The document discusses Plato and Aristotle's differing views on metaphysics. Plato believed in dualism, that there are two distinct worlds - the physical world perceived by the senses and a higher world of ideal forms. Aristotle preferred the term "materialism" and believed in a single physical world understood through empirical observation. The author finds Aristotle's view more convincing because it relies on deductive reasoning and the scientific method rather than intuition alone.
Classic and Modern Philosophy: Rationalism and EmpicismMusfera Nara Vadia
Rationalism and the rationalists, such as Plato, Descartes, and so on.
Empiricism and empiricists, such as Aristotle, Locke, Hume, Kant, William James.
Classic and Modern Philosophy: Rationalism and EmpicismMusfera Nara Vadia
Rationalism and the rationalists, such as Plato, Descartes, and so on.
Empiricism and empiricists, such as Aristotle, Locke, Hume, Kant, William James.
History and Philosophy of Contemporary Education. Empiricism versus idealism. With Empiricism and Positivism's etymology, history and proponents and it's different types.
The three styles of research are scientific evidence based, socially constructed (where the knower cannot be seperated from the known) and participatice (where meanng and questions emerge from sharin praxis)
Introspection and enlightenment a case for teaching intelligent designJulio Banks
This essay provides justification for teaching Intelligent Design along with Biology. Adolf Hitler and Stalin used the results of the
Theory of Evolution to commit atrocities against humanity.
History and Philosophy of Contemporary Education. Empiricism versus idealism. With Empiricism and Positivism's etymology, history and proponents and it's different types.
The three styles of research are scientific evidence based, socially constructed (where the knower cannot be seperated from the known) and participatice (where meanng and questions emerge from sharin praxis)
Introspection and enlightenment a case for teaching intelligent designJulio Banks
This essay provides justification for teaching Intelligent Design along with Biology. Adolf Hitler and Stalin used the results of the
Theory of Evolution to commit atrocities against humanity.
¿Cómo definir el roadmap de transformación digital? En Paradigma llevamos más de 20 años ayudando a grandes compañías en su camino hacia la digitalización.
Role of sperm index in embryo quality what to do - 17th iranian congressSandro Esteves
17th International Congress of the Iranian Association for Fertility and Reproductive Medicine
Tehran– March 2011
Abstract
ROLE OF SPERM INDEXES IN EMBRYO QUALITY: WHAT TO DO?
Sandro C. Esteves, MD, PhD
Spermatozoa are highly specializedcells with the purpose of not onlydelivering competent paternal DNA to the oocyte but also to provide a robust epigenetic contribution to embryogenesis. The identification of sperm fertility markers and the ability to selecthealthy spermatozoa for ART have a dual objective of choosing the best treatment strategy and optimizing ART outcomes. Currently, sperm indexes determination in the clinical setting is generally based on cell morphology and DNA content. Both sperm morphology and DNA integrity results, obtained from raw semen samples, have been shown to be of prognostic value for unassisted and assisted conception and useful in the selection of the best assisted conception modality.
These assays, however,provide an assessment of the distribution of cells in a given ejaculatethat may not be representative of the sperm population used in the ART treatment cycle. In fact, severe teratozoospermia,using Kruger’s strict criteria on pre-ART semen analysis, does notcorrelate to fertilization and embryo formation (including blastocyst development) in ICSI cycles. Nonetheless, if a more holistic approach to sperm morphology is taken, two prognostic groups can still be identified in cases of severeteratozoospermia (<4% normal) because certain morphology patterns and sperm abnormalities are known to affect ICSI outcomes. The first group includes mostly genetically determined sperm pattern defects, such asglobozoospermia, short tail syndrome and small-headed spermatozoa (in most cases combined with very small acrosomes). All of these types represent untreatable conditions that have been associated with abnormal sperm function andpoor ART outcomes. The second group includes unspecifiedor non-genetically determined sperm defects or patternscaused by environmental factors, medication, infection and related infertility conditions, including varicocele. Treatment of these conditions has been shown to optimize sperm morphology indexes with a positive impact on ART outcomes. Although the technician microscopically selects morphologically normal individual sperm during ICSI, form normalcy does not necessarily imply normal DNA content. As such, sperm DNA testing has been advocated to be an independent and reliable marker of fertility potential since sperm chromatin andDNA integrity is essential to ensure that the fertilizing sperm cansupport normal embryonic development of the zygote.At present, conflicting reports exist on the role of sperm DNA fragmentation index for embryo development, and it is apparent that DNA fragmentation does not significantly impair zygote and cleaving embryo morphology because major activation of the embryonic genome only beginafter the 4-cell stage. These observations do no underscore the importance of finding ways to increase sperm DNA integrity, since it has been suggested that DNA fragmentation is associated with late paternal effects that may lead to early miscarriages or diseases in the offspring. The etiology of sperm DNA damage is multi-factorial and may be due to primary (ageing, cryptorchidism, genetic defects, idiopathic) and or secondary (drugs, environmental, tobacco smoking, genital tract inflammation, infection,testicular hyperthermia and varicoceles) factors. Specific or non-specific treatments, including antioxidant supplements, are generally associated with reduced levels of sperm DNA damage and/or improved fertility potential.
