Alright guys, this semester I'm going to trying something new. Instead of posting one gigantic work every few months I'm going to try to incorporate you guys in the process. At the end of the semester I'll post my finding for everyone to enjoy and contemplate. Sounds like fun, right? You bet! Over the next few months my topic of study is going to be how one can practice Buddhism in a contemporary culture fraught with capitalism and materialism. The further we venture into the digital frontier the more cyborg-like we become, and who says cyborgs can't be Buddhists. Even the Dalai Lama has a twitter! So sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride! If you have anything to contribute, participation is always welcomed. 

"The 21st Century Buddhist" Part I

       For centuries the spiritual practice of Buddhism has advocated the exorcising of material possessions. Buddhism focuses on the impermanence of the world and teaches individuals to let go of the external. Therefore, according to Buddhism, materialism, judgement, and the attachment to outcomes are all irrelevant in the grand scheme of the Universe. By casting off these things individuals are free to explore their spiritual selves, which in turn allows one to reach a state of enlightenment.

       I myself have been a practicing Buddhist for just over a year. Over the course of the last 12 months I’ve come to one extremely challenging, yet important realization: growing up in the western world has made the “exorcising of material possessions” exceptionally difficult. When capitalism and materialism lurk around every corner, it is sometimes tough to say no; especially when one considers the exciting advancements humanity has made on the technological frontier over the last decade. Our reliance on technology grows exponentially every year, because of this phenomenon many would say that our ability to meditate on “the spiritual self” has been greatly diminished, however I disagree.

       After considering several contemporary ideas in the field of embodiment and the cognitive sciences--most notably Andy Clark’s notion of “the extended mind”--I’ve surmised that technology isn’t hindering our enlightenment, but instead helping our progression. Within this paper I plan on illustrating how technology is quickly becoming an integral part of our “physical selves” and why it isn’t detracting from our “spiritual selves,” making way for the era of the 21st century Buddhist.

Who's That Person in the Mirror? Achieving Self-Awareness Through the Study of Linguistics

When a human looks in the mirror, the natural response is usually, “I see myself” (my self?).  The concept of “the self" is one only a select few species have been blessed with.  Humans, apes, in recent years scientists have even discovered that dolphins and whales are capable of having a sense of “self.”  Self-awareness is this rare ability that enables these creatures, humans most of all, to distinguish who they are as unique organisms, while at the same time cohabiting and cooperating with those around them.  But what allows us to do this?  What gives us this capacity for self-awareness and compassion for others?  When we recognize ourselves in a mirror are we experiencing a phenomenon based in divinity, do we possess self-awareness because God deemed it so? Or can the phenomenon be explained empirically, has it come to be through thousands of years of evolution? 

Now, I’m not discrediting spiritual beliefs.  There are spiritual aspects to self-awareness and the concept of “self” that are solely offered in religion.  For example the concept of “the self” has played an enormous role in the Hindu religion for centuries.[1]  Nevertheless, like most real-world occurrences, I firmly believe “self-awareness” is of an empirical nature and because it is an event that occurs cognitively, we are capable of investigating it under the microscope of classical logic systems and dynamic coupling systems conversely; the latter being the system I will focus on in this paper.  Knowing this, the next question I want to pose is, how can we take this information and apply it toward developing an artificially intelligent machine that experiences self-awareness? 

Unfortunately, knowing what kind of system best suits a phenomenon such as self-awareness isn’t enough; as expected, to get to the core of “the self” one is required to dig much deeper. One needs to ask, what sets human self-awareness apart from the rest?  I speculate, along with many other scientists and philosophers that our self-awareness stems from the sociological construction of language, this ability to communicate that we have developed and fine-tuned century after century.  However not all authorities believe this idea has uniform implications.  Some claim the answer can be found through the study of solitary introspection, others claim dynamic interactions between subjects yield a greater understanding of the role language plays in our developmental processes.  There are various views and the differences lie in the manner in which each individual believes language achieves its goal.  Obviously all experts lean toward their respective claims and while each claim has something of value to bring to the table, only through the extensive study of dynamic interactions between individuals, the ability to converse, will we as a species finally begin to fully grasp the mystery of “the self.”  This isn’t to say that self-reflection and introspection doesn’t have its place, but it is through social interactions and the development of language that we are even capable of such introspection in the first place, they too are a fundamental part of self-awareness,  Without the words, what would your thoughts sound like?  Thankfully this is a view shared by many people, other than myself.

