What makes us human?

Humans are really good at wondering. Many of the most famous pieces of writing in history have been on the subject of human nature. These writings are so popular because they address a subject of interest to all of us: what makes us human? "The forces that most commonly motivate human beings reflect this desire: in each religion can be found a particular definition of what it is to be human; in possessions, wealth and career lie a way to define oneself based on goods and accomplishments; and in the bonds we choose to form with other human beings, we seek to find a reflection of ourselves and a way to define ourselves based on how we fit in with others." (Brittany Peterson)

A huge part of being human lies in the differences between us and other animals. Way before humans could begin to understand the brains of various animals using computers, these essential differences had to be instinctively discovered. The writers of Genesis, for example, depict Adam as separate from other creatures; created last, in the image of God, and given power over other creatures...specifically the power to name them.


These differences are a result of the gradual process of evolution. Pinker does a good job of illustrating this.I believe one of the key concepts that Pinker approaches is that the most important thing separating humans from other creatures is the structure and sheer power of our brain.

Is God in Our Genes?

I have never been a particularly religious person. Up until reading this TIMES article about "God genes" I have always attributed my lack of spiritual desires to my upbringing. I was not raised in a religious house hold; however both of my parents were.

The God gene refers to the idea that human spirituality has an innate genetic component to it. It doesn’t mean that there’s one gene that makes people believe in God, but it refers to the fact that humans inherit a predisposition to be spiritual to reach out and look for a higher being.

I have to say this concept makes alot of sense to me. I was not raised religiously, therefore we can attribute my small sense of spirituality to my enviorment. But with my parents, whom both of which were raised in a religious setting more is needed to explain their spiritual lacking. The idea of a God gene fills these holes.

On another note, this idea brings up an entirely different concept. "Back in the day," people used the concept of a God or multiple Gods to give understanding to things they could not explain. I find it very interesting that now we are using science to gain insight to the one thing (god) that many people use for understanding.

Language (again)

My internet has been acting absolutely crazy at home..soo we are going to get a bunch of posts up on one day to play catch up! This is again another comment on language..it really does fascinate me!

Chaos vs. Order is the ultimate dichotomy. Language restricts us not because it is faulty but because communication can only do so much. Words give us the chance to express ourselves but only to a certain extent. But what would we do without those words? Would total chaos occur? Yes, but that is only because we have already instituted a language within our lives. We have made it a necessity. If you rid a culture of something it depends on so much, like language, then chaos is to be expected. For example take the United States Declaration of Independence from the King of Britain.

When we first seceded from the King’s reign we decided not to instill a new form of centralized government because we hated the way our lives were run under Britain’s strict rule. We feared creating that unhappiness again. So what did we do? We did not unite in anyway. States were allowed to make their own laws, and each state did so. This created a strain in the relationships between states. Their basic laws and values didn’t match up, so no state could meet the other’s needs. Therefore, shortly after the United States Declared Independence from not only Britain, but the idea of a restricting structure of government, they realized that the structure that they felt restricted them was the only bond that could keep them united.

In this sense, language is our government. If we declared out independence from language, each individual could function fine on his own. However, when the time comes to unite together we would no longer have a central guide to keep us connected.

Language and Communication

Words serve to organize and communicate thought. Human beings naturally think, and it is nearly impossible to completely rid ones mind of all thought. However, do we think in words? I would have to say not exactly. Cognitive thought would occur without the existence of words. Would it probably drive us crazy? Yes. Picture this: A giant complex puzzle with pieces that all fit together in a logical fashion, However there’s a catch: the puzzle is completely blank. Now apply this concept to words and thoughts: thoughts being the puzzle pieces and words being the missing pictures on the pieces. The puzzle can still be put together; however, it is done with blind uncertainty with no apparent purpose or outcome. This is how Helen Keller must have felt before her encounter with Miss Sullivan. She must have felt in some sense helpless. She knew that her puzzle fit together, but she was frustrated that she could not express the magnificent picture it created. Her thoughts were always there, words gave her the chance to fill in her missing piece, organize her thoughts, and communicate her ideas.

Language and Emotion

Language fails me when I am overwhelmed with an emotion. When I find myself in the midst of extreme frustration, I am unable to articulate the nature of my feelings. In this case I use language not to communicate or search for help, but rather to lure my listener towards my extreme confusion. Thus, language is no longer a tool of communication, but it is rather a tool in miscommunication. Words become inadequate at times to describe my intense feelings. When I search for words, I am searching for a way to express my lucid thoughts. However, words cannot capture the essence of an extreme emotion because emotions are intangible, and they can only be understood on a personal abstract level.

