David Wieser – Week 8

  Conscious and memory were most definitely more interesting than the space exploration presentation. Space seems less closely related to the theme of the class and seemed like more of a history lesson than an exploration of art. I was especially unsure how nanotech fit in.   Anyway, I thought it interesting that we began the class with someone solving a Rubik’s Cube. I wasn’t sure exactly what it was supposed to prove, but I could tell the guy had skill. I was able to solve my Rubik’s Cube back before I lost it, but I was never anywhere near that fast. I could see him moving very quickly considering how many moves and algorithms you have to use to solve one of those damnable things.

At one point, Professor Vesna said that each person remembered only 10% of specific incident that happened. I was curious as to where she came across this statistic. If I were prompted about things that happened, I would probably remember more than 10% whereas if I was told to “remember everything you can!” I would not be able to get that much. Also, how can you prove that anyone is focused on whatever task is at hand? I can certainly say that in any given class (but never DESMA9), that I am zoning out a good amount of the time. Wouldn’t you remember more if you were completely focused? Is that even possible? I remember someone said that any given person only used about 5-10% of their brain. If they used 100%, would they then remember everything? Why is it we only use 5-10% of our brains? That seems illogical. I wish I had a genuine source for this information.

I was surprised we had such a monstrous discussion in class over the idea of coincidence. I wanted to voice my opinion, but could not collect my thoughts efficiently enough. I did take notes, however. In short, I believe that physics bind our world. Some things affect others, but some don’t. Yes, there is a whole lot of randomness governing specific events. For example, linking the Challenger incident and 9/11 seems ridiculous to me. If there is a connection, we don’t know what it is. Honestly, everything we know is simply exploring mad stabs in the dark in hopes of finding a connection. If there is a connection, great, we may have found it. However, you can’t go around saying there’s a connection for everything.

To those people that were using religion to explain things beyond religion in general, there are too many arguments against religion to prove you right. Religion alters your perspective and nothing more. The discussion twisted from coincidence to truth, which I am guessing is because there must be some right answer somewhere. Wrong. All there is is perspective. All you can assume is correct is what you believe. There is no way to prove that anything is real. “But I feel it, I hear it, it must be real.” Wrong. Senses are just electrical impulses in your brain. One day, human technology (as you believe in it) will be able to alter your electrical impulses. But then, are you so sure? Perhaps you just believe it can change what you think and therefore, your perspective on it will change. You will be able to believe that through this technology that you people manufactured (who, for all you may know, were created in your own mind) will be able to alter your thoughts. Inevitably, through the use of your mind you will be able to change your very reality through technology your mind has developed. There can be no truth beyond what you know. It is truth to you. What other people say is their truth may very well be a truth you devised and assigned to them subconsciously. You choose not to believe it but have created it as an alternative to believe that yours is not the only possibility. Your mind could perhaps be fooling itself. Nothing could be real. Truth may not exist. You may not exist. “But what about that saying?” “I think; therefore, I am.” Perhaps, but prove it. You cannot prove it to me; I can only believe it myself through my own mind.

“How can you possibly believe that you don’t exist?” A certain piece of what I am perceiving told me about this. I chose to introduce this idea to my own mind through another person, perhaps created by myself. Isn’t that trippy? I’m telling myself I don’t exist through someone who may or may not be another piece of me.

But then, perhaps our senses actually do work as scientists tell us they do. Of course, how would we ever know? Perspective forever shrouds the truth.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: