midterm

INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY

MIDTERM EXAMINATION

Professor David Christopher Lane, Ph.D.

DIRECTIONS: Answer all of the following questions fully and comprehensively and be sure to put your word document or PDF file attached on your own website. Also be sure to use pertinent quotes to support your answers. Send a direct to your website (and/or test) to your professor at dlane@mtsac.edu. Plagiarism is not tolerated so please be sure that it is your own work and that you fully cite your sources when necessary.

1.      Your name

Zhiren (Isaac) Zheng

2.      How much of the required reading have you done?

5

3.      How many of the required films did you watch?

26

4.      Please copy and paste the 6 essays you were required to write for the first three weeks of this course.

1. Why was Socrates sentenced to death?

To the public, it was widely told that Socrates was accused of two charges—"one that he did not believe in the gods recognized by the State, the other that he had corrupted the Athenian youth by his teachings" (How Socrates died, 10) However, these charges were placed on Socrates by people whose reputation were challenged by Socrates. As Socrates kept searching for the truth and knowledge, he had conversation with a variety of "wise" men, who claimed themselves to be wisest. However, when he examined and questioned those politicians, poets, and artists, he found that they just fancied themselves to be wise. Politician could not answer Socrates 's question and even contradict themselves; Poets "say many fine things, but they understand nothing that they say"; artist, who "excelled in the practice of his art, thought that he was very wise in other most important matters, and this mistake of theirs obscured the wisdom that they really possessed' (How Socrates died, 42). When these "wise" people found themselves "have been detected pretending to possess knowledge," Socrates became odious to them(How Socrates died, 42).  Young people started to follow Socrates with the real wisdom and examine those "wise" people. Realized that their reputation was in danger, those "wise" people blamed Socrates on corrupting the youth. Even though Socrates insisted on search for the truth, his wisdom was distorted by "wise" people who actually knew nothing. Socrates 's wisdom enlightened some people, but, at the same time, put himself to death.

2. Why is there a conflict (for some) between science and religion?

The reason that there was a conflict between science and religion for some people was that in their mindset, anything that violated or went against their belief is blasphemous. However, back in that time, religion spread from people to people by words. To a great extend, what people learned about their religion depended heavily on the sources that they received. But the problem is that those "wise" people who were looked up to by ordinary Athenians did not really know about the truth and science, but merely relying on their own senses. Euthyphro regarded himself as a wise man who did the right thing accusing his own father of murdering. But when he was questioned by Socrates of "what is piety, and what is impiety," what he said can all boil down to his own assumption that the god was pleased with what he did, and therefore, it was pious (How Socrates died, 42). At the end, after Socrates pointed out the contradictory statement he made, he finally realized that he did not really know what is piety and impiety. Therefore, it revealed the fact that many "wise" people equaled things that challenged their own thoughts to things that were against the religion. Apparently, because of their ignorance, on the way of searching for truth and exploring science, there would be a lot of things that differ from what they thought. Therefore, they would think science is in conflict with religion. Also, people regarded themselves to be holy and supreme. As it was mentioned in the book of The Great Mystery, when " Francis Crick say as that consciousness is just a bundle of neurons or when Patricia Churchland indicates we are just three pounds of meat," people tended to resisted this idea. They did not want to bring themselves down to the same level as other creatures. Instead of learning about the science, people would stick to their belief and put their religion above science. Therefore, this also caused the conflict between science and religion.

            1. Why is understanding physics and the general rules of the universe so     important in doing philosophy?

            By definition, philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. That is saying that seeking the truth of the universe is also part of the study of philosophy. In order to differentiate the appearance and the truth behind the veil, often time, philosopher need to applied physics, which is the ground of our understanding of the universe, to their logical thinking. Along the time, the mean we study the subject of physics align with our approaches to truth. However, the discovery of quantum mechanics challenges the way we seek the truth. We are now told whether or not we make the observation alters the experimental result, which is saying that when we observe the objects, this very action makes an influence on how the objects behave. The validity of what we see and the pattern we conclude based on the observation are challenged. What we see, named Phenomena, "which constitute the our experience" and the truth, named  noumena, "which are the (presumed) things themselves" are not necessary the same (Quantum weirdness 31). All the achievements on science, which are examined by our observation, "apply only to the phenomenal realm, not the noumenal" (Quantum weirdness 31). That also means "we don't unlock nature pure and pristine, but as nature reacts to our measuring devices" (Quantum weirdness 31). We may question that whether we are "the prisoners in Plato's allegory of the cave" as we cannot tell the difference between what we see and what the truth really is (Quantum weirdness 34). This dilemma in science realm also put philosopher into confusion. As Bohr said, "it is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we say about Nature” (Quantum weirdness 34). Is the way we explore about the truth still right? Only when we have a better understanding of physics and the general rules of the universe, can we make a better shoot on what the truth may be.

            2. What is eliminative materialism? 

            On our way to the understanding of the nature, we don't usually go directly to the             point. At the time we observed some phenomena that we cannot explain using the       knowledge of one subject, we turned to another one. But if we still could give             them a good explanation based on our knowledge, we tended to link that to our       religion consciousness. However, when we make advance on the subject of            science and we have a better understanding of the phenomena, we replace "the old            and outdated concept of the part with the new and more accurate terminology,          which reflects our new understanding of our body and universe at large"             (Eliminative materialism, part two). By doing that, " We eliminated god and          spirits in favor of more precise and accurate physiological explanation, hence the     eliminative materialism" (Eliminative materialism, part three). Even though we           made good progress on the understanding of the nature, to ourselves, we still do    not know our emotions very well. As it was said in the video, " the words we use         to describe our motivation emerged from religion consciousness rather than the             understanding of neurology" (Eliminative materialism, part three).

1. Why is the theory of evolution so important in understanding how human beings behave?

            Starting with the effect of theory of evolution on our physical appearance, we will           then link it to the influence on human beings behave. Natural selection is the key        of evolution. The variation of DNA provides the chances for species to survive             different kind of environment. However, as it says, "evolution by natural selection          isn't so much about “fittest” or “strongest” or “best,” but rather as contingently      successful"( The DNA of consciousness  11). Therefore, it is more about the odds     instead of ability. Every new born creature has proved that its "unique genome          has some fundamental traits that have led to" the birth(The DNA of consciousness 14). The success of the genome concerns more about the traits rather than   "whether something is a defined species or not" (The DNA of consciousness 15).      The physical existence of DNA gives us the chance to trace back our evolution.         However, it also shows the evolution of our consciousness. Again, natural selection is about whether we can survive long enough to pass our genome to our         offspring. A consciousness where we can image different scenario with any      physical harm and real consequence enables us to think of a series of action and             pick the one will probably help us the most. In other words, consciousness let us    be ahead of the game and have a better chance to survive chance contingencies.           However, a mistaken simulation will also result in death. Here comes our second           order consciousness. "Second nature is our ability to absorb such information and             have the wherewithal to reconstruct models of varying probabilities about what     this information means" (The DNA of consciousness 30). This not only allows us      to simulate the reality, but also let us to analyze the situation. It "allow for better odds in our ultimate reactions to whatever stimuli or information we encounter"             (The DNA of consciousness 30). That is saying our behave depends on what our    simulations are and which option we choose to act on. An understanding of      the evolution of our consciousness and awareness will, therefore, help us to    understand human beings behave.

            2. Which questions do you think evolutionary theory cannot answer?

            Evolutionary theory explains why we look the way we do and why we think the    way we do, but it cannot answer the mastery on our motivation. Even though we        now have an understanding of the first and second order of consciousness and how they work together for the sake of our survival. But we have little       understanding why we have our emotions. And how our consciousness is           generated from the physical component of our brains. If we consider     consciousness "as a virtual simulator with an amplified probability feedback loop" (The DNA of consciousness 41). Then why do we have our different kind of        feelings? Do they also play a role in our evolution? Are they necessary for our            survival? Are we really " a bundle of neurons and nerve endings tied to together           in a huge neural complex that gives rises to consciousness" (The DNA of    consciousness 41)? If there is no soul, why do we have such different personality from each other? How would we understand the word "self"?

5.      Describe Socrates’ method for understanding another person’s truth claims. Why was it so effective and why did it get him into so much trouble?

