My definition of time (Pre Reading)

So, I have always been curious about the concept of time, and therefore, am super excited that we have an opportunity to discuss this subject in class. Now, before I read the article posted that we need to read, I am going to post how I currently define time before I do any research on this subject. Then when I am done reading, I will post my new definition of time if it has changed at all and compare the two.
My current definition is broken into three subconcepts. Perceived time, recorded time, and Physical time.

Perceived time: The construct in the human mind that allows the person to experience and sense of physical time. This is a subjective sense that can be just as easily fooled as any other sensory system in the human body, is subject to moods, states of consciousness, and the altering of chemical balances in the body (example: Drug and alcohol use). This is basically how the human mind perceives and experiences time.

Physical time: An objective part or possible force of reality that allows for the movement of energy and particles throughout space. Without such a thing as time, objects would be unable to move through space, for movement needs to occur over a duration.

Recorded Time: Recorded time is an odd blend between objective and subjective time. This is the time we measure with clocks, stopwatches, sundials, and similar devices. The reason that this is a blend between physical and perceived time is because recorded time is an attempt by humans to measure physical time through a humanly constructed unit of measurement. Just as the metric system is constructed based off of an arbitrary unit of ten, recorded time is based off of the second. When humans think in how much time has passed between objective events, they think in terms of recorded time.

In conclusion, Humans think in Recorded time, feel in perceived time, and operate in Physical time.

On Boredom

Is boredom an emotion or a way we view the world? This has been a question that I was thinking about while on a particularly boring weekend in order to try to entertain myself (I do philosophy when bored.). Opposed to other emotions, boredom alters the way  one perceives the world more drastically than I would say others do. Other emotions tend to focus on the self (ex: I feel good because I am happy, I feel bad because I am sad), boredom seems to focus on external objects. When bored, one perceives the external world without any interest. One is indifferent, and it seems more like there is an absence of emotions or fascination with one's world. However, it still provokes a response in the mind. Boredom can be the cause of much mental anguish, and some might say that this pain implies that boredom is an emotion. However pain is not an emotion. It can make one sad or angry, but pain in itself is not an emotion, so why should boredom be defined in that manner?

Constructing Realities.

So, I have stumbled upon a book labeled "Constructing Realities: Meaning Making Perspectives in Psychotherapies." It is a book on constructivistic approaches to psychotherapy, and so needless to say I bought it for 5 dollars on Amazon. Thinking about the role constructivism would have in a psychotherapy confuses me a bit, so I am looking forward to learning about it. Many concepts in psychoanalysis can be claimed to be constructed after all, such as normalcy, deviancy, and some even argue mental illness. To see an approach that accepts that reality is constructed by the individual holds many interesting ideas to the psychotherapist, whose function is to try and understand the person and how they function in their reality. I am really excited to see what this book discusses.

Popper and Constructivism

"Logically, that gives us no clue as to how the "objective" world might be; it merely means that we know one viable way to a goal that we have chosen under specific circumstances in our experiential world. It tells us nothing -- and cannot tell us anything -- about how many other ways there might be, or how that experience which we consider the goal might be connected to a world beyond our experience. The only aspect of that "real" world that actually enters into the realm of experience, are its constraints; or, as Warren McCulloch, one of the first cyberneticists, so dramatically said: "To have proved a hypothesis false is, indeed, the peak of knowledge""-Ernst von Glaserfeld

   A philosopher of science known as Karl popper argues that the true process of science is to challenge the existing theories about the world and establish new ones which will in turn be discredited. In otherwords, all science is, is a process of discrediting other ideas and finding new ones that explain the world in a better way, until they themselves fail to work, or there is a flaw. Glaserfeld, in his article actually discusses popper, and claims that Popper's arguments actually support radical constructivism because we can only see what ideas line up with our own personal reality, and what ones do not. Science is then the study of what lines up with our experience of reality and what does not.

 However, Popper argues that we base our observations on external reality. He claims that even if we can never get a true theory without massive amounts of work, these theories are making statements about the external world, while Glaserfeld argues that they come from internal experiences. Glaserfeld is then misapplying Poppers theories about science in a way that suits his own purposes and is yet another flaw in Glaserfeld's argument.

