his is a lesson many parents at Be My Neighbor Day reflected on. In one interview the parentstates “She is special needs, it helps a lot, it teaches her how to take turns and take a deepbreath when she’s mad.” (51:20)
a child w special needs and it helps
d their love for the programming they find onPBS, especially Daniel Tiger. One parent said, “PBS is trustworthy”, since other kid shows “aren’tlike they used to be.
why parents like and trust PBS, parents and having the choice and control of what media to expose young children too, this is why it is important
Parents voiced the desire to show their children content that they could learn social andemotional lessons from, which can be seen in Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood and Mr. Roger’sNeighborhood.
how parents feel about it
s to explore the perceptions of parents and children regardingcharacter education delivered through modern mediums.
parents perception and if they feel it is helping them teach their children
bathroom and the importance of understanding the toilet ishelpful not harmful.
bathroom and the toilet
n Episode 1 o
dif episodes
“whole child
teaching whole child
ositive relationships
foundation for maintaining relationships
SEL
SEL define in paper
ASEL
CASEL and sel
60 interviews
methods
helping parents teachtheir children about complex topics, such as how they feel, what they value, and cleanliness inthe home.
topics
eturning to PBS for foundational support when in raising their children.
cool
, teachers further reproduced theeducational inequity for students of color labeled with dis/abilities.Whitener
so sad, having a disbaility and also ocming from a racial or ethnic backgound
it's either I give her my hoodie [or] if I keep that thing theyare trying to take away from me they'll call the polic
agaion school to prision pipeline system, sociology and how the zero tolerance policies impact minioirty students, robbing oppertunity, susepnsion leading to arrest, SROs potentially strengthen this link, are they really stopping violence in schools, in some instance like the SRO in the flordia school hide during the school shooting so
Being Black and Latino is hard these days becaus
school to prision pipeline system, more punishment nd punititve, zero tolerance policies dis[orinalty impacting balck students. really improtant part pf intersectional and underlyog structures interacting
People think you are dumb because you have an IEP butthat is not always true
reminds me why many parents are hesitant to put child in self contained. but sometimes its needed.
'Why?' She elaborated, 'She'llfall off her chair. Because you did it.
so hurtful this makes me sad
They want you to say you're disabled and then sometimes theydon't even give you what you're asking for when you do say it. Forme, they just wanted to fix me with a pill. But I didn't want a pill.What I needed were people, especially my professors, tounderstand
lot to unpack here, wonder what the disability was, but also the layers and stigma meds, maybe there needs to be a blaance between both, isn't all one thing or another. also like misconception that a pill fixes everything, ie anti depressents will cure your sadness, FALSE you also need to find therapy and coping skills to help your self.
When I'm in a classroom, I guess that's when my LD starts, cozthat's when I start to feel like, "Dag, I'm not perfect," "Dag, I'mgonna mess up or get something wrong," or, "They're gonna judgeme, coz I'm not catching up as fast as they can." As soon as I stepinto a classroom, that's when everything starts, "Dag! Oh man, Ihope they don't call on me today," or "I hope I can just ride easilythroughout the day while getting looks, stares
classroom tigrerring a negative social well being, what classroom spcae presents to that student, how to chnage
to produce newknowledge by making connections across individual qualitative studies and to adddepth to existing bodies of research literature.
adding the human touch to quanitative resaerch, kind of like taking psych literature and giving it meaning with real people
Thomas (2007) defined the psycho-emotional model of disability as "a form ofsocial oppression involving the social imposition of restrictions of activity onpeople with impairments and the socially engendered undermining of theirpsycho-emotional well-being
psycho emotional disabolity, social oppression
The club meeting later must either be, or not be, the very same club.’ This would show that this person didn’t under-stand the nature of clubs
I did not really understand the analogy. Is Parfit saying that just how this person has the wrong idea about a club, we have the wrong idea about what it means to have a personal identity?
Since you, the person, are not a separately exist-ing entity, we can know exactly what would happen without answering the question of what will happen to you.
this part confuses me a little
half-conscious.
What does it mean to be half conscious?
psychologically continuous
"Two people are psychologically continuous if they form part of an overlapping series of persons who are psychologically connected with one another."
Most of us therefore have false beliefs about what persons are, and about ourselves.
