In the series episode Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, the show which has a high number of viewers due to its inviting idea to think of the world scientifically and explore what life can really be in this universe. Just by listening to the first minute or so of the introduction of the episode I could tell that the tone is very optimistic of the future and how technology and science will allow us to grow and have great things to look forward too. If you hear the narrator's voice you can see how he makes our small galaxy sound so great and not too mention he makes how existence sound very insignificant and small. There is an amazing vast world out there and that we should get started on trying to explore it to its fullest.
Rothstein's quote gives you the impression that humans value more scientific theories rather than take up a humanitarian view only because we try to accept and help out of fellow people, but we fear and are awed by the notions of what science really is. Even though a lot of people might not believe in the theory of evolution we still have this curiosity to know what really is out there beyond our Milky Way galaxy. The Cosmos series seems to give us hope and curiosity to know what really are the possibilities and realities of life outside our mere small world. I think Cosmos does an excellent job portraying and conveying the message that science is enormous and that there are many things that science has yet to discover giving us this feeling of wanting to find out what it really has in store for us.
Sunday, April 13, 2014
Critical Thinking Blog #3: Research Paper Brainstorming
One of the topics that I'd like to research about is cloning and whether artificial intelligence will take over and be a prominent use in modern day society. I also want to pose the pros and cons of what this type of society would have if this actually comes to be. The reason this interests me so much is because the idea of having fully human replicated robots that look very realistic sounds like a great idea, but then wouldn't that make the human race more lazy. What would people do in their spare time now that these AI's have taken over and will be doing every mundane task that we usually did. Will we just learn to be pleased and served as kings and queens like back in the old ages. Also what if these replicated "humans" turn out to have a mind of their own and instead of listening to instructions and commands that they're supposed to follow they decide to revolt and have an uprising like in the movie I Robot starring Will Smith or another great example the Terminator Trilogy. It's a scary thought knowing that if we create something so amazing do we treat them as just things or like any other normal human beings that have emotions and feelings. Also the cloning idea can also have these consequences. What if abuse the science and decide to mass produce large quantities of these people. Would it be immoral to use them to our own will. Can this really benefit the societal world or would it have dire consequences that we might not be acknowledging at the moment. More research will allow me to decide, but I will level with people who advocate the usage of AI's. Life would be much more easier and more leisure time will be at hand to do other stuff that we didn't have time before, but the risk variables are too high right now to be able to do something like this worldwide.
The other topic that I would like to cover is whether humans are naturally good or bad. Meaning whether we have a selfish part of us that with only allow us to strive for ourselves at the expensive of other if possible or if we a cooperating species that has high views on altruism. The reason I want to research this is because it's the core of all philosophy. How does one decide what's right and wrong and what is the true nature of humans. It's kind of an interesting and sensitive concept to argue even since it was brought up during Aristotle's time in ancient Greece. I feel that maybe humans are more realistic and have an inner instinct to fend for themselves even if it means using their own family and blood to get what they want, but the idea that we'd like to see ourselves as clean nice people who will help another in need is a nice thought. It's more of a goal to do something like that because my own opinion is that we have more tendencies towards being bad then being good because the benefit that comes to us is more pleasurable and instantly gratifies our wishes as opposed to helping another person who probably won't return the favor like you did. It's a game, a gambling game, that I feel can turn out any way and it's very unpredictable.
The other topic that I would like to cover is whether humans are naturally good or bad. Meaning whether we have a selfish part of us that with only allow us to strive for ourselves at the expensive of other if possible or if we a cooperating species that has high views on altruism. The reason I want to research this is because it's the core of all philosophy. How does one decide what's right and wrong and what is the true nature of humans. It's kind of an interesting and sensitive concept to argue even since it was brought up during Aristotle's time in ancient Greece. I feel that maybe humans are more realistic and have an inner instinct to fend for themselves even if it means using their own family and blood to get what they want, but the idea that we'd like to see ourselves as clean nice people who will help another in need is a nice thought. It's more of a goal to do something like that because my own opinion is that we have more tendencies towards being bad then being good because the benefit that comes to us is more pleasurable and instantly gratifies our wishes as opposed to helping another person who probably won't return the favor like you did. It's a game, a gambling game, that I feel can turn out any way and it's very unpredictable.
Critical Thinking Blog #1: Are You A Science or Humanities Person (Or Both)?
Hi my name is Alexander Congiu. I'm a Psychology major at LaGuardia Community College and this will be my last semester as I hope to graduate with an Associates Degree and then attend Hunter College for my BA in psych. After that I plan to go to graduate school and even get my PhD in Clinical Psychology. In the meantime I need to accomplish one goal at a time. I also used to study Mechanical Engineering at City College. I did that for about 4 years only to decide that it wasn't meant for me or I'll be honest with myself and engineering is not what I expected it to be, but I still enjoyed the thought of being able to understand how world functions scientific theories.
The question posed to me is a complicated one because I have a background in both humanitarian and scientific theories. I study psychology and have to learn to empathize with people, learn to listen, accept their problems and give them a solution that with benefit them. I also have very strong morals towards doing what's right and have a very guilty conscience if I know what I'm saying is against my principles, but I do value the idea of saying and doing things to benefit others lives. I also have a strong science background due to my engineering studies and know what life is to depend or accept science as the foundation to living. I love doing research and I love to discuss themes and topics based on concrete facts because it's easier to prove, but then again there's always that doubt that science can't explain the idea of a soul and that's something that can't be represented with science, but through human psychology. A person has to learn how to understand feelings and emotions and that's a very difficult thing to accomplish even with all the learnt knowledge one receives in higher education. So I struggle with deciding whether I'm a humanities or science person, but I can say that maybe I'm both. It just depends on the situation posed at the moment and what circumstance one would be better to use.
The question posed to me is a complicated one because I have a background in both humanitarian and scientific theories. I study psychology and have to learn to empathize with people, learn to listen, accept their problems and give them a solution that with benefit them. I also have very strong morals towards doing what's right and have a very guilty conscience if I know what I'm saying is against my principles, but I do value the idea of saying and doing things to benefit others lives. I also have a strong science background due to my engineering studies and know what life is to depend or accept science as the foundation to living. I love doing research and I love to discuss themes and topics based on concrete facts because it's easier to prove, but then again there's always that doubt that science can't explain the idea of a soul and that's something that can't be represented with science, but through human psychology. A person has to learn how to understand feelings and emotions and that's a very difficult thing to accomplish even with all the learnt knowledge one receives in higher education. So I struggle with deciding whether I'm a humanities or science person, but I can say that maybe I'm both. It just depends on the situation posed at the moment and what circumstance one would be better to use.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)