely on scientific ways of thinking to figure out how and why this phenomena happened. Philosophers would not say just say, “It happened, so it happened. I completely believe it without any further explanation or proof.” They would instead try to find ways to disprove or prove it SCIENTIFICALLY. Another example would have to be when someone claims to have seen the future. One would not just believe that person and become a worshipper, but start to question how and be a little more skeptic about such things. These questions would most likely be science related questions such as “How is that even possible? Is there any evidence that this would happen?” Accordingly, Philosophy tends to rely on scientific proof for answers and their ideals seem to reflect upon it.

                It is not only philosophy that requires science, but science also most definitely needs philosophy. Science tends to turn to philosophical ideas when it comes to phenomena that cannot be explained through scientific research. These phenomena tend to be very religious or philosophical which grabs the attention of the people who have a more scientific viewpoint. When a person cannot fully comprehend an event or miracle that occurred through science, it is most likely that that person will turn to philosophy for answers and ideas.

                This relationship that science and philosophy have on one another is very true in many cases. The very fact that we tend to seek one or the other show how much dependency they have on each other, and we tend not to recognize that. People generally believe they are opposites, and have absolutely no relationship, but that is the very reason why they have such a strong bond, being opposites. Without science, there won’t be philosophy, and vice versa.

Himalayan connection

10. How does the Himalayan connection explain UFOs? How does such a theoretic model also help explain religious visions?

In the text “The Himalayan Connection,” Prof. Lane writes the U.F.O experience he witnessed in Delhi in July of 1978. It was not until he met a man by the name of Faqir Chand that he was able to fully understand why he experienced such a radical event. Chand clearly explained to him the philosophy of people like layman and gurus experiencing the supernatural. According to Chand, miracles and other forms of phenomena are basically nothing more than deviances away from our conscious state of reality. This is known as the Chandian Effect, the certainty that we feel in our waking state creates the reality in which we consciously live in. (The Himalayan Connection) When our mind enters dream mode during our sleeping hours, around the time REM step (Rapid Eye Movement) kicks in, our reality becomes the things that we dream. To relate the Chandian Effect to U.F.O experiences, Prof. Lane later on in the text also introduces these three terms: Translation, Transformation, and Transfusion.

A toast with the face of Jesus
People may believe this is true

The translation of the U.F.O. experience to the reality of our consciousness requires scientific evidence and proof to explain these supernatural events. U.F.O. researchers have yet to completely accomplish this feature. The transformation of the U.F.O. experience connects this sight to the reality of the person witnessing or experiencing it. Although the experience may simply be a deception one’s consciousness, for that person, sighting is very real. Lastly, transfusion is a method of mixing both translation and transformation. Although we may not be able to correctly explain these kinds of phenomena and may ignore it, the person who experienced it will argue otherwise. The experience of the person, while not plausible and believable to regular minds, can be explained as a hallucination of his or her mind. 

This leads us to other phenomena such as religious visions and miracles. People may have visions that they perceive as real, but have no scientific proof to back their claims. This leads to arguments and discussions regarding the matter of whether they are true or not, or even how crazy a person is. People may clearly be influenced by outside influences such as psychoactive drugs that force them to have unimaginable visions or experiences. This also relates to people having visions while dreaming, where the dreams contain some type of prophecies or information for the future and become a reality to them because of the very fact that it is a dream.

Although I do not think Prof. Lane’s explanation to U.F.O experiences is completely false, it is still extremely difficult for me fully believe that it actually happened. Nevertheless, Lane’s translation, transformation, and transfusion design does offer a legitimate bridge to relate those types of ambiguous encounters with our conscious reality. 

Apophenia

9. What is apophenia? Give 3 examples of it.

A clear-cut definition of Apophenia is very simple. “Apophenia is the spontaneous perception of connections and meaningfulness of unrelated phenomena. The term was coined by K. Conrad in 1958 (Brugger).”(skepdic.com) It is a simple, yet complex concept that really makes individuals think about the things that they see. People may often times recognize some bizarre and random idea as concrete and relatable. Our humanly nature forces us to see things as uniform and meaningful when they actually are not. The reason for apophenia may be explained through this reasoning:

“Humans are pattern-seeking, storytelling animals. We look for and find patterns in our world and in our lives, then weave narratives around those patterns to bring them to life and give them meaning. Such is the stuff of which myth, religion, history, and science are made. Sometimes the patterns we find represent reality — DNA as the basis of heredity or the fossil record as the history of life. But sometimes the patters are imposed by our minds rather than discovered by them — the face on Mars (actually an eroded mountain) or the Virgin Mary's image on the side of a glass building in Clearwater, Florida (really an oil stain from a palm tree, since removed to enable the faithful to better view their icon). The rub lies in distinguishing which patterns are true and which are false, and the essential tension (as Thomas Kuhn called it) pits skepticism against credulity as we try to decide which patterns should be rejected and which should be embraced.” (Michael Shermer)