We have false beliefs about ourselves when we consider science fiction like teleportation.
a bundle tied up with string.
Bundle theory focuses on mental states to define personal identity whereas Ego Theory focuses on memories
Buddhists concede that selves or persons have ‘nominal existence’, by which they mean that persons are merely combinations of other elements.
Interesting, I did not know this
Instead we must claim that there are long series of different mental states and events—thoughts, sensations, and the like—each series being what we call one life.
Bundle Theory
Cartesian view, each person is a persist-ing purely mental thing—a soul, or spiritual substance.
Cartesian View, we are purely mental, soul, or spiritual substance
the answer is that these are both experiences which are being had by me, this person, at this time
Ego theory
Ego Theory,
Emphasis on personal experiences to define identity
split-brain
page 295 in the text, when neurosurgeons split brain, they found that "they seemed to create two separate spheres of consciousness"
Nothing but consciousness can unite remote existences into the same person: the identity of sub-stance will not do it; for whatever substance there is, however framed, without consciousness there is no per-son:
Locke's ideas of personal identity focus on consciousness
Human laws punish both, with a jus-tice suitable to their way of knowledge; — because, in these cases, they cannot distinguish certainly what is real, what counterfeit:
This relates to ideas about responsibility
This may show us wherein personal identity con-sists: not in the identity of substance, but, as I have said, in the identity of consciousness, wherein if Socrates and the present mayor of Queinborough agree, they are the same person:
Locke says personal identity is consciousness
Self is that conscious thinking thing, — whatever substance made up of, (whether spiritual or material, simple or compounded, it matters not) — which is sen-sible or conscious of pleasure and pain, capable of hap-piness or misery, and so is concerned for itself, as far as that consciousness extends.
Locke's definition of self
so that whatever has the consciousness of present and past actions, is the same person to whom they both belong
Consciousness of past and present = identical
But yet, when we will inquire what makes the same spirit, man or person, we must fix the ideas of spirit, man, or person in our minds;
Locke is saying the words spirit, man, person all need to be defined so that everyone is on the same page and we can determine how to identify with these labels
The body too goes to the making the man, and would, I guess, to every-body determine the man in this case, wherein the soul, with all its princely thoughts about it, would not make another man:
This part is a little confusing to me, is it describing the difference between the body vs the soul?
or souls being, as far as we know anything of them, in their nature indifferent to any parcel of matter, the supposi-tion has no apparent absurdity in it,)
What is a soul? This reminds me of the Soul Theory and how since we don't know what a soul really is, it is not a strong theory of personal identity.
So that personal identity, reaching no further than conscious-ness reaches, a pre-existent spirit not having continued so many ages in a state of silence, must needs make different persons.
What Locke says personal identity consists of
Whether if the same substance which thinks be changed, it can be the same person; or, remaining the same, it can be different persons?
The question Locke is trying to answer
: it being impossible for any one to per-ceive without perceiving that he does perceive.
This confused me a little
hat person stands for; — which, I think, is a thinking intelligent being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing, in different times and places;
Locke's definition of a person, emphasis on consciousness
It can help us rediscover free will.
Personally, I know people who find comfort in the fact that things can potentially be predetermined. It takes the pressure off of making the right decision and puts up in the mindset of what is meant to be will be. I know I always get worried about making the right or wrong choice, so knowing that there is a plan is a sense of comfort.
Such discover-ies suggest that most of us possess less free will than we tend to think, and they may inform debates about our degrees of responsibility. But they do not show that free will is an illusion.
The authors conclusion from the discussed studies
we should consider the role of con-sciousness in action on the assumption that our con-scious deliberation and rational thinking are carried out by complex brain processes, and then we can examine whether those very brain processes play a causal role in action.
This part confuses me a little, I don't understand what it is trying to say
The early neural activity measured in the experi-ments likely represents these urges or other prepara-tions for movement that precede conscious awareness
What the author thinks the studies are actually showing
It simply finds discernible patterns of neural activity that precede decisions.
