The ending? or beginning?

For my final entry I wish to discuss the whole of what we have covered, in no particular order or not even necessarily all of them.

In this class we have gone from the ends of the earth to the ends of the mind. We began by discussing the possibility of what if we were actually not a part of a true reality. It began in the cave, the cave where the reality seen before us could be but shadows upon the wall. A world where the items we think are what they are, are not actually what they are. For example a vase could be what we think is a vase but actually the shadow of something else entirely. We will only find the truth by going out into the light.

Next we had discussed the concept of the mind. Was the mind real? Is the mind a separate being from that of the body? Am I the mind? Is the mind me? These were all brought to question during this section of understanding. The concept of the possibility of the mind being able to float off into space, that it might not actually be a part of a body at all. Or even that this could all be but a dream. Then it was also brought up that if it were a dream why can I not control gravity? It would be indeed my gravity to control. Maybe I do not want it to go the direction it currently does.

A next topic we discussed was indeed my favorite: the idea of robots walking among us. The concept that there could be another highly intelligent life on this planet besides hum… The concept that there could be a more intelligent life on this planet is astonishing. The idea that your very neighbor could be a robot is thrilling. But the question must come, what if they exist? How do we treat them? This answer is, unfortunately, already answered by history. The human race would become scared. It would lash out against this magnificent gift of the universe, and destroy it. The fact that we only just recently got rights for our own species speaks for itself.

Another topic we discussed was that of animal sentience. Mallory showed us in class the gorilla known as Koko. This gorilla was able to communicate with humans in a language we were able to understand. She was also able to teach this to other gorillas. This was not just some retelling of words she already knew, she was able to create completely new ideas on sentences when she didn’t have one already taught to her. This brought up the idea that our arrogance is blinding us, yet again, to the realization that we are not alone on this planet. We must open our eyes to see the brilliance of intelligence around us.

There were many more I could go on talking about but I believe that I would not do them the justice they need. I have briefly spoken about my favorite topics above. I believe that this course has given me a new understanding into life, and the unknown. I can say that this has been one of my favorite classes I have ever taken; it has even sparked a desire to pursue this field even farther down the rabbit’s hole. Until next time, and may we hope that there is a next time, I bid thee, my readers, farewell.

One topic that was brought up in class recently was that of Plato’s ideal society. In this society there is no such aspect as a class system; everyone has the original potential to be of greatness. First allow me to explain that Plato does not at all believe that this type of society could exist. Although he knows that it would work, he also knows that it would never happen.

The first part about this is that of how power would be distributed. In his ideal society the masses would be divided into two groups: the workers and the guardians. (Please note that the workers don’t get a cool name to go with their position and standing, but the other part of society was given the name of the guardians). The guardians’ class was then divided once more into the rulers and the warriors. The rulers and warriors would both be of higher standing than the working class, but the rulers would also be higher than that of the warriors.

In the society the rulers would not be given any property but would be tasked with the responsibility of all property. They would be only those considered to be elite in comparison to all others. The rulers themselves would be even more superior to that of the warriors. Although let us not get this wrong the warriors would be quite powerful indeed. They would be educated more than the workers, and they would be trained for physical combat. The rulers would be there and more. They would be those considered worthy of being a strong warrior, but they would also be even more educated than that.

The working class would be those deemed best fit for not being a warrior. Basically it would be a pass/fail system in life, and the failures were placed in the common. These workers were able to own land though. They were able to own their own businesses even still. In all the life of a commoner was not a bad one. You were able to marry, in comparison to the guardians’ class that was forbidden from such an action.

In this society the goal was for everyone to be happy. The rulers every whim was available, while the workers were granted property and love. Between the two they created a cycled balance that in turn created a utopia.

How was it fair though? It was fair In the fact that when one is born they are taken away from their parents and placed into a collective. They are then raised as a collective by the collective of patrons. They are tested along the way, and they are then found to the either a worker or guardian. This placing is designed so that once placed you are both the most fitted person for the job, and the most happy in it.