For instance Lev Vygotsky, 20^th century Russian psychologist, asserted that linguistics not only function as a medium for transferring knowledge and information from one party to another but could be used as a tool for structuring and controlling real-time interactions with our environment. (Clark 195)  This is a view that falls in line with the coupling concept previously mentioned, Dynamic Systems Theory, or DST.[2]  According to Vygotsky, language is responsible for helping us complete real world tasks, common and otherwise through interacting and conversing with other parties along with the environment around us.  An example of this phenomenon elucidated by Vygotsky is the act of a child learning how to tie his or her shoelaces.

Let’s think about the way this task is accomplished.  In most cases when a child is learning how to tie their own shoelaces there are several components at work.  Firstly, they have a vigilant parent or authority figure.  Secondly, this individual is either explaining the actions in chronological order or utilizing some kind of rhyme (both of which are contingent upon language) to help the child remember each step involved; for some reason the image of a rabbit always comes to mind.  This process, this union of parent, child, and linguistic interaction has been proven to improve the level of mastery and accelerate the speed at which the child is capable of learning to tie their shoes because upon retaining the initial information they no longer have to rely on a parent to act; instead, they can rely on their own capacities for pattern recognition and symbolic representation to complete the task.  A child can conduct a personal dialogue thanks to linguistics.  By drawing on the meaning of the aforementioned words and recounting said words in the same pattern in which they were delivered, the child is able to guide their behavior, focus their attention on the action at hand, and guard themselves against common errors that might take place, thus becoming more aware of themselves and the cognitive space around them. (Clark 195)  This method of dynamic pattern recognition wouldn’t be possible if not for A) The pairing of the initial two agents (Parent and child), B) the use of linguistics (the words being used to help the child recall the steps), and C) the external interaction between the individual and their environment (the child and their shoelaces). Knowing this, one could surmise along with Vygotsky that developmental process is greatly enhanced through dynamic interactions with others.  This is an important note considering the next topics of discussion, the linguistic encoding of ideas and thoughts, i.e. writing, and path dependence.

Firstly, the linguistic encoding of ideas and thought processes is a phenomenon that I believe is taken for granted in the 21^st century.  In an age of “LOLs,” “OMGs,” and “BRBs” people’s perception of writing’s role in our lives has become greatly diminished from what it truly is, a developmental miracle.  In section 10.3 of Andy Clark’s book Being There, Clark discusses how the written word has given humanity the ability as a species to solidify and preserve our thoughts and ideas outside of our distinctive units.  Doing so has allowed us to share said thoughts and ideas with countless individuals who are then capable of critiquing, modifying, learning from, and finally teaching these concepts to a larger number of people. (Clark 204)  It’s a never-ending process of learning achieved through interaction and discussion; all of which heavily relies on linguistics.  For anyone who has ever been a conversation enthusiast, this is an exciting prospect; we learn the most about ourselves by conversing with others!  But Clark doesn’t stop there.  He goes on to enforce the necessity of this intellectual coupling of individuals when he claims that by studying a certain aspect of the connectionist model of the human brain, known as “path dependence,” one can gain an even greater appreciation for how linguistics has pushed us to our current point of self-awareness as a society.

