Response to Mariah

Do you think that karma works hand-in-hand with the Golden Rule?

                I think Karma and the Golden Rule have slightly different implications. Karma is saying to be nice to others and good things will happen to you while the Golden Rule is saying treat others well because they are people with feelings just like you. One is based more on the consequences of actions and the other on being kind to people around you because as people they want you to. I suppose if you take the Golden Rule to mean that you should treat others well so that they will treat you well then it is the same idea as Karma but with more immediate results. If you treat others well they will be nice to you verse if you are a good person then your next life will be better. Both would be acting positively for the sake of real or perceived future rewards. Another difference between the two is that even though they have their origins in religion the Golden Rule makes sense and can be followed without any religious belief. It is only if Karma is taken as positive actions in this life will lead to positive consequences in this life that it will make sense without religion.

                How do the Golden Rule and Karma fit in with concepts of justice?

Harris Video

This is a good video to get a sense of Sam Harris's arguments without having to read one of his books. He rationally answers questions about his views on religion and addresses his strong views on Islam in particular where he has said most Muslims are "utterly deranged." It is part of a debate, but the first six minutes are just Harris and most of the video is him speaking. It is one part of a debate, but a good start on understanding his perspective.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5og-hyD3A7A
What do you think of the ideas Harris puts forth?

Response to Cameron

If you never reach a dream but are happy at your menial labor job are you better off than someone who is stressed but reaches their dreams?

                I think this is dependent on the person. If someone is truly happy at a menial job then this is a great place for them to be, but reaching ones dreams is also an excellent place to be. It is possible that someone who reaches their dreams will either be dissatisfied with the results of their dreams or will create new dreams once they have achieved the previous ones. If a person is not happy having achieved their dreams or stresses themselves out with new ones, they would probably be better off in the menial position. I think the greatest thing that people can strive towards is finding a way to be happy in life. I do not know that many people would be happy spending their life in a menial job, but if they are then they have found a good way to live their life. Also, having goals that cause stress is not necessarily a bad thing. Working to achieve a goal can be a fun process and a great learning experience. Achieving the goal would give people a boost in self-esteem and a sense of satisfaction. It could also make them happy. Even failing at a goal can provide worthwhile life experiences and a chance to develop new dreams and goals in life. I wonder if someone at a menial job would be happier than someone who has achieved their goals. I think most people dream of a life beyond manual labor and if the manual laborer is happy it is probably because of something outside of their job. I do not think they would necessarily become less happy if they also worked towards a goal beyond manual labor.

                Does success tend to make people happier?  

Music and the brain

                A PBS article on music and how it is processed in the brain found that as we develop our brain is wired for the music of a certain area. “If you're born listening to Chinese opera, your brain is going to become wired to the rules of that musical form. If you're born listening to Pakistani music, Indian music, Indian ragas, your brain will become wired to those. Our brain is plastic, and malleable, and able to wire itself up to whatever language we hear, to learn those rules.” This also means that people are wired with the ability to understand music. He thinks we learn the rules subconsciously just by listening to our culture’s music. He also finds that good music does make us think because it breaks the standards our prefrontal cortex has come to expect. At the end the reporter addresses the fear that knowing how the brain processes music will reduce our enjoyment of it, but the neuroscientist says that he has only come to love it more by knowing how complicated it is. This article seems to fit the idea we discussed that high music is that which makes a lasting impression and causes us to think.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/music_02-05.html

                Do you feel music should make us think more or feel more?

Music and Language

                We discussed briefly in class the idea of music as a language that people can understand and appreciate better as they achieve higher degrees of fluency. I am inclined to agree that this is true. People with very little musical knowledge have still grown up exposed to music and therefore have some level of musical understanding even if they cannot explain it. I wonder if music is actually one language or if it a system of languages. Different uses of scale are used in different areas and so people have different systems of recognition based on these differences. As was said in class, a song using the scale common to India might sound happy to us while sad to another person. This seems to me equivalent to a foreign language. We might be able to make some sense of certain aspects, the way some words sound similar enough to be recognized in a foreign language, but the differences will strike us as confusing. This makes music into the heading under which a bunch of categories fall. Music in the U.S. represents one language, that in India another. I tried researching this idea on the web to see if I could find any authors that agreed or disagreed and I found a text by Friederike Flottmann that said “musical information is, to a large extent, processed in the brain areas also involved in, and previously believed to be exclusive networks for, language processing in the human brain” (19). This text aims to analyze whether training in music can help a person to learn a foreign language. They develop their hypothesis in part because of the similar aspects of the brain used in both language and music. Their similar positions in the brain seem to hint at some similarities in the way the brain processes both. Languages that use different intonations and tones from English can be hard to learn and almost impossible to sound natural when using. They do find that teaching music training in addition to teaching the language increases the ability to distinguish sounds in the foreign language. In the study German students were taught Finnish with the control groups only learning the language and the experimental group learning the language plus music training.

This text is available on google books:

http://books.google.com/books?id=98K6K1km_e0C&pg=PA19&dq=music+as+foreign+language&hl=en&ei=dAfCTdjsFIfMgQeTxqDVDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

How similar are music and language and do you think learning one would help in understanding the other?

Response to Julia

Why do humans voluntarily watch extremely violent shows and movies in which people are being tortured?

                I read something recently that suggested that people like violent shows because they cause strong emotions which people find pleasurable without the danger that would be associated with the same situations in reality. It is a safe way of thrill seeking like bungee jumping or other sports. The emotions are very strong, but people can always remember, more with shows than activities, that they are safe. The catharsis theory could also apply where people release their own anger and negative emotions through watching someone else act them out. Television violence could be a way to experience emotions people have been taught to ignore. When someone is really angry at their boss they cannot say anything to their boss but they can really allow themselves to feel and express the emotions that went along with that anger as they watch violent television. A majority of television also includes violence, so it is possible that some people are so used to violence in television they do not even notice it, unless it is significantly more graphic than the usual show. Violence in television can also add drama. If a person is in a ticking time bomb situation suspense is increased and we get to really plumb the depths of the character by seeing how they react in emergency situations.

                Why do people who do not believe in the supernatural still find violence perpetrated by supernatural entities scary?

On recent discussions about non-human animals

I was talking with my best friend yesterday and this is a snippet of the conversation I think was kind of interesting.

Me: Drusilla’s sick

Her: Are you taking her to the doctor?

Me: I like that you said doctor.

Her: Well, you talk about her like a person so I think of her like that sometimes.