What the author thinks the studies show, which makes their argument about conciousness occuring too late unconvincing
bypassing”—the idea that our actions are caused in ways that bypass our conscious deliberations and decisions.
the idea of bypassing
That is, most people judge that you can have free will and be responsible for your actions even if all of your decisions and actions are entirely caused by earlier events in accord with natural laws
This is an interesting point, I don't think I agree with it though. I feel like it contradicts itself.
includ-ing me, understand free will as a set of capacities for imagining future courses of action, deliberating about one’s reasons for choosing them, planning one’s actions in light of this deliberation and controlling actions in the face of competing desires.
This is what the author says free will involves
ut to con-clude that consciousness or free will is thereby an illu-sion is too quick.
I don't understand this part, why is it too quick?
requires an immaterial soul or non-physical mind,
What some scientist consider to be the definition of free will. What Nahamis thinks many scientist mistakendly think free will requires.
It also turns out that simply exposing people to scientific claims that free will is an illusion can lead them to misbehave, for instance, cheat-ing more or helping others less.
This is a common concern against the free will argument, but it was disproved in Sabine Hossenfelder's video explaining why we don't have free will. Hossenfelder explains how "we are all just running software that is trying to optimize our well being" she continues that if someone causes harm they are still responsible because that person "embodies the problem and locking you up will solve it." She specfically address these "priming" studies where she believes people were primed to think fatalistically. Newer nuanced studies have shown the opposite.
The death of free will, or its exposure as a convenient illusion, some worry, could wreak havoc on our sense of moral and legal responsibility.
This is an interesting point to consider as advances in neuroscience are continued to be made. However I think the criminal justice system in America is already is desperate need for reform in some ways, not particularly related to free will but just a thought.
atrick Haggard declared, “We certainly don’t have free will. Not in the sense we think.”
The view that we do not have free will is very popular among the science community. As Patrick Haggard says.
a) I did it, and (b) nothing made me do it.
conditions to be met for an action to be free
In other words, if we have free will, then we only exercise it intermittently, at certain specific moments.
This is an interesting idea that I had not thought of before. I don't think I agree with it, but it is still interesting to think about. When it comes to free will, I thought it was either we have it all the time or we don't have it at all. Do you think it is possible to have free will in some instances but not others?
First of all, some of our torn decisions can be very important
torn decisions cover a range of choices from what to eat for dinner to life choices like a partner or job
“auto-pilot
auto pilot is a reaction, not a torn decision
n cases like (i), it would be bad to have to exercise our free will because in order to do this we would have to act consciously
torn situations = reactions torn decision= conscious choices
We need both to function in daily life and I agree that these torn situations (reactions) help to protect us
torn situations” and we settle them without stopping to think about it,
torn situations are different from torn decisions because they are not conscious choices, rather they are reactions
it’s important to remember that torn deci-sions are always conscious decisions.
torn decisions are always conscious
physiology, heredity and environment
This reminds me of in Psychology we talk about the nature vs nurture debate. I think that genetics does play a big part in shaping us, but having the right environment plays a part as well.
But doesn’t a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility,
This section raises the question about moral skepticism. I disagree that people do not have responsibility for their actions. I think my beliefs most strongly align with causal indeterminism which says some events are not the consequence of past events plus the laws of nature. I think adapting this view would turn out world upside down and change everything from how our criminal justice system works to everyday relationships.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-moral-responsibility/
usually by replacing a damaged com-ponent, either in hardware or software.
I think that Dawkin's comparison of criminals to broken machines is not a good analogy. It reminds me of the genetic engineering thought probe which talks about using technology to alter genetic makeup.(196 Doing Philosophy) I think that the machine analogy fits well with causal determinisim which states that every event is the consequence of past event plus laws of nature, However modern science does not support this view.
bandied
exchanged lightly https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bandied
retribution
punishment
ubiquity
very common
Perhaps information, or at least some information, has two basic aspects: a physical one and an experiential one.
Information can have physical and experimental information
invariance
unchanged or the conservation of laws
believe it is strongly supported by thought experiments describ-ing the gradual replacement of neurons by silicon chips
Searle's Brain experiment you do not need a brain to have a mind (116)
Thus, consciousness correlates well with what we might call “awareness”: the process by which information in the brain is made globally available to motor processes such as speech and bodily action
consciousness relates to awareness
high-level bridging laws, connecting physical processes to experience at an everyday level.