Taken in conjunction, it is apparent that there is no unique sperm factor able to predict embryo development, but several candidate biomarkers are involved in this complex process.As a result, a wide variety of techniques have been proposed, including externalization of phosphotidylserine (magnetic-activated cell sorting),cell
2 Divided Minds and the Nature of Persons Derek Parf.docxfelicidaddinwoodie
2
Divided Minds and the Nature of
Persons
Derek Parfit
Derek Parfit, who was born in 1942, has been a philosopher at All Souls
Coilege, Oxjord for many years. He has also taught frequently in the United
States. The main subjeas on which he has worked have been rationality,
morality, personal identity, and juture generations. These are the subjeas of
his book Reasons and Persons, publis hed by Oxford University Press in
1984.
It was the split-brain cases which drew me into philosophy. Our
knowledge of these cases depends on the rcsults of various psychological
tests, as described by Donald MacKay.! These tests made use of two
facts. We control each of our arms, and see what is in each half of our
visual fields, with only one of Ollr hemispheres. When someone's
hemispheres have been disconnected, psychologists can thus present to
this person two different written questions in the two halves of his visual
field, and can receive two different answers written by this person's two
hands.
Here is a simplified imaginary version of the kind of evidence that such
tests provide. One of these people looks fixedly at the centre of a wide
screen, whose left half is red and right half is blue. On each half in a
darker shade arc the words, 'How many colours can you see?' With both
hands the person writes, 'Only one'. The words are now changed to read,
'Which is the only colour that you can see?' With one of his hands the
person writes 'Red', with the other he writes 'Blue'.
If this is how such a person responds, I would conclude that he is
having two visual sensations - that he does, as he claims, see both red and
blue. But in seeing each colour he is not aware of seeing the other. He has
two streams of consciousness, in each of which he can see only one
colour. In one stream he sees red, and at the same time, in his other
stream, he sees blue. More generally, he could be having at the same time
two series of thoughts and sensations, in having each of which he is
unaware of having the other.
This conclusion has been questioned. It has been claimed by some that
there are not two streams of consciousness, on the ground that the sub-
dominant hemisphere is a part of the brain whose functioning involves no
The Daibutsu (Great Buddha) at Kamakura, Japan, construded in 1252, Derek Parfit s denial of
the concept of a person is remarkably similar to a central tenet of Buddhist philosophy (photograph by
Colin Blakemore),
20 Persons
consciousness. If this were true, these cases would lose most of their
interest. I believe that it is not true, chiefly because, if a person's
dominant hemisphere is destroyed, this person is able to react in the way
in which, in the split-brain cases, the sub-dominant hemisphere reacts,
and we do not believe that such a person is just an automaton, without
consciousness. The sub-dominant hemisphere is, of course, much less
developed in certain ways, typically having the linguistic ...
Chapter 7. The Mind-Body ProblemChapter 7. The Mind-Body Pro.docxspoonerneddy
Chapter 7. The Mind-Body Problem
Chapter 7. The Mind-Body Problem
Chapter 7
The Mind-Body Problem
During week 6 read the second half (Sections 6-end).
Copyright by Paul Herrick, 2020. For class use only. Not for distribution. This chapter: 32 pages of reading.
1. Are You Your Brain?
Sometimes we refer to our brains; other times we refer to our minds. BJ the Chicago Kid titled his second album In My Mind. But Screeching Weasel titled its third studio album My Brain Hurts. Are the mind and the brain two different things? Or are they one and the same? To put the question another way: Are thoughts, sensations, mental images, and such nothing more than physical events or processes of the physical brain? Are they just neurons (brain cells) firing or something like that? Or is the mind an immaterial, nonphysical entity distinct from the brain but interacting in some way with it? In philosophy, these and related questions make up the mind-body problem.
