Loading...

Monday, December 16, 2013

The Human Brain and the Potential Power we harness.

The brain, a contusion of matter that has the consistency of warm butter and the aesthetics similar to a very wrinkled (and blanch) snake, it's appearance definitely does not live up to it's enormous and convoluted function. The brain houses the necessary components and dexterity to accomplish the tasks that we have conspicuously taken for granted such as the ability to motorize, be a conscious being, exhibit emotion, breathe and sustain essential processes, and just encounter and conceptualize different things that are independent from our self. In the eloquent and intricately written words of poet Emily Dickinson "[The Brain] is wider than the sky, for them to put them side by side,/ The One the other contain / With ease, and you beside." She was referring to the brain's marvelous ability to condone intellectualism in humans and how we ultimately have the potential to achieve the utmost sagacity and to acclaim seemingly unreachable feats (such as the recent ability to 3D print a whole human heart, a bioprinting madness). It is absolutely humbling to consider the brain and what it truly does in every instant of our preconditioned lives. In this corrugated mass of flesh, a staggeringly complex symphony of electrochemical reactions play out every day. Much of it does so without the need of a conscious conductor, enabling the conundrum that is the brain to be considered one.

The Individualized Brain

The brain, as does any organ or cell, is dictated by our preexisting genes that not only play a role in the initial devising of our various lobes but they also implant intrinsic genetic code, whose effect determines our demeanor and our various qualities in adolescence and beyond. Here is also where our environment plays a role, in which our assumed repository of tendencies is perturbed by our external world. Logically speaking, no two individuals (twins being a meager-ish exception) have the exact same genetic dispositions, nor do any two individuals go through the same alliterated life, the equivalent of our "environment". This being said it is deductible to assume that no two individual's brains would be the same either. In any moment of our lives, ,whether we are conscious and full of alacrity or acting subconsciously and inadvertently, our dispositions influence how we react, adapt, conflate, and respond; whether we are can accept that or not. Now I am no neuro-scientist (yet) but I can convey this with the utmost certainty, the attest being the fact that we are all individuals with different opinions, different aspirations, different aesthetic, different levels of sagacity, and above all different calibers of desires. Everything from our emotional pretenses, or portion of the brain that includes the thalamus, hippocampus, hypothalamus, various hormonal glands, amygdala, epithalamus, and various others, to our more intellectually-dependent, contrived areas including the frontal lobe and its constituents, are variegated immensely from person to person as one's experiences and genes converge. But what about the universal functions that enable us to actually stay alive for more than ten seconds and that constitutes a subtle displayment of relation? Well lets read on shall we?

The Universal Brain(?)

Alright so so far we really have been elaborating and arduously discussing layers of our fundamental workings that exhibit behaviors fairly unique to humans and humans alone. Yet what about the section of our brain that allows us to actually relate ourselves to the more primordial and "under-developed" species such as the chimpanzee (not the most prime example as we have found correlations in emotional responses ) or the humming bird? Apart from actually having established and routed goals that ultimately have the same outcome of acquiring sustenance we have another extreme relation, that both of our brains have mechanisms designed chiefly to maintain a level of homeostasis and to regulate our breathing and other autonomic faculties such as fight or flight. It is truly humbling and an attribute of modesty to consider the fact that we and animals really aren't that copiously apart on the spectral chain as speculated by many people. Yes we do have very significant differences that essentially and superficially allow us to gloat (intellectual competence in the form of reasoning and logic) but honestly that really protrudes in our life and is repented in our lives. In all circumstances, [and this is very subjective] the true meaning of existence biologically speaking is to prolong the amount of time that we can as a species can acclimate on this Earth. I'm not saying that being intellectually superior isn't advantageous, of course it is and in all parities I advocate intellectually-dependent ventures, that is really what science is. It would be silly to be so narrow-minded as to say that we have no significant differences between us and animals that actually has some precedence or weight. I am saying that we have greater similarities between us and animals that many people deem we don't. Actually a few days ago I was reading an article in which experiments were done on a few voluntarily present human subjects who were deprived of their fundamental Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, as were the equilateral for animals (and yes animals have an objective Hierarchy of needs that consists of acquiring sustenance, shelter, safety, and other facets). For humans additions would be social acceptance and integration of self-esteem and self-glorification.. Anyways sorry if you already knew that, just wanted to give some people a chance to feel smart. So about the experiment... the researchers created an environment in which deprivation of the basic needs transgressed and estranged their psyche, causing a response of agitation, somewhat of pathological hysteria, and a bit more benign but as presentable, anxiety. This, however was seen just as advently in animals, suggesting that we share many of the same characteristics in terms of our desires and necessities, painting the picture of humbleness. 