There can be many examples of apophenia. One very real example would be this:

“Soon after his son committed suicide, Episcopalian Bishop James A. Pike (1913-1969) began seeing meaningful messages in such things as a stopped clock, the angle of an open safety pin, and the angle formed by two postcards lying on the floor. He thought they were conveying the time his son had shot himself (Christopher 1975: 139).” (skepdic.com)

Another example would be this:

“There on the ground I found two dry twigs, broken off by the wind. They were shaped like the Greek letter for “P” and “y”… [I]t struck me that [they] must be an abbreviation of the name Popoffsky. Now I was sure it was he who was persecuting me, and that the Powers wanted to open my eyes to my danger.” (dbskeptic.com)

The last example would be this:

“A few days ago, while I was agonizing over having recently lost one of my mental health jobs, I found myself driving behind a license plate that said ACT. For me this was an immediate recognition of the meaningful workshop I had done a few years ago in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (Hayes, Strousahl, & Wilson, 2004), which is abbreviated as ACT. In ACT you are taught to accept your disappointments and difficulties in life in a mindful way, and then make a commitment to actualizing your deepest values in life in spite of these disappointments and difficulties (Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 2004). Seeing the ACT license plate was a meaningful reinforcement for me that I needed to accept the loss of my mental health job gracefully, and was connected to my deepest intention of offering my services to continue to work with mental health clients, independently and without expecting to earn any real money from doing so.” (integralworld.net)

The crazy thing about apophenia is that it completely blocks out logical thinking while it is in effect. Because most of the times, it is when someone is in great pain or despair, their minds are not psychologically sane, forcing them to perceive anything to be real. The effects of apophenia can be helpful in most cases, but we have to realize some dangers that lie ahead when seeing these abnormal phenomena.

The Codex Funeral

8. Why does your professor argue in THE CODEX FUNERAL that books are dead? Do you agree or disagree with his argument as presented in the pdf file?

In the short text, “The Codex Funeral: Why Books are Dead, How iPad killed them,” the professor makes some incredibly shocking arguments. He states that hardback cover paper books are dead because of the introduction of the iPad on Janurary 27, 2010. The reasoning behind this was not because it was far superior to other e-books that were out at that time, but because of the millions of books and information he could access at any given moment. The fact that he was able to get whatever book he wanted to read anywhere and anytime granted him great freedom from carrying around paperweights all over the place. Rather than carrying his 10,000 book collection around, it was easier to just have one tablet in hand to read.

Ever since the rise of the internet, the value of hardcopy books has decreased to the general population. Surfing the web allows users to freely search for whatever information he or she wishes to find, whether it is magazine articles, biographies, or the dictionary, it was at hand whenever he or she needed it. Instead of buying a hardcopy to keep and paying a few dollars for subscription, it was much easier for someone to go online and read up an article of a magazine. There are millions of information readily available in an instant, which does not cost a dime to look up. When hardcopy books uselessly take up space depending on how many books a person has.

I most definitely agree with the professor’s argument that hardcopy books are dead.  With the rise the iPad, the Kindle, and other e-book devices, it would be hard for us to go back to our old ways of physically searching for the books that we want to read. Because they are ready with a few touches on the screen, it would force us to throw away our desires of driving down to the local library to search for the book we want to keep. This very reason causes the decline in demand of physical form of books, which actually saves more money, time, and space. Not only is it convenient, where a book is just a few touches away, but its much cheaper and saves time to use an e-book. Some of the bookstore near my neighborhood has closed ever since these devices took over the book market.

Although there may be some people left in the general population that still prefers hardback copies of books rather than carrying around an electronic, it is most clear that our society wants to change the way we read. It won’t be long until hardcopies of books will become souvenirs and antics to collectors as e-books take over the market. My only wish is that this drastic change will not result in something too big for us to handle.  

Is Consciousness physical?

7. Is Consciousness physical? Explain how neurology can help us better understand why consciousness may have arisen as an evolutionary adaptation.

In my personal opinion, I believe consciousness is not physical. It is discussed throughout the course that somehow our mind is related to our physical brain. Everything we sense and feel, whether it is physical or emotional, all connect to our brain and somehow to our sensory organs. This nature of our body being connected with our thoughts and the very fact that our brain allows us to think and be aware of our surroundings prove the how physical our consciousness is. “Why is it that when someone clubs you in the head with a bat, your awareness (consciousness) seizes?” (A Glorious Piece of Meat)

But how is it that our consciousness is actually NOT physical? Although I just wrote a whole paragraph devoted to proving how physical awareness is, there are other beliefs that have convinced me to think consciousness nothing close to being physical. One great example would be how non-physical experiences, such as visions and illusions lead us into thinking and analyzing. How is it that without having any physical interactions we are able to see and sense extraordinary visions within our minds? A question popped into my head while reading an article written by Professor Lane called “Is Consciousness Physical?” The article states this very interesting fact: “Even the most profound spiritual experiences may themselves be the result of brain processes of which we remain unaware.” How is it that we are able to have such experiences that cannot be physically proven through science? Only time will tell.

