Midterm Question 1

I am one of the early 6:30 AM students every Tuesday and Thursday. I have not missed or been tardy to any class.

Midterm Question 2

I am on the “C” track. I am finished with My Wicked, Wicked Ways and I am started on Ramana Maharshi and the Path of Self Knowledge. I'm on page 4.
I have re-posted each and every post that I’ve posted in the yahoo group on this site.
They are below my midterm answers.

Midterm Question 3

Imaginary time is this mathematical model that Hawking introduces to explain the shape of time and space. These imaginary numbers in the model are supposed to be at right angles to the regular real numbers. Imaginary time is just an idea to help us understand the different directions of the universe. In real time, as time (or the history of the observer) increases, space also increases. In imaginary time, as time increases, space can either decrease or increase. Einstein’s theory of relativity combines real time and three other dimensions of space that together make up a four-dimensional spacetime. In this spacetime, even though time increases in the direction of real time as described earlier, the other three dimensions of Einstein’s theory could cause an increase or decrease in the direction of space, similar to that of imaginary time. Then, as time is increasing, space could be going in the other direction.
This brane theory is a part of the M-theory, in that it can have a variety of spatial dimensions. A brane (p-brane) is one of many objects that can be extended in more than one direction. A brane has a length in p directions and can have a variety of spatial dimensions. So a brane with length p = 1, would be equivalent to a string. A brane with p = 2 would be a surface. A brane with p = 3, would be equivalent to a four-dimensional (3 space, 1 time) surface. According to the equations of the supergravity theories, the p-branes could be found to be 10 or 11 dimensions. Most of these (like 6 or 7) dimensions are so small we don’t really notice them. The remaining four dimensions are big enough for us to see and feel their effects. The brane theory then has four (the others are too small) dimensions – three space dimensions and one time - which are just like the model from Einstein's theory. Spacetime then, can move in any direction.

Midterm Question 5

I’m not sure how superstring reconciles general theory of relativity with quantum mechanics, but I did find this line on page 52, “Instead, it was claimed that a theory named supersymmetric string theory was the only way to combine gravity with quantum theory.” From what I understand, gravity/supergravity are what hold Einstein’s theory together. Somehow, these superstrings are what hold general theory together with quantum mechanics. The four forces of the universe are electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, and gravity. Hawking didn’t write much about strong and weak nuclear forces, and nothing about electromagnetism. All I know about these three are that they are small and that quantum mechanics explains the small. In order to combine them all into one super force, you'd need the help of superstring theory.

Midterm Question 4

Hawking writes about these six theories for the universe. Five of these are string theories and one of them is the eleven-dimension supergravity theory. All six of which have very strong mathematical support for them. Hawking explains that these six theories are all trying to prove the universe. These six are pretty much combined to make up the M-theory (believed to be the Theory of Everything). So M-theory is surrounded by mathematical theories supporting it. It would be for this reason that Hawking believes M-theory to be correct. He acknowledges that there are some holes, but it has a very strong framework.
This is as opposed to astrology which has no other theories to back it up, it isn’t consistent with other theories, and the tests result in such broad answers that they don’t provide any real evidence.

Midterm Question 6

The mind cannot be a blank slate, because blank slates don’t do anything. Pinker repeats this line a few times.
Personality – our genes provide us with our personality traits. To quote Pinker: “Psychologists have discovered that our personalities differ in five major ways: we are to varying degrees introverted or extroverted, neurotic or stable, incurious or open to experience, agreeable or antagonistic, and conscientious or undirected.” Depending upon our genetics, we could have any combination of these.

Intelligence – we as humans, are designed to think. We have several cognitive processes running all the time. It is with intelligence that we are able to incorporate logic and reason into everyday situations, recognize and respond appropriately to the actions of others, and communicate efficiently amongst others.

Behavior – how we are going to behave has already been determined by our genes. Whether we act shy, crazy, calm, etc is dependent upon our genes.

Prejudice – since everyone is born different and unequal with different talents and skills, it is a natural response to notice and recognize these differences, and to be prejudice.

