Week 4

Week 4

1. Gerald Edelman on Neural Darwinism

2. Crick, in “The Astonishing Hypothesis” argues that conscience is made up of “a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.” To support his point, he brings up how most of us “believe” there is a little person inside of us that tells us what to do and what not to do. He calls this the “Fallacy of the Homunculus.

Mentioning this fallacy of the little man strengthens his argument by reminding us how silly or elementary that sounds. I was quickly able to recall cartoons from my childhood that would show a little angel on one shoulder and a little devil on the other and they would argue with one another. This would represent one’s conscience. Click argues that it is all done by neurons.

3. Crick definitely sounds like an interesting individual. I have never heard of someone being able to locate where free will is located in the brain. It sounds impossible and I had a hard time following how blinking is associated with free will and consciousness. Or is that the point?

Is that mentioned to validate his point? Is it to explain that everything is controlled by neurons?

4. I liked the last paragraph on “The Astonishing Hypothesis” because I agreed with the counters to Crick’s assertions in regard to animals, animal testing, and pain. I am not a member of PETA, but to fully agree with his approach and view on animals asks us to completely disregard some of his points of everything being “sophisticated neural chemistry.”

Doesn’t that counter his point? Especially since our DNA is 99% identical to that of a chimpanzee. Is one percent that significant?
5. “Why I Don’t Eat Faces?” – it was interesting how the author noted that his switch to vegetarianism was caused due to not being able to go to sleep because of all the junk food he had eaten during the day. I can relate to this feeling because I have noticed that I feel a lot better when I eat healthier. I feel awake, alert, and relaxed.

This doesn’t just stay true to food. I mean, I am not a vegetarian, but I am aware of what I eat and I try to get some exercise in whenever time allows, and when I do, I feel great. I feel awake, alert, and relaxed. I am sure there is a connection.
6. Another thing I found interesting is how the author addressed the “taste” of things and points out that the taste lies more in the spices of the foods and not so much the food itself.
7. I could relate to the point he makes when he says that we don’t really feel bad eating animals because we don’t see the animals get killed. We see the food as prepared to cook and after its cooked, ready to eat. We don’t eat humans because we know what it’s like to be a human.

This reminds me of a time I went to visit some family in Mexico when I was younger. I was about 10 years old and I remember looking out into the backyard only to see my grandmother kill a chicken. I remember not having any of the chicken that we had for dinner that day.
8. Glorious Meat – one part that stood out during the video was when the speaker was listing all of the things that “he(I)” doesn’t do like making his heart beat, blinking, sleeping, waking up, creating antibodies, etc. He states that the “I” doesn’t do a whole lot of anything and that we believe the “I” to be more powerful than “we” really are.

I’m a little confused on this part. I am able to follow what’s being said, but I am getting lost because things (falling asleep, awakening, our heart beating, etc) are caused by our neurons. Well, are we not doing that or causing these things to happen because they’re happening because of our neurons?
9. The book “Is Consciousness Physical” shows the relationship of questions and how these questions are related to science and religion. We always want to know the why to everything and this starts at such an early age. I remember reading something about the average 4 year old asking over 4 hundred questions a day.

As a result, I think it states that we go on living and existing when we have a purpose and this purpose can be found in either religion or science. The difference is that in science we have an answer or truth that has been tested and in religion, it is based on faith or a search for that answer.
10. Searle mentions consciousness and our ability to have a conscience. In thinking about this further, it makes me wonder about some animals, at least domesticated animals like dogs. I have had dogs all my life and we have gone through the process of basic training whether it’s sitting, rolling over, potty-training, etc.

Part of the process of training my dogs has been to reward them for good behavior and giving them a little smack when inappropriate behavior takes place. Does the reinforcement of proper behavior prove that dogs do have a conscience, even if it isn’t as complex as ours?