Monday, November 25, 2013

Human Nature and Self-Entitlement

We are all humans. Everyone who is reading AND comprehending my written fixations are undoubtedly human. Yet we all have a distinctive predispositions that enable us to be truly and vicariously, ourselves. The diversity among our fundamental makeup constitutes a tendency to be almost completely aloof from our human brethren, and therefore, in many cases, be incapable of acting as a whole. Thus, this would create a hindering of progress so necessary in today's dubious world. I was inadvertently browsing through the recent stories when I came across an article titled "The End of Dignity" and it is the culmination of many imminent  fallacies of human ego in two or three pages of sophisticated linguistics. With that, I formulated my own theory of human ego on production and sociological convictions with these 3 major topics.

The Sense of Self-Entitlement

Ah the trait of Self-Entitlement, such an undesirable human foible, yet such a prevalent misdemeanor in our variegated society. Yes, quite a bit of humans, especially towards the adolescent year range, possess the quality of believing that it is a set rule, even an obligation, for others to perceive them the way that they believe they are, and based off that feeling allow them to gain any sanction or commodity that they desire. This is contrary to what  humans truly transverse, an anthropological cognition of hardwired predispositions. Simply put it, they want there superficial aspects to exhort there actual deeper constitutions, an example being aesthetic superiority. This deleterious stance upon which people truly believe that ones looks outweigh there intellectual and conscientious facets  is a debilitating feature, and one that I believe can be an archetypal to the phrase "this is why aliens won't visit us". The attribute of self-entitlement congregates the feeling of the colloquial word "cockiness" and is also an attribute that is prominent among the spoiled. 

Quick atonement through benign and minute action

Alright, for the word "atonement" i'm going to apply a bit of a newer and less antiquated context (yes oh "god" I am altering syntax!) in which the word is typically used in as to cohere my antecedent writing. Instead of it being used to make amends for in a religious setting, it's going to be used (for all intensive purposes) in a secular recursion. So if one human, for example, were too make a mistake (in any degree of fault) in any setting, correcting that mistake would be done through either hard manual labor or relentless and authentic actions, not measly and non-troublesome praying as to acquire the deluded "OK" from a divine being. A considerable amount of humans have the fallacy of being to quick and insincere at forgiving their prior actions, and believe that consequences are non-existent when you have an invisible and intangible entity on your side. This is simply not the case.



This is a fairly popular portrayal of atonement. Behind the two strolling soldiers is a contrasting view of grassland and a snowy mountainous edifice, representing the uncertainty that society detracts from individuals who atone on a personal account of their actions. Those soldiers are past Nazi soldiers, religious I might add. After committing atrocities that have been labeled as the most gruesome and most inhumane scenes known to mankind, they were quick to atone for their actions, represented by the calm and almost ubiquitously innocent sea.