As you may have predicted, Drusilla is my dog (and she’s feeling better). I think this conversation is interesting because it made me realize that I almost never refer to Dru as a dog and because a lot of people seem to take so much care to distinguish (non-human) animals from people. We call almost any medical professional as a doctor. It does not matter what kind; pediatrician, general practitioner, psychiatrist but with veterinarians it is inappropriate. I also had a class on the same day where the teacher said that we are not animals, we are people. All of the science majors looked at him like he was an idiot, but it was somewhat disturbing to me that nobody said anything about this statement and that some people seemed to simply accept it. A few over the course of the discussion agreed to it saying that there is no way people’s technology does not make them superior to animals. Cheetahs are not faster, for example, because people have airplanes. I also saw a T.V. show a friend wanted to watch where one of the characters, portrayed as one of the few moral characters, said that animals, of course, have no soul. I swore at the T.V. character, which the people I was watching with found funny, but I do wonder why so many cases of people professing themselves superior to animals occurred in the span of about three days.

Why do you think so many humans feel they are superior to non-human animals?  

Response to Brittany

If somebody is religious then they may see death as just another stage in a person’s life, but this does not change that when a person dies they are gone from the duration of their family and friends lives. People at the funeral are mourning the loss of that person whether it is until they reunite in heaven or forever. People grieve for their personal loss even if they believe the person has gone to a better place. They are now in a position where they have to live without them for however long.  The funerals are for the living not for the dead who are not there to experience them. People are likely to react emotionally to the death of people close to them no matter how firmly they believe the dead person has gone to a better place. The funeral is a place they can speak about their emotions and have other people who care there to help support them. If people acted happy and hid the emotions that we often consider negative, they might never be able to fully get over the person’s death. Funerals help people to come to grips with a loved one’s death and to express themselves. It is also possible that for someone religious the funeral would serve as a reminder of their faith and reaffirm that the dead person is moving on to a better place. When they are angry, grieving or otherwise emotionally distraught it might be difficult to remember this.

Should people arrange their own funerals before they die?

Response to Cameron

                I do not think torture is ever beneficial for the victim. There autonomy is removed for the purposes of breaking there will. Athletes might refer to their work as torture when it is physically straining and particularly stressful, but they do not mean torture because that would involve them not consenting to the activity. Anyone working willingly has the option to quit and gain other employment and they have a right to certain health standards in the workplace. I suppose the closest situation to torture being beneficial to the person would be if the information obtained during torture saved the person’s life, but this assumes that murder is worse than torture and more importantly that there was no other way to receive the information. If a situation arose where someone was tortured for information that was beneficial to them, it seems likely that they could have been convinced to provide the information without torture. If they could not be convinced, then they do not have sufficient reason to consider the torture beneficial. I suppose parents forcing their children to get medical treatment might be a case where the person could not be convinced an action was in their best interest when it was, but children have not reached a mature enough level to make these decisions on their own. Adults have and should be able to decide what is or is not beneficial to them. Torture certainly would not help if they were not in a position to do so, say if they had a mental health issue. Many cases can be found where torture can benefit somebody, but I do not think it is ever the tortured.

                Are there any realistic situations where no other method than torture is available or are the situations discussed so far too academic and theoretical to occur in actuality?

Human Nature Quotes

                I saw a quote that made me smile. It said “Man is rated the highest animal, at least among all animals who returned the questionnaire.  ~Robert Brault. Brault is apparently a freelance magazine writer and has been for over 40 years. I think what the quote means is that people consider themselves superior animals because they are the only ones who can communicate this superiority to each other. People consider themselves superior because there is nobody to tell them they are not. It strikes me that highest is a vague term and people could use their own determining factors to make this true. People are the best at math or they speak a complex language which makes them the highest, but skills they do not possess do not make animals higher. Being fastest is not important enough to make one the highest animal. I am assuming that man means all people and highest means best and superior. Another quote I’ve heard that draws attention to the egotistical perspective humans often have is from Ambrose Bierce and refers to God creating the Earth for human beings. It says, “Ocean:  A body of water occupying two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.” I do think there are egotistical qualities to humans that make them want to view themselves as superior. This is especially clear in religions that preach that the Earth was made for people or that people are sparks of the divine but animals have no soul.

                Do you think religion tends to be egotistical?    

Response to Mariah

Why do you think that people feel the need to label people?  What is the point of it?

                I think one reason that people feel the need to label each other is for easy recall. We meet so many people all the time that we cannot remember them all by name but we can recognize them by qualities. These labels reduce people to one easily recognizable label that is often offensive, so they should be discouraged especially when they upset people. It makes to use a label say if you ask where someone’s office is and someone answers right behind that blonde girl or something like that. It can make things easier to label. Someone might say something like do you remember Rachel from biology class. Their friend says no and they answer she was that shy kid who was always in the corner. This is a label and one that can be damaging to the person it is assigned to, but it does make description easier. Labels are methods of recognition and people may use them without realizing that they are hurting people. Others may use labels to bully because they are insecure with something in their own life or they just feel the need to strike out. Labels can also be how people define themselves. If someone has been called shy for years they may never even attempt to break out of that behavior because they have come to associate it with who they are. A person may also feel that they are determined and because they do not want to lose this definition of themselves that they feel is positive they work harder than they would have without the label. In cases where someone acts in ways that fit a label that they like they may want to be defined by this characteristic by other people. Labels are as often based on positive qualities as negative, but this in no way negates the horrible consequences that labeling often has.

                How can people who have been labeled throughout their childhood break out of that label without moving or going to college? Do labels become so ingrained that people cannot move past them sometimes?

Response to Katherine

                I think it is healthy for people to fear and inevitable for people to fear. People should not try to simply not fear, but should recognize that when they fear something there is probably a reason. Once they realize where their fear is coming from they can use reason to overcome it. If someone is scared of spiders, they may be scared of being bitten. Once they realize that their fear is really of being bitten they could recognize that poisonous spiders in their area are rare and they are more than likely to come to no harm. They may see a spider and think I fear this. Then they weigh the aspects of it that make it dangerous verse the ones that do not and if the positives of doing something outweigh the negatives they will probably be able to overcome their fear. Once they do so every subsequent time they face that situation their fear will lessen. If the negative consequences outweigh the positives, say in the case of fearing black widow spiders, the fear is healthy because the situation is dangerous and it should not be overcome. Fear is a positive natural instinct that keeps people from doing things that can hurt them and when it serves this purpose it is a great survival skill. It is when we fear things that are not really dangerous that fear needs to be worked through and dissipated. Fearing getting in a car with a drunk driver is healthy. Fearing lightning is not. It is easy to see how common fears developed as means to keep people safe. If one fears all snakes, then they are less likely to go no near a piousness one, but people do not need to be defined by their instincts and they can overcome instinctual fears.