To understand another person's truth claims, Socrates asked them what they believed was truth. Every time they answered in ambiguity or they avoided answering the question directly, Socrates changed the question and redirect them to a question that would lead them to directly point out what is truth. After the person answered the questions at this best and found that he was in conflict with himself, Socrates politely pointed out contradicts and illustrated his own opinions. As many people who thought they knew the truth only touched the surface of the mystery, Socrates' questions were an effective tool that guided them to further explore the conundrum. Because they did not really think about the conundrum critically before, it was very easy for them to find they were contradictory with themselves. These people, who called themselves "wise" people, often times, were embarrassed as they were not able to answer Socrates' questions. Therefore, hate against Socrates began to build up, which brought him so much trouble later on.

6.      Why is the conflict between science and religion (according to the required reading) a linguistic conundrum? Be sure to back up your answer with pertinent details from the readings/films.

Science and religion can be considered to be two different kind of mind set. They are both generated from people's simulation and imagination. For religion, it "tends to accept certain simulations above all others without resorting to any empirical verification and habitually substances such imaginary permutations as being beyond physical testing" (The DNA of consciousness 37). In other words, in terms of religion, people tend to believe that it is self-proven and it requires no physical evidence to show it validity. It is merely a reflection of people's thoughts. However, for science, it requires an actual testing to prove the original speculations and imaginings are true. Only when it goes through a test, can it turns from a hypothesis to a theory. As it says in the book, "Science, in other words, attempts to falsify what consciousness conjures up so as to see which model best explains reality" (The DNA of consciousness 37).

7.      Who do you think won the Einstein-Bohr debate? Back up your answer. You are free to do further research on this topic as well.

I think neither Einstein nor Bohr can we say is the winner of the debate. For Einstein, even though the series of paper he wrote in order to challenge the quantum mechanics did not really overthrow the theory or even further prove it, he did make a good point that quantum mechanics may be "an incomplete theory and most likely a bridge theory to something much more comprehensive and complete" (Quantum weirdness 23). As he said, "the whole scientific enterprise was predicated on the notion of an external world which was independent of the machinations of the subjective participants that arose within it (Quantum weirdness 24). As a tiny part of the universe, the world will still exist with or without our presence and observation. Therefore, concluding the rules of universe merely based on our observation may not be very convincing. Many things we thought were true are replaced by our new understanding. From this perspective, saying that quantum mechanics is a temporary stop on the way to ultimate truth is a rather reasonable statement. For Bohr, besides supported by many experiments, he also made a strong philosophical argument on whether quantum mechanics is true. As he said, "the poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images; it is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is; physics concerns what we say about Nature.” (Quantum weirdness 31). The only criteria we can apply to validate the theory we made is our observation. We receive any information from the nature through our senses. The conclusions and rules we made are solely for the world we observe. Rather to say that we don't care about what real universe is, we simply cannot examine it as "our very act of illuminating the hidden play fundamentally alters what we unearth (Quantum weirdness 36). Both Einstein and Bohr brought us a series of questions not only on quantum mechanics, but also on what we consider to be truth. As Richard Feynman said, " It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics" (Quantum weirdness 36). Before we can safely say we are not the prisoner in Plato's allegory of the cave, we don't know who win the Einstein-Bohr debate.

8.      Why is understanding physics elemental in doing philosophy well?

Physics is our understanding of the universe, while philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. The similarity of the purpose on each subject bind them together inevitably. Philosophy provides people with the ability to think about reality and what is truth critically, which provokes the search of the principle of the nature. These academic questions leads to the study of science, such as physics, chemistry, and biology and so on. However, in the other way, these science subjects act as a mean to examine the concepts brought by in philosophy. Often times, new discoveries in science will alter the philosophical thoughts that we used to have and lead to new ideas about what the nature of knowledge, reality, and existence is. In order to further dive into the study of philosophy, an understanding of physics will help to generate an foundation, on which philosophers can look further into the truth.

9.      What is string theory? How can such radical ideas potentially alter our own philosophical outlooks on life in general?

String theory claims that instead of small particles like atoms, the universe is made out of a energy string that constantly jiggles. According to the series of film by Brain Greene, in a very small scale,  a six dimensional space is created as a track that the string jiggles along. With different vibration, the string displays different property and when numerous string comes together, they form different kind of matters. However, we still cannot prove the string theory. We cannot either see it through the most powerful microscope or present in the eleven dimensions that it creates. If this theory is true, it dramatically alter our own philosophical outlooks on life in general as it indicates that everything will ultimately comes down to a little tiny string. Living and non-living things will no longer be so much a different. But it also shows that how amazing it is that only a little difference in its vibration can create so many different matters.