“Path dependence” is the notion that the way in which our brain learns new skills and concepts is contingent upon experiences and concepts retained prior to learning the new ones.  Essentially this means you can’t learn certain new ideas or expand upon old ones without learning the necessary prerequisites for said ideas beforehand, not all of which are readily available to everyone.  Clark puts it this way, “you can’t get everywhere from anywhere, and where you are now strongly constrains your potential future intellectual trajectories.”  Thus we are constantly on the edge of our own capacities, forced into the implication, “a solitary unit or individual is incapable of reaching their maximum potential.”  Yes, one can write their ideas down, one can pondered the nature of the universe and vocalize one’s findings aloud until they are blue in the face, however all individual agents have a limit and there is no escaping the fact that it is impossible for any one person to know everything; we must confide in others and take part in a community.  However this is not a negative realization, if anything it’s an overwhelmingly positive one.  I believe this unifying thought allows us to say with confidence that it is necessary to have some kind of intellectual coupling or linguistic community for the level of self-awareness and intellectual progression we have made as a society thus far.  Humankind is a socially oriented species to begin with thus it only makes sense we rely on others to work past our brain’s “path dependency” and reach our full potential.  Let me elaborate on this by using an expanded version of Clark’s example of Joey and Mary.

Picture a scenario in which all of Joey’s prior experiences and ideas could be made readily available.  However Joey is a limited agent, he can’t expand upon these ideas alone and one in particular has him completely stumped.  Thus for Joey’s idea to reach its full potential he must coexist in an intellectual space that can only be provided by another individual with their own experiences and ideas, in this case Mary.  Now imagine that these two individuals accidentally bump into one another while walking out of the grocery store one day.  This causes Mary to drop the bag of groceries she was carrying and Joey to stop and help pick them up.  One thing leads to another and they end up conversing over a cup of coffee.  This provides the perfect opportunity for both agents to learn something and grow.  All of Joey’s and Mary’s experiences and ideas are fully accessible to both parties and only now can the idea puzzling Joey realize its full potential through the agents conversing.  “The path to a good idea can now criss-cross individual learning histories so that one agent’s local minimum becomes another’s potent building block.” (Clark 206)  This shows that if given an intelligent and self-aware community with a linguistic means of conversing, and presuming an individual is an active member of said community, one’s ability to develop their mind, their “self,” grows exponentially.  

It’s time to shift gears.  Knowing all of this, I want to pose the same question I asked earlier in the paper, how do we take this information and apply it toward developing an artificially intelligent machine that experiences self-awareness?  To answer this question I’ve devised a set of requirements.

Above all else, we’ve learned the most crucial component when becoming self-aware is a sense of linguistics.  When dealing with different species or entities other than our own, there is something extra that needs to be taken under consideration and that is, the means of communication doesn’t have to be universal; instead its only requirement is that it be entity specific.  For self-awareness to occur, all members of any given community must speak the same language or a derivative language[3].  A prime example of this would be the way in which dolphins converse with one another.  Dolphins have evolved, like humans, to experience self-aware tendencies; yet the languages spoken by both parties are drastically different.  Dolphins converse by utilizing high-pitched tones and frequencies, while humans interact with each other through phonics or visual representations of said phonics, i.e. sign language.  Regardless of the differences, both species have developed a sense of “self.”  When considering self-awareness in artificially intelligent machines, one must utilize the same principles; a machine-based language will most likely be one of a binary nature comprised of ones and zeros.  However this still qualifies as a language, thus fulfilling my first requirement for self-awareness.

The second principle that must be taken into consideration when pondering the nature of self-awareness is personal experience.  Language alone isn’t enough to guarantee a species or entity will evolve to the point of being self-aware.  They must be capable of learning and undergoing growth.  This is what essentially gives one the ability to relate.  For this to occur in artificially intelligent machines, the machines themselves must be capable of learning and retaining knowledge in some way.  The best way to achieve this would be through the use of a dynamic system capable of continually building upon itself.  This would give an artificially intelligent machine the adaptability necessary for a task such as learning; thus fulfilling my second requirement for self-awareness, experience.

