Up@dawn 2.0

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

(16-1) The We Know Nothing Enhancement

On January 29, 2013 at roughly 3:00 PM. Group 1 started with Andrew saying that he agrees with what PYRRHO. Alex did this by showing the group a piece of paper that with a line connecting 0 to the word absolute that he called " the spectrum of evidence". Since everything is given through our senses and we can't trust our senses then we can never be 100% certain of anything. Andrew said that you can base this on an idea and how sure you are of something whether it is based on what other people have told you or what the evidence suggest. Dr. Oliver saw it as a scale of conflict or confidence in your belief. Dr. Oliver went on to discuss that PYRRHO idea is that you either are absolutely sure or you have nothing at all.

Matthew asked the question is better to be rational or irrational. Andrew said that he thinks that we are both. Dr. Oliver asked if it is better to be rational do you have to make a rational case. Matthew talked about how the limbic system is in control of all your emotions and what drives behavior and the neocortex is responsible for rational behavior; and if how you act then rationalize your actions. Dr. Oliver responded by saying yes it like telling yourself a story. Alison made the statement that as a species we have evolved to try and rationalize everything. Dr. Oliver agreed by calling humans the pattern seeking animals.

After the bell rang Group 1 went into more detail about PYRRHO's idea of nothing can be absolute. Rose pointed out that he just accepted that he will never going to know anything for certain. Riley though that PYRRHO became selfish in his way of not sure if anything is real in that he almost walked off a cliff. Riley saw this as being selfish because PYRRHO was so well thought of and such a great leader that him intentionally ending his life would be inconsiderate of his followers.

Alex then brought up the subject about sports doping. This lead into whether swimmers should be allowed to special swim suits which improves performance and if all Lance Armstrong did was blood doping should that be considered cheating. Group 1 discussed that sports should be as fair as they can possibly be. Alex pointed out that if you are willing to spend an extreme amount of money then is it not fair for you to have the advantage? Not to mention every record broke with the advance swimsuit has been broken by people without the suits. Scooter asked if lifting weights were not enhancements. Group 1 came to the conclusion of once you have a sport where should you draw the line and what is fair and what is not.

6 comments:

  1. Check out my video response to this and other blogs here:

    http://youtu.be/YSqFPJ9po5o

    Also, I didn't respond to Alex because...well...just no.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I was a floater and when i went to this group we were on the discussion of the sports enhancements, which really interested me, being a sports fan. I believe that there will always be controversy on where the line should be drawn because there will never be a full agreement on what is right and what is wrong

    ReplyDelete
  3. No Andrew. I refuse to watch.

    Anyways I enjoyed our EXTREMELY random conversation, thank you Alex. It was interesting that we went through so many subjects but i can say i honestly learned a lot. I think the most interesting conversation we had was blood doping, and thinking about it now I believe we can actually relate it to Pyrrho. Basically Armstrong approached sports in a way Pyrrho would life, not truly caring about the consequences in life. Granted it was for different reason but i can see similarities.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think our discussions are that random. Most of what everyone is saying relates to the topic assigned to our group or another. Interesting point about Lance though.

      Delete
  4. Jade Underland (16-4)11:56 AM CST

    I am from group 4 (sec 16) and am posting my comment here. Our group talked about where the line is regarding genetic enhancement- whether in sports, designer babies or for medical reasons and if it is fair, corrupt or right. And when it comes to preventing diseases, correcting 'deficiencies' or choosing characteristics you want for your child- I thought about parents-to-be who say that they can't wait to MEET their child. I think people say that because each person will be who they are no matter what... right? I thought about how siblings can be so different, even when they have the same parents and upbringing. When I was old enough to realize that my parents were just people, and they are flawed, my attitude towards them changed. I do not hold anything against them, they make mistakes. But if I found out they tried scientifically make me into a person they desired instead of accepting me in return with all my faults- I would most definitely hold it against them. I think trying to change a person at any stage of life (even in relationships) is damaging on deep levels. I could be wrong but I think if parents are concerned about wanting their child to be a certain physical or mental way besides healthy -then they probably are not ready to raise a child. That is not love the way a person needs it. Sorry to get emotional.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I really liked Andrews idea about the certainty line, and it made a lot of sense to pose that thought on that particular day since we were also talking some about relativism. the reason I liked it in that context was that where each person decides to place themselves on his graph would be relative to their own thoughts on the matter, and not subject to somebody else's thoughts about where they should be placed on the line.

    As far as the issue I brought up about sports doping and technical suits, I thoroughly loved Scooter's question about whether or not weight lifting or other forms of training should be considered enhancement. The athletes are training their bodies to be more physically capable of performing the respective desired activities. With the two main arguments against doping of any nature, be it the non-drug induced version that Armstrong and his teammates used , blood-doping, or actual use of steroids and other performance enhancers, being that they give an unfair advantage and can potential damage the athletes' bodies, that brings up a question (sorry for the complex sentence there). My question is, if an athlete can choose his own training methods(in many cases risking injury to themselves through said training, as I know all to well first hand), then why can he not choose other ways to increase his performance? It's his body he's risking, not that of another athlete, so why is it someone else's job to say that he may not do so? The unfair advantage is a mute point, as other athletes could easily choose to find a way to do whats necessary to win if that's what they chose and it was that important to them, or they could start a league for people who are enhancing that's separate from the league where people train naturally. But how far an athlete is willing to go, at his own expense, to reach his goals should be a question he answers for himself, not a question he has answered for him. I'd like some feedback from anyone who reads this paragraph, it's a topic I enjoy discussing above most others.

    I'm impressed by Riley's thoughts on PYRRHO being selfish. Upon further reflection, I think I was wrong in saying he was lazy for not wanting to try to find the truth in everything, or even anything. Indeed, I think he had already found his own truth in his mind, but in so doing he became apathetic towards his followers and students in that he no longer really cared about them learning from him. This is of course parallel to his thinking of "takes all kinds" in that he seemed to have decided that they would just think differently than he did and thus he didn't really need to teach them. Still, killing himself to prove a point by walking off a cliff was not only selfish and stupid, it was quite insane.

    Lastly, In regards to Andrew, I apologize for not having taken the time to post video responses and questions to you yet, I'm trying to get settled on a routine that allows me enough time to do so.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.