Recognition – Pinker talked about how a robot could replicate the action of washing dishes, but it couldn’t understand or recognize the reason behind it. We see the act of washing the dishes, and can replicate it while recognizing the idea of trying to get the dishes clean. We as humans have the brain power to do that. We use reason, recognition, and logic to overcome everyday obstacles. Most of us were born with this gift.

Morals – Our morals come from our biology. We are not going to hit another person because deep down we either fear the retaliation, or we know the pain caused and do not wish it upon our neighbor. We know the feeling of right and wrong.

Midterm Question 7

Just as Pinker critiques the Blank Slate as “how can we do anything if nothing’s there,” his critics might reverse it on him and say “how can we attribute everything to genetics.” Where does nurture fit in? How can you explain the affects of abuse or trauma with genetics? Sure you could suggest that the person is epigenetically predisposed to have a psychological disorder, but what about the people who aren’t? What about an average Joe, who doesn’t have any history of any problems amongst any of his relatives, who is walking the streets of New York when the planes hit the towers? He develops PTSD from the trauma he was exposed to that day.
If we’re not all blank slates, that means that genetically some people are better than others, that we aren’t all equal. A critic could say that Pinker is using biology as justification for prejudice.
If we’re not blank slates, our genes map out our behavior and lives. Then how can we explain changes in people if Pinker writes that a person’s nature is unchanging (criminals turned into Born Again Christians)?
If we can attribute everything we do to our biology, how can we find a person guilty of a crime? Blame it on their biology? What’s the point of prison or correctional facilities if the person isn’t going to change?
Do we even have free will if our biologies are what control us?

Midterm Question 8

Evolution has given us morals. We have been able to discover right from wrong. We are not going to hit another person because we either fear the retaliation, or we know the pain caused and do not wish it upon our neighbor. We know the feeling of right and wrong. And from that we, as humans, across all cultures, have created punishments for moral wrongdoings like violence, rape, and murder. Thanks to evolution we have a moral sense that controls how we behave amongst our fellow man.

Evolution has also taught people to cooperate and work together to help each other out. Both partners succeed and everyone’s happy. This helps both partners become a part of the efficient that are able to survive. This has also helped our relationships between one another. If you’re nice to your neighbor he’ll help you out.

Along with cooperation, evolution has taught us to work together in a different way. People have learned to provided favors for one another in return for something in the future. This could be by providing food, protection, and help with other needs. This helps the one in need in the present, and the one in need in the future.

My next example goes back to the prime directive. The caveman bonked the girl over the head and dragged her home. This was rape back then. We've evolved since then and court our women with flowers, not clubs. This makes the child raising easier without the difficulty between the two parents. This is how we procreate and live.

Somehow over evolution, we have been able to control a lot of our sexual urges with the emotion of love. Yes, we are still driven by sex and the need to make a copy of ourselves, but we have managed over the years to practice more fidelity. We have learned to be faithful to our partners, whether it is because we are truly and deeply in love or if we do it to better raise our genes and prepare them to pass them on further. There are still animals in the animal kingdom that will "cheat" on their mates. The African songbird females will go and fuck the other male in order to get the better genes, while the other male has no idea and continues to raise the babies as his own. We, as humans, still have the potential to cheat on our mates, but I think we've evolved the emotion of love to help form stronger bonds between mates.

Midterm Question 9

What I’ve always understood from the “philosophy done well is science; philosophy done poorly is religion/theology” is that when you’re in your daily life, do you find the answers to your questions from a scientific standpoint, or are you turning to religion? Lane has always talked about what I like to call the “scientific ladder,” where math is at the bottom and theology is at the top. If you want to lead a good philosophical life, you should live your life from the bottom of the ladder up. Meaning that you should always look first to math for the answer; if you cant use math, try physics; if not physics, try biology; if not biology, try psychology; if not psychology, try sociology; and if all of those fail, then you’ll turn to theology – which then means that you cant find an answer and you “don’t know.” By turning to theology for life’s answers you’re admitting that you don’t know. You should approach things scientifically in order to practice “good philosophy.”

