Causal Determinism

“Sorry about the game tomorrow…”

“What do you mean? It’s not even tomorrow yet!”

“Yeah but I checked my predicted quantum states for the next 24hrs and given current conditions it says I will have a muscle cramp if I excite my leg electrons to send contraction signals too many times and it’s the championship game!”

Blog Prompt 19:

What is causal determinism? Would you feel any differently about your life in general—and your actions, thoughts, and feelings, in particular—if determinism were true? Why or why not?

Causal determinism is the idea that everything and every event can be explained even if it is hypothetical or in the realm of mathematics. I think that the concept of events or actions being predicted or explained through possible probabilities would not make me live my life any differently. Seeing as psychology majors tote human behavior as being predictable and that I see irregularities in my life perpetually; I have now considered a future with a formula to determine the future state of a particle and decided that it would not make me choose to live my life more spontaneous or dangerously. If something as complex as my thoughts could be explained in the mathematical quantum world I would feel slightly less unique perhaps, but on the contrary it seems arrogant to me for someone to go about life thinking they are completely independent from the working systems of nature.

To reference my feelings, I do think that I would feel less guilty about past transgressions or events that I regret. The idea that there are forces on one’s macroscopic organism that are outside the realm of consciousness and that could affect the outcome of a macroscopic situation takes a small amount of the blame off the human psyche. The predicted change of multiple electron states could cause an electrical signal which might cause an unwarranted muscle contraction that caused me to spill my glass and never see those dinner attendees again, thus drastically changing my future possibilities. I think that without believing determinism exists, one might just assume it to be the fault of their individual psyche and not a premeditated sequence of electron states that could have been set-up by an external force or factors that allowed for those tissues and atoms to follow said predicted quantum states. If determinism were not true on the microscopic level, then it would remain uncertain that external circumstances could have any effect on the outcome of social situations or actions taken.

 

https://ed.ted.com/lessons/schrodinger-s-cat-a-thought-experiment-in-quantum-mechanics-chad-orzel

https://youtu.be/O6g-7rUgrdg

WC: 389

 

Memento

Leonard relies upon scribbled notes to connect him to his past. He says that eyewitness testimony is worthless: “Memory can change the shape of a room…” Is he right? Do you think our memories are more reliable than his notes? Hume says identity is just a habit we have. Do you think Hume would see Leonard’s condition as any different from our own?

I think Leonard is absolutely right about the idea that memory can change over time and is ultimately unreliable. I remember reading an article about a 10 year study that was done after 9-11 (I will put a link to it at the bottom if I can find it). The study consisted of several memory recollection sessions strategically timed throughout the 10 year span. The subjects recalled their location and what they were doing a few days after the incident and then a week after with little change; the surprising part to me was that, when tested for memory at intervals greater than 1 year, people claimed to have full vivid memories of their experience and most were utterly inaccurate. To reference Memento, I think that his notes in the movie were very non-specific or open to multiple interpretations. It makes sense to me that someone grappling with the condition that Leonard has would dictate all important moments not just merely survival tips or five word captions to Polaroid photos.

Do you agree with Leonard’s statement that we all need mirrors to remind us who we are? In the movie the mirrors were his notes, the photographs, and tattoos. What has he become by relying upon them? What would you become without your own mirrors? How does a view of self that relies upon mirrors fit with Hume’s theory?

I do think that we need reminders of who we are because living by only instinct would warrant few patterns and wouldn’t allow for an identity to be constructed because it would have to be based on consistent characteristics. Leonard becomes an investigator of his own life because he only leaves himself clues rather than actually explanations of events right after they happen. I think I would be very confused if I didn’t have my own mirrors or couldn’t reflect on past actions because I would make the same mistakes over again without realizing it. Leonard has to leave himself notes so he remembers how to act like himself and without them he wouldn’t have an identity other than that of confusion.

WC: 320

Click to access hirst_etal_jepgeneral_2015.pdf

Meditations on First Philosophy

Decartes Meditations on First Philosophy

Descartes finally arrives at something he takes to be known with absolute certainty. What is it? How does he claim to know it? Do you think he has proven anything?

