How do I know who I am?

 Is the study of consciousness scientific?
    The study of human consciousness is ever-fascinating, complex and controversial. But how can we define consciousness? I am convinced that there is a scientific component to consciousness, yet there remains a certain sense of individuality that is difficult to explain simply through the scientific method.
     We have “discovered” that specific neurons firing and receiving specific neurotransmitters (in specific neuro-receptors) in various regions of the brain (also specific) cause thought processes, memories, actions and possibly emotions. That our brain (neurons) makes decisions ten-seconds before we are aware (Smith, 2008) and that a vital component of memory includes long term potentiation of neurons. We are learning (slowly) about the inner-workings of the human brain; functioning and how that may influence how we feel and what we do. Yet there is little research concerning the reasons behind why we are conscious. It is even somewhat difficult to find a concurrent definition of human consciousness. What is it that gives us the desire to learn about the physiology of our minds and bodies? Personally, I do not know if we will ever know, although we may get close.
     What I mean is that I do not believe that humans can ever “know” what consciousness is. I believe that we can theorize and support findings concerning consciousness, but science is based upon previous findings, meaning that each new day scientists discover something new or prove a new mechanism. Yet a day, a month, a year after, another scientist may find that another mechanism is actually what is happening (or what retains more convincing evidence). Essentially, the majority of research concerning consciousness seems to be permeable to the scientific method (i.e. the mechanisms of brain function), yet the question as to why we are conscious and how we became so are slightly out of reach (at least for science as it remains presently). The notion of individual experience is also an extremely complex query that may also be difficult for science to explain, yet I do believe that we will try. Science is currently the most common mechanism of viewing the biological world and I believe that we will continue to attempt to explain the “unexplainable” with science. So what am I? Possibly three-quarters reductionist and one quarter mysterian; I am positive my opinions will change as new ideas and theories come to light.

Citation
Smith, Kerri. Brain makes decisions before you even know it. Nature News. April 11, 2008. http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.html 

Religion and Moral Identity

Can we be good without God?


     The question of human morality or lack thereof in relation to organized religion is convoluted at best. It is nearly impossible to create a study to determine whether or not an individual’s involvement in organized religion is the factor causing them to practice moral or immoral behavior. However, the article lists numerous studies attempting to establish that religion is indeed a barrier to crime (as shown by Beetles pages 61-92) including those by William Bainbridge, Rodney Stark and Glenn Tinder among others. The article also mentioned several studies attempting to illustrate the lack of connection between organized religion and crime rates. One study by Alfie Kohn included 700 city dwellers and found that people religious people were no more likely than those not affiliated to participate in altruistic behavior. The article also cites a study in which students were asked to identify their religious preference and then asked them questions regarding cheating and helping injured individuals. The study found that the only individuals in which the majority was least likely to cheat were non-religious individuals.
     The argument stating that humans are more likely to commit crime when not affiliated with an organized religion suggested by some early studies was refuted by several studies/arguments by Alfie Kohn and Lee Ellis. Kohn suggests that there is no connection between participating in organized religion and crime rates, while Ellis suggests a number of theories utilized by those in support of organized religion as a barrier to crime. The four most common explanations (as described by Ellis) are as follows: group solidarity, coincidental factors, the “Hell Fire” explanation, the “obedience to authority” explanation and the arousal theory. With some background in psychology, it would make sense that group solidarity would be a barrier to crime, but only if that group was behaviorally against crime. Another compelling theory states that humans are willing to submit to being told what to do and what not to/what is right and wrong. Religious institutions would denounce crime and therefore the followers would be obedient. Ellis refutes these explanations as faulty and I am in agreement. Human morals are inherited through parental, community and peer education. An individual’s values are influenced by his parents, his friends, his socio-economic status (Bainbridge’s studies show that transience is a factor influencing the probability of criminal behavior) among a myriad of other things. While church atmosphere would be a potent influence upon an individual’s moral compass, it is far from remaining the only factor.

