Blogs

In our class discussions on biological evolution we have defined the term crane as something that builds without intent and the term skyhook as something that creates with intent. The question of drawing parallels between a computer developing artificial intelligence and the evolution of human intelligence depends on how those two terms are treated. A computer with intelligence programmed into it has been the creation of a skyhook, in this case the computer programmer who set out to create artificial intelligence. If you do not believe that skyhooks have any part in evolution then you could not believe in the evolutionary development of AI unless you take into account the way that the human understanding of computers and programming would have to evolve and the fact that to be truly intelligent the AI would have to keep developing and evolving to be considered so. An intelligence created by a skyhook that does not develop independently of the skyhook is not truly intelligent; the intelligence must evolve on its own to qualify for that designation.

Richard Dawkins’ theory of the Selfish Gene is controversial.  His theory suggests that biological organisms are vehicles or machines that carry genes.  Genes are the replicators that create biological organism; they function to replicate themselves and as a means to acquire resources.  Dawkins argues that natural selection operates at the genetic level and not the individual organism, since individuals are just programmed carriers.  The purpose of life for the organism is to provide survival and reproductive sites for genes.  Proponents of Dawkins’ theory assert that the main point is that the gene is the unit of selection, which completes and extends the explanation of evolution given by Darwin before the mechanisms of genetics were uncovered.  Critics argue that the theory oversimplifies the relationship between genes and the organism (The Selfish Gene).  I believe that a gene-centric view of evolution is a revolutionary way to view the selection process, but it is also a useful theory to explain many biological phenomena, such as altruism. 

The current struggle between religion and science leads to many heated and debated questions and theories.  Many of these questions surround the existence of god and of when and how this existence evolved into being.  The concept of religion and god evolved in human culture as a result of brain structure and survival adaptation. Biologically, god and religion evolved as humans’ first form of consciousness.  Specific brain structures and brain formations allowed and encouraged this.  In addition there are several social and behavioral adaptations in man’s early culture that promoted the existence of god and religion.  Both biological and socially, early mankind was suited for the evolution of god and related concepts. 

Adult union and the consequent development of a family, exists throughout many world cultures.  Unlike the United States, where serial monogamy is the prevailing relationship category, many other cultures support a variety of adult unions, which would be illegal or socially unacceptable in the United States.  These alternative adult unions can be as diverse as the cultures themselves, confirming that there is no “universal system of ethics” (Dennett 494).  Taking a closer look at the “culturally strange” relationship arrangements in other countries, will help to increase Americans’ appreciation for and understanding of the social dynamics within those cultures, which ultimately leads to better cross-cultural communication. I think this communication must occur to prevent “ethics [from settling] into an … equilibrium” (Dennett 494).  I believe that the United States should encourage educational programs that discuss and appreciate the diverse cultural traditions such as those of the Na of China, the Tibetans of Nepal and the Indians of India.  Cultural relativism is the view that all cultures and beliefs are as equally legitimate as the next.  I am convinced that cultural relativism, and not ethnocentrism, needs to be the prime focus of all learning institutions to further encourage the understanding that alternative and seemingly “strange” relationship categories are often adapted by different social groups as a mechanism to cope with economic, religious and culture pressures. 

We as humans are unbelievably diversified. Each of us spawns from different races, socio-economic statuses, and regions of the world. We speak thousands of independent languages and have established ways of life. Biologically speaking, one person’s specific arrangement of genes makes him individually unique in the world. We are highly specialized people who strive to surmount the challenges presented by the world and attain new goals. What is the unconscious motivation that drives us to achieve our goals, gain knowledge, and discover new things? Despite the realization that each person is biologically distinct, the guarantee of man’s progress on Earth rests on the boundless leverage of curiosity. Inquisitiveness, in coalition with imagination, may prove unkind at times through the decisions we make in life, but they are useful scientific and literary tools. One of the motifs in Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland is steadfast curiosity, as he unfolds the tale of a young girl who gains maturity and valuable insights of the world via her fantastical imagination. Curiosity may have killed the (Chesire) cat, but it is an essential attribute to possess when striving for success in both the sciences and humanities.

Urban planning theorist Jane Jacobs comes from a long line of deductive thinkers that can be traced back to empiricists like Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. In “The Death and Life of Great American Cities” she endeavors to apply such methods of inquiry to the modern American city. Just as Locke argued that the mind is a “tabula rasa,” Jacobs contends that most components of the urban landscape are not inherently badly or well designed; rather, the success or failure of such components — sidewalks, parks, blocks, neighborhoods — depends entirely on the surrounding environment in which they are deployed.

My high school history teacher claimed that his wife was only able to conceive their daughter after seeing a hypnotist. Doctors deemed her infertile after years of trying everything from fertility drugs to acupuncture. I was always skeptical about his claim, until my cousin ended her thirteen-year-long, pack-a-day smoking habit cold turkey through hypnosis. I began to wonder if it is really possible to convince our brains and nervous systems to yield to our desires simply by focusing our attention and obeying the suggestions of a hypnotist.

In metaphysics, time is a fundamental condition of human experience. Immanuel Kant begins The Critique of Pure Reason by exploring the nature of time, identifying it as the most essential element for human experience.(1) Humans are able to recognize the central role which time plays in experience, but still experience difficulty in grasping the essence of time. One of the most difficult attributes of time to understand is the rate at which it moves, since we have no way to measure time objectively. Time moves for everyone, but depending on the situation, time can be a subjective experience. Humans attempt to eliminate the subjectivity of time by using the Earth’s rotation around the sun to dictate years and days and furthermore dividing up these days into arbitrary units of hours, minutes and seconds. But for anything that moves there must be a rate at which it moves. However it is superfluous to measure the rate of time as 60 second per 1 minute. So then, where is it that humans conceive of the nature of time? By looking at two key examples, we can identify aspects of the brain that may in fact provide hints toward not only the human dependence on time, but the nature of time itself.

The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science. Anyone to whom this feeling is alien… is no longer capable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear… To know that what is impenetrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty… this knowledge, this feeling… that is the core of the true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself among profoundly religious men. --Albert Einstein (1)

Our brains play a large part in making us who we are. We have neurons that interact with the outside world, and we have neurons that interact within our bodies. These neurons create action potentials, and these action potentials make up our thoughts. We interact with the world around us by thinking and speaking and acting. Our thought processes are seemingly quite different, as no two people seem to think exactly alike, nor can most people (with the exception of the claims of seers and the such) read flawlessly other’s thoughts. New, controversial technology has been found to do what seemed the impossible- to predict people’s intentions- it’s scientific mind reading, with a scan to show the results. As huge a step as this is in the scheme of advancing knowledge of the brain, it’s important to consider just how complete this study is, and how dangerous this potentially could be.