For example, I can recall one time when I was tremendously hurt by a girlfriend of mine. Her selfish and condescending comment brought forth in me a combination of anger and hurt. Not knowing whether to scream or cry, my words failed. Later that same afternoon, my mother picked me up from school. With her motherly sixth sense, she immediately noticed something was terribly wrong. However, when she asked me about it, I could not form the words that matched my horrific pain. My eyes bugged out, and tears began to roll down my flushed face. I remained silent. My mother seemed to understand without my saying a word. My display of intense anguish said it all.

Looking back on the incident, I am glad that my mother recognized my distress. Had she not understood, it would have been impossible for me to express it with words. At the time, no such word existed. My mind was too consumed with some feeling

between hurt and anger. How can that be described? It cannot. It can only be communicated by a scream or a sob.
When a person encounters an overwhelming mental state words are at a loss. It is like the reoccurring childhood dream: a person has the need to scream, but when he opens his mouth all that comes forth is silence. Words cannot always be appropriate in de-mystifying emotions. Even though words carry different connotations to different people, they are the concrete side of communication. Emotions are not concrete, they are abstract, and therefore they require an abstract representation.

Memory

“We can know ourselves only because we can remember” (Ratey) I have to say that our class on memory blew my mind. I left puzzled and second guessing myself. What from my past can be considered a fact? What actually happened?

I can think of numerous times in my life when a friend and I have completely disagreed on how an event in the past took place. For example the other day I was arguing with a friend about an order in which a sequence of events occurred. We remembered two very different stories. But who was right?

When I think about it. We were both right. There is no precise and exact evidence to prove or disprove either of our views. The only thing we have to go by is our memory. I find this extremely frustrating! If the only way “we can know ourselves [is] because we can remember,” and we can’t be confident in our memories, then we can’t be confident in exactly who we are.

Ratey helps to bring understanding to this idea, “The formation and recall of each memory are influenced by mood, surrounding, and gestalt at the time the memor is formed or retrieved. That’s way the same event can be remembered differently by different people…”

Ratey also bring up the point that, “Memory also changes as we change over time. New experiences change our attitudes and thus how we remember.” I know that when I try to recall a memory from a time when I was in an excited state of anger or frustration that I remember details very vaguely; however, it is almost as if my brain fills in the details for me each time I recall and angry memory

Artificial Intelligence

Will we ever be able to creat Artifical Intelligence?

My gut reaction to this question is yes. Technology has greatly advanced in just the last fifty years, and it shows now signs of slowing down. However; when I thought more seriously on the question I realized that it is not a cut and dry answer.

Yes, technology is advancing, but now matter how advanced it gets it is still just…technology. In pursuit of A.I. we have to ask ourselves at what point to we consider something to be “intelligent.” Some people argue that a computer opponent on a video game can be considered A.I. Other people counter that stance saying that computers function on a carefully designed binary code that cannot be considered intelligence.

These same people feel that computers are just doing what they are told and that they have been programmed to react in a certain way based on different stimulus. This is true, but why can’t we consider that intelligence? Aren’t humans to some extent pre-programmed to react certain ways in a given situation? When someone throws a punch at you, you duck out of that way. Why? Because you have been informed that if you don’t you will get hurt. Whether it was something you learned form experience or from your parents, most human reactions become in a since programmed.

However, there are many difference between computer pre-programming and Human pre-programming. For starters, humans created computers not vice versus. Also, humans have the inate ability to learn and grown on their own with out anyone telling them to do so. Computers have to be programmed by an outside source in order to do that. However, who's to say that humans were not in a sense genetically programmed by an outside source and given the ability to learn. In that sense, humans would be no different that computers.

Like i said earlier technology is advancing at unbelievably fast pace. With these advancements we gain a better understanding of the human brain. Who's to say that in next hundred years we won't discover that humans are actually completely pre-programmed by some outside source like a computer?

Ways We Know

Having only attending this class once, I am a little short on words. We opened the class an attempt to define "knowledge". And to be honest, I ended the class more confused about "knowledge" than when I entered. Pre February 27 (first day of class) I thought of knowledge simply as what one knows. Now, though this still rings true, I realize it’s much more complicated than that. In reality, what do we really know? Laura brought up the point in class that she “knew that at 10:30 today she would be in math class.” Then she was refuted by the bread truck theory. So really what do we know? In Descartes’ Meditations he addresses this very doubt. In his first meditation he begins to untangle the idea that one’s perceptions might not necessarily be the truth. He gives an example of what he feels is “manifestly impossible to doubt” (4). He is fully confident that “I am in this place, seated by the fire clothed in a winter dressing gown, that I hold in my hands a piece of paper, with other intimations of the same nature” (4).

I agree with Descartes concept of doubting our perceptions; however, how else could humans function? I believe that all humans really have is their own interpretations of the truth. If we began to doubt this we’d drive ourselves crazy.