Decartes believes the existence of God to be an absolute certainty. He supports his claim with a statement that, in its essence, says; if we can think of our God, and we aren’t being conceived by an evil being, then the purity of that thought (of the divine) could not be created by any ordinary human. It does not make sense to me that one could not perceive such a divine figure without help of said entity. Decartes raises other “burden of proof”-esque examples like “If, however, it is contrary to His goodness to have made me such that I constantly deceive myself, it would also appear to be contrary to His goodness to permit me to be sometimes deceived, and nevertheless I cannot doubt that He does permit this.” To not believe in God in Decartes time was perhaps an active decision which called the person to “…avoid giving credence to any false thing, or being imposed upon by this arch deceiver, however powerful and deceptive he may be.” This quote shows that the life of the non-believer was an involved one, contrary to the modern atmosphere. Religion is not universal, with globalization bringing a mix of different ideas and religions that might have been only known about geographically or through academic texts. From my experience, most people in 2018 keep their religious beliefs to themselves unless prompted otherwise (religious missions and proselytizing aside) and to learn more about Christianity, or any other monotheistic faith, one must join a church community or research about it. Public schools do not teach faith, so as a non-faith child, unless you were prompted to read the bible after hearing the word ‘God’ in the national anthem, is it possible to maintain a non-belief standing passively and without any conception of a higher power? Decartes would argue no because it would be “contrary to His goodness” for God to allow for people to have the wrong idea of His omnipotence. I would argue the opposite and say that in my example of the non-faith child, the ‘proper’ idea of how God acts in our life varies and the coincidental conception of such a perfect being in our minds shouldn’t be the only means of attaining God’s love. It does not seem right that one could search for their entire life and find no signs of this God unless it was told to them or they conceived the idea on their own.

Decartes believes he has proven the existence of consciousness outside the human body through his thought experiments and extensive mental deliberation. I believe he has proven that a divine being ‘could’ exist, and through his meditation he explains clearly how it would interact with our realm of existence and affect the way we live our lives, even if the affect is purposeful avoidance by the thought bearer. I do not think, however, that any thought process in and of itself could be irrefutable proof of a higher being. The concept of an idea being evidence to me does not sound plausible and thus I do not agree with Decartes certainty of the spiritual realm based on his intangible examples.

WC: 532

Aristotle’s Poetics Prompt #10

Death of a Salesman Blog Post

A work of art that I believe to fit Aristotle’s conditions for a tragedy would be a movie titled Fateless. Fateless is a movie about the holocaust that I believe contains the proper juxtaposition of both pity and fear. Aristotle claims that tragedy comes about when the audience is subjected to “incidents arousing pity and fear”, of which the main character, Gyorgy, has multiple awful and grotesque experiences being transferred from one Nazi detainment camp to another. A specific scene that speaks to me despite 4 years having passed since my viewing the film would be when Gyorgy is getting some tips on how to survive from the adults in the camp; he gets advised to cut himself and rub his blood into the skin on his cheeks and face to make himself look more “alive” and fit to work. This resonated with me as I felt both sorry for the poor boy and fearful that he might die, or rather fearful of the idea that the balance of life and death could be tipped by something such as using ones blood to hydrate the skin.

While I have not experienced a magnitude of emotional and physical pain like those who were detained under Nazi rule, I do feel as though the extreme violence mixed in with the compassion and tenderheartedness of the Jewish people towards one another warranted a catharsis of emotions that equate to Aristotle’s definition. Gyorgy leaves school at the beginning of the film because his dad gets deported and someone needs to take care of the family. Aristotle believes that if the character being imitated in a tragedy is superior to the normal person then the experience of tragedy is intensified and I believe Gyorgy to be a strong candidate in this case for the Tragic Hero. Throughout the film he does not make any irrational decisions, nor does he have any fears that are unwarranted; Gyorgy instead focuses on surviving, even if that means lying about his age to escape mass gassings of children or hiding in sewage pipes. There are few movies that I think I absolutely could not put myself into the role of the protagonist, and while Gyorgy does survive in the end, he loses much in the way of his life essence (reason for being) and his family and friends, which confirms Fateless to be one of those films.

WC: 404

References:

Click to access tragedy-hnd.pdf

http://www.paredes.us/tragedy.html

“Existenz” The Film

Prompt: How does Existenz, the film, fit into Plato’s hierarchical scheme of reality? How does the game, Trancendenz fit?

If you brought up the idea of Existenz being a mirror copy of reality to Plato’s attention he would frown and declare you small minded. To Plato, any other representation of a figure or object in reality is just another flawed interpretation of its’ ideal form. This warning by Plato is blatantly represented in Existenz by the slight “tweaks” to its reality such as saying the right phrase to progress or taking control of your character completely to keep the fake reality interesting.

Trancendenz, the game in which a reality with Existenz exists, is simulating a simulation of reality and thus has bumped Existenz to an even lower status in Plato’s hierarchical scheme of reality. Existenz now becomes four times removed from the ideal forms of anything it portrays, because the virtual reality experience it offers its users are made in a reality that is not the physical world. Trancendenz would rank 3 on Plato’s hierarchy of realities with the physical representation of reality (which we live in) and the ideal reality (the forms) taking slots 2 and 1 respectively. Existenz is essentiality an imitation of a video game, which would earn it a spot right under Trancendenz.