Bridging laws connect physical processes to experience
psychophysical laws
Laws connecting psychological or mental states with physical states.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100352872
not all entities in science are explained in terms of more basic entities.
primitive property
neural correlate of consciousness
The Neural Correlates of Consciousness (NCC) can be defined as the minimal neuronal mechanisms jointly sufficient for any one specific conscious percept
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Neural_correlates_of_consciousness
but it tells us very little about why there should be a subjective experience behind these reports
does not solve the "hard problems"
elucidate
explain
cerebral cortex,
the cerebral cortex is responsible for motor functioning, planning and organizing, processing sensory information, and langauge processing. https://www.thoughtco.com/anatomy-of-the-brain-cerebral-cortex-373217#:~:text=The%20cerebral%20cortex%20is%20the,brain%20appear%20to%20be%20white.
It follows that there are facts about conscious experience that cannot be deduced from physical facts about the functioning of the brain.
This thought experiment shows how it isn't possible to have a full view of the world in physical terms only since consciousness is qualitative.
easy problem
Easy problems concern the "objective mechanisms of the cognitive system" since they can be solved in a traditional manner.
myste-rians
"mysterians holds that even though there is nothing supernatural about how consciousness arises from neural activity, the human brain is simply not equipped to understand it."
myriad
countless
Chalmers
We read about Chalmers thought experiment in 2.4 called Zombies where he raises the question of could there be such thing as a zombie (a creature with no mental states) that can do everything a non human can do? His argument was trying to show that consciousness is not physical. (144)
The behaviorist movement
This was a movement that focused on the external behavior rather than internal work. Logical Behaviourism says mental states are behavioral state. Meaning you needed nothing more to be in a certain behavioral disposition to be in a mental state. (100)
the subjective, inner life of the mind
This reminds me of how we had to defend against if Ava was able to have the subjective experience of emotions. Did she have a "inner life of the mind"?
Con-sciousness is a self-scanning mechanism in the central nervous system.
I think looking at a different perspective and connecting back to a few chapters ago, it is possible for nonhumans (who did not have a brain) to have a mind. For example, Eva. While she doesn't have a central nervous system, she was still conscious.
Locke
"Tabula Rasa" said people are blank slates
To perceive is like acquiring a key to a door. You do not have to use the key: you can put it in your pocket and never bother about the door. But if you do want to open the door the key may be essential.
This statement is very powerful. To me I think it means that we have the mind (the brain) which gives us the potential or the capability to precicve.
we reward it;
This reminds me of my psychology class where we are learning about reinforcment of behaviors
sense-perception
understanding through the senses
Now can we say that to be conscious, to have experiences, is simply for something to go on within us apt for the causing of certain sorts of behaviour?
This reminds me of Descartes I think, therefore I am. There was something inside of him that was allowing him the behavior to think.
we can go on to argue that the mental states are in fact nothing but physical states of the central nervous system
What about Putnam's conscious computer thought experiment? Through the use of silicon chips to act like a brain, is proves we don't need a brain to have a mind. Computers do not have central nervous systems, but they can still have a mind. (113) 2.2 Doing Philosophy
Behaviourism: that in talking about the mind we do not have to go behind outward behaviour to inner states
Behaviorism focusing on the external, observable traits of behavior.
then we can identify these mental states with purely physical states of the central ner-vous system
In the reading in 2.2, it mentions that the identity theory states that mental states = brain states - particular pattern of neurons firing. I think this raises the question is a central nervous system necessary to have a mind? In Lewis's pained Martion thought experiment, the martian who does not have neurons or a brain can still feel pain.
But in fact the verdict of modern science seems to be that the sole cause of mind-betokening behaviour in man and the higher animals is the physico-chem-ical workings of the central nervous system.
This is interesting. In the 2.2 reading is mentioned some of the flaws behind the identity theory. Can beings that do not necessarily have a central nervous system have a mind then?
Perhaps mind can be defined not as behaviour, but, rather as the inner cause of cer-tain behaviour.
mind = inner causes of behavior. Does this mean the motivation behind actions?
A man’s behaviour constitutes the reason we have for attributing certain mental processes to him, but the behaviour cannot be identified with the mental processes.
