|
|
Post by Taline Sassounian on Jun 1, 2015 1:17:53 GMT
Code: 97ddd
1. What are the strongest arguments for the universe being a computational simulation?
The strongest argument for the universe being a computational simulation is that computers and technology is what all our lives revolve around now. Technology is our main source to all information now-a-days. It always develops into bigger and better things, and as the years go by, the next generations are going to be more exposed to these technologies.
2. Do we read more or less today? Why? Explain your generational view on reading books
We read less today, our generation is hooked onto the internet and our cellular devices that we can pull up an article on our phones in just seconds. We read less because we do not need to flip pages in order to find something we need research on. Our phones and computers search any topic by a few clicks of a button. Our generation does less reading then the generation before us, and it will lessen as the years go on to the next generation.
3. What technology do you use most? Explain your attraction to it.
The technology I use the most is my iPhone. I am attracted to it because it can virtually do anything. I have all my social media accounts on it, my twitter, instagram, facebook, snapchat. I can view my emails, text, call, listen to music, put a reminder, set an alarm, take pictures, etc. It truly is an amazing device.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewromo on Jun 1, 2015 2:50:31 GMT
Test 7 : 97ddd
1. One of the most compelling arguments of the universe being a computer simulation is the reasoning that humans have already created countless apps, algorithms, powerful computers, and a developed system of neurons capable of deciphering information and creating an experience, or simulation, based on the information that is input into the receiving system; However, this argument really just seems to be the product of overthinking and trying to rationalize the world in which we live in. The basis of human existence is already entirely based on probability. The probability of a single celled organism evolving over the course of millions of years into a complex system involving countless numbers of individual cells. So if we are truly living a computer simulation, are we the pixels on the screen of some higher beings app? Is our universe the motherboard of a superior computer? Are we simple a neuron in the brain of another being? The fact of the matter is that there is no way of knowing, but I think that trying to make sense of the world we live in is impossible to do and the ideologies and theories of man will always create outrageous hypotheses like the universe being a computer simulation.
2. It is a well-known fact that in modern times technology has taken over the lives of billions of people around the world. Earth has essentially become a world run by technology. The invention of the Internet and mobile devices capable of accessing the Internet has rendered books to become almost entirely obsolete. Due to the fact that one can access a book online and view it in the palm of their hand beats having to track down a physical copy of said book. Regardless, I strongly disagree with the question of whether or not people read less because of this. On the contrary, due to the invention of these devices, people have better access to literature and other writings which leads to the conclusion that people now read more than they ever have and were capable of doing.
3. The technology that I use most would be my Laptop, but more specifically the Internet on my laptop. The fact that you can access billions of videos online on literally any subject, talk to people from halfway around the world within a couple of seconds, or play a video games with people you’ve never even seen amazes me. I think that technology has made significant progress in the past couple of decades, and the will for man to continue learning and discover will lead to greater findings in the near future.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewromo on Jun 1, 2015 2:50:42 GMT
Test 8: 97dddef
1. Generally speaking, when one knows of the inner mechanisms and aspects of a given topic, he or she will have a greater overall understanding of that topic. For example, when you first learn to drive a car you don’t just jump in and press all the buttons and haphazardly try to figure out a way to drive it. To correctly learn, you either read the manual explaining what each button does in order to figure out how to do exactly what you want. This same phenomenon works when trying to understand the complex world we live in, and all of the inner mechanisms and organism that exist within. Without knowing the basis of which the world exists, how things coexist inside, and the mechanics of which we came into existence in the first place, the world is a nearly impossible thing to understand. A great example explaining this can be seen by looking at how the world was viewed in the beginning of the scientific era to modern times. If the world still believed in the geocentric model, we would have a completely different understanding of how the solar system works. In order to understand things as a whole, one must first have a firm understand of basic principles like Quantum mechanics.