I believe this system has both its flaws and its value. For one the way the society is unbiased is something that is both unheard of and highly needed. An example of a flaw in this system would be that people do not get to choose where they are assigned. Either was this could be bad or good, but neither is for certain because we will never see this system in practice.

Recently we have been reviewing different presentations by several different people on several different topics. One of these topics was specifically about the art of meditation. Our presenter, Hilary, led us into a topic which caused us to have to research for the class the benefits of meditation. In my research I found several different answers to this question, but I decided to go with the one regarding the increase in knowledge. A study done by a university shows that the use of meditation can actually increase a person’s brain power. By meditating the person is essentially exercising the brains muscle. By doing this the person is able to think more clearly on certain topics of interest. It has also shown that a person who does this is able to remember things much easier. Aside from the research that I did in regards to this topic other aspects of meditation were brought up.

One of these aspects that was brought up was that of reaching the enlightenment. This has been a major goal throughout history to achieve a higher state of awareness. Many cultures believe that this can be achieved through the art of meditation. In one of the recent presentations we were shown a story about a man who gave up everything in his life to exist simply in the art of finding himself. He meditated for several long years in complete solitary, but eventually was rises to a state of wise man. This man existed nearly his entire life in meditation. He removed himself from the world so much that in his death the only item to his name was a sofa that was practically forced upon him. This man made a huge impact upon the world, by simply not doing just that. It is also all due to meditation.

The art of meditation can be anything. It can be riding a bike, reading a book, sitting in silence, or even jumping out of a plane. The only thing that must remain the same is: is it meditating to you?

Later in this class Hilary led us in a group meditation. She began us by telling us to shut our eyes. She then moved on to tell us to relax our bodies and let the energy flow into the floor. Next she told us to breathe slowly and deeply. She then had us count our breathing. She had placed us in a state of trance. When the meditation was finally finished she informed us that this was indeed her first time to lead a group in such an activity. Although that may be true, I believe she did an outstanding job as our instructor.

Now I am in search of my meditation. The type of meditation that brings me centering in life. For some people it could be sitting alone in a monastery, for another it could be running a mile, for another it could be a round of golf. As for myself when the right activity comes I will be ready and waiting.

In a recent class we discussed the concepts of passing and covering. The ideas were brought to light through a professor at a law university, although they did not completely originate there. The main ideas of these are based around the ideas of concealing all or part of something about yourself. The reason that Yoshino brought this topic to light was because of his sexual orientation. As it is now the act of being openly homosexual is looked down upon and Yoshino wanted to address this.

Yoshino explained that in the field of hiding things about one’s self there exists two levels: passing and covering. The act of passing is all about totally suppressing the certain trait. One example would be that of being “in the closet.” This is where the person has not revealed their sexual orientation to the world so as to conform to the preset standards. The other of the concepts is about covering. The idea of covering is based around not complete concealment but on the idea of down-playing the trait in question. The example that Yoshino gives is that of Roosevelt and the fact that he was in a wheelchair. Now it is quite obvious that it would be impossible for him to hide such a fact, but he did try to cover it.

Roosevelt used the use of covering in order to help people see the real him and not the traits that comprised him. Roosevelt felt that by being openly expressive of the fact that he was in a wheelchair people would find that he was simply a wheelchair carrying an important man, not Roosevelt in a wheelchair. Because of this he decided to cover the fact of his trait. He installed a wooden panel in the Resolute Desk in order to conceal his condition. Was he telling people he was not in a wheelchair no, he was simply removing the fact from the equation.

The use of both of these is very much a part of our everyday lives. Even now you and I are currently participating in some form of passing or covering. We do this in order to avoid the conflict that would arise by the mainstream if we did not. Everyone is a part of this imprisonment so one might wonder why we do not break free from the shackles of the nonexistent mainstream. It is because people would be afraid to join the total upraising for fear of a ghost. Everyone blames the white protestant for the fashions it must conform to, but this group is also conforming. So again why do we not all break away? It’s because of the idea that holds us in place that if we broke away the “everyone else” would judge us wrong.