I agree with the statement too
When I think, but my thoughts do not issue in any action, it seems as obvious as anything is obvious that there is something actually going on in me which con-stitutes my thought. I
I think that this brings up a good point. One of the flaws of Logical Behaviorisim. It assumes that mental states are not strong enough to influence action. (105) Doing Philosophy
a factor in bringing about the breaking.
Brittleness is not the cause for the breakage but it is a factor in bringing about the breaking. How does this relate to behaviorisim?
The man does not behave, but he does have a disposition to behave.
In this sentence, does the word disposition mean stimuli? Does is mean potential or capability?
temporary characte
This part stuck out to me. It shows that these mental states are changing and that behavior is dependent on the stimuli.
disposition to behave
behavioral dispositions is the tendency to respond in certain ways to certain stimuli (100) Doing Philosophy
Behaviourism
In my psychology class we learned about behaviourism. According to Simple Psychology is is "is a theory of learning which states all behaviors are learned through interaction with the environment through a process called conditioning. Thus, behavior is simply a response to environmental stimuli." There is a strong emphasis on what is external or observable.
the view that man is nothing but a physico-chemical mechanism.
I think that this is a big part of the identity theory. The idea that mental states are just brain states, and brain states are about a articular group or patterns of neurons firing (108) in Doing Philosophy
impetus
force of energy
But it will be said that these presentations are false, and that I am dream-ing.
This goes back to the idea that are senses are not certain, and how we can never tell if we are not dreaming.
thinking thing? It is a thing that doubts, understands, [conceives], affirms, denies, wills, refuses; that imagines also, and perceives
I believe a thinking thing is an existing thing because you can not be doubting or understanding if you do not exist. I think this relates back to Descartes I think, therefore I am.
I frame an image r
What does it mean to frame an image?
he answer was, a thinking thing.
What does it mean to be a thinking thing?
an I affirm that I possess any one of all those attributes of which I have lately spoken as belonging to the nature of body? After attentively considering them in my own mind, I find none of them that can properly be said to belong to myself.
This is the reason why Descartes believes he can not be identified with his body.
As regarded the body, I did not even doubt of its nature, but thought I distinctly knew it, and if I had wished to describe it according to the notions I then entertained, I
Descartes never doubted the nature of the body
Shall I say a rational animal?
What does it mean to be a rational animal? The word rational itself means "relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rational If man is not a rational animal what it?
I assuredly existed, since I was persuaded.
I think this really goes along with Descrates belief "I think, therefore I am." Similar to how he was "certain that he is doubting, it's also certain that he exists, for he can't doubt unless he exists" (81) He is certain that he was persuaded therefore it is certain that he exists because he would not have been persuaded unless he exists
Perhaps this only, that there is absolutely nothing certain.
Especially in terms of people and the phenomenon of dreams, page 78 explains that "we can never actually be certain that we are not dreaming." This means that the sense of experience is not a source of knowledge because knowledge would require certainty and nothing is certain.
I will continue always in this track until I shall find something that is certain, or at least, if I can do nothing more, until I shall know with certainty that there is nothing certain.
This reminds me of how in the reading of 2.3 In Doing philosophy, it says that "we can't be certain that sense experiences accurately represent the world. " (78) So we have to start being able to be comfortable in this uncertainty because it seems as though nothing is certain.
The only plau-sible nominee for this post is philosophy. Philosophy is the interdepartmental conciliation agency, the National Labor Relations Board, or if you prefer, the World Court, of the intellectual community.
I really love this quote. I think it does a great job of establishing how Philosophy is like the common thread between all sciences.
theology.
the study of God and of God's relation to the world https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theology
hey are assumed by all sciences equally; they are continuous with the thought of all; yet they are the property of none.
I think this makes a good point about how assumptions are made but never questioned
That the laws of our logic are valid of this physical order
Page 25 says " the laws of science must obey the laws of logic. But the laws of logic need not obey the laws of science" Doing Philosophy 1.1
Notions
an individual's conception or impression of something known, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/notions
Athe-nian Noah Webster,
Noah Webster Jr. was an American lexicographer, textbook pioneer, English-language spelling reformer, political writer, editor, and prolific author. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster
ut to think about them is to reveal depth after depth of unsuspected meaning.