2. The Kirpal Statistic is essential the demographic of people who experience visions and revelations from a higher power; however, these visions are the product of psychology, not of some supernatural source. This group of people represents the number of people who are susceptible to being swayed by the words and teachings of spiritual figures. This brings up the question of whether or not other religions are in fact the product of saviors and prophets. If the people of modern society are being, in the simplest of terms, fooled into thinking they are teachers of the words of popular religious figures, then how credible can sources of biblical teachings and ancient teachers be? With the Kirpal Statistic one can question the rudimentary principles of religious followings.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewromo on Jun 1, 2015 2:50:57 GMT
Test 9 : 97ddddd
1. The basis of Sam Harris’ argument is that he believes that a universal perception of human values and morals is needed in the world. He states that due to several different sources from which the morals of human behavior originate, such as religion & science, the world views and acts in such ways that not everyone agrees with. He continues on to state that much like in science, there should be an area of expertise that constitutes what is morally right and wrong. Also, with this area of expertise all other aspects and outlying morals should be discounted and thrown out as wrong. The problem that I find in his argument is that he contradicts himself. By creating the one set of world morals, he is essentially creating another group like the Muslims or religions in which a set group of people abides to its set of rules and moral guidelines. He wants to create exactly what he claims is wrong with the world. A question I would ask him is: what constitutes what is morally right or wrong? Who would be the set creator and definer of the moral guidelines that the world must follow? The World that Sam Harris sees as the ideal setting for moral progress is a world that I would not want to live in. As Harris states in his speech, the distinction between the world’s different cultures is slowly diminishing; however, this is something that we should be scared of, not encourage. One of the most beautiful things of human existence is the power to be unique that live one’s own life; the beauty of not having to conform in one single idea or belief is the basis of human existence and I look forward to living in a society where I am free to live with my own set of personally defined morals.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewromo on Jun 1, 2015 2:51:13 GMT
Test 10 : 8763
In Brian Greene’s lecture he explains how events and ideas that we believe to be true are only so because of the technology and information that we have access to at this point in time. He explains how at one point in history the things we have invented and accomplished may have seemed impossible or improbable, but after expanding our understanding of how things in the universe worked, due to our technology, those events that once seemed impossible are not a part of our common knowledge. So, using Greene’s reasoning, we can manipulate the way we perceive what is humanly possible. At some point of the future the technology that humans will have access to will be so great that one may be able to do things we, in present day, never thought were possible. We can use this understanding to try and accelerate the rate at which we reach the point where anything is possible. Greene also states that the basis of human existence on earth is the sole product of probability. Without the combination of the many variables on earth that make life possible we would not be able to thrive on this planet. This fact also opens up the question of life existing on other planets. If, in our universe, we happen to live on a planet where life is able to exist then the probability of life existing in other universes must be high. In the hundreds and thousands of universes that man is aware of, the likelihood that there is a planet similar to ours is more probable than not; we just don’t have the technology to discover and explore other universes. When humans reach the point in science where technological advances allows us to accomplish more than we ever thought was possible, our understanding of the universe and our place in it might change completely.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewromo on Jun 1, 2015 2:53:47 GMT
Test 5 : 97654
1. I don’t agree with the idea that we shouldn’t eat animals because of the fact that animals can feel pain and are living things. I feel that as human beings, we have the right to dominate and use other animals for food because we are the superior beings. Referring back to a question that was asked of us in class, I feel that if superior aliens were to inhabit our planet and enslave us, that would be fine. Though I might not like it, I feel whoever is superior in intelligence has the right to eat and kill whatever they desire.
2. The remainder conjuncture is the process in which one hypothesizes the answer to a question and accumulates all the possible answers. Through a process of elimination the one remaining answer is called the remainder. An example of this can be seen with every aspect of human beliefs. To name a few, at one point in history the universe was believed to be geocentric, and as time went on and discoveries were made the notion of a heliocentric universe was proposed. Another example is how before the discovery of America, earth was believed to be flat, and if one were to sail to the end he or she would fall off the face of the earth. After numerous expeditions and discoveries, the world formed the idea that the world is actually round. As new ideas are formed, previous ones are ruled out and leave the remainder conjuncture.
3. If one is viewing life from a Darwinist view of evolution, yes it can be said that humans share some sort of genetic D.N.A. with a grain of wild rice. From a biological perspective, all life forms formed from single celled bacteria, and after millions of years of evolution and natural selection, different types of bacteria were formed and made plants and basic life forms. From those basic life forms plants, fish, and eventually human beings were made. So, whether or not one is believed to share D.N.A. with a grain of wild rice is dependent on whether he or she is asking from an evolutionary standpoint or from a creationist standpoint.
|
|
|
|
Post by EricOlivares on Jun 3, 2015 8:03:18 GMT
Video Test #10 8763
1. How can the reasoning that Professor Greene demonstrates throughout his lecture help us to think more realistically about "improbable" events in our own day to day lives?