I have spoken about the different types hiding, passing and covering, but one might wonder what more real life examples there are that fit with them. One example is that of politics. Politics are a sensitive issue all around the world. It is the cause of love and hate, peace and war. The fact that we decide to cover or even pass our political positions is a very easily understood concept. People, which I have experienced firsthand, can go from being your best friend to completely hating every fiber in your being by simply knowing your political views. Because of this does the fact that I avoid politics make me a liar? Or does it make me someone who doesn’t want to be known by his beliefs but by his nature.

Another major concept that is often covered or even passed is that of religion. As like politics, religion has been a major focal point for love, hate, peace and war. People can become extremely hostile when conflicting views such as religion are brought into the picture. So the idea of wishing to cover or pass ones beliefs in order to avoid a conflict can be easily understood.

While many people might say that the use of passing and covering is immoral and deceitful, I believe that it can be a vital in order to simply get through the day without being ripped apart by the vicious beast that humans can be. Do I believe we should all lie: no, do I believe we should not tell the truth: yes.

Sex. Now that I have your attention I am going to discuss the topic of the said attention-getter. The topic in question, when spoken about to the average person, is characterized as the exchange between a man and a woman. First it must be addressed as to the process of getting to such action. Then it must be pointed out that in fact not all forms of “sex” are between a man and a woman, or for that matter not all of them are between a human and a human.

In the instance of how to get consent for said coitus there are many different routes to take and many of them can be fairly complicated or fairly straight forward. While I could not possibly speak for everyone or every way I can speak for that of which I know. The first and most blatant way for the receiving of consent is through a way invented in the collegiate community: written consent forms. These are the most straight forward way of gaining consent, though some people may see them as a buzz kill. Another form of getting consent that I know of is through simply asking. After this point there becomes a quite endless list of means and methods to initiating the desired coitus. Each different way can vary in the slightest or quite significantly, but it is to each his/her own.

Beyond that of initiating the coitus it must be understood how many different forms of combinations there are for this.

The first combination is the most obvious: man and woman. This is quite straight forward. It is also the most openly accepted by the populous. The concept has been around since the beginning of history. Of course that statement need go unstated, but it is to give a reference to the rest of the examples. Through this form is the only way, at current, that the human population can continue.

The next is that of same sex relations. The concept of same sex relations has been around for thousands of years. One population that was known for such relations was that of the Spartans. Beyond the history of going back thousands of years there exists a more colorful recent history. The same sex community is currently in an uphill battle with that of the conservative values instilled by the protestant foundation of our country. Although this is the current standing I believe that the community will eventually be accepted into the mainstream acceptance.

Another of the forms of sexuality that I wish to discuss is that of between a man and a beast. This concept has also been around for thousands of years. It has often been used in various religions. One example of this is that of the Minotaur. Another example is that of when people would have sex with animals claiming that it was one of their deities such as Zeus. It is my opinion that the excuse of having sex with animals as a deity is just an excuse to express their desires for bestiality.

The topic of coitus is a part of our everyday lives and quite often is not fully discussed. I believe that we must become more accepting of this part of ourselves. Although do not misinterpret this as an endorsement for some of the stranger forms of this topic such as bestiality. We must still learn to accept some other form of this topic such as those between all humans. Any instance of gaining consent between the two people in question should be considered as an accepted form of relations.

Sentient..?

In my previous blog I argued that computers/artificial intelligence should be considered alive. This can be linked to that of other forms of intelligence. Not necessarily if they are alive, that is quite obvious, but rather are they a sentient species?

In class we were presented with a presentation on the gorilla Koko by one of our own. She presented the facts about who Koko is. One of the facts she was trying to make known to us is that Koko is intelligent.

Koko is able to many things that would qualify her to be a sentient being, so why isn't she?

One of the most significant things that Koko can do is communicate logically and originally. Basically this means that you can have a complete, unrehearsed, conversation with Koko and she will respond with her own responses. This is even more spectacular in the fact that if Koko wants to say something but does not know the particular word for it she will attempt to make up something else that is fitting. A second significant aspect of Koko is that she can take care of another being. Koko owned a cat which she cared for and loved. A third significant aspect of Koko is that she can feel emotion. When Koko’s cat died she was stricken with heartache. Koko is also a very proud creature because she did not openly express all of this heartache to the public.