The final requirement for achieving self-awareness is interaction.  The capacity to pull from a common knowledge base and articulate one’s own personal experiences and ideas through whatever form of language is being used in the community is crucial to becoming aware of one’s self and those around them.  In other words, an agent must possess a means of interacting to achieve self-awareness.  This brings us back to the idea of “path dependency.”  Alone, no agent will ever be complete; they will remain imperfect and stagnant.  That old expression is true, “it takes two to tango,” and the coupling with a second agent of one’s own species, or in the case of machines, a second unit, is the only way to reach one’s maximum potential.  For a machine this requirement can be easily met; however there are two separate routes.  First, if a unit lacks embodiment, being part of a network could potentially give said unit the necessary interactions to learn and grow.  Second, if embodiment has been achieved, then the interactions between machines might be similar to that of humans; two separate units occupying the same environment while conversing in real-time.

In conclusion, achieving self-awareness is a process.  It requires multiple components, many steps, and time to be fully realized.  It relies upon language and the ability to socialize.  There is no set algorithm for self-awareness; however given the right environmental stimuli, tools, and interactions, any species, synthetic or otherwise, possesses the capability of reaching such a point.  In the case of artificially intelligent machines, a future in which they develop self-awareness (though purely hypothetical at the moment) is an extremely real and stimulating possibility.  Machines won’t accomplish this alone; we are the designers, the creators, therefore our hands will play an integral part in their development.  We live in an exciting time and if that future ever comes to fruition there will be one question more important than all others, “are you a cylon?”

---

[1] Most Hindus believe that the soul, the true "self" of every person, is eternal; this soul is referred to as Atman.  According to the monistic/pantheistic theologies of Hinduism this Atman is ultimately indistinguishable from Brahman, the supreme spirit.  Hence, these schools are called non-dualist.  The goal of life is to realize that one's Atman is identical to Brahman, the supreme soul.  This unifying idea essentially means that everyone is part of the same being. (“Concept of God”)

[2] This theory deals with the long-term qualitative behavior of dynamic systems, and the studies of the solutions to the equations of motion of systems that are primarily mechanical in nature; although this includes both planetary orbits as well as the behavior of electronic circuits and the solutions to partial differential equations that arise in biology. Much of modern research is focused on the study of chaotic systems. (“Overview”)

[3] I’ve made sure to include this due to the vast number of languages spoken by humans alone.

Infinite Reach: Opening Our Minds to the Idea of an Extended Mind

The human brain, an organic system comprised of millions of nerve endings firing at a fraction of a second.  On a physical level, it is responsible for monitoring and triggering all primary functions in the body; breathing, walking, and balance, all of these actions take place without requiring any thought thanks to the brain.  However, there are two sides to this complicated cranial coin.  Sigmund Feud once said, “the mind is like an iceberg, it floats with one-seventh of its bulk above the water.”  The mind is so complex humanity has yet to fully understand it to a degree, which would enable us to actualize its full potential.  But what is its full potential?  How far into our environment can our minds reach, if they are capable of breaching our physical bodies at all?  This question is essential when contemplating what has been designated “the extended mind theory” and the answers are not given up so easily.  The theory’s functionality and existence has been debated amid the brightest in the philosophical and scientific communities alike for centuries with no consensus.  The reason being there is no definitive answer as to what the extended mind is.  One hypothesis is the extended mind can include, and not solely be aided by external stimuli.  Meaning when a coupling between the mind and an object in an environment takes place, the object can be considered part of an individual’s cognitive processes.  Most speculate cognitive processes only take place between a unification of body and mind.  The extended mind theory adds a third aspect to the mix, allowing cognition to take place between body, mind, and an object in one’s environment, however to do so the object must fit a certain criteria.  Fortunately this specific criteria has been elucidated by Andy Clark in his article Memento’s Revenge: The Extended Mind, Extended. 