This reminds me of when my AP Lang class used this image of an iceberg. On top of the iceberg is the visible things we can observe in culture like dress and food, then below the iceberg were things like values. Relative to science, the tip of the iceberg could be science and the bottom of the iceberg is philosophy which searches for the greater depth and meaning behind what is visibly observed
Consider the words we have used: ‘time’, ‘space’, ‘cause’, ‘good’, ‘truth’, ‘mind’, ‘just’, ‘I’.
These words are all subjective and should be questioned given their context and meaning
hilosophy deals with the infrareds and the ultraviolets of science, continuous with the central band but more delicate and difficult of discernment.
I like the use of this analogy, it helps me to understand the philosophy goes deeper than what sciences "sees"
You suffer some evening from an excruciating headache and despondently wonder why. You remember that you just ate two large pieces of chocolate cake and that you are allergic to chocolate; the headache seems then to be explained. It is no longer
I think this is a great example of reasoning and making sense of things
under-standing the world. What do we mean by under-standing—understanding anything at all? We mean, I suppose, explaining it to ourselves.
Understanding the world by explaining it to ourselves
enterprise
a project or undertaking that is especially difficult, complicated, or risky https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enterprise
rough the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is ren-dered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.
I really like this conclusion sentence that in the end, philosophy helps our mind to reach it's full potential
Self-assertion, in philo-sophic speculation as elsewhere, views the world as a means to its own ends; thus it makes the world of less account than Self, and the Self sets bounds to the great-ness of its goods. In contemplation, on the contrary, we start from the not-Self, and through its greatness the boundaries of Self are enlarged; through the infinity of the universe the mind which contemplates it achieves some share in infinity. For this reason greatness o
The not self part confuses me
Knowledge is a form of union of Self and not-Self;
I think this is an important combination, a necessary balance
beleaguered
suffering or being subjected to constant or repeated trouble or harassment https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/beleaguered
gar-rison
military post https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/garrison
In such a life there is something feverish and confined, in comparison with which the philosophic life is calm and free.
I think this quote shows the freedom that comes with accepting you do not have all the answers, and that the world is much bigger than your experience
tyranny of custom.
I love this line "the tyranny of custom". I think the people should embrace philosophy and the questions raised so that they can explore and not rely on past customs
contemptuously
manifesting, feeling, or expressing deep hatred or disapproval https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contemptuously
con-viction
Prejudices, habitual beliefs, convictions. What all of these things have in common is that they hold people back. They trap people in the false sense of "knowing" when i reality they only feel like the "know" because they have not tried to question and explore for themselves
We cannot, therefore, include as part of the value of philosophy any definite set of answers to such questions.
Even though many philosopher believe that religious beliefs could be true, a major part of philosophy is not making all or nothing statements. The point of philosophy is to be a journey of discovery for those that study, not telling people what to believe
consciousness
This reminds me of the essay from Dr. David L Perry which discussed consciousness.
ascertainable
learn with certainty https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ascertainable
But if you put the same question to a philosopher, he will, if he is candid, have to confess that his study has not achieved positive results such as have been achieved by other sciences. It
In 1.1 of Doing Philosophy, it talks about the scientific method and mentions that "Philosophy, like science, aims at solving problems and getting at the truth. Unlike science, however, philosophy is more concerned with explaining how it's possible for concepts to apply than how it's possible for events to occur. " (23) Therefore I think philosophy does get to achieve positive results like how other sciences do, it just goes even deeper.
he knowledge it aims at is the kind of knowledge which gives unity and system to the body of the sciences,
This reminds me of the other Essay by Blanchard which said "Philosophy is the interdepartmental conciliation agency, the National Labor Relations Board, or if you prefer, the World Court of the intellectual community" (Blanchard, 65)
It is exclusively among the goods of the mind that the value of philosophy is to be found;
I really like this quote, It really resonated with me for some reason. To me this quote is saying that within the mind is where philosophy takes place, and it is within our mind that we are able to get the rewards of philosophy
practical”
I think by practical the author might mean " relating to, or manifested in practice or action : not theoretical or ideal" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/practical
The “practical” man, as this word is often used, is one who recognizes only material needs, who realizes that men must have food for the body, but is oblivious of the necessity of providing food for the mind.
I think this brings up a good point about how people can be surfaced and only considered with doing rather than thinking or questioning.