In Professor Greene's speech he talk about string theory, the multiverse, and dark energy. the way Greene's speech helps us think more realistically about "improbable" events in our own day to day lives is to not to jump to quick assumptions, it is to ask the right questions and study those questions. For Example when Greene starts talk about the position of the earth to the sun and a how a certain scientist was trying to figure why was the Earth this certain distance away from the sun and Greene points out that he was asking the wrong question. that the reason why the earth was this certain distance away from the sun is because it would allow our species to live because if the Earth was too close to the sun it would be to hot for our species to survive and if the Earth was to far away from the sun it would be too cold for our kind to survive. when Greene talks about the multiverse he always helps us think more rationally about "improbable" events. he shows us the all improbable events are not always improbable, that things happen for a reason like in the Multiverse discussion that we live in a certain universe that has the right amount of dark energy for our survival while other universes do not have enough or too much dark energy. so to answer the question about improbable events Greene simply states that really there is nothing that is improbable that happens. it just necessary for this events to happen to allow our species to live on.
|
|
|
|
Post by vincentgalvan on Jun 4, 2015 21:46:05 GMT
Film Test 9
How can the reasoning that Professor Greene demonstrates throughout his lecture help us to think more realistically about "improbable" events in our own day to day lives?
Professor Greene’s reasoning can help us think more realistically about “improbable” events in our day-to-day lives but encouraging us not to immediately approach ideas so skeptically, and to think take the time to really think critically about things. Some things may initially sound too far-fetched to believe sometimes, but there may actually be a basis for them, even if it has yet to be definitively discovered or proven. Another interesting idea that Professor Greene’s lecture provokes is that there may be some value to historical research, as things in nature may have the ability to change sometimes and things may not always be what they currently seem. Therefore, we should not always be so quick to discredit “dated” research, as there may be something to learn from it. Additionally, nature is very complex, and we as humans will likely never be able to discover or explain everything within it, due to our limited intellectual capacities. Overall, Greene brings up many points that challenge us to think more critically in many aspects of our lives.
|
|
|
|
Post by Taline Sassounian on Jun 5, 2015 3:35:36 GMT
Code: 97dddef
1. Why is understanding quantum mechanics and its implications important for understanding how life evolves?
Understanding quantum mechanics and its implications are important for understanding how life evolves because it is what makes us understand what the world is made up of. It is the study of the subatomic particles that make up matter. By understanding these particles and the way they function we understand the way life works.
2. What is the Kirpal Statistic?
Kirpal Statistic, a practice performed by the guru Kirpal Singh, it was a meditation technique to allow one to have an outer body experience or see human figures in their subconscious when guided by a professional. Singh instructed groups of people to meditate and allowed them to reach this point and see the inner light. The inner light is produced by our subconscious because of previous experiences and not by some magical ability.
|
|
|
|
Post by Taline Sassounian on Jun 5, 2015 3:37:03 GMT
Code: 97ddddd
1. Provide a critical review of Sam Harris' viewpoint. Do you agree or disagree? Explain your answer.
Sam Harris believes in Moral Landscape, where science can explain the way a person views and understands morality, and answers moral questions about what is right and wrong. People do not see the connection between science and morals, but once people make the connection and see that morals have right and wrong answers, we can live in a greater community. I agree with Harris when he talks about morality being right and wrong, but I do not believe that people will be basing their values because of science. Values and morals are taught by a persons parents, belief, community/surrounding, etc. People will not be changing the way they are brought up because science says to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Taline Sassounian on Jun 5, 2015 4:12:19 GMT
Code: 8763
1. How can the reasoning that Professor Greene demonstrates throughout his lecture help us to think more realistically about "improbable" events in our own day to day lives?
Professor Greene’s lecture can help us to think more realistically about “improbable” events in our day-to-day lives because he says not to be hasty and jump to conclusions or make assumptions about an event. But rather think about what has occurred and ask the right questions. He explains how certain things happen for a reason, that not all improbable events are in fact improbable. We believe certain things to be true because of technology today, but what we know now is much greater then what people knew a hundred years ago. What may seem impossible today may be accomplished in the future. He also explains that the reason for our existence is all probability, because of the position of Earth and the Sun there is life. There is also a chance of other life in the multiverse, but we do not know of any yet because we do not have the technology. In due time it will be possible to find out.
|
|
|
|
Post by nadiag on Jun 7, 2015 9:06:33 GMT
Nadia Garcia
Phil 8
8th Film Test
Test Number: 97ddddd
1) Provide a critical review of Sam Harris' viewpoint. Do you agree or disagree? Explain your answer.