Clark claims that for an inanimate object to be considered part of an individual’s cognitive system it must, “ be reliably available, typically invoked and be easily accessible as and when required.”  Additionally Clark believes, “any information retrieved from the object must be more or less automatically endorsed and not subject to critical scrutiny by others.”  Meaning the information should be as Clark puts it, “deemed about as trustworthy as something retrieved from biological memory.” (Clark 46)  Our biological memory never leaves our side; therefore if an object functions in the same manner, it should be considered to be part of one’s extended mind.

This criterion seems reasonable enough, however the idea of accepting an external object as a part of an individual’s cognitive system is still scoffed at.  I think this can potentially be attributed to a critic’s subjective view of the world, an inability to see that not all individuals can rely on the legitimacy of the information stored in their biological memories.  The majority of individuals don’t need to rely on external resources to help them recall information; however there are people for which this is a necessity.  The character Leonard in Christopher Nolan’s film, Memento is a prime example.  Having suffered an extreme case of amnesia, Leonard is unable to retain any information; therefore he is forced to rely on external resources.  The pictures he takes, the notes he writes to himself, and his body tattoos are all used to replace the functions of an average person’s biological memory.  Who’s to say this system shouldn’t count as part of Leonard’s cognitive processes?  He fully endorses what has been written down and captured in the photographs the same way any individual would endorse a belief retrieved from their own biological memory or mind.  Should we discredit what Leonard claims to know simply because it comes from an external as opposed to an internal source?  There are many who would say, “yes.”  However, I disagree.

Let us examine the example Clark uses in Memento’s Revenge, the case study of Otto and Inga. First, we have Inga.  Inga represents an individual with an average cognitive system; she is capable of storing and retrieving information and endorsing said information without using anything outside of her natural biological memory.  For example Inga can look at an address, retain it and then call upon it later without any trouble.  Once she has retained the address she can say with confidence the location of the selected establishment because she believes the information to be true and reliable.

In contrast, there is Otto.  Otto, unlike Inga, has no natural aptitude for memory and represents an individual with a cognitive system that utilizes the extended mind theory.  He isn’t capable of retaining information, therefore he carries a notebook with him at all times.  This notebook allows Otto to record any significant information and call upon it when necessary.  For example, he sees the same address as Inga, immediately writes it down in his notebook, and then references the notebook when the address is needed again.  Upon referencing the notebook, Otto, like Inga, can state with confidence the address of said establishment.  Otto believes the information in his notebook is reliable in the same way Inga trusts in the information stored in her memory.

Now one might dispute Otto’s case by saying, “I have an address book at home which I reference frequently as well!  I don’t consider it to be an extension of my cognitive system.”  That is a reasonable argument; however in Otto’s situation there is one major difference.  Usually when an individual refers to an external object such as an address book the following cognitive process takes place: you desire the information, you consciously think about the information in the external object, and then you reference the object to retrieve said information.  In Otto’s case he desires the information, then without thinking consults the notebook.  Otto doesn’t consciously think about the information being located in his notebook; consulting the notebook is simply second nature.  He relies so heavily on it and uses it so frequently that the act of referencing it has become instinctual.  When Inga seeks information from her memory the cognitive process is identical to Otto’s.  She desires the information and then without thinking she consults her memory.

The only difference between the two is the time in which the actions takes place.  When Inga consults her memory it takes a fraction of a second because it is an internal process.  Conversely, Otto’s action takes place externally, meaning the process requires more time.  However time is not the important factor in this situation.  Functionality is what requires our attention.  Both actions take place without demanding any thought.  If we were to take Inga’s memory and Otto’s notebook and look at each through the eyes of a functionalist, meaning purely for what they accomplish, the actions would be identical.  By these standards Otto’s notebook should be accepted as an extension of his cognitive system and a great example of an extended mind.  Nevertheless according to Clark’s criteria, Otto’s notebook starts the race strongly, but doesn’t quite make it to the finish line.