Delusively complacent with life

Typical of humans of little monetary and incredulous aspirations, being complacent, or content with life but having no or little actual reason to be (typically non-contributing members of society), is a hindering aspect of society and has no real place for alignment. This a basic facet of the contemporary Obamacare, even though politicians who are sided with it would say otherwise. A very controversial matter, Obama's health care plan entails the inclusion of poorer members of society and allowing them to allude healthcare despite not having actual insurance, all at the expense of the people. Not don't get me wrong, I am not against the Unitarian-based social decree, by all means go for it, I am against however allowing individuals who have no legitimate liability or reason for not being able to afford insurance to be given access to virtually free means of acquiring sometimes unnecessary attention at the "owners expense". Now for people who need necessary medical attention such as a gun wound and are physically able to fend for themselves, why not make them attribute to society by making them volunteer or actually service the community after healing? We complain of a lack of communal exercise being displayed as a benefactor, yet we allow over indulged people who don't contribute their almost innate duty of giving when being given to to run astray. Now deviating from this tangent and going back to the underlying causation, summarizing this, a major demeaning fallacy of human beings are either people who are delusively complacent with life or allowing and even rewarding people of this nature.









Saturday, October 5, 2013

Nature vs. Nurture, the king of debates.

When we cradle in a social environment such as school, the beach, an assembly we each have distinguishable characteristics that is pretty evident if you just take a glance around. I mean one individual might be fully engaged and and non-diffident in the social context and another might be reserved and introspective. Such variety is facilitated by two main groups of human intuitiveness; our genetic predispositions (such as a presence of a disease) and our social environment and the different nuances associated with it.

Nature

A prominent philosopher named  Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) wrote "So many authors have hastily concluded that man is naturally cruel, and requires a regular system of police to be reclaimed; whereas nothing can be more gentle than him in his primitive state, when placed by nature at an equal distance from the stupidity of brutes and the pernicious good sense of civilized man..." This, as you can see, really redefines the notion of human "servitude" to the whims (these not always being the most viable) of societal fixations. This Blank State refers to the premise that the brain is born with the blankness of a white piece of paper with the presumed ability to reform and contuse to the appropriate "figure", whatever that may be. It is the very underlying of the statement that the body and mind are separable entities that don't affect each other in the way that many people perceive them to. Remember that time during the seventh grade in which you were bullied profusely? Well theoretically that one continued action gave forth a section of your behavior that generally perpetuates anger and contempt for the public. Or remember that time when your mother and/or father routinely chastised you for your fallacies? Well that eventually led to your insecurity and humble satire. Of course this is now new thing under the sun, this has been foreshadowed and contemplated numerous times and it runs contingent to common sense. Extremists of these notions of nature being the main player (and sometimes the only player in their minds) of human development are called "tertiary environmentalists".  Now evading this tangent, we can conclusively insinuate that the role of nature in our more personal attributions is heavy-weighted, but does it play the role that genetics play? Do we see a fine and transparent line in between nature or nurture, or is the gap exceedingly large, to the point where one completely out "maneuvers" the other? This is an interesting topic to discuss in a group and one the requires critical thinking to an extent.

Nurture 

On a website named Simply Psychology they discuss the ideology behind the cerebral "nativists", or a group of people who strongly accede and promote the side of the developmental spectrum in which hereditary pretenses are the main factor in the development of human behavior and anthropological whim. In one excerpt they propose that " we all have an inner biological clock which switches on or off rudimentary types of behavior in a pre programmed way". The premise behind this is that every actions and/or reaction to an action is predetermined by innately present genetic codes. This means that any type of behavior that isn't present during earlier years of life is fabricated by maturation, or the act of maturing. Since maturation is a product of self-imposing genetics, this means that it is still viably contingent to the initial premise. Putting aside all of this mumbo-jumbo, nativists also are pretty bland and ambiguous type of people (no, that is not bias that is formidable input!). My reasoning behind this is that they are like the extremists of human development, not taking in account that human perversions and non-adherence to acclaimed stigma is prevalent and that our mind are extremely susceptible recipients of social secretions. Perhaps an example is appropriate, suppose that you have two men who are arguing over the supremacy of one team or another. They are going at it when all of a sudden a group of people over-hearing their rankle approach them. Rattled up, the "conversation" is progressively getting more and more heated. The group is shouting at the two men to "LET HIM HAVE IT" and other prompters and a brawl ensues. Now these two men know that this is a petty reason to begin violently coercing each other, yet because of the group around then they are pushed to fight and all benevolence is broken. This is a keen example of your environment playing role in your decision-making. Of course, going back to the nature spectrum, we see both sides have extremists just aching to assert themselves, but honestly this is a topic that can just as easily fall in between the line, be in the middle of the game, if you will. 