In the TED video, Sam Harris talks about the relationship between science and moral values. Sam Harris believes that there is a relationship between science and moral values even though there is a common belief that those two things do not share something in common. During his talk, he uses an example of how the personality of a suicide bomber is the product of his brain. Therefore any decisions he makes or whatever he does are because of his brain. After hearing that, I agreed with what he had said, because all of our emotional reasoning and thoughts are products of our brain. Any decision we make starts in our brain and it can be seen through science, neuroscience or psychology. Most of our reactions to certain emotions can be viewed including happiness, anger and other feelings throughout our body. Later on in his discussion, he talks about how those brain thoughts can change ourselves and a culture as well. So, certain people judge other cultures for doing "bad things" when in fact no one knows what the correct or incorrect answer is.
|
|
|
|
Post by nadiag on Jun 7, 2015 9:07:20 GMT
Nadia Garcia
Phil 8
9th Film Test
Test Number: 8763
1)How can the reasoning that Professor Greene demonstrates throughout his lecture help us to think more realistically about "improbable" events in our own day to day lives?
Professor Brian Greene, who teaches physics and mathematics at Columbia University, explains a discovery in the TED video that two teams of astronomers found in which they state that our universe is not the only universe but part of a multiple universe, multiverse, and also says that the idea might answer the question: "Why is our universe fine-tuned for life?” The professor explains the multiverse in three parts: the results, a solution to what the results revealed with the string theory and the inflation theory. In the first part he mentions that the astronomer, Edwin Hubble, realized that space was expanding so later on the two teams of astronomers wanted to figure of the rate of the expansion and they found that the expansion is speeding up. Then he explains the String Theory that states that if you examine matter and the particles within it with high-tech, you would find a vibrating string but there might be hidden, unknown dimensions that can have an impact on the theory that we do not know the extra dimensions so they cannot use that theory for testable predictions so there might be many universes because there are many candidates for the shape.Therefore, this lecture can help us think more realistically about improbable events in our lives by having us examine some of our beliefs which we believe are true but there might be a different answer even though the thought of that make us uncomfortable. For example, there can be many explanations to a question we propose, like finding the shape of the extra dimension to calculate black energy in the video. However, like Professor Greene says, we might probably be asking the wrong question and using one explanation for a particular value that can have many answers. Just like how there is life on earth and not on any other planet because it is not too close to the sun and not too far from it as well as other explanations so it is able for life to exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by leiannvergara on Jun 7, 2015 22:50:42 GMT
Provide a critical review of Sam Harris’ viewpoints. Agree or not. Explain?
In the TED talk, Sam Harris brings about several ideas regarding the relationship between morality and science. He claims that science can provide answer as to why many people share the same morality and values that they do. Harris believes that every good or wrongful act that a person commits can be explained through science. I would have to disagree with Harris because I think that everyone’s actions are somehow influenced by an external forces but science can also play a role in the decision making. Our moral values come from the knowledge of others as we were being taught at a young age. Majority of the time we often refer back to those teachings when making a decision about certain actions that we make, in my opinion there is no correlation between science and moral values. Take for example all of the violence that is happening in today’s society. All of the actions cannot be explained by science because many of the defenses would say that they committed such acts possibly because of “self- defense.” Harris’ ideas of having a world that science explains every act that we do would be ideal because we can have explanations of why things occur the way they do and possibly prevent future harm to others.
|
|
|
|
Post by leiannvergara on Jun 7, 2015 22:52:00 GMT
How can the reason that Professor Greene demonstrates throughout his lecture help us think more realistically about “improbable” events in our own day-to-day lives?
Brian Greene discusses the possibility of the existence of the multiverse. Some may say that this idea is nonsense but with the advances in science we may not be far from finding the existence of another universe. However, this idea may have us questioning whether the happenings in our lives are “improbable.” Professor Greene allows us to see that anything that we believe to be impossible can happen. Even if the even seems to be unrealistic we should keep an open eye because anything can happen. Just like our existence, we are also a probability that has aligned with the universe and planets. By using Greene’s thought, we realistically explain why things happen in the way that they do.
|
|