                Do you think that certain people do not succeed in life because of a fear of failing?     

Response to Catherine

                I do not think that the government should have any control over what is said on the internet, but organizations that own the websites do. Any website that allows comments has the right to remove comment that they deem inappropriate. People do have a right to express themselves, but there is a time and a place, even on the internet. Facebook, to use an example you mentioned, has a right to remove certain content that is discriminatory or hateful towards others. By using the site you are allowing them that control which I’m sure is something they include in their policy agreement. The government should not have any control over content on any site that is not owned and operated by the government. If the government controlled the internet, they would be able to limit information that calls themselves or their policies into question and people need to be able to question the government. Even if information on the internet were put through a filter, that filter would either miss many of the sites that were intended to be censored for whatever content is deemed appropriate, or it would take out many sites that were perfectly appropriate but used some word that could be taken as vulgar or discriminatory. Say the government banned sexually explicit sites and sites about sexually transmitted diseases were taken out because the language is the same. This seems likely because the internet is so huge that it would take a machine to censor all the information, but the machine would have to recognize the information somehow. Keywords would be one simple way to do so. If they had people check sites and censor the internet they could not get much done because it is so expansive. It seems to me that if the government were to censor the internet it would be done much the same way as it is with television. This would mean the targets for censorship would be discriminatory works, but they would also be sexual and vulgar sites. Since the internet is not specified in the first amendment, the same way that television is not, once the government got a start censoring they could potentially expand. Right now books are not censored, but television is with reasons cited such as its invading the privacy of the home. Kids could accidentally see it without the parents having actually brought the material home as you have to do when purchasing a novel. The same is true with the internet. I think any censorship of the internet by the government is a slippery slope to eroding important aspects of freedom of speech and information.

                Do you think that sites like Google or Yahoo should have the ability to remove sites from their searches because of content that does not meet their standards?

Response to Sean's Post on Patriotism

Sean uses two sentences to describe two people with different opinions on what it means to be a patriot and finds that the second one actually describes a democrat and does not necessitate the word patriot.

"You think a patriot is someone who supports their country no matter what, and I think a patriot is someone who plays a positive, active role in the development of their country while still admitting to its faults and mistakes."     

I think the two sentences used in Sean’s post could be combined to mean that a moderate patriot is someone who always supports their country and what they believe is in the best interest of their country while still admitting to its faults and mistakes. No matter how bad those faults and mistakes become they will continue to stay in their country and work for its benefits. A democrat would be willing to live in any country that best held to their ideals. The loyalty and love that a patriot feels for their country distinguishes them from simply a democrat, but this love and loyalty does not have to be blind. Parents should love and be loyal to their children, but they also need to recognize when that child has made a mistake so they can help them to change. The same is true of a member of a country. If people only see patriotism as a kind of faith in the country’s actions then many of the problems Jenson suggests will be inevitable, but if people recognize their country as a beloved but fallible organization of people, they can maintain a positive, moderate patriotism. Of course this still contains the arbitrary factor of favoring a country because one was born in it. This cannot be avoided in patriotism, but it also cannot be avoided in friendship and other relationships.

                Is dedication and loyalty to a country someone considers their own enough to constitute patriotism?  Do other factors need to be present?

Response (somewhat) to Cameron's question

                CEO’s and government may work together in ways that show corruption, but they are not the same thing. A CEO works for a business so the government does not control their pay or any of their actions as long as they obey the law. The government certainly should not be responsible for firing CEO’s corrupt or not, that is the decision of a business. The government is responsible for making sure CEO’s pay their taxes and do obey the law. That they are not doing so is what needs to change. At the same time government is in no way responsible for the survival of a business. When corrupt CEO’s or other problems lead a business to fail, they need to be able to fail. Eventually companies could not survive with CEO’s siphoning off so much money, but the government steps in and gives them tax breaks and or bail outs. Although people have come to depend on services from certain huge businesses, these businesses need to be held to the same standards as other businesses. The government certainly would not bail out your town bank, so they should not bail out a giant bank. This only sets a standard that large enough corporations can use the government to support them when they fail, so it does not matter if they start to fail. Failure means government funds. This is like rewarding someone for bad behavior. The behavior will only continue. I do not think the government should help or hinder businesses, but if they do buy out businesses then the business has to become theirs to control. If they buy businesses out, they gain the right to fire CEO’s but they should not be buying them out in the first place. For capitalism to stay a viable system, corporations need to be responsible for their own survival or failure.

                Do you think the government should buy out failing businesses and if so what is their responsibility level for the business once they have bought it?

   

Response to Article on IRS Funding Cut

            While it should be a priority to cut back spending when in debt, the article posted about cutting back on IRS agents is ridiculous. They make sure that the money owed the government is getting back to the government and without this money the government cannot begin to pay back the debt they owe. Not hiring IRS agents might sound good to people who are worried about making mistakes on their taxes or genuinely have trouble paying, but it seems more like rich people do not want the IRS agents because they do not want to give up their money. Certainly it costs money to hire these agents, but it is more than likely that each one will bring in more money than they are being paid. It does not even seem fiscally responsible to cut back on their funding. It became clear that most of the money owed was from people in higher income brackets and these people need to be expected to pay. Without enough people to enforce the law, it is clear that they will not. Also, if the government is not receiving tax money from the rich, then they will need more from other people meaning this could backfire into average people paying more in taxes because the IRS is not given the opportunity to do their job. The average person is less likely to not pay their taxes and to not respond when requested to. As the article says, “the fact that there is a ten-to-one ratio for the returns on auditing tells you that [tax evasion] is coming from the high-income brackets.” It is very wrong that the people who have the most are the ones who not only try to avoid paying taxes, but succeed.

                Do you think there is a good reason for cutting IRS funding?

Response to Catherine

I think a flaw in this question is in the use of the word fear. I do not think society should want to make people fear the law, but should instead teach people why the law is important so they make the choice to obey it. I think this is a good question that is largely asking whether people can change or if the old dog cannot be taught any new tricks. I do think people are capable of change, even if they have done something worthy of time spent in prison. A major problem becomes whether change is truly an option to many former prisoners. Having been in prison greatly reduces the chances of getting hired and many people who try to change are likely to return to crime because they were unable to succeed otherwise. I do not mean that people coming out of jail have no opportunities, but they are greatly reduced and it is likely incredibly frustrating to attempt to change one’s life in front of so many obstacles. Many prisoners are also poor and underprivileged so would have had trouble securing profitable work in the first place. If prisoners are expected to be reformed then they need the opportunity to do so when they return to the work place. Tulane University has a program that helps prisoners when they leave prison to re-integrate and find work in society. According to a study listed on their webpage, “During the first year, the time when most inmates return to crime, the program intervention maintains an 89.3% success rate, with only one in ten program graduates returning to crime.” This study shows that people can and will change when they are given the chance and can stop breaking the law even at an older age, although I do not know the ages of the prisoners they are certainly legal adults. This site is linked here: http://www.projectreturn.com/index.php?name=organization_history

This example may be more of an exception then a rule though. The text The Philosophy and Practice of Corrections by Marilyn D. McShane looked at prison studies and their abilities to rehabilitate. She found that “only 20 (45%) of the 44 controlled studies were effective. Twenty effective programs in 21 years indicates that effective programs are truly exceptional.”