            Another reasoning used to argue why consciousness is not physical is the Knowledge argument. It was formulated by Thomas Nagel, Frank Jackson, and Saul Kripke and goes like this:

“A standard presentation of the thought experiment is this: Mary, a brilliant scientist blind from birth, knows all the physical facts relevant to acts of perception. When she suddenly gains the ability to see, she gains knowledge of new facts. Since she knew all the physical facts before gaining sight, and since she now gains knowledge of new facts, these facts must not be physical facts and, moreover, given Mary’s situation, they must be mental facts.”

            The last reasoning I would like to use to prove my point is that consciousness has intentionality. What I mean by intentionality is consciousness is always intentional while physicality is not. Here are some of the things you may take into consideration regarding intentionality. (reasons.org)

1.      When one represents a mental act to oneself, there are no sense-data associated with it; this is not so with physical states and their relations.

2.      Intentionality is completely unrestricted with regard to the kind of object it can hold as a term—anything whatsoever can have a mental act directed upon it, but physical relations only obtain for a narrow range of objects (e.g., magnetic fields only attract certain things).

3.      To grasp a mental act one must engage in a reflexive act of self-awareness, but no such reflexivity is required to grasp a physical relation.

4.      For ordinary physical relations (e.g., x is to the left of y), x and y are identifiable objects irrespective of whether they have entered into that relation (ordinary physical relations are external). This is not so for intentional contents (e.g., one and the same belief cannot be about a frog and later about a house—the belief is what it is, at least partly, in virtue of what the belief is of).

5.      For ordinary relations, each of the relata must exist in order for the relation to obtain (x and y must exist before one can be on top of the other), but intentionality can be of nonexistent things (e.g., one can think of Zeus).

6.      Intentional states are intentional (having to do with attributes), but physical states are extensional (having to do with class members).

In the end, the question that we have to ask ourselves is not whether consciousness is physical or not. The real question that we need to focus on is, “Who is in control of our consciousness?” Is it our ego? Is it ourselves? Is it our brain? “I know that my consciousness is more than the sum of my neurons firing; or, at least I think so while my neurons are firing.” (A Glorious Piece of Meat)

Patricia Churchland & Neurophilosophy

6. Why does Patricia Churchland champion neurophilosophy? Be sure to substantiate your answer.

Patricia Churchland is a Canadian-American philosopher noted for her contributions to neurophilosophy and the philosophy of mind. (Wikipedia) The most common theme that is portrayed through her works is her belief that if we can understand the brain, then at some point we can understand the state of consciousness. This belief of “first understand the brain, then understand the mind” type of philosophy lead her to neurophilosophy.

Neurophilosophy can be defined in this clear definition as follows: Neurophilosophy or philosophy of neuroscience is the interdisciplinary study of neuroscience and philosophy. Work in this field is often separated into two distinct areas of interest. Neurophilosophy attempts to use empirical information from the neurosciences to address broader philosophical issues, including questions traditionally categorized under the philosophy of mind. The philosophy of neuroscience attempts to clarify neuroscientific methods and results using the conceptual rigor and methods of philosophy of science. Neurophilosophy explores the relevance of neuroscientific studies to arguments in philosophy of mind. Theories in neurophilosophy tend to stand in opposition to those of idealism, dualism, and functionalism, which seek to explain the mental with reference to minds and ideas, rather than the structure and function of the brain. (Wikipedia)

Simply put, it is using science and study of the brain, the structure and its functions, in order to fully understand our minds and consciousness. If we can understand all the molecules in the brain and its functions, then we can truly understand our consciousness.

While the issue of brain-mind is still open for debate without a clear-cut answer, from the perspective of neurophilosophy, an understanding of the philosophical applications of neuroscience discoveries is nevertheless relevant. Even if neuroscience will eventually discover that there no causal relationship between the brain and the mind, the mind would still remain to be correlated to the brain, and as such, neuroscience would still be relevant for the neurophilosophy. On the other hand, if neuroscience will eventually demonstrate a perfect overlap between brain and mind phenomena, neurophilosophy would become great new way of thinking for the study of the mind. Regardless of the how the connection between the brain and the mind turns out to be, it is important to note that neurophilosophy will definitely stay within the range of debate and discussion.

“It isn’t just one specific neuron that helps us feel pain, or love, or happiness, but a whole set of neurons interacting with each other creating the feelings and emotions inside the human mind.” (Patricia Churchland Interview) The real reason why she “champions” neurophilosophy is the very fact that she thinks outside the box and takes different approaches with normal philosophical ideas. One would never think to combine the study of the brain with consciousness, but because she is such a creative thinker, it is possible for her to come up with the idea of neurophilosophy. Because her different ways of thinking, she comes up with different ideas and uses a more scientific approach to philosophy, rather than asking the same questions as other philosophers do.