To Plato this is like a sculptor sculpting a painter, who is then painting a house on a canvas. Because the sculptor doesn’t know about the nuances of painting, the sculptor can only make flawed recreations of the scene with his/her clay. The painter does not know of house building but of painting, so he/she can only represent their interpretation of the scene with brush strokes. The builder then builds his interpretation (or another’s) of what the form of ‘house’ should look like and how it should be made.

I would like to add my own reaction to the film and Plato’s hierarchy despite the prompts specific questions. It seems to me that Plato thinks we can tap into the realm of the forms through our conscience. If this is the case, then the chemical reaction inside his brain while he is tapping into his knowledge of the forms should be more “real” than the physical ramification of said object in the physical world.

In the movie’s example this video game creates a reality with purposeful and apparent changes, but what if it hadn’t? The designer of the game, of whom is ultimately the artist of how things look and feel, could be you; what could stop you from making a world free from material, societal, physical, and dimensional limitations and thus a full rendering of your ideal perception of the forms. Could this game be more real than the jumble of “ideal” form representations we see walking around in our physical world?

WC: 470

References: Existenz (movie) and Class Lectures

Plato’s The Republic (Book 10) Analysis

What is the difference between “beds in the world” and “the idea of a bed?”

“Beds in the world” as described by Plato, is the various physical bed designs we see going through life and even within one’s own home. Plato contrasts this with saying the “idea” of the object in question is the only true form of said object because it contains no physical projection. He continues to say that any physical form of a bed would be invariably made by a human and thus is just one interpretation of their understanding of what a bed truly is.

Where does “art” fit into his hierarchical scheme of reality?

Plato believes that a person who draws or somehow portrays an object by expressing it artistically is “thrice removed” from the actual understanding of what it is they are showing to other people. Plato uses the word thrice to signify that while the maker of the object has only their understanding of the idea, whatever they make will not be an exact copy of the true form. Consequently, the artist is drawing a flawed copy of the true idea and the people viewing it get the wrong understanding about what actually took place. Plato’s idea of art being an objective portrayal of a scene or event is very traditional and I think that art is looked down upon to him only because he sees the artist’s interpretation as a flaw and not a gain. Plato claims art to be “deceptive” for this reason.

How does art deceive us, according to Plato? Do you agree with this criticism?

Plato believes that art deceives those who view it by its very existence because we all would like to believe what we see. If we choose to take in the artist’s interpretation and not seek out the truth ourselves then we are holding a false truth and to Plato that is a sin. I agree with Plato in that art deceives the viewer by it being made in the artist’s imagination or perception. I would like to raise a counterpoint to say that while it may be a different interpretation, that does not make it false or misrepresentative. I think that in today’s times we look to art because the artist’s lenses is more interesting than our own.

Word Count: 384

Plato’s Allegory of the Cave

Plato’s allegory of the cave has many different interpretations that amount to a broad spectrum of understanding ranging from existential transcendence to tangible realities like the movie cinema. Just like in a movie, Plato relates living in society as being constrained to your seats and made to look forward while a alternate reality is projected in front of you. In the cinema this reality is made known to us by the producer as being fictitious but Plato argues that politicians and wealthy men are the producers of societal misconception. I agree with Plato in that I often relate events in my life to having cinema quality or being in a movie even though what I’m experiencing is “real”. Media and cinema constantly portray unrealistic expectations for how one should live and too often I find myself fulfilling cinema stereotypes without even noticing.

Mistaking fiction for reality is all too common and I think anyone that claims to be uninfluenced by media hasn’t taken enough time to look at themselves. Everything from how you lean against a wall at a party to how you talk to other people, or even how you look, is given to us as options. While one would argue you can freely choose what clothes you want to wear or what unique “vibe” you want to give off, your choices are all influenced or created by companies, advertisements, cinema, social media, etc…and cultural acceptance causes the perpetuation of these standards to be considered reality by its citizens.

Fictitious realities in the minds of it’s beholder is one thing, but I don’t believe that it is possible for the physical world to be void of reality. A while back Elon Musk claimed that there is a probable chance we are all living in a simulation given the progression of technology and our ability to create simulated environments at the present. There are video games that mimic entire galaxies with billions of planets with every planet being unique from the other. Developers can accomplish this through algorithms using fractals, so just as every snowflake or leaf shape is unique we can make computer procedures that generate unique outcomes every time the program is run. While procedural generation seems real, as every blade of grass, tree, animal sound, and environment looks unique, it is still moving every character or animal based on a algorithm and I think that there are absolutely no algorithms that generate the way humans live in the world today.