Otto’s notebook meets most of the requirements necessary to be considered part of an extended mind.  The information Otto pulls from his notebook is endorsed without hesitation, meaning he trusts its accuracy absolutely and since Otto’s only means of recollection is the notebook we can state without a doubt that it is, as Clark puts it, “typically invoked.”  The only condition that draws speculation is whether or not Otto’s notebook is “easily accessible as and when required.”  As long as Otto can ensure his notebook remains at his side, the condition can be met.  However, this is a difficult task to achieve.  As everyone knows, external objects have a tendency of getting misplaced and without his notebook Otto is no longer capable of reciting any knowledge with absolute certainty.  In fact the only thing Otto can be certain of is the information exists somewhere in his notebook and that is… well… lost.  This situation is quite a quagmire and doesn’t aid Otto’s case in any way.

Inga doesn’t encounter this problem because her memory exists internally.  In fact, Inga could completely disregard the existence of her memory and it would still be present and functioning properly.  The only occurrence Inga could experience that would equate to Otto misplacing his notebook is if she were to suffer some kind of head trauma and develop amnesia.  In this case Inga couldn’t say that any of her beliefs or memories were true with certainty because she’d be relying on her damaged memory.  Perhaps Inga should consider investing in a notebook!

In the end it is up to the individual to decide what is more important, functionality or physicality?  However, I will always argue on the side of functionality.  Otto’s notebook operates in an identical manner to Inga’s memory.  Other than the difficulties that come with existing on an external plane, both objects are one and the same.  As long as Otto’s notebook is with him and he continues to rely on it absolutely, it is worthy of being considered an extension of his cognitive system and is proof of the existence of an extended mind. 

A Never Ending Search for Truth: Objectivity in the Scientific Realm

What does it mean to be objective? Can true objectivity exist or is subjectivity an inescapable human condition? Is objective science really more advantageous than subjective science or is there an alternate method of observation that could be used? The answers to these questions lie in the discussion of the differences and benefits of both objectivity and subjectivity in the scientific domain.

By definition objectivity is the custom of observing various phenomena without projecting one’s own experiences and ideals upon it. It is a difficult practice indeed considering the majority, if not all of mankind, is driven by something Carl Jung calls the ego, one’s conscious experience of oneself; because of this it is extremely difficult for individuals to see the world through objective eyes. In fact, some people would argue that true objectivity doesn’t exist solely because of this egocentric filter between ourselves and the world. It is impossible for an individual to see entirely objectively because our lives -our identities- are an amalgamation of everything we’ve ever witnessed, heard, and experienced. Hindus often refer to this idea as “The Self Image”, believing we are defined by our experiences. This lack of objectivity poses a problem, especially when discussing theoretical views in the realm of science, an epistemological practice that most people believe to be objective throughout. For better or for worse, this isn’t the case. Yes, science is based in facts. However, said facts aren’t necessarily 100% true on all accounts; nor are they completely objective like most believe. The observations and experiments that lead to these facts are the denizens of an extremely fragile structure that, given the proper leverage, could collapse at any given moment. A contributing factor to this fragility is the structure’s foundation, which is comprised of several complications that arise when trying to identify the truth behind objective science and whether or not it is better than science that utilizes subjectivity.

The first drawback when looking at scientific objectivity is the way individuals perceive various experimentation. There always exists a “filtered-analysis” that occurs when multiple individuals witness the same event, or a subjective analysis. As I mentioned earlier, it is exceedingly difficult for a person to observe objectively; instinctively, this is usually the order of operations in which individuals perceive and process information: the event is observed, then each individual subconsciously exploits their personal experiences and interpretations to formulate an outcome or hypothesis, the likes of which are not always the same. From the get go objective science has lost to an innate subjectivity that rules over all. But for the sake of argument, let’s elaborate further.