Meme theory

          As I was reading Von Glaserfeld's essay on Radical constructivism, he brought up the concept of evolution and  how the environment not only shaped biology and how we function by eliminating those that were not able to survive in this life, it does the same with ideas, specifically this passage here:

"Just a the environment places constraints on the living organism (biological structures) and eliminates all variants that in some way transgress the limits within which they are possible or "viable", so the experiential world, be it that of everyday life or of the laboratory, constitutes the testing ground for our ideas (cognitive structures)."

          It reminded me of a concept developed in the ninety's by biologist Richard Dawkins called Meme theory. Meme theory is the concept that ideas, in their own right undergo their own form of natural selection.

"Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperms or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation.  If a scientist hears, or reads about, a good idea, he passed it on to his colleagues and students.  He mentions it in his articles and his lectures.  If the idea catches on, it can be said to propagate itself, spreading from brain to brain."

(for more on meme theory and the source of this quote)

         According to Dawkins, a meme is an idea that undergoes natural selection, which evolves and adapts over time, or else it dies out because it can not survive in the natural world. This is very similar to how Glaserfeld thinks we perceive reality. He claims that all our ideas and mental constructs exist because they helped us in surviving the world and navigating through it. Anything that is not conducive to survival, dies off because it would then lead the believers of that idea to extinction.
         However, where Dawkins and Glaserfeld differ is where they believe these ideas to originate. Dawkins is an empirical biologist, who believes that these memes originate and spread from interaction with external entities who are also conscious, Glaserfeld would hold that all the ideas one holds and concepts one have come from an internal source of one's own personal reality. In this issue, I am leaning more towards Dawkins.

Behaviorism and Reality

As a psychology major, I find some ideas of constructivism, especially radical constructivism, at an interesting conflict with the psychological theory of behaviorism. Behaviorism, for those who aren't familiar with the concept, is a branch of psychology that claims that all human behavior is learned through conditioning and observational learning. In other words, human knowledge and behavior results from external forces. They hold the idea that if you change a person's environment, you can also change their behavior. Extreme behaviorists go so far as to deny the idea of Consciousness or any true thought, claiming that they are all conditioned responses. 

Now, what does this have to do with constructivism? Constructivism is at the very core, the idea that things we believe to exist externally, are actually internal mental constructs projected on reality. Radical constructivism would hold the position that absolutely everything we perceive is a mental construct of our mind, especially ideas such as Good, Evil, Beauty, and Art. A radical taken a step further might be called a  solipsist.

These two branches of thought have some very strong arguments behind them, but, they seem to be mutually incompatible. Behaviorism lies on there being an external reality in which influences and affects our behavior. Constructivism argues for an internal reality that is independent of the objective world, especiallSo which one is right, or how can we make these two opposing theories compatible?

A potential solution that appears to me is the idea that One needs to be taught these ideas such as good and evil from an external source, but once it is learned, it is constantly created and projected onto the world at some points even unconsciously. If anyone has any other ideas on the relationship between these two subjects, I would be glad to hear them.

I don't care what you think, Pratchett is my Hero.

So, my possibly imagined reader, this week in my Creating Reality (CR) course, we talked about whether or not such a thing as Truth or Beauty was real. Throughout this entire week, this one scene from one of my favorite books has been playing through my head. The book is called The Hogfather, by Terry Pratchett. This book centered around Susan, the Granddaughter of Death (The anthropormic idea of death) trying to save her worlds version of Santa Claus, called the Hogfather. At the end, she has a meaningful conversation with her Grandfather about why humans must believe in the Hogfather and other beings such as the Tooth Fairy.

Here is an excerpt (Death is the one who speaks in capital letters):

“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."

REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"

YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

"So we can believe the big ones?"

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

"They're not the same at all!"

YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET— Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME... SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"

MY POINT EXACTLY.”

You can also watch the clip of this scene from the movie adaptation here. (Very funny and dramatic. I highly recommend watching the entire movie)

       Pratchett brings up an interesting idea, which is: Humans, in order to function in life, and live to their fullest capabilities, need fantasies, need these lies like justice, mercy, and things such as right and wrong in order to function. Can a human be a human without the idea of mercy, or justice, or good, or evil? He completely dismisses the idea that such things actually exist independent of the mind and goes on to believe that this willingness to create such concepts is what causes humanity to live to their fullest. I agree with this idea. Although there might not be justice except in our mind, it is what heightens our status beyond the 'base animal' level. What do you guys think? Can we be human without these concepts we make up to function every day?