Since ancient times, the common view has been that the mind—the part of us that is conscious, that thinks, that makes choices, that bears moral responsibility—is immaterial and cannot be physically seen, touched, weighed, or otherwise directly detected by instruments. On this view, the mind--often called the “soul,” “spirit,” or “self”—is not the brain or any part of the body or any physical thing at all. However, since mind and body obviously interact, the common view has long been that the mind or soul can affect the body and the body can affect the mind. More specifically, the immaterial mind can cause changes in the physical body, through the interface of the physical brain, and the brain can cause changes in the mind.
In philosophy, this traditional view is called “mind-body dualism” (“dualism” for short) because it claims that mind and body are two distinct things. The common view is sometimes also called “mind-body interactionism” because it claims that mind and body, though distinct, interact. Philosophical dualists argue that the universe divides into two radically different kinds of substances—mindless matter and thinking mind or, as some prefer to put it, matter and spirit, or as still others put it, matter and consciousness.
Most religions of the world teach a dualist account of human nature. Each human being, they generally claim, is composed of an immaterial mind or soul joined to a material body. On the religious view, the mind, or soul, rather than the material body is the part that will be judged by God in the end. As the basis of moral responsibility, the soul is the root of one’s identity as a person. In other words, the soul is the true self; the material body is merely the soul’s temporary lodging place during its journey on earth. Most religions also teach a doctrine of immortality, or survival—the claim that the immaterial soul lives on in a higher realm after the death and disintegration of the material body.
If dualism is true and your immaterial mind, or soul, is the .
Chapter 7. The Mind-Body ProblemChapter 7. The Mind-Body Pro.docxrobertad6
Chapter 7. The Mind-Body Problem
Chapter 7. The Mind-Body Problem
Chapter 7
The Mind-Body Problem
During week 6 read the second half (Sections 6-end).
Copyright by Paul Herrick, 2020. For class use only. Not for distribution. This chapter: 32 pages of reading.
1. Are You Your Brain?
Sometimes we refer to our brains; other times we refer to our minds. BJ the Chicago Kid titled his second album In My Mind. But Screeching Weasel titled its third studio album My Brain Hurts. Are the mind and the brain two different things? Or are they one and the same? To put the question another way: Are thoughts, sensations, mental images, and such nothing more than physical events or processes of the physical brain? Are they just neurons (brain cells) firing or something like that? Or is the mind an immaterial, nonphysical entity distinct from the brain but interacting in some way with it? In philosophy, these and related questions make up the mind-body problem.
Since ancient times, the common view has been that the mind—the part of us that is conscious, that thinks, that makes choices, that bears moral responsibility—is immaterial and cannot be physically seen, touched, weighed, or otherwise directly detected by instruments. On this view, the mind--often called the “soul,” “spirit,” or “self”—is not the brain or any part of the body or any physical thing at all. However, since mind and body obviously interact, the common view has long been that the mind or soul can affect the body and the body can affect the mind. More specifically, the immaterial mind can cause changes in the physical body, through the interface of the physical brain, and the brain can cause changes in the mind.
In philosophy, this traditional view is called “mind-body dualism” (“dualism” for short) because it claims that mind and body are two distinct things. The common view is sometimes also called “mind-body interactionism” because it claims that mind and body, though distinct, interact. Philosophical dualists argue that the universe divides into two radically different kinds of substances—mindless matter and thinking mind or, as some prefer to put it, matter and spirit, or as still others put it, matter and consciousness.
Most religions of the world teach a dualist account of human nature. Each human being, they generally claim, is composed of an immaterial mind or soul joined to a material body. On the religious view, the mind, or soul, rather than the material body is the part that will be judged by God in the end. As the basis of moral responsibility, the soul is the root of one’s identity as a person. In other words, the soul is the true self; the material body is merely the soul’s temporary lodging place during its journey on earth. Most religions also teach a doctrine of immortality, or survival—the claim that the immaterial soul lives on in a higher realm after the death and disintegration of the material body.
If dualism is true and your immaterial mind, or soul, is the .
1. Brandy Goudreau
Professor Coleman
PHIL 1301
October 5, 2016
Metaphysics – Under The Microscope
Plato and Aristotle were two of the three famous ancient Greek philosophers. Their ideas
laid the foundation for many great thinkers that were to come after them. One thing that they
both did not completely agree on was metaphysics. Now, in this paper, I will take this word and I
will gently create an “environmental slide”. In other words, I will take the definition, place it
under the microscope, and we will look at it together. From this view under the metaphoric
microscope let us begin. Metaphysics is to understand the underlying meaning of it, to know
where it came from, learning and understanding Plato’s and Aristotle’s interpretation of it, and to
formulate one’s own personal understanding of it. Once we understand it, we can apply it. Let’s
place the first slide under the metaphoric microscope and see what we can learn.
