...here is a short update with some other thoughts.
Apparently, I'm not that great at keeping constant with my blog. I should do better, though. Here is an update on what has been happening in my phenomenal field (to use a psychology term, lol).
I have planned my graduation date - April 2010. If everything goes as planned, I will have a B.S. in psychology as well as a minor in logic a year earlier than traditionally scheduled. I have gone through the rest of my semesters and terms at BYU and selected what classes I will take and when. Also, I'm am planning on trying to graduate with Univeristy Honors, in
which case I will have to write a thesis. At this point I am still deciding what the topic should be, but I will let you know when I decide. I am taking the LSAT next summer, too.
Tracy Chapman released a new album a week ago, and I love it. It's very different from her older stuff - as each album is unique for her - and this one is quite eclectic in its style. She is going on a solo tour this year to celebrate 20 years since she started performing. I can't wait for her to come to the US to tour (she is touring in Europe right now), and I will not miss her concert for anything!
Aside from that wonderful bit of news, I'll leave with a thought. I've been thinking a lot about how the only thing a person can prove is that he/she is thinking. Descartes coined the thought, "Cognito ergo sum," or "I think, therefore I am." However, beyond that, anything we think is true is based on an assumption. If I interpret what I am looking at as an external reality, that is assuming that my mind is not producing the image for any other reason than photons striking the retina. However, we must remember that our visual field exists only in the mind. What we hear, smell, taste, etc. is all just an experience interpreted by senses of the mind. We also experience feelings and drives in a real way, and these are brought to the attention of our consciousness. Yet, they are not objective because it exists only in the mind as interpretations. So, we can never know for certaint that they are accurate representations of the external world, assuming that there is one. Those with schizophrenia, for example, really do experience things that we do not. Yet, it is very real to them, and they act in a reasonable manner as to how to work with that.
So how do we solve this problem of uncertainty that the world might not be real? Well, I know that when I am hungry, feeding the body that I experience has having some sort of control over usually takes that hunger drive away. I may not know for certain that I am really feeding a body I claim is mine, but every time I do, that unpleasant feeling seems to go away. And so, we may be able to know that the world is real, that experience is objective, and so on, but my solution is that it is impractal to act in a way that disregards the experience. If I choose not to eat because I don't know if it is really doing anything, I will still feel hungry. I might as well cause this body to eat.
From this bottom-up reasoning, it is important to remember that everything we experience is completely subjective. That being the case, no one will ever experience the same things, assuming they are real and not figments in your mind (I say "your" instead of "my" because you are reading this now, not me). We are fundamentally different from experiencing senses, emotions, drives, etc. We cannot judge other people because we do not and cannot know their experiences and why they act the way they do. We cannot tell them how they ought to act, either, with absolute authority. To do so would be so overreach our boundaries. Sure, we have tendencies that are studied in psychology, but I am sure one reason that the discipline has trouble defining actual laws is because we are diverse from personal experience. I'm sure that could be worked into a law at some point, though.
And that is one of my thoughts. I hope it made sense to you.