Koko has also taught two other gorillas to communicate. If she was but a dumb animal how then could she do such a thing?

Whether or not Koko is an intelligent being should not even be up for question; moreover whether or not the entire gorilla population should be considered sentient beings should not be up for question either.

The fact that the human arrogance is blinding it is hardly a new concept. This blinding darkness has followed the human race throughout its history. One example of this arrogance is whether or not the earth was the center of the universe. If that is not a prime example of how self-minded we are I do not know what is. Another example is that of the world being flat. When the idea of the earth actually being round came into question it was dismissed without a second thought. As we all know the outcome of that was that humans were wrong yet again. Another more biological example would be that of bleeding each other to heal. Sure it worked for some things (like high blood pressure) but this was an archaic remedy.

The counter argument would be that we admit to being imperfect. This argument would only strengthen mine. It would do so by the fact that we are admitting to not being right about everything. So then why is it that we cannot accept other beings as equals to ourselves? Why can’t we declare the gorilla an equally intelligent being? Why do we jest to the idea of an artificial intelligence? Because the human arrogance cannot accept the fact that it is not number one.

We must also take the other creatures into question besides just gorillas or artificial intelligences into greater consideration in this argument. What about the dolphin? The dolphin is considered to be the next most intelligent being on the planet. We can teach the dolphin to do many different tasks. We even believe it has some form of communication between itself and other dolphins. The absolute truth is that we still regard it as just a really neat animal. No more separated than that of any other being not human. We even lock these creatures up in jails for our own viewing pleasure. On this instance it would be argued that we are helping them by saving them from the wild. Who said they needed saving? The most destructive force is the very one that claims to be trying to protect it. Another creature that we must protect from ourselves is that of the orangutan. This marvel is considered to be the most related to that of humans being only 2 chromosomes off. Unfortunately we still consider it to be another animal.

To make my argument bottom-lined and clear, the human race needs to become more open minded to that of other forms of intelligence. The veil arrogance that has blinded us for thousands of years must be removed if we are ever to move forward. We must accept the other sentient beings as just that sentient, otherwise we cannot expect the same treatment as sentient from anyone else, if ever there be.

Who are we to say..

Who are we to say what is and is not alive? This statement is a very argumentative one, but I believe it is justified. In my post before we were discussing what is and is not? Are you alive? Am I alive? What is real, what is not? So many questions, but many of them will likely never be answered.

Let us then consider the question of what can and cannot be considered to be alive.

In class we were presented with the ideas of at what point does something actually matter, and at what point is it considered sentient. The first example was that of the marker being broken apart and then thrown towards myself. But while all this was happening not once was the fault placed upon the marker. In fact one student immediately exclaimed that the owners of said marker would probably be unhappy that their marker was now broken. The second was that of the marker that impacted at me. It was immediately indicated that our professor was the one to blame, but was it not the marker that hit me and not instead where the blame was placed? The assumption that the human race is supreme and is the cause of everything exists everywhere.

We decided that the marker was in fact not sentient and therefore not responsible for its own actions, but at what point do we decide that something is considered sentient?

Imagine, if you will, an entity that is created of circuits and conduits, nodes and resistors. Now imagine that it is run by a central operating system based off of electric impulses that send and receive commands. Now imagine that this mechanic is taught from its creation how to react to certain stimuli and instructions, kind of like programming. You probably have in your mind your average everyday computer, you see, and use, them everywhere. You are even using one right now. This, however, is not what I am talking about. I am talking about every human, even you. Do we not have a nervous system? Don’t we have a circulatory system that sends energy throughout our body? Do we not have a brain that takes input and returns output? Were we not taught from the day we were born how things work by someone or another kind of like a programmer? I thought so. So then why is it that an item cannot be considered sentient as we are?

Take for example a character from the TV series Star Trek: The Next Generation. This character’s name is Data, and he is an android. Data is a fully functional member of the crew of the ship, but yet he is still just a machine. He is able to think for himself, he even experiences some forms of human emotion. Data eventually is presented before a court of law where he earns his right to be sentient, but wasn’t he always sentient?

