The Benevolent Genius

Robert has never woken up and questioned his existence a day in his life. He rationalizes that everyone's perceptions are the same and has agreed on this with many of his friends over a cold beer late at the bar. Every time he looks back on a series of photographs from his childhood and plans out his future he believes that that is the same person: past, present, and future. However, Robert has never felt like he is in control. Every action that happens in his little Utopia feels predetermined, but he is perfectly fine accepting that. Actually, the reasoning for Robert never questioning anything is the fact that he's never had a bad day in his life; everything is simply a  matter of going through the motions.
The fact of the matter is that Robert doesn't remember the operation, nor the form he signed handing his brain over to the Happy-Go-Lucky Brain Trust (HGLBT). A corporation of scientists and surgeons who have perfected the removal of brain transplants into a vat from which they can completely, physiologically stimulate the brain unto which the 'patient' seems to be living a perfect life. The HGLBT, founded in 2002 has successfully performed 11 Billion brain transplants between two competing benefactors to the company. With the rise of Social Psychology in the late 1990's, two scientific geniuses developed the transplant technique and instituted the medical procedure in 2001 after careful testing began in 1996. However, after a quarrel in the lab about the state that participants should be placed in, the two scientists went separate ways until they were funded by the United Nations to make a unified population in an attempt to ascertain world peace. Unfortunately, the population was too large for one scientist to handle and the task was split between the two scientists who developed the techniques and their proteges. Social psychologists then began to examine the circumstances that the two test groups were placed in; Robert's group were under control of the 'Benevolent Genius' - a kind-hearted mastermind who created a utopia of no questioning and perfect existence. The second group belonged to the 'Evil Genius', who created a very 'realistic' world where everything seemed to function according to many different laws, and there was God, and free will, and difference in perceptions, and an evolution of identity, and things go wrong, and everything is challenged. The real question is: Which genius operated on you?

Regarding Artificial Consciousness

Putnam claims that if there existed a sophisticated enough android, we would lack sufficient evidence to either confirm or deny that said android was conscious. Putnam defines consciousness to refer to a subject's ability to have subjective experiences. The argument is as follows:

                We start with our own subjective experiences that we cannot deny that we have. A main reason we assume other people have subjective experiences of their own is that they talk about them like as we do. Imagine you have a white table and a pair of rose-colored glasses. Before putting on the glasses you say "the table is white." You can then put on the glasses and say "the table appears red," still aware that the table remains white. One could say that this talk of a "red" table is expressing a subjective experience, since it does not explain an objective reality.

                It seems inevitable that androids will be able to make this same sort of distinction between appearance and reality. An android with comparable to human understanding of what a table is, the ability the distinguish colors, to wear glasses, etc. would say, while wearing the glasses, "I detect that the table is red"  even though I know it is white." It appears in this instance that the android is aware of its own subjective experience and therefore conscious.

                Of course, this really only shows that the android can speak as if it had subjective experiences - as if it were conscious - but that does not mean that