10.   Why is the theory of evolution considered to be the cornerstone of modern biology? How does a deep understanding of natural selection help in understanding human behavior?

Because the theory of evolution "explains so much so simply" and it enables us to "explain all phenomena by its constituent parts" using one single theory (21). It open up our understanding of our physical and mental traits. As Theodosius Dobzhansky says, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (22). According to natural selection, in order to survive the challenge, we need to live long enough to pass our genome to our offspring. A suitable genome and a environmental preferable behave are the key to survive. Our behavior is determined by our consciousness, which has its own advantage over the natural selection. Our first order consciousness enables us to image different scenario with any physical harm and real consequence enables us to think of a series of action and pick the one will probably help us the most. This is very crucial to our success of surviving the challenge as " Any reproducing DNA that can develop a virtual simulator within itself has a huge advantage over a genetic strand that cannot" (27). However, in order to be able to handle the chance contingencies, we need to generate more virtual simulation so that we can "think of varying options and what they portend" (37). That is where our second order consciousness comes in. It provides us an ability to learn and summarize the experience and act in a certain way, which ensure our survival. Our consciousness is the key we become the survivor, but it also sharp the way our consciousness works and how we behave. Therefore, a deep understanding of natural selection give us an insight of how our consciousness evolve and how it determines our behave.

11.  What is the evolutionary reason behind why we ask why?

Asking why is essentially a tool which helps us survive the chance contingencies.  According to the film Pivotal Consciousness and the book The DNA of Consciousness, "any organism that can develop a mental pivotal will have a tremendous advantage indicated new unexpected strategies". Asking why is the pivotal foot of consciousness. "It allows for a virtual simulator to turn to think of various options and what they portend" (36). As F. Scott Fitzgerald writes, "the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" (37). A good analogy is that " 'why' is similar to an all-purpose function key on your laptop, which open up programs that are otherwise hidden from display" (37).  It helps us to generate more simulations and learn from different scenario, which will give us the best solution when we are facing different situations.

12.  How does Plato’s allegory of the cave relate to our current understanding of science?

Plato's allegory of the cave illustrates that the prisoners whose heads are fixed to only see the shadow on the wall believe that what they see is true. People who summarizes the pattern of the shadows and comes up with a order which can predict what shows up the next were praised by their peers and the pattern is regarded as truth. However, when one person is released and tells his peers what he sees outside is the truth, people think he is wrong and laugh at him. For thousands of year, with the advance in our understanding of the universe and the development of science, we discovered many universal laws and we examine them by experiments. However, the discovery of quantum mechanics challenges what we think as the rules of universe. It was shown that different results come out depending on whether or not we observe the experiment. That is saying our observation will affect the object's motion and what we see is not what it really is but a condition with observation applied. That means all the laws proved by experiment may come out differently if we don't observe it. In other words, what we believe is true is not necessary to be true anymore. We thought we discover the universal principle, but maybe we are like the prisoners in Plato's cave, regarding what we see is true while it is not.

13.  What is Nietzsche’s myth of eternal recurrence? How could such a concept alter one’s life here and now?

Nietzsche's myth of eternal recurrence is saying that time is like a flat circle, we will repeat our lives over and over again innumerous times. Every actions and every detail will be exactly the same. If it is true, then it throws the questions to people. Do you want to do it again and again? Those lead a happy life may be glad, while  others who lead an miserable life may be cursing. Also, is your life that you are living in predetermined already or you are creating a version of life that you are going to live over and over again? For an unfortunate person, should he/she just give up as it's all decided or should he/she fight for a better life as it will repeat again and again? Different understanding of the concept may affect one's attitude of life and change the way he/she lives.

14.  What did Darwin and Wallace agree and disagree on when it came to evolution by natural selection? Be sure to elaborate.