The Middle?

Just like in politics we tend to see radicalizing individuals who perpetuate the very notion of a concrete fixture on ideas, and we also tend to see people who aren't as radical and who accepts the precedents of both parties. This is very applicable to this thought-provoking debate, we see ideas that reconcile and advocate both nature and nurture, both environment and genetics, both the social and the cerebral. Personally, I have an affinity for this sentiment and personally it makes more sense. Mental diseases and "malfunctions" can be prevalent because of a gene that was prescribed from your parents. In this case this can be aptly contributed to the hereditary principle. If you were to develop a pretentious and deceitful character because the people you converse with carry that behavior then not only would it be unfortunate but also naturist. The amazing thing about debates, however, is that they are always open to nuances and congregations. Remember that.     

Sunday, September 1, 2013

Following Areas

Follow us on Facebook at Critical Science and on Twitter at @criticalscienc1. You guys will not be disappointed!

Resurrection

We will be starting to post content regularly with a new "admin". His name is Karl (sadly Jehan left) and me and him will be your to go Science geeks :)

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

The Mind of the Intelligent

The Search for intellect in the Universe" is the title of a stage act by the comedian Lily Tomlin, a keen exploration of human follies and foilbles. Tomlin's title plays on the two meanings of "intelligence", either as aptitude (as dominantly seen in the concept of "IQ" as a measurement of so) or rational, human-associated thought. The second meaning is the one I am writing here.

We may have trouble defining intelligence, but we recognize it when we see it, do we not? Perhaps a thought experiment can clarify this notion. Just close your eyes and imagine there was an alien being who in every way looked different from us. What would it have to do to make us think that it had intellectual capabilities? Well for starters they would have to have intelligent but impenetrable responses to situations. You have to able to observe the alien's behavior and say, "I don't understand the rules by which the alien is making its decisions, but the alien is acting rationally by some set of rules." .... The second requirement is that they have to care about something, have a tangible cause that persists in being the reason for change in thought. They have to want something and pursue it in the face of obstacles.
Most of us can undoubtabley agree that to make decisions "rationally," by some set of rules, means to base the decisions on some grounds of "truth": correspondence to reality or soundness of inference. We don't see to often a fully-functional adult trying to jump off skyscrapers in order to lose weight now do we? Most of our daily lives entail decisions that can be broken down into a goal and rational steps to obtain that goal. This is what programmers of any sort (e.g gaming and computer) have to account for, that a code be induced into a system, this code then dictating a newly-placed goal, and then the computer to automatically take rational steps in order to acquire the presentable goal.

Now what does all of this mumbo-jumbo have to do with the premise that human intelligence can be partially defined as making rational decisions to gain something? Well everything for starters. This concept is viably applicable in human life in almost every aspect. I mean take this analogy in Romeo and Juliet for example (and it also goes into my second premise of the presence of a tangible cause). Romeo wants Juliet as the filings want the magnet; and if no obstacles intervene he moves towards her by as strait a line as they. But Romeo and Juliet, if a wall be bulit between them, do not remain idiotically pressing their faces against the opposite sides like the magnet and the filings with the card. Romeo finds a circuitous way, by scaling the wall or otherwise, of touching juliet's lips directly. With the filings the path is fixed; whether it reaches the end depends on accidents. With the lover it is the end which is fixed; the path may be modified indefinitely.
Intelligence, then, is the ability to attain goals in the face of obstacles by means of decisions based on rational (truth-obeying) rules that hence a wanting for the goal in that a reformed thought or step will hither in your brain that brings you to your desired goal. Of course this means that there are outside factors involved with the entirity of intelligence, such as beliefs and lust, but that is a whole different matter which will be written next time.
 

Monday, May 20, 2013

We will be making an official website/organization called progressivescience.com or knowledgesavvy.com (whichever fits certain criteria) in the future.