What is Consciousness?

I am utterly fascinated by the human brain and if I was not itching to be done with schooling I would become a neurologist. Every aspect of the human brain intrigues me and the same goes for today's topic of consciousness as a scientific study. The readings ask, is the study of consciousness scientific? Personally, I believe that consciousness is not scientific but I can see why there is such a debate over this innate human quality. I do believe that some parts of consciousness can be scientific; the specific ganglion, the amount of synapses, firing rate, and response times can all be measured and analyzed in to specific data about the brain and it's function. But the concept of consciousness stretches far beyond any statistical data we can collect.

It is amazing to me that with the ever-growing population of scientists and researchers, many of them still cannot decide on a single, true definition of consciousness - I believe this is where the debate begins and thrives. What is consciousness? Is it cognitive alertness? Is it the ability to formulate thoughts and opinions? And does that include being able to express and communicate those thoughts and opinions? My definition of consciousness is a state of cognitive functioning that allows the physical brain to identify "self-awareness, emotion, perception, and reasoning" (Hazen 95). Based on this definition, consciousness is much more than the physical neurological data that we can analyze - which is why I choose to believe that the study of consciousness is not scientific. At least, not yet.

One day I hope that consciousness can be identified as any other neurological function, but right now there is not enough scientific data about human consciousness to be able to group it with other biological qualities. There is still so much about the human body that we do not understand and I am excited to be part of a field that continues to search for answers.

Week 2 Blog Reviews

Lauren Spencer:
I really liked your blog about being good without God. I found the assignment extremely challenging but your blog post was so well-organized and easy to read. I loved how you explained the different possibilities but were still able to state what you believe without coming across as a preacher. I would only suggest that you use some passages from the reading to support your writing, it would just help clarify and related back to a central point of your blogs. I look forward to being in your group for Unit 1 :]


Jacqueline Pridgett:
I love how clearly you express your opinion. On both the self blog and the good without God blog you seem to jump right in to exactly what you mean. In some situations this can be bad, but you make it work to your advantage and really grabbed my attention with your voice and conviction. I know that I will continue to enjoy reading your weekly blogs.


Tasha Cerimeli:
Your posts are so well organized, it's intimidating! Haha, just kidding - it is refreshing to see such well-versed and thoughtful posts on such abstract topics. I think our opinions will differ on some of the posts throughout the semester so I look forward to your posts and their ability to show me a different viewpoint. At this point, I have no constructive criticism, your posts are wonderfully thorough and intriguing!

Good Without God?

Can human beings with good without God? This was our the prompt for our third blog post and the question is so simply stated that it implies a yes or no answer - but there is no possible way to be so black and white. Before answering this question, we need some more clarity on the subject of "good" and the subject of "God". Most people address the God part of this question because, as we all know, not every human being believes in God or any higher spirit for that matter. So by simply adding God into the question, are we assuming that all people believe in God? Are we assuming that we all follow the same, one God? To make these assumptions in our current times would be ignorant. There are many world religions and some of them are monotheistic (believing in more than one God). For as many people that claim religious affiliation of some sort - there is an equal amount of people who claim no affiliation at all. The next thing I'd like to mention is the meaning of "good" in this statement. Who's to say what good is? We can all define and label bad human behavior but who's to judge what is good behavior? Which morals do we need to have in order to be "good"? I realize I'm asking a lot of questions but the question of being good without God is so vague that I had a hard time deciding on a direction for this blog post.

Before reading the related articles, I can admit to believing that belief in God could reduce the violence and hatred in the world. After reading the articles, I am not so sure. Before I could assume that a belief in God meant that a person had a strict list of morals and values and actively worked on upholding those morals. However, identifying yourself as a believer in God does not automatically give you the same set of morals and values that another Christian Charlie has, and that is where the communication breaks down. In a perfect world, the religious followers would be trying to make the world a better place and be advocating against violent crimes but that is not the case, "Recent research suggests that a religious person is more likely to commit a crime than a non-religious person. One can even argue that the more religious the society, the more likely it is to have high crime rates" (Conyers and Harvey, 63). This can be examined in some of the most religious countries; the Middle East (Iraq, Pakistan, etc.) where religion is of utmost importance while war is waging and innocent lives are being shed, and also here in the United States. "If America is very religious, and if religious communities thwart crime, one would expect to find a very low crime rate in the United States. The opposite is true; the United States is among the most criminal, violent countries in the industrialized world" (Conyers and Harvey, 65). The statistics continue, and in more shocking scenarios. The researchers of social sciences will continue to battle over this issue for years and years, battling over petty semantics.

As for my own, individual belief - can we be good without God? My answer is yes. I feel that although having a religious affiliation instills better moral standards, that does not define being a "good" human being. I feel that some of the most non-religious affiliated people perform the most good deeds - not because they need to please a higher power but because they are "good" human beings. I believe that, regardless of affiliation, a person must be taught to be good, kind and loving. If we are not taught these essential traits, we are left to fend for ourselves in an ever-increasing violent society.