     However, as I have made my agreement that human beings indeed can ‘be good without God’ it is important to acknowledge other viewpoints. Glenn Tinder, a professor of Political Science endeavors (in 20 pages) to illustrate the positive correlation between Christianity and human morals/values. While much of the article explains varying aspects of (his version of) Christianity, such as Christian love (agape), the exalted individual and the fallen individual, Tinder does make an interesting point when explaining the ambiguity of “being good.” He brings up the issue that while (some) Christians have a unified idea of ‘being good,’ the ideology as recognized across the human race is rather variable. Each culture and religion may retain their own viewings of ‘right’ and ‘wrong,’although many cultures/religions share values. Overall, I am as of yet unconvinced that religion is the most influential factor impeding individuals from criminal behavior. I do not think that there is enough evidence to support the claim of religion as a barrier to crime. Also, many friends and acquaintances retain no affiliation to an organized religion and I have not yet learned of any criminal behavior. Before I end the post, I would also like to add that the article by Tinder made me slightly uncomfortable, even as a Christian myself. There are many denominations of Christianity and many of his points I found unconvincing. The central theme I gleaned from his article was that Christianity is the right path to a moral life, not precisely the political meaning of Christianity.

Post 2: The Self

     Is it possible to know an individual without actually meeting them? In the electronic age of online dating and facebook it is a particularly potent issue; yet, I feel that quite possibly, people in this class may come to know each other better than if they had simply attended a traditional class together. I feel that the internet provides a sense of security in which people may share ideas, feelings or facts about themselves that they otherwise would not in a traditional class setting or even in person. When students first enter a traditional classroom, the first impression is always based upon physical appearance firstly, and alters slightly once the person speaks. In an online course, students must learn about one another solely through speech mannerisms and possibly pictures (although pictures seem to add an element similar to the traditional classroom by allowing the students to base opinions upon physical appearance as well as based upon what the person says (writes).

     However, Goffman makes an interesting point when explaining the expressiveness of the individual. He states that ‘the expressiveness of an individual involves the expression that the individual gives and the expression that the individual gives off’ (Goffman, 1959). Essentially, Goffman states that the verbal symbols he uses to convey ideas and information is one type of expression and a range of actions (mannerisms) that may or may not support the first form of expression is the second. In an online class setting, the students cannot receive expressions that the individual ‘gives’ or ‘gives off.’ I believe that it is subconsciously important for a person to understand the vibe that another individual gives off. Humans are susceptible to the moods of others and the feelings they can project; those of a unique individual are inherent to the persons personality and therefore vital in the conveying of an individual’s ‘self.’ In an online class, this is nearly impossible. While a student may glean tone and voice from another student’s blog posts, it is more difficult to do so. Humans are biologically proficient at reading other human’s facial expressions (unless the person has a disorder such as Aspergers syndrome) and gleaning information from it. With the absence of face to face contact, it would be more challenging to discern the tone or expression of the individual.
      Although I agree with this point, the argument holds that students in this class may complete the course knowing more about one another than they otherwise would have. Students may not have the ability to glean information through reading individual expression (facial and bodily), but with the added sense of security and guided prompts of the course’s organization, I believe that if the students were to meet outside of the class, it would not seem a meeting of strangers.

Introduction

      Hello class of ENG215:). My name is Darien and I am a Global Health Junior. I recently transferred from Florida State University as a Biology major and am thrilled to be here; ASU is a much more open and friendly institution filled with incredible opportunities for research and travel.
     I am studying to become a general physician with a specialty in either Infectious Disease or Parisitology. I wish to work in underserved areas in Arizona (public hospitals/clinics) and in third world countries; particularly in Latin America. I am especially interested in working for an organization called Partners In Health which provides free services for those in need. They also retain a particular focus on Tuberculosis control (of which I am fascinated by). They were a large part of the aid effort in Haiti – you should check out their website! www.PIH.org
     This summer I spent 8 weeks in Central America; 6 in Guatemala participating in a Medical Anthropology Internship and 2 in Costa Rica. Traveling is one of my most loved activities. For my freshman year of university I lived in the Republic of Panama and worked in an oncological Hospital. I have also spent many summers in Costa Rica studying Spanish and sea turtles.

     I am still a kid; I love board games and being silly. My favorite time of the day (other than HPA lab) is when I see the kids at my work; acting silly with them is very freeing. I have labor-intensive goals and I want to achieve them to my very core, but I firmly believe that it is the journey, not the destination that is paramount and I try to live my life as such.