Placing Bets on our Souls

Placing bets on our souls by anonymous

CH. 22 & 23 Response (pg. 305 views) -in class

On page 305, the author presented us with two views: the theistic package and the naturalistic package. First off, the main theistic package included a list of "truths" which existed together because to have one thing, you had to have the other. For example, if someone believed that there was a God, then all of the other things listed must also be taken as true or existent. Thus, the package deal. On the other hand, the same applies to the naturalistic package. Here, it is the exact opposite; there is no soul, no free will, no God, no meaning, no hope, etc.
According to how the author presented this, I see that his presentation of the main theistic and naturalistic views is pretty accurate. Since I am a Christian, I agree with most of those things listed in the theistic package, although "bliss" shouldn't be part of the package deal. Even though there is a God and all of these other things, that doesn't make life bliss. The world is not a happy-go-lucky place where there is no bad at all. On the other hand, I don't agree with how the author described faith/religion by placing bets. Deciding the fate of our souls is not something to place bets on. It is much more serious that that. You either suffer in hell, or celebrate in heaven. Having the slightest thought of "bets", in my opinion, rules out the factor of faith. And, you can't have sincere faith in something if it's just a bet. It's like you're gambling your soul.

Ramachandran TED Video Response

Materialism is the view that everything in this world is one thing, and one thing only--and that is physical. There is no soul and no spirit. We humans are just bodies and nothing more. Materialists argue that although most people think they do have something more than their physical selves, it is only our "material" brains causing those thoughts, when in reality, our minds are purely physical matter sending various signals. The brain chemistry argument for materialism asserts that our "minds" are nothing more than electrochemical systems. Why? Well, it proposes that because of our growing knowledge of the brain and its functions, we now understand that things once thought to be completely psychological, are in fact physiological (having to do with the make-up of our bodies). So, our brains send signals which cause us to feel sad, happy, etc. Thus, the thoughts that we have a soul or spirit are simply results of chemicals reacting with each other.

In Ramachandran's TED video, he gives three examples that support the brain chemistry argument concerning materialism. First, he introduces a condition called Crabgrass syndrome. This syndrome causes an individual to no longer be able to recognize people by their faces. They can still recognize them by their voices--but not the ability to see people by their faces. This happens due to some sort of trauma like a head injury, which causes a certain structure in the brain to malfunction. Because of this, materialists can justify their view, asserting that everything we experience is a result of chemical reactions in the brain. Thus, our bodies are only physical, material--bearing no soul or spirit.

Secondly, Ramachandran gives us yet another scenario that could support the brain chemistry view of materialism--the Phantom Limb syndrome. When someone loses a limb or bodypart, such as an arm or leg, they continue to feel their limb there. Yes, they do realize that they lack a limb, but they can still feel and move around their "phantom limb". In some cases, individuals' "phantom limbs" are clenched and thus, painful. They are unable to relieve the pain because their limb was amputated, severing a particular structure causing this problem. Ramachandran fixed this problem with a patient of his, though, by putting a mirror in front of the other hand, and instructing his patient to move it. Instantly, the patient said that the pain was gone and he could move his "phantom limb". This was because the mirror in a way, tricked the brain structure (or triggered) that controlled the "phantom limb." Again, the brain chemistry argument can use the mind's functions and flaws to support their view that everything is purely physical.

Lastly, he presented the case of synesthesia. This condition causes individuals to associate numbers or letters with certain colors. When they see the number 7, they see pink--this is just an example of what synesthesia would look like. Through research, they found that certain areas of the brain "lighted up" or were very active, showing us that these were the cortexes or areas caused the function/reaction.

In conclusion, all of the examples Ramachandran gave concerning various conditions of the brain such as "Phantom limb" and "Synesthesia", give proponents of the brain chemistry argument a strong case. Since these situations reveal that we experience and function as a result of chemical reactions in the brain, they assert that we are purely physical beings. This supports the materialistic view that we are only material; we have no soul or spirit.