    In an academic forum, such as this class, I believe it easier to identify with in individual concept of "self" as well as getting to know your classmates. While I was trying to plan out my assignment for this week I came to the conclusion that there are obvious pros and cons to each side of the argument - like there is for almost every argument. My first impression when attending a traditional class is based on physical appearance (mostly) and any class participation that one may contribute. My first impression that I can make through a blog for an online course is based solely on the words I choose to type. There is a type of anonymity of an online course that allows us, as students, to either be our true "selves" or be how we would like to be perceived. We all posted an introduction post and an about me section, but who is verifying those? I could be opposite of my introduction in every aspect but that does not matter because my words I am typing are consistently the same. Having that veil of anonymity feels like having a safety net - so instead of lying about who I am, I post complete truths and because I do not have to deal with the consequences of face-to-face interaction, I feel more obliged to be utterly honest and unguarded with my opinions. Gergen describes the apprehensiveness of ourselves as a type of self-doubt (54-58). Online academics has not been around for a very long time but since it's beginning is has allowed students to stop their own self-doubt and write freely. Because of this new-found willingness to express myself truly, I believe it is easier to identify with my "self".

    Knowing my "self" through this online medium is entirely different from knowing my classmates. On one side of the fence, online academics allows students to be just a group of students; no judgment of physical appearances, no pre-described notions of what our class ought to be. Beedles labels the Internet, "a truly democratic medium" (10), but I am not so sure I agree. This "no judgment" attitude can be helpful but it can also backfire. For example, if a deaf student were to participate in an online course they would be treated 100% equally, where as in a traditional classroom their learning may be obstructed by their disability. But is there truly no judgment in an online class such as this? I went through and read most of the introduction blog posts just to get a feel for the other types of students in this class - does that allow me to pass judgment based on the pictures they posted versus what they did not post? The cynical side of my personality cannot dismiss the fact that judgment is still being passed even if there are only words to be read.

    I do agree with Gergen - that by participating in an online or forum like this - that we are contributing to a "dissolution of self". Participating in an online academic class allows me to contort the "self" image that everyone reads about and this can lead to my own distortion of self. I think students are walking a fine line in online communities - where are true selves can either flourish or be lost in the masses of online identities.

Works Cited

Gergen, Kenneth. “The Dissolution of Self.” Academic Communities/Disciplinary Conventions. Ed. Bonnie Beedles and Michael Petracca. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2001. 50-58.

P.S. I could not get my Works Cited to be formatted correctly, I tried multiple times. I'm sorry.
   

Background Check

I'll try not to be too repetitive because my basic facts are written in my About Me section.

My name is Katherine but I like to be called Katie - there was also a short time when I like to be called Kate so I'll answer to both. I have fallen in to the habit of punctuating my text with smileys and other things like that, I'll try to refrain but sometimes it slips :) I'm 20 years young and my birthday is just around the corner (Sept. 21st). I was born in New York and lived there with my family until I was seven and my parents decided to move to Arizona. I used to hate this state but the piercing rays of sun have started to grow on me. I love the west coast and the northwestern part of our country and would one day love to live in Seattle, Washington or Portland, Oregon.

My boyfriend Tyler and I in California this past summer

My sister (Erica) and I live in an apartment in Paradise Valley with her seven year old son. My sister is my best friend and has been my support system for a very long time. She is a great cook and I love cooking and baking with her. She has a puppy that is a  maltese/poodle mix named Bella and I have a cat named Charlotte. Charlotte is a brat most of the time but I love her to death. I also have a boyfriend who is at my apartment most of the time, his name is Tyler and he is a senior at ASU also.

Charlotte

I am a senior at ASU and am studying Speech & Hearing Sciences. I started my university career at the University of Arizona (shhhh) and spent 3 semesters there before I was ready to move back home. Luckily the transfer didn't affect my graduation date too much, my expected graduation is December 2011. After graduating with my undergraduate degree, I plan on attending graduate school to become and audiologist. It is a four year graduate program but I feel like that is what I am really passionate about. I have recently started taking the valley light rail into campus and I love meeting new people on my commute. 

I am currently employed at Romano's Macaroni Grill and have been there one year. Originally I started out as a hostess and just recently made the switch to serving - I'm still trying to decide which position I like better. I have made wonderful friends there and I love going in to work.

I love organization and all things to do with organizing. I make my own academic planners and hold a lot of pride in them. My closet and bookcases are color coordinated and I spend a lot of my time trying to convince my sister to be more organized :) I also love reading on my nook (Barnes & Noble eReader) and baking.

I feel like this introduction is becoming very long-winded but I will definitely answer any questions if you have them :)