Roe v. Wade,
the 1973 U.S Supreme Court Decision that stated access to safe a legal abortions is a constitutional right.
https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/abortion/roe-v-wade
neocortical functioning
"The neocortex is part of the cerebral cortex (along with the archicortex and paleocortex - which are cortical parts of the limbic system).
It is involved in higher functions such as sensory perception, generation of motor commands, spatial reasoning, conscious thought, and in humans, language."
cerebral cortex
The cerebal cortex is made up of four different lobes, each lobe is responsible for a different function, and when they work together they are able to generate that consciousness experince.
Frontal lobe- motor skills and prefroential cortex (problem solving and thinking)
Parietal Lobe- sensory information
Occipital Lobe- vision
temporal lobe - sound
What would it mean to adopt the higher-brain standard as a sufficient condition for declaring persons to be dead?
I agree, saying that it is enough to consider some dead if they do not have a high enough functioning brain can start debate about if people with that are mentally retarded are actually considered people. In the reading Warren also mentions the idea of other high functioning non humans that could come to earth. Then if they were high brain functioning, would that be suficent for considering those non humans as persons?
PET
PET scans (known as positron emission tomography) reveals how organs are functioning by using a radioactive drug.
Since early embryos and fetuses cannot experience harm, they lack interests of their own which are necessary to have moral rights. Under the higher-brain standard, they do not become persons until the onset of consciousness
I also think that this is an important distinguishable factor.
I tend to think not,
I also agree with this statement because the person does not have the necessary condition of consciousness to make the decision.
Whole-brain death is now a sufficient condition for declaring a person to be legally dead in every U.S. state.
I think this is very interesting because that means that being whole brain dead is enough to determine a person as dead. I think that I agree with it because of the "irreversible loss of the capacity for consciousness"
Vatican’s claim that a person is fully present from conception,
I disagree with Vatican's argument because embryos do not have the five traits mentioned earlier. It reminds me of a quote from the reading on page 49 that says "What makes something a person is what it can do, not what it is made of."
1. consciousness . . . and in particular the capacity to feel pain; 2. reasoning (the developedcapacity to solve new and relatively complex problems); 3. self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control); 4. the capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types . . . ; 5. the presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness. . . ."
I wonder if one of these traits is more important than the others, or is they are all equally important. On page (49) in Doing Philosophy by Dr.Schick, Warren mentions that this means that "genetic humanity is neither a necessary nor sufficentfor establishing that an entity is a person."
This theory envisions the mind as an emergent property of individually unconscious neural cells when they interact in complex ways, analogous to wetness as an emergent property of water molecules, or life as an emergent property of amino acid molecules which are individually lifeless (Searle 1992; Schick & Vaughn 1999a).
I also agree with this theory because it believes that the mind is emergent of neural cells. In chapter 2.5 of Doing Philosophy by Dr.Schick, is explains that emergent properties are properties that "come into being when things that lack a property interact in a certain way." It also explains that because mental states are qulatative properties, they are considered to me primitive properties.
property dualism
On page 148 in Doing Philosophy by Dr. Schick, it defines property dualism as "the doctrine that mental states have both physical and no physical properties."
an immaterial mind could never interact with material things or events like the electrical impulses and biochemical activities occurring constantly in and between our neural cells.
I agree with this quote and I think this it relates to the neuroscience aspect of this question. It reminds me of NCC (neural correlates of consciousness). In my Intro to Psychology class we are learning about how scientists are using functional magnetic resonance imaging, which detects which regions of the brain are responsible for specific things. For example the cerebellum is the large structure that encompasses the cerebal cortex. Here is where our sensory information is processed and we are able to distinguish ourselves and the outside world. The cerebellum needs to work with other parts of the brain like the spinal cord and brains stem in order to generate the experince of consciousness.
https://www.visiblebody.com/learn/nervous/brain
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-consciousness/
consciousness
What is consciousness? Is having a brain a necessary condition for consciousness? Scientists have studied NCC (neural correlates of consciousness) which is defined as " minimal neural mechanisms jointly sufficient for any specific conscious experience."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-consciousness/
m
Metaphysics is the study of an ultimate reality. Questions include what is the mind and how is the mind related to the body.