That book can be found on google books here: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DAqMFoiTcR8C&oi=fnd&pg=PA45&dq=prison+rehabilitation+programs&ots=KXBczs75lb&sig=MsBhqYCX7LmxGocZjV8zk6Un54s#v=onepage&q=prison%20rehabilitation%20programs&f=false

What should be the goal of prisons (reform, punishment)?

CEOs

                When CEO’s utilize the advantages of their position to increase their level of pay they are undermining the very business that provided them with their already very lucrative position. In cases where CEOs are sitting in on their own compensation committees, they have an opportunity to prove their own ethical foundation by doing what is best for the company and other employees rather than thinking simply of themselves. This is especially true if the company is in a position where they need to consider layoffs. Of course, it would make more sense not to necessitate a decision like this and to keep CEOs out of discussions of their pay, but when it happens people should be aware of and consider the ethical implications. Ethics in business, especially in the higher echelons, may seem like an ideal that is not reachable in reality but there are certainly cases of ethically responsible CEO’s. An example is Jim Sturgess who is CEO of Costco. His pay is particularly surprising, “But the most remarkable thing about Sinegal is his salary -- $350,000 a year, a fraction of the millions most large corporate CEOs make.” This is a corporation that does very well but does not pay its CEO and exorbitant amount and pays its employees well. It is a case showing that ethics and big business do not have to be incompatible. The article this quote is taken from is linked below:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Business/story?id=1362779

Response to Cameron on Procrastination

Procrastination is rarely a good thing, but I think it can have some positive outcomes if looked at in a certain way. Procrastination is a warning sign that someone does not like what they are supposed to be doing. If a person is procrastinating on an activity that they used to enjoy, then they can use their wanting to procrastinate as a reason to look into what has been bothering them about that activity. For example, if a friend wants to spend a day with me and I keep putting it off then there is something about this friend that is bothering me. Now that my procrastination over spending time with them has let me know that something is bothering me I can figure out what it is. If it is something simple like they talk about their boyfriend so much that I feel frustrated then I can talk to them about that and resolve the issue. My pushing off spending time let me know that something was wrong. Constant procrastination in a lot of different things could be a sign that you are unhappy where you are and it is time to either figure out what originally inspired you and try to reestablish that or to move on and find something new.  
Should procrastination be viewed as a negative quality in a person, as a sign that they may need some lifestyle changes or neither?

Response to Samantha

Is it better to give money to a charity that could potentially be fraudulent or do nothing at all?

                It is worse to give money to a potentially fraudulent charity because that encourages the existence of fraudulent charities. If people were discerning then those charities would fall apart. It is better not to help someone then to make things worse. Donating to these charities teaches people that they can get away with running these scams and if they become too common people may stop donating at all because they will not feel like they can trust anyone. Then donating backfires a lot even though the person had good intentions. On the other hand, it is a positive sign about the individual’s character that they are willing to donate. They may still be a very good person, but they should make the attempt to learn how to discern between charities. As we discussed in an earlier discussion a person can still be altruistic if they attempt to do a good deed but end up hurting someone. The difference is if the person donates knowing there is a good chance the organization is a fraud they are not really donating thinking they are doing a good thing. They think they may be but know they may not and this seems like someone who is too lazy to fact check before they give money. The best way to go would be to research charities, find one that you feel is really important and legitimate and then donate.

                Is it better to donate money to charity or to help people out personally even if the person may be less needy then the one that will benefit from the money?  

Patriotic sentiment

People often feel patriotic towards their country but why is this? Do they feel particularly close to the people because they are within the same boundary? Are they responding to history classes that teach the positive and neglect the negative? Are they thankful to have received the benefits of the place they were born no matter how arbitrary it is that they receiving those benefits? I do not think that patriotism is a morally bankrupt concept in the sense that it does not have to cause anyone to act in an immoral way, but it does not seem to be a particularly moral or even thought out concept in people’s mind. It is accepted that if one is from one’s country then they should take pride in that fact. What is not clear is why they should take pride. I do feel that if people feel like they are actively contributing to the country in some way then they can take pride in the country as part of a group effort where they are a member of the group. This idea becomes irrelevant though if patriotism becomes combined with supporting a country no matter what they do. Then the person is accepting that they are not involved in the decision making and yet proud of them anyway. People who are patriotic could also become easily offended by what people from other countries say about them. It seems like it could become an excuse not to listen to other people but instead to become defensive. Patriotism is a problem if it is people saying how great there country is and how bad other people’s are.

Does patriotism boil down into conviction that your country is the best since you were born in it without thinking about what about your country you appreciate?  

Patriotism and what it means

Patriotism comes in degrees as I think we agreed in class, but what delineates where patriotism begins and ends. I think we can safely say that someone like Nathan Hale who said “I regret that I have but one life to lose for my country” is a patriot. He not only said that he was willing to die for his country, he did. What about in the example from class though of the person who admires Italy and so wants to make the United States more like Italy. He may feel he is part of the United States, care about the United States, want to make it better and sacrifice his time making it like Italy but is this really patriotism. It seems to me that pride in one’s country is a necessary component of patriotism and thinking that every aspect of your country should be changed to be more like another does not show pride. I do not mean by this that one cannot or should not want aspects of their country to change but feeling a couple things would benefit from other countries ideas is a far cry from finding that the country should be like another. The person who wants all these changes may love their country, but they do not seem to respect it or take pride in it. I think respect and pride in the country are likely necessary aspects of patriotism even though they start to head towards people preferring their country over others regardless of reason. It does not have to go that far though. People can certainly recognize flaws in themselves that they want to work on and change while still having self-esteem and caring about others. It seems that the same could be said of one’s feelings towards a country. They could think highly of their country while still seeing flaws that are worth working on and changing and take pride in being a member of their country. It also seems that someone could have pride and respect for their country and not their government. Would they be patriotic? The government and the country sometimes become so intertwined that it is hard to see one as separate from the other but it seems possible that one could take pride in the people of their country and their heritage, but not the current governmental system.