Let us say that two individuals observe the same phenomena, but end up witnessing completely different events. How can we decide which observation is the most trustworthy or objective when we are relying solely on the sense-perception of just these two individuals? The answer is simple. We can’t, at least not with 100% certainty or accuracy, not with only two parties participating in said experiment. With only two parties involved, there is a 50% chance of the chosen outcome being the most reliable one if we make a decision based on these two views alone. Those might seem like good odds for a casino game, but when trying to rationalize a scientific theory we tend to require something a little more concrete. So how would one go about solving a problem such as this? You must raise the number of people participating.

By expanding an observation group from two individuals to say, twelve or thirteen, the chances of coming up with a more factual outcome are multiplied by 6, but the possibility of the observation being completely objective is drastically decreased hurting science’s likelihood yet again of being proven as what the majority of people believe it to be: purely objective by nature. Chances are each of these individuals has a very distinct view of his/her own world (a subjective reality) and while some of these views might intertwine allowing them to observe the same occurrence, the experiment is still far from the realm of objective science and exists outside of objective reality. This is an example of what scientist and philosophers call intersubjectivity.

Intersubjectivity exists somewhere between subjectivity and objectivity and can be described as the way a large group of people view an event and how they come to a common scientific conclusion. In my opinion objectivity’s value will never outweigh that of intersubjectivity when executing scientific experimentation. Whether people are willing to acknowledge this or not, this intersubjectivity is how our perception of reality is conceived as well: a reality comprised of intermingling experiences and the ideals of many. Thus, intersubjectivity is not only more beneficial to science than objectivity but it’s basically how we as a society have interpreted our entire universe. What we see and how we define things is based around a universal consensus; it is quite a coalescing notion to contemplate.

Again, it is always easier to achieve a more accurate observation when dealing with a larger census group. If six people claim that an apple is red and five claim that it is pink, then the apple is likely red, or at least more so than it is pink. The majority always wins; consequently, following these principles forces us to claim that any given phenomena can’t be 100% true, hence we must label them each as “true enough.” These phenomena can’t be considered pure truth because even though the majority of the group witnessed the same event and came to the conclusion that the apple was red, there were still five individuals that occupied a reality where the apple was pink, merely because of this inexorable subjective outlook. Therefore, it is compulsory for us to assume these phenomena are true up until the point at which a group (or society) deems acceptable. Intersubjectivity triumphs over objectivity yet again!

However, there will always be a slight chance that the second observation, the one discarded by the group, was actually the more accurate or truthful of the two. This is the second problem when balancing scientific truth, objectivity and subjectivity. This idea could imply that the group or society isn’t constructing the universe, but rather the universe has already been constructed and we are simply perceiving it in an improper manner. If this idea intrigues you, you should look into something Edward Lorenz has dubbed The Chaos Theory- also known as The Butterfly Effect. I won’t go into great detail here, but he discusses how inconsequential changes are actually more relevant than we believe them to be and how one of these insignificant alterations could shift the entire universe and how we perceive it. Interesting stuff, but I digress.

So how can we ensure that the first event observed in an experiment, the one chosen by majority rule was actually the truest one and not the one that should have been discarded in the first place? How can we be certain that we are correctly perceiving the universe as it really is? One way is to discern a person’s particular authority; what kind of authority did each individual observing the phenomena have over or in said phenomena? To ensure a substantiated practice is taking place one must have a certain amount of skill in whatever phenomena he is participating. On top of finely tuned skills, one must also have the necessary objects to participate and the individual must be able to tell the difference between a relevant object and an irrelevant one. Once this is understood, determining which observation is truer becomes a simple task.