They both agreed that natural selection is valid in explaining the evolution of different species. However, Wallace disagreed that evolution natural selection is able to explain the issue on human mind entirely. He believed that "human consciousness specifically was of such a high order of organization (and apparently unlike anything else arising in nature by physical and natural processes) that natural selection was insufficient to explain it" (Darwin-Wallace Debate). In his opinion, the change of unconscious molecules because of natural selection was not sufficient enough to explain consciousness. However, Darwin believed that natural selection would not have problem explaining

15.   What is the “evolutionary” imperative? How does it work?

Evolutionary imperative is saying that we are all in the stream of inevitable evolution, which has been flowing since the very beginning of lives. Our ancestors had survived every challenge posted by natural selection, otherwise, we will not be able to exist today. There is no return on the road of evolution. Even when we know the end of the story would be death, we can either choose to die earlier or die at the end. As it says in the film The Evolutionary Imperative, "everything is competing, consciously or otherwise, for a temporary safe haven, realizing all too well how easy it is to be eliminated from the proceedings." We can only follow the rules unless we choose to end our lives.

16.   Of the films you have watched so far, which one is your favorite? Why?

I like the series of Elegant Universe by Brain Greene.  They provided me with a much detail description about four forces and string theory. They give many analogies, which helps me to understand how this theory was developed and what the significance it has in the subject of physics. They also show me how the discovery of the string theory may relate to philosophy. They make a complicated conundrum easy to understand.

17.   Of the required readings so far, which one is your favorite? Why?

My favorite reading is The DNA of Consciousness. The first part of the book provides a very good analogy, which gives us the general idea of natural selection. When we accepted the effects that natural selection impose on our physical appearance, it turns to the question why we think the way we do, which is a very smooth transition, but also arouses my interest. Further down, when it talks about how first and second order of consciousness developed, it provides me a special perspective to look at our consciousness that I never thought of. Also, it reminds me of quantum mechanics that we discussed in week two, where everything is about the possibilities. The simulation in our minds provides us with more possibilities, which helps us to choose the best fits to the reality. In general, this book broaden the ways I think about our consciousness, which is very fascinating.

EXTRA CREDIT

18.   Have you done any extra credit reading? If so, which texts? Give a 100 hundred-word analysis.

19.  Have you responded to other students’ essay answers? If so, copy and paste your responses here.

Response 1: I found this a very interesting opinion and it mentioned a few points that I failed to bring up in my essay, so I would like to talk about my opinions regarding this post. First, I think neither science nor religion proved the way nature or universe exactly work. Both of them are just the assumptions that we made that will fit our interpretation of how the nature and science work. In other words, they are the imagery of our thoughts. They can and will always change as we learn more about the universe and when our view changes. That also links to my second point. I agree with your opinion that the more you know, the less you know. I believe human's understanding of the world is still at the elementary level. As we find out more and compare them to what we thought, we will realize there will be a even longer way towards the complete understanding. However, that does not necessarily mean we cannot possibly know everything. I mean as a individual, I agree. But as a combination of human intelligence, there is no limit of our understanding. It might be a very long period of time, and it will probably extend to infinity. But as I said, that does not give a boundary of our knowledge. Third, I absolutely agree that "matter can be just as special and amazing as being called to have holiness or purity". As we explore more about the cells that we are made up of, we discover that the cell itself is an incredible art, which can be as complicated as the universe. This is holy. This is pious. Not even to mention that how amazing it is that all our thoughts come from these so-called matter . But to the end, I admitted that there will still be a conflict between science and religion as they reflect our thoughts based on different mind sets, though there exists only one truth.

Response 2: I agreed on your point that "both philosophy and physics allow our minds to alter our limits" and they have "the coincide with one another'. Indeed, before human beings ever advance in physics, philosophy provided people a general guideline on the exploration of the universe and the truth. When people learn more and more about the universe and form physics, still, philosophy works as a criteria how we should view the discovery we found. Just like the dilemma we face in quantum physics, it brought us back to the question of philosophy, but at the same time, it also alternate our way of viewing things philosophically. 

Response 3: I found it very interesting that the writer use an analogy of programming to describe the human behavior. My understanding of this response is that our behavior is determined by the genome and these genome are the result from the past. I think I can look at it in this way. If we want to study an historical architecture, we need to first understand when it was built and learn about the history of that period so that we can understand why it was presented in this way. In order to understand our behavior, we need to look back to our history, which is theory of evolution. By learning how natural selection impact on our genome, we can have a better idea how these genome further determine our behavior.

20.   Compare and contrast the philosophy of Plato with Aristotle.