Is it more patriotic to actively try to solve problems in one’s country or is it more patriotic to turn a blind eye and extol about the good?

Response to Mariah on people not appreciating beauty like they used to

I am not inclined to think that people do not appreciate beauty as much as they have in the past. At most I think the locations that people find beauty are less obvious. Some people may spend less time admiring nature or going to art galleries and concerts, but these are traditional places we think of to find beauty. People find beauty everywhere. One of the most common places is in other people’s appearance. When someone puts together a great outfit, wears interesting jewelry, dyes their hair a new color, and tries a different sort of makeup they are creating beauty on their physical person that most of us do appreciate. Many people also appreciate the beauty of homes and gardens that they encounter. There have been many times when I’ll be driving with someone and comment on a house I find beautiful or the flowers in someone’s garden that look beautiful. People also find the views of the mountains in North Adams beautiful. They never have to go out of their way to see them, they are right outside our windows or on our walks or drives to work, but we do find beauty in them. Sometimes we may be walking the same path to class we have walked for months and that day the view will strike us as beautiful. People also find beauty in the way a room is designed. Many people spend a lot of time trying to make their rooms beautiful and may admire other people’s rooms or the room designs displayed in magazines. I do think that people often lack patience and they may have had more in the past. What this amounts to, though, is that a lot of people do not want to spend more than a minute looking at a painting and they may get restless at a concert. In television classes we are told to never have the same shot for more than seven seconds because people will get bored, but this does not mean they cannot find beauty in a quickly viewed shot, a sequence of shots, or the finished product. It is not so much that nothing is good enough for people, but that we often do not want to spend the time that is expected seeking them or that we seek it in ways people do not recognize. Going to the mall when we do not plan to buy anything and just want to see what is there, as I often do, is often more a quest to please the eye with beautiful clothes and other material goods then a search for a new thing to own.

                Has people’s experience of beauty become tied to commercialism?

Agnostic Atheism

Atheism is a belief that there is no God while theism is a belief that there is a God. Agnosticism is not so clear. It does not seem to be a belief at all but a claim that one lacks the knowledge to make a decision. Most agnostics would agree that either God exists or does not exist because if God were in some sort of in between state that would still have to be categorized as existence. What they seem to mean is that God either exist or does not exist but I cannot or do not claim to know. It seems that all agnostics then would lean one way or the other as far as their beliefs, but are reluctant to say that these feelings which are not based on knowledge have relevance in what is or is not true. People can hold beliefs that are not true, but if they know that they may not be true it would be difficult to maintain their view with any level of conviction. This makes it seem like agnostic atheists would be infirm atheists and the same would be true of agnostics. An important aspect of this discussion becomes what the difference is between knowledge and belief. It is only if these are sufficiently different that an agnostic and atheistic or agnostic and theistic viewpoint can be held at the same time. If knowledge is the result of learning and reasoning then one could easily claim that there is no way to know for sure whether God exists. They could also say that they feel it is true or false despite lacking a reasoned outlook. If belief is developed through intuition, enculturation or another method then beliefs are not the same as knowledge because reason is not a necessary component. Maybe it could be said that an agnostic atheist believes that God does not exist and admits that they do not and cannot have a way to justify this belief. An agnostic theist would then feel that God exists but would not have a way to justify this belief.  

If agnosticism is not a middle ground between atheism and theism could someone claim to be neither an atheist nor theist? Is it possible to hold no belief about God?     

Response to Lauren on why people respond negatively to atheists

                I think the negative stigma about atheists stems in part from many people’s belief that atheists cannot have morals. Because atheists do not believe in a higher power determining what is right and wrong people can claim that atheist’s morals can only be subjective and thus not true morals. If everyone can choose their morals then they are not true morals because they do not apply to all people. I do not agree that it is the case that an atheist cannot have morals, but I have heard it vocalized. I also feel that religious institutions teach intolerance of atheists by claiming that anyone who does not believe is damning themselves to hell. I also think that many religious people fear that atheists are going to start fighting with theists over their beliefs and people do not necessarily want to be challenged. Of course, if some people react negatively to atheists because they fear the challenge then they are not completely sure of their belief. There are also very vocal atheists that are quite demeaning of people with religious beliefs and will say so, these are the minority, but they are a vocal minority so people may begin to associate atheism with them.   

This article has some good examples of the anti-atheist sentiments in the United States.

http://www.astcweb.org/public/publication/documents/KeeneHandrichTJEMarch2010.pdf

Since atheists are often not accepted in society, should they voice their opinions to try to explain their position or is vocalizing their opinion just likely to isolate them more?

Mind controlled zombie ants

This is a really interesting article where a fungus litterally takes over the actions of an insect. It almost makes the fungus seem conscious. The fungi control the ants to take it to its next area to produce spores.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20110310/od_yblog_upshot/zombie-ants-fall-victim-to-mind-control-fungus
Here's a video on it from National Geographic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGSUU3E9ZoM

Response to Julia on people not helping you even if you help them

            I have found that when I have needed help from people that they have been there for me. I have never been in such a serious need that I was in danger or anything like that, but I have had small things. For example, I don’t like to compete in breast stroke because it requires certain movement that aggravates my hip dysplasia and when my coach, not realizing the situation, decided to put me in a breast stroke race I found someone willing to take my place even though they had already done three races. Also, my dog had elbow dysplasia (it’s rather odd luck that we have the same health issue) and after the surgery she couldn’t do certain things like climb stairs for six months. I had to sleep on the floor with her every night because I had agreed with my parents that once I got her I was completely responsible for her care. (This was not in the traditional learning to take responsibility way. I used to help my aunt with her six dogs and my parents had no experience with dogs at the time.)My mother offered to take some nights even though she did not have to. I have also had simple things like when someone offers to help teach me a concept if I don’t understand. It is very pessimistic to think that nobody will help you when you need help and if you believe this you might lose the inclination to help others. If people are basically uncaring and bad, then it seems worthless to try and help them. It is worth noticing the little things people do to help. People do seem disinclined to give money to a large degree, but this does not mean they will not help in other situations. I do agree that people tend to help each other out when they can do so with little risk to themselves, but this is mostly true when they can see the individual they are helping and see that their help has had an impact. When someone gives money to a homeless person, as we noted that they often do not do, it may be because they cannot see their work in action. That may be a sign that people do not want to help unless they get the gratification from seeing the reactions of others, or it could be we are inclined to help people we see receive the help because that way we know we have really helped.     

            Do you find people are more inclined to help people if they can see the beneficiary react to their help?

Response to Sean's Question on universality in religion

            People universally fear death and religion provides a way to alleviate that fear. It teaches that people live on after death and it is not the end for them. It also provides a sense of community and united belief for people. Religion also explains question that could or cannot be sufficiently answered. An example we discussed in class is how was the universe originally created? Religion also creates meaning for many people in their own lives. We are not living out day to day routines in an endless cycle until we die, because we are connected to something greater than us that cares about us. It can also provide comfort for why bad things happen to an individual and some people use it find the strength to act a certain way, for example, to stop drinking. I think religion helps people psychologically and so many people utilize it. It also teaches that we are not random people on a random world. Not only do people’s lives have meaning but reality is both more meaningful and more mysterious than it at first appears. Religions also seem to largely agree that there is a world beyond this one that people are not privy to and may at most glimpse in this lifetime. That certainly adds a sense of mystery to the world and I think that people like mystery. It is worth noting that religions may exist in diverse areas and have some aspects in common, but they are quite different from place to place. They have also caused many problems for people as people have killed in the name of religion in many cases and some religious leaders have taken advantage of the people that depend on them for mystical messages. This would not take away from the benefits of religion as a whole, but it is a good reminder when focusing on the positives in religion.

            If one were to take a naturalistic view point on religion, how would religion originate? Does one person make it all up because they see the benefits it could have or does it develop slowly over time, etc?      

Response to Jenny's Question

            One could say that the end justifies the means and that if one donates it is not their reasons that help the people supported by the charity. That being said, people’s reasons for donating to a charity probably help what they think of that charity and charities in general. When supermarkets ask if you would like to donate a dollar to a charity as an addition to your order it is an imposition that is hard to turn down. You are put on the spot in public and feel pressured to donate. The other people in line and the cashier will know you choose not to donate where with the Salvation Army at least you personally are not on the spot. Even with the Salvation Army you are being pressured by the presence of a person ringing the bell who I think a lot of people cannot avoid feeling is judging them. When a person donates to a charity because they feel forced, rightfully or wrongfully, they will not feel good about themselves for the act of donating and may even feel resentful that they were “forced” to do so. When an organization leaves out a can for donations a lot of the pressure is reduced because no person is watching them and potentially judging. Then when the person does donate it is because they have chosen to and not because of social pressures. The same is true for mail in donations. People are not concerned that the person who mailed it will judge because they cannot see that person. People who donate money because they feel guilty are not likely to feel good about themselves after they donate. They know there reasons were not altruistic and they do not like that about themselves. People who donate because seeing people in need makes them upset are more likely to be happy about donating because they think it says something about them. People might also donate to show they support a certain belief. Someone who donates to the Humane Society can back up a value they see in themselves. They can say that they care about animals because they donate. It matters to the person that donates why they donate.

How could someone motivate someone else to donate to a charity or organization?   

Ghost Pictures

                Although I think that ghost photography is either faked or due to natural explanations such as flaws in the film, dust in the lens, or exposure issues. I really enjoy viewing them and I thought I might mention a few of the famous one’s with some links to the pictures. One of the most famous ghost images is the brown lady. Even if you do not know this one you have probably seen it on the cover of a book about ghosts, a paranormal magazine, a documentary or a number of other places. It is from the 1930’s and the picture followed a number of reports of sightings. The picture and an overview of the history can be found on Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Lady_of_Raynham_Hall

Another famous ghost picture is that of a little girl in a fire when by all accounts no girl was there. It is thought to be the ghost of Jane Churm, who was famous according to rumor for starting a previous fire by accidently lighting a thatched roof on fire with a candle. The picture was taken when someone took pictures after seeing the fire and they did not see the girl nor is there any reason to believe a girl would have been there.

Some fun ghost pictures are listed on this site:

http://www.ghoststoriesandpictures.com/ghost_pictures_2.html

Why do people, like myself, enjoy looking and reading things about the supernatural even if they do not believe?

Response to Jenny on psychics

                I think psychics work by predicting likely outcomes based on the physical appearance of a person and what the person says about themselves to say vague things that are likely to happen to them. A psychic may tell a person in their 30’s with no ring on their finger that they’re going to be married in the next couple years. It is vague, more than possible and the person leaves happy. Psychics may use some things they overhear. It has been rumored that television psychics do so by listening in to people in the waiting room through cameras and such, but I’m going to assume that this generally is not what occurs. Most psychics warn people in advance that their knowledge is going to be vague and encourage people to fill in the blanks. This leaves them a lot of room for their guesses to be correct. Also seemingly specific statements can be vague when you start to think about them. For instance, a new person is going to enter your life in the next month and they are going to say something that really gets you thinking. In reality a month is a long time and what you determine as getting you thinking are likely to increase if you expect it to happen. A psychic could also say that they see that an elderly family member in your past that you never quite got over the loss of. This sounds specific but it is true of a very large number of people. This would work well in a personal setting but even better with a T.V. psychic. They are working with a large crowd. If someone says I’m seeing a young man who says he died in a car accident in a crowd of people coming to a performance of a psychic, some audience member is more than likely to relate this because there are so many and many are looking for closure. It sounds specific but it really is not.   Basically I think psychics are scams that are good at manipulating people, but I also think they can be fun to go see especially with a group of friends. If you do not take it seriously it can make a good joke and an interesting experience.

                How much of television psychic’s material do you think is accurately portrayed in the show and how much do you think is the result of careful editing?

Response to Jenny on destiny and fate

Destiny and fate are the same because they both refer to an event or course of events that will inevitably occur in the future. People use them interchangeably in conversation. I do think that people use the work destiny when referring to future positions. It seems more common to say someone is destined for greatness than fated but I think this is not because of an actual difference, but because of the way people get used to speaking. Destiny and fate suggest a deterministic worldview because the assumption in both is that all future events are predictable, but the concepts also seem to suggest that we can know what will occur before it happens. Because of the intricacies of cause and effect and the multitude of causes it would not be possible to predict a person’s life. This does not mean the life is not determined by causes, just that we cannot know all the causes that will lead up to the future of a person’s life. The unpredictability this creates means we cannot say someone is destined for greatness or that their fate is to be poor. People cannot understand what will happen before it does and this is what is usually meant when we say something is destined or fated.  Fate and destiny can be used to comfort people. When someone works really hard at something and does not succeed they are often told that “it wasn’t meant to be” but fate and destiny can also be used to trap people. For example, as someone in a long line of poverty you are destined to be poor. It can make people feel like their life will fall along a predictable path and therefore never improve. This is not what people mean when they say that the world is deterministic.

Are fate and destiny spiritual terms?