In a group of thirteen individuals, one or two of the participants will most likely have more authority in the given area of the phenomena than the rest, so all other observations are rendered less precise or even useless. The question that needs to be addressed now is whether or not this form of experimentation is any more objective than the others previously discussed. The answer? Absolutely not. For an observation to hold more weight it requires the observer to have experience in a field relevant to the phenomena being observed. By definition anything that requires any kind of subjective experience can’t be classified as an objective form of experimentation, further hurting society’s claims of science being an objective practice by nature. True objectivity wouldn’t allow for one’s own experiences to be utilized in such an experiment; for that reason, plus the necessity of certain skills and personal knowledge of instruments needed for a given field, the outcome of this example must be regarded, like the last, as intersubjective experimentation or alternatively an experiment with results that can be trusted as “true enough.”

Nevertheless, there are those that disagree. There are those that believe that objective science does exist and we can know certain things with absolute certainty. For instance, the great philosopher Karl Popper didn’t believe in using sense-perception as sustainable evidence for scientific fact and experimentation; he claimed these forms of knowledge were deceptive. Popper believed that the major problem with empiricism was that it relied to heavily on experiences and subjective knowledge, making it a hindrance to true scientific law; objective science was the best science and most effective. (The Problem of the Empirical Basis 75-76, Popper)

I can agree with him on the point that our senses have a tendency of deceiving us; mine have certainly deceived me on more than one occasion. But to fully reject sense-perception and one’s experiences when conducting an experiment seems a tad excessive. Without subjective experience the initial hypothesis for the experiment wouldn’t exist. The spark would be gone, hampering science at its foundation. It’s our experiences that allow us to ponder new ideas and build upon them every day. So for this reason I must disagree with Karl Popper.

To conclude I would like say this: there will always be individuals that believe science is an objective art based in pure truth and then there will be those that advocate the opposite. Balance is a natural part of the universe we live in. However, subjectivity will always find a way to sneak in through the cracks of logic and reason. I’d say it was up to the individual to decide whether science is an objective practice or not, but that would just prove my point. The act of choosing would be subjective in and of itself. Mankind is a social species; we are at our best when we work together in groups. This is why I believe in neither objective science nor subjective science alone; intersubjective science is what will yield the most fruitful results and give us a greater understanding of the world around us. A reality comprised of a multitude of individual ideals and experiences working together for the betterment of society. I don’t know about you, but that sounds promising to me.

Haikuuuuuuuu

I wrote these today for fun, so I thought I'd share them with you.


"Our minds are unique

With limitless faculty

In spite of their faults"

"My first haiku failed

My writing has been disgraced

Forever alone"

Random Thought # 1

I’ve always believed that with enough time, and the will to persevere, anything can be accomplished. At work today, my limitations were made clear to me. I had the desire to succeed, but I suppose I didn’t have the time. I’ve always thought of myself as an intelligent individual. I never believed that there was anything out there I couldn’t learn how to do if given enough time to do so. Truthfully, I still don’t. I guess that might be slightly unrealistic though. The key word here is “time,” a concept that humanity is constantly at war with. We, as humans, only have a lifetime to experience everything we want to experience. Today, I realized that isn’t enough. After working on this project for 2 hours, I was forced to (I didn’t want to) concede defeat. I know it might seem silly to get upset over something so minute, but in an unexpected way it challenged my personal beliefs and that’s something no one likes dealing with. I guess my 23-year-old mind just can’t compete with 20 years of experience and intuition…  This is going to be tough medicine to swallow.

Short From Years Past

"Stoop"

by

Christopher Michael Conkling

Stoop. On the Stoop. Green flowers hanging right below the window. I get yelled at when I eat the flowers. Green house in front of me paint was darker years ago. Hopping girls playing with green ropes in front of house. I want to run but I was told to stay. Relish falling from hotdog not far from my stoop looks so delicious. I want it now but I was told to stay. Yellow. The yellow bus comes now every day. I always want to chase it. I was told to stay. Bag dropped. Yellow sticks all over the ground. I wish he’d throw one for me. Men in yellow shirts running past yellow sign. I really want to run but I was told to stay. BANG. Red. Boy swimming in red puddle. People screaming. Red lights. Red lights. Red lights. Fire hydrant. I want to go but I have to stay.