Some people will argue that Data is still just a thing, and that you must have a soul in order to be considered alive. Let us assume this is true for a moment. How do I tell that I have this soul? And how do I tell that Data does not? Some might then assert that one can only have a soul if they were procreated. Alright, so we are only given a soul if we are created in the womb. But what is the womb but just a bio-lab? Did we not establish that the human is made of the same essence that Data is made out of? So then could I not just use a lab to place together a being and then once it is completed and is turned on, or given life, it must surely then have a soul. Some people will then say that it must be made through the use of chromosomes. So then I will create a double-helix structure and place into it the right string of commands, kind of like code. Does this now count as a being with a soul? A person may then argue that it can only have a soul if it was created by a Divine Being. But who is to say that I was not the instrument through which this Divine Being created my Data? Was not the bible created through other beings by the orders of God himself, the word of God.

The answer to life may quite possibly never go answered, and until that day it is my belief that all possibilities must be evaluated. For if we discard the right answer without a second glance the truth may never be revealed.

In life there are many things that occur, or so we believe, but out of all this chaos that surrounds us what can really be said to be true? If I were to ask you: "Do you think you are alive?" I believe you would surely respond yes, and wonder why I was asking such a strange question, and you would be right in doing so. But then what if everything in this world is nothing but a figment of my imagination? Then of course your answer to my question would be that you were alive because I want you to say so. So by asking you if you are alive I am no closer to my answer then before I asked. It could indeed be said that I am now farther from the truth than before I asked because now I must also wonder not only if you are alive but if I am also dreaming.

The idea of a dream and what we call reality are two very similar yet very different ideas. If someone were to ask you if you had a pleasant dream last night you could respond with many answers like it was a good dream or bad dream, but one thing that is true is that it was definitely a dream. Or so you think. When we are dreaming everything seems quite normal and ordinary; however, as soon as we awake from said dream we can clearly identify at least something that was abnormal about it. Maybe you saw your friends and family within this dream and you took a cruise across the stars on a giant blue whale, while in this dream you are too distracted by the dream itself to realize how different it really is. Once you wake from this slumber you are immediately aware that cruising through space on a whale is absurd, but this is only because you have woken up.

Now let us assume that we are in all actuality dreaming right now. Does it feel like a dream? Does anything seem abnormal? No. Why? Because you are dreaming. Who is to say that in this dream walking on two feet is an abnormality, if you said that the people in the dream would call you mad and insane. But what if we could awaken from this dream and realize that not only is walking on two feet absurd, maybe people have never even had feet. The idea of feet and many other things could simply be figments of yours, or my, imaginations.

It can be said that because you think you exist, but how do you know for sure that you are indeed thinking. Didn't you just think that the idea of having feet is a solid fact, when indeed you were awoken to the knowledge that that was foolish. So who is to say that you exist? Who is to say I exist? No one can be qualified to make such a claim, because we all believe in our own two feet. Until we know we can assume, we cannot assume to know.

In the Meditations by Descartes, Descartes has decided to examine: whether or not. He is examining if everything he knows is true, or if everything he knows is a lie. He begins his Meditations by first deciding that it can only be accomplished by becoming truly free from bias. Although he accepts that this is a difficult challenge, he is trying to clear himself of all preconceptions about this world.

It is a daunting task indeed. For in order to truly be without bias one must have never had any form of contact with the world. Although he does desire to become without any preconceptions about life, death, or reality, I believe it to be a foolish errand, because he has experienced so much in this world but yet withes it all away without a second glance. I believe that in the end his worldly biases will outweigh his desire to separate himself from them, ultimately making his mission for naught.
Although the pursuit of ultimate truth of life and death is probably a goal for almost every living being, the ultimate end is, I believe impossible to achieve complete knowledge of. Many people may disagree with me and say that truth itself can be found and that knowing whether we exist or not can be known. As for myself I will seek to understand what I can, and although I might not find any truth at all, I can at least say I tried to find the ultimate answer to the question: what is.