Representing naturalist and supernaturalist views in society

Clark’s description of naturalism and supernaturalisms coexistence seems to favor naturalism. He finds that both naturalism and supernaturalism should be up for discussion on neutral ground but all policies, laws and such should be founded on empiricism. This means that all decisions people have to act upon will be based upon a method that assumes that the naturalist view is right. Faith is not involved in an empiricist method of making decisions. Although I agree that laws should not be based upon faith because this leads to discounting others views and potential intolerance, if naturalism and supernaturalism are to co-exist comfortably one cannot overwhelm the other to such a degree. We teach a naturalistic view in school, base our laws on it and tell supernaturalists that their views are equal because they are free to talk about them. Naturalists are free to talk about them and use them to impact society. Empiricism cannot encourage a supernaturalist view because it cannot be explained materially and this is all empiricism allows us to test for, materially based phenomena. Empiricism then clearly favors the naturalist. On the other hand, supernaturalist views are never able to be proved wrong and as such they encourage authoritarian figures to try to force people into their viewpoint. In order to prevent people from being able to force a worldview onto other people methods of making laws and decisions have to changeable and adapt to information as it comes. This makes empiricism the better method for society, but it is not a comfortable coexistence. Supernaturalists may rightly feel that their views are being glossed over when it comes to education and law making. This results in the religious messages becoming disguised as naturalist views and people feel misled. When people say marriage is between a man and a women they often mean that it is against their religion, but they cannot be taken seriously when making a law if they come right out and say this. Then they have to say it differently and people may resent them or dislike them for hiding their messages.

Is it possible for religious and non-religious views to be represented equally and fairly in a society?

Response to Cam's Question: Can who we are change?

                Who you are can change based on experience. When people are exposed to different information and people they can adapt to those experiences. It is determined that they will change because those situations are all caused but that does not make the change any less real. Evolution is a theory based on a determined world, but the thrust of it is that causes adapt individuals over time. They change in a determined world and so can the human self. The difficulty for people in accepting this is that they cannot control how they change; it is something that happens to them. If nothing could change in a determined world we would live in a world which stayed exactly the same and I do not think anyone would argue that. Everything changes because there are causes acting on everything and everyone at all times. People change physically due to time, a cause. They change physically based on education, people, their surroundings and many other things.

                Should a person feel disappointed in themselves when they fail to accomplish a goal or should they view it as purely an experience they can use in the future?

                Being a caused individual does not mean that nothing that you do matters. What you do impacts others experiences and shapes them through becoming part of their causes. When people create rules they are essentially training people to act a certain way. Recognizing that we are led by experiences that include the rules of society allows people to be better able to recognize these forces. Once someone reads something or listens to someone that tells them the ways that society is leading them, they are having experiences that will allow them to judge how to act in society. Their decisions are impacted by the people around them and the education they receive. Recognizing this inclines one to value education and perhaps to think that education is a moral responsibility. This would be morality without free will because it recognizes that some things are good training and training is possible in a world where people are determined by experience. This view recognizes culture as an important part of human experience as a training ground. People learn to respond to causes based on the teachings of their society. We would have to say that it is inevitable that each society would arise as it currently is because of determination, but this does not change the impact it has on people.

                We discussed the idea of praise and blame as put into question by determinism, but what about other emotions like compassion and empathy. We could find that because people cannot change the way they act we should have more compassion for criminals. We could also say that we should not feel anything for them. They are following essentially a programmed set of events like a computer. They are not unique beings in the sense being part of a divine being would make them. This argument is undermined in the sense that people are unique beings. Everyone has a different biology and set of experiences, so they are unique even if their life follows a set line. We also could not argue that people do not feel and suffer. Even if they cannot change their actions and behaviors, they are beings that respond to pain and suffering and should be treated as such. This does not mean we should get rid of aspect of society that punish, like prisons, because we need to teach people to behave a certain way. Our behavior is clearly important and we learn this. We teach kids to look both ways when they cross the street, and we would be amiss not to teach this. The kid, though, can only act in ways that have been caused. If they are not told they will not look and if they are told in a convincing manner they will look. They cannot control what’s convincing to them either. That comes from the consistency of parents, the strength of the speech or a variety of other experiences. We can always think of a reason for actions and these reasons come from causes. We also are weighing things in our mind when we make decisions and can logically say that when given the same information in the same situation with no knowledge changed we would always make the same decision. This means we are all determined, but determined largely by other people.

                Are individual people important if the world is determined and nobody makes uncaused decisions?

Praise and Blame

                If everything that a person does is caused than the person could not be considered responsible. This would remove praise and blame from the equation. If people are not responsible for what they do, then we cannot find anything praise worthy or blame worthy in those actions that they do take. Praise and blame could still be used in this scenario as a way to fulfill psychological needs for both the person expressing the praise or blame and for the person receiving them. People who are upset and do not express it end up letting that blame for the other person build until they resent that person and do not want to be around them anymore. Without some form of blame the other person may never know that the potential blamer is upset with them. Then they will never change their actions. If they never change their actions, they may upset many other people and become ostracized without ever realizing the reason. Without praise they may also never learn that their behavior is appreciated and they will stop doing it. Without ever receiving praise people may also become unhappy and eventually wonder why they bother with a life where no one appreciates them. Praise and blame help people to live their lives in a more pleasant way, although blame probably gets massively overused. These expressions of emotions also help to develop people’s experience. When someone you respect tells you that you were wrong, this experience is one cause that leads you not to do the same thing again. Praise and blame help people to understand the people around them and help them to develop experience in a way the people around them appreciate. This makes praise and blame sound like a way of training people, but I think that is likely part of the truth as upsetting as it may sound. Praise and blame also allow people to express emotions that may build in them otherwise.

                If the world is determined, what are some other ways praise and blame are still useful?  

Quantum theory and free will?

Although quantum theory may suggest that actions can occur indeterminately at a subatomic level, and this can be disputed, it proves nothing about actions that occur on a larger scale. What I mean by this is that if electrons were to generate energy when not in motion, for example, that breaks a law of physics but does not mean that a person can do anything without causes. Just because a subatomic particle can behave in a way where a cause cannot be given, we cannot say the same of people. No situation can be described where a person does not have causes for their actions. Behavior can still be predicted at an atomic level and this means any effects at or higher than that level is determined. Quantum theory is also still just a theory and is not necessarily correct or at least correct in full. It is entirely possible that everything is caused at a subatomic level but people are not sure how yet. The quantum theory leads to free will idea seems to me to be equivalent to saying atoms cannot be considered alive and they make up the body of my cat, so my cat is not alive. It does not follow that the qualities of the pieces are the same as those for the whole. I cannot say that I have an understanding of quantum mechanics, because I do not, but I can say that it does not seem to follow that instances of indeterminism at such a small level mean anything for people’s free will. The argument of free will verse determinism is for most people a question of whether they and their fellow humans have it. This is not addressed in quantum mechanics.