Understanding the Agency Theory

Agency Theory on Prezi

Truman Show- Free will and determinism

In The Truman Show, the main character (Truman) is born and becomes central to a 24/7 television show that encompasses every aspect of his life. In other words, his life is the show. However, throughout most of his life he doesn't know this. He is oblivious to the fact that he isn't living in the "real" world--instead, he lives in a set. A very big set. All of the "citizens" in his hometown are actors and actresses, and almost everything presented to Truman is part of an overall scheme to keep him ignorant of his true circumstances. Many would argue that he doesn't have the freedom of choice; the freedom to make his own decisions--that he lacks free will. But I think otherwise. Truman does in fact possess free will, although it is often overshadowed by his circumstances and the manner in which "choices" are presented to him.

When I say Truman is free, I mean it in the context of the Agency Theory, which states that a free act is is an act caused by an agent, where an agent is understood to be a person, or intelligent doer, possessing the capacity of volition. In this case, Truman is the agent. He makes decisions as a result of an agent--himself. In everything that happened, he was able to make a choice. And although his choices were limited in the sense that the producers hoped that he act a certain way, it doesn't escape the fact that Truman was indeed free to make a choice; that he was free.The situations presented to him are just as applicable to us as it is to Truman. If Truman was in fact not free, then every choice he "made" would have to go 100% in favor of the script--the "choice" the producers wanted him to make. But, this is not the case. We are all prone to emotions such as love, for example, just as Truman was when he fell in love with a member of the cast (he thought the girl was a fellow student). After all, we're human. So is Truman.

As demonstrated through the Agency Theory, Truman is free. Because he was in this "forbidden" relationship with a woman (from the cast), we can clearly see that he is in fact free. The producers didn't want this to happen. It was against their plot-line and they tried everything they could to keep it from happening. In the end, they took her off the show. This single fact makes Truman free, although the circumstances of the "television show" situation make it seem that he is only a puppet of the producers.

Milgram Experiment

In the context of human freedom, agency theorists believe that a free act is an act caused by an agent, where an agent is understood to be a person, or intelligent doer, possessing the capacity of volition. This view proposes that an event isn't one without a cause, nor is it an event caused by an inner state (as compatibilists see it)--instead, it is caused by an agent. In Milgram's experiment, subjects were instructed to apply electric shocks to another individual if they answered a question incorrectly. Shockingly enough, at the end of the experiment it was found that around 65% of the subjects continued on applying these "shocks" that were of lethal voltage. It was concluded that ordinary, law-abiding citizens would go to the extremes when insisted/told by a strong authority figure. In other words, most of the subjects were "obedient" and continued on with the experiment although they were in a sure conflict between their conscience and what they were told they must do.
In terms of the Agency Theory and ethics, the Milgram experiment shows us that agents can be causes. Instead of the scientific determinist view that every event has infinitely many causes, the Agency theory proposes that a person, an intelligent doer, etc. (or agent) can be a cause rather than an event. In the case of the Milgram experiment, the authority figure insisted/told the subjects that it was imperative that they continue because it was "essential to the experiment." So, most subjects continued on with applying electric shocks to the "quiz taker". This proves that people, or agents can indeed be causes. The subjects were obedient and made a decision not because of an event, but at the cause of an agent insisting them to do so.

Do-now #109 (Wednesday Sept. 7)

An example of something that people used to believe and was useful to them at the time, was the knowledge of how to warm up the body properly before exercise. Back in the day, there was little knowledge on how to correctly warm up the body before an athletic event. The typical warm up consisted of a couple jogs around the field/court and static stretching. At the time, scientists and the athletic community didn't know better and though this was the proper way of warming up. It wasn't until years later that the scientific community discovered that the old-school jog and stretch was detrimental to athletic performance before an event (such as a match or game). They found out that static stretching elongated the muscles (thus the increased flexibility), which weakened the muscles. Before any athletic endeavour, the athlete wants to be ready to perform at high intensity and powerfully, not weak and cold. Thus, the dynamic warm-up was introduced to the athletic community. It consists of low-intensity movements (with the related sport) that gradually increase in intensity, to ensure the body is warm and fully prepared to move at an optimal level while decreasing the risk of injury. Basically, the idea is to move the limbs of the body in a controlled manner to get the muscles warm and ready for competition.