414 words

The Ethics of Belief, WK Clifford

The Ethics of Belief, WK Clifford

1. The society of accusers thought the professors guilty of unfair teaching practices
2. The accusers listened to rumors and suspicions to support their claim
3. The accusers wound up being wrong after third party investigation

C. To accuse someone based on one’s gut feeling or belief is wrong and will warrant false denunciation

Clifford argues that the accusers in this case were listening to “prejudice and passion” and therefore would be in the wrong to convict anyone even if they turned out to be right. He believes that to partake in the act of having a belief about the very thing you are investigating warrants your evidence bias or unfair. In his example with the religious professors from “The Ethics of Belief” he states that the evidence supporting the accused as innocent was easily obtained and would have been considered if the society had attempted a fair inquiry. In this acute example it seems whether or not the accusers were right or wrong about their conviction, they did not look at the full evidence and allowed their innate belief and accusations to drive their investigation, thus making them wrong.

To look back at his argument in a broader context we start to notice that Clifford is saying by having an opinion or belief about the thing you are investigating you are going about it with an unfair procedure in mind; that by having a preset state of mind your information gathered will be biased and ultimately inaccurate or unreliable. I believe this to be a false dichotomy because Clifford is saying that you either have no preset opinion about the matter or you are going to gather biased, unworthy evidence. In this example if the society had been correct and there wasn’t publicly available evidence warranting the innocence of the accused, then who would have spoken up and stopped their practices? The very act of investigating admits having some interest in the party being investigated unless it is brought to your attention through your job (i.e. the Commission that examined the evidence) or other means which require no prior knowledge about the accused. I think that to investigate someone based on one’s belief can be a sound way to obtain evidence, therefore, to accuse someone based on evidence from a biased investigation should not be wrong in its existence for the reason that there is factual evidence supporting the biased claim, which in this case there is not.

412 words

12 Fallacies

 

12 Fallacies

1. Begging the Question: Thinking upside down is bad for the brain, so no one should consider any idea conceived while inverted.
2. Ad Hominem: Introductory philosophy students think they all have unique perspectives, with barely even one semester under their belts they aren’t capable of generating new ideas.
3. Equivocation: Boxers are cute and soft. John is a professional boxer so he is extra cute and soft.
4. Slippery Slope: Eating food can lead to food poisoning. Food poisoning causes fluid loss and high fever. Fevers over 107 degrees cause brain damage, therefore, if you keep eating food you will get brain damage.
5. Straw Man:
   • Jenkins – “Ford F150’s are by far my favorite truck!”
   •  Moscovitz – “Bro, you support Henry Ford’s anti-Semitism? You’re sick man…”
6. Tu Quoque:
   • Sales person – “This Macbook Pro with a core i7 processor is the best value for small business owners and heavy multi-taskers.
   • Customer – “Do you own one?”
   • Sales person – “Well no, but…”
   • Customer – “How should I believe you if you haven’t even started a business or owned one yourself? Clearly you don’t know what you are talking about.”
7. Non-sequitur: Sam is taking a philosophy class so he must want to be unemployed.
8. False Dichotomy: “So what do you say; are you for the destruction of mankind by artificial intelligence or do you think machine learning should be outlawed?”
9. Argument from ignorance: Aliens already live among us and are being kept in secret facilities.
10. Red Herring: Batman is a weak superhero. He does not have any extraordinary powers to fly or lift buildings and also racks up tons of collateral damage while pursuing his villain. In the dark knight rises batman destroys entire city rail infrastructure and causes numerous explosions. Wonder Woman, Superman and even Spiderman can summon super strength when the need arises, leaving batman as a weak disciple.
11. Scapegoat: Amazon, JP Morgan and Berkshire Hathaway CEO’s want to create their own health insurance company to reduce costs for their employees. This is all because of the Republicans inability to make a good health care plan, so they are to blame for high individual rates.
12. Confirmation Bias: I am a jedi. On several occasions I have opened sliding doors with just my mind and the wave of my hand. I have used to force to dispense paper towels, soap, and even to turn on faucets at my school lavatory. Just by waving my hand in front of a person’s face I can cause them to stop talking and look confused just like Obiwan Kenobi and Stormtroopers. I am a jedi.

422 words

https://study.com/academy/lesson/non-sequitur-definition-examples-quiz.html

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/56/Argument-from-Ignorance

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/30/581804474/amazon-berkshire-hathaway-and-jpmorgan-chase-launch-new-healthcare-company