How could quantum mechanics be applied to the actions of humans?  

Response to Katie's question on whether moral status can be lowered

I think that moral status once determined is unchanging unless someone’s mental capacity changes. If I went into a coma tomorrow then my moral status would change because I would not longer be able to make decisions as a moral agent. I would also lose the ability to suffer and to reason which are qualities that would make me a moral patient. It is possible that people in a coma, especially if they are not expected to come out of it, do not have moral status. They did when they were conscious, but they have lost it. Children’s moral status also changes. They begin as moral patients because they are unable to make choices for themselves, but they become moral agents as they mature and can handle personal responsibility. Somebody with a mental illness that incapacitates them could change their status if they went on drugs that allowed them to control their condition better. I think that unless one’s ability to suffer or to reason changes their moral status will not change. I am reluctant to say that one’s moral status changes if they commit a crime. Our respect for them changes as do their rights and freedoms but this is due to consequences of actions. A moral agent has a responsibility to act morally. We would not say that a child or non-human should be punished for actions in the same way as an adult human because they are not moral agents.

Should people in a coma that are not expected to recover have moral status?

Reasoning for free will

                It is easy to say that one can make a choice that is relatively free or one can be forced (say at gunpoint) to make a decision. The latter act is clearly not free, but could an act not be free that we make ourselves. For example, if someone is a kleptomaniac and they steal then they are acting so out of their own choice, but a choice they have little or no control over. They are making the choice because nobody else is telling them to, but they are obviously less free then someone who does not suffer this disorder. It seems logical that if something is forced on you then it is forced on you by somebody. Compulsions are less clear. Then we get Freud’s idea of the unconscious. We may act in a way that we are unaware of and we cannot control things that we do not know are impacting us. In Freud’s theory though we have the ability to learn what impacts our unconscious by analyzing it and/or seeking help. If we do not seek this help, then that is a choice we make. Not making this choice means we are choosing to be unaware of unconscious influences making us choose to act in unconscious ways. Although this is convoluted, it would mean that even with the unconscious we still have free will.

Since every choice we make has at least two options, it would follow that everyone has free will. Even in the case of someone pointing a gun to my head, I could choose to disobey them and get shot. If everyone has choices and is making them constantly it would follow that everyone has free will. (Obvious exceptions to this would be people in comas because they do not have the mental capacity to make any choices). People choose to act and that means they are free. This would restrict free will to humans for the most part because they are able to think over the decisions they make. Some animals may be able to do so, but most non-humans would not be free because they are acting on instinct instead of reasoning through actions.

Does acting on instinct mean that one is not utilizing free will or can one choose to act on instinct?     

Free will, determinism and morality

If what we do is determined by biology and experience, then one could argue that morality is not a person’s responsibility. They have been born and raised a certain way and cannot overpower that, nor would they know where to begin. One flaw in this argument is that people get experience from multiple sources and they can choose which sources of information to utilize. The weight of these choices in your mind has to come from biology or experience though, because where else could it come from? People cannot separate themselves from their minds or their experience. This might lead one to believe that people cannot be considered responsible in a moral sense because they are making unavoidable choices. This might lead one to mean that we should not enforce moral choices, but people base choices on consequences. If murder is illegal, then people will do so much less because they will not want to face the consequences. People also need to experience the world as a moral place in order to learn to be moral. The experience towards morality needs to come from somewhere. Since society could change the way people act, as in morality, by teaching different methods and society is made up of people, then people must be able to change behavior. This might mean that society is a method to influence people in predictable ways and could be used to create people that act in a positive way. It could in turn work negatively and create a society with negative consequences.

This argument means that everything comes from a knowable source but we would not say that everything that comes from a source is caused. Just because a teacher assigns homework I do not have to do it but I might say that the reason I did it was because it was assigned. This would mean that every act can be justified but that does not make it lack free will.

If we choose to act in a certain way based on justifications that we may not be aware of does the lack of awareness prevent it from being called a free choice?   

If humans are predictable does that mean they don't have free will?

Assuming that there is no God, people are made consisting of a set biological structure and develop because of this and their experience without a “divine spark.” If this is the case then knowing exactly how that biology works and exactly what that person’s experience is should allow one to accurately predict the choices that a person will make. This would mean that free will is not as simple as it sounds. People would be like computers with different input. The variations in structure and the input would change their behavior rather than something uniquely them. Each person is different in their experiences and biology though, so nobody is entirely predictable even to themselves. We also do make choices. These choices are determined by predictable factors and could perhaps be explained if some omniscient force or ultimate were to do so. That does not change that the person makes the choices. Our consciousness may be determined by known factors, but that does not change that it is ours. It would also be strange to say that our choices are not our own because they are determined by our biology and experience. These are the things that make up our self identity and so it is natural that our choices follow from them. We are still a self making choices based on options and even if these choices could be predicted we are still the ones making them. That means that we have some form of free will. We do not immediately know when presented with a choice which we will choose and we do not act in a certain way because of forces that are outside of our self. Outside forces can influence us, but it is the aspects that make up ourselves that determine our choices.

If someone knew everything about a person and could use that to accurately predict that person’s choices would that person would then be acting in a way that discounts free will or would it simply mean that humans are not capable of complete spontaneity?    

Response to Shannon's Question on Sleep

All people sleep and it is a biological imperative that they do. This does not mean that all sleep is or should be created equal. Most people have two hands but everyone’s looks lightly different and some might be missing fingers, etc. Sleeping issues are the same idea. They may be for psychological or physiological reasons, but they lead people to sleep less or sleep less comfortably. They do not change the fact that all people sleep. Sleep allows people to recuperate physically from the stress of the day both physically or mentally. Children likely need a lot of sleep during stages of physical and mental development and adults might need less because they do not face these developments. I would guess this would change at a certain age because the body would start to face difficulties from age related stress. This might be why your grandmother would seem to sleep more. Sleep is also an important aspect of human nature because it helps with memory storage. It is widely believed that our brain selects certain memories to maintain from the day’s activities during sleep. Sleep is also thought by many people to help us sort through emotions and difficulties in our lives. One theory of dreams is that they are where we work through unconscious emotions that we are unable to access in our daily lives. Whether these theories are true or not, and as someone with only an introductory understanding of psychology I cannot claim to know their degree of truth with any authority, sleep and dreams are an important part of humans as well as other animals mental and physical development and maintenance.

Should aspects of biological similarity and similarity in consciousness be filed under the same category of human nature or are they to distinct to be discussed as two parts of one whole?