Midterm Question 11

For Flynn being a philosophical hedonist, it becomes obvious that if something must be done anyway, it might as well be thoroughly enjoyed.

"[...] or how to make a horrible experience look like fun, or very important. Personally, i made it fun. I went there mentally determined, whatever kind of hell it was going to be, i was going to make it merry for myself and for everybody else, if i could." Page 375

The whole time he’s paying out of his ass for Lili, he's laughing about it. He says, "I am bitter about what Lili Damita did to me, but i also laugh about it." Page 362

Even when he goes on trial for statutory rape, he manages to find another pretty girl to try to have sex with. If i was on trial for all of that, i wouldnt be in the market for another girl at that time, but he was.

Flynn was always trying to make the better of every situation.

Midterm Question 10

I looked up the term “materialism” to help me with this question. I found that it is the metaphysical view that there is only one substance in the universe and that substance is physical, empirical or material. So materialists believe that a spiritual substance does not exist and that any phenomena considered to be paranormal, supernatural, or occult are either delusions or can be reduced to physical forces. If you’re a materialist and you’re trying to answer philosophical questions, you’re going to answer all questions scientifically. You’ll be able to observe, study, and test hypotheses until you come to a sound conclusion based upon physical facts. I believe the biggest “help” to one who is a materialist is that they’ll never be tempted to try to explain something using theology.

Here’s an example: I’m a villager, and I want to know why one of my fellow villagers is ill.

I could look at the question spiritually and say that his illness is a curse brought upon him by god. I could decide to give reasoning for the curse, such as, “the gods do not favor this man. Look they have been cursing his crops all season. This is a bad man, and it will only do harm to associate yourself with him.”

Or I could look at that same question materialistically and test to see what’s wrong with him. After observation, I notice that he’s vomiting and shitting repeatedly. I could then hypothesize that it was his bad crops that gave him the food poisoning. I could then test this by seeing if the rest of his family develops similar symptoms, or I could take it a step further and test the effects of the man’s crops on another man of similar features.

The question of why was this man sick was answered by both types of philosophers. Only one of them has a sound and structured answer to the question. The other searches for answers that aren’t even testable.

If after a month, a different man (who is widely well known for being a holy and sacred friend of the gods) develops the same symptoms as the first, which philosopher would have the more accurate answer?

The spiritual philosopher would have to change his diagnosis of the original sick man in order to come up with a believable reason for the holy man getting sick.

The materialistic philosopher wouldn’t have to change a thing. He would simply observe the physical surroundings of the holy man and determine what it was that cause this man’s food poisoning. This materialistic way of philosophy is much more helpful because you don’t have to change your ways of reasoning. The physical world is a scientific one. If for some reason one of your scientific theories needs to be altered, it would only be due to new information that was not previously available which would provide an even more accurate theory.

Midterm Question 12

Flynn mostly views women as sexual objects. He's one of those guys that just wants to get laid. But its not like he treats women badly. He likes them as friends too. He's just not one of those guys who's looking for companionship with a woman. He seems content with getting laid and being friendly with them. He still views them in a positive light. They add to his experiences. All of his marraiges failed, and his wives lived in different houses than his own. So it's not like he feels lonely without a wife. He would cheat on his wives, but he didnt seem to view the marraige as a big deal. Marraige to him was like a new toy, it was fun at first, but then he got bored and wanted the next new thing. It wasn't anything personal against the women. Except for Lili, she was a bitch.

Midterm Question 13

Flynn's philosophy in life was to make the best out of his life. Kind of just go with the flow. This entailed, of course, having fun with women, traveling, doing what he wanted, and buying what he wanted. With the exception of women, he was a very rational and reasonable man. It made sense to him to do things that he likes. He liked the ocean, so he bought a boat. This was rational to him. It made sense to him. He did what he wanted, but it's not like her hurt anyone in the process. He always made sure everyone around him had a good time. He is, in his own way, a philosopher.