There are two types of metaphoric cells we are going to look at. Before we do let’s
identify this cell. This “cell” is called metaphysics. There is one word and one definition, but
different interpretations of that definition. This is the same as looking at cells under a
microscope. There are different ways to identify and analyze that cell. Before we go into those
interpretations, we will define it. Metaphysics is defined as a branch of philosophy that deals
with the first principals of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance,
cause, identity, time, and space. Basically metaphysics attempts to analyze the formation of our
universe. Physics is similar, but science is limited to only five senses. Metaphysics is not limited
2. Brandy Goudreau 2
to those alone. It believes that humans have to raise their conciseness high in order to observe
that complete universe. Science is more black and white. It uses things like protons, touch, cells,
matter, and energy. Metaphysics uses things like intelligence, desire, thought, consciousness, and
feeling. Metaphysics approaches this concept of creation by saying we must truly understand this
rationale before we can find the correct formula, whereas scientists give formulas for finding
various parts of the universe. This will lead us on to the first interpretation.
The first “cell” is looked at from Plato’s perspective. He called his interpretation dualism.
In order to understand dualism, which is Plato’s version of metaphysics, it must first be defined.
Dualism is defined as a theory that the mental and the physical, mind and body, or mind and
brain are, in some sense, radically different things. This means that there are two types of reality.
There is the actual physical mind that is thinking and doing. This uses our physical world that we
can see with our eyes and touch with our hands. Then there is a whole other world. This is often
called the Platonic heaven. This is where Plato’s forms of things come in. There are forms of
everything, such as people, grass, food, tables or shapes. These forms were presumed to be more
real than the actual world of matter. Matter is only shaped by virtue of having some type of
particular form. This world, according to Plato, is dual. The base universe of matter seen by the
senses, and then the higher universe of forms seen by the intellect. In short, Plato believed that
there were more than just what our senses perceived. He believed in two distinct worlds. When
Plato looks under that metaphoric microscope, he sees what he wants to see. He believes that
there are forms of these things in another world as well.
3. Brandy Goudreau 3
Aristotle has a different perspective of this “cell” called metaphysics. In fact, Aristotle
preferred to call it materialism or “first philosophy”. He believed in a one-world view, and that is
the actual physical world. Aristotle was a physicalist, and he believed ultimate knowledge came
from only the senses. This comes from our observations from this physical world. The principal
subject is “being qua being”, or being insofar as it is being. The word “qua” means under the
aspect, or concern the most general class of things. They are “a study, a subject matter or being,
and a manner in which the subject matter is studied”. (Cohen) First philosophy is not the only
field to study beings. Natural science and mathematics do the same studying, only under
different aspects. When he looks under that metaphoric microscope he sees what he actually sees
and what others see. He uses his senses to identify things that are and what could be.
Taking what Plato and Aristotle saw when they took their look in that microscope, they
told others their view of what they saw. The metaphysical view I find most appropriate by
reference to both Plato and Aristotle’s view on metaphysics would be Aristotle’s view. He used
deductive reasoning. If A=B, and B=C, then A=C. They both believed thoughts were superior to
the senses. However, Plato thought that one’s senses could trick a person, but Aristotle thought
that one could not determine reality without senses. I believe in things I have seen and touched,
whether in physical form or in the emotional form. For example, Christians believe in God. They
have never seen or have never touched him physically. They know and believe that he exists and
they believe He is real by knowing that there is something higher and greater than them that
exists. Based on deductive reasoning they know that He does exist based on either their life
experiences or others life experiences. They do not go into their belief blind. Additionally,
Aristotle would be more likely than Plato to use the scientific method to prove truths physically,
4. Brandy Goudreau 4
before saying that it is true. Plato would use common sense and intuition to determine if
something is true or not. Reason is not the same as actually seeing. Therefore, Aristotle’s view
on metaphysics makes more sense to me. So, to wrap things up, or to take this sample off the
microscope and apply it, where do we go from here with our personal view of metaphysics? That
depends on what you saw when you looked under that microscope.
5. Brandy Goudreau 5
Works Cited
Cohen, S. Marc, "Aristotle's Metaphysics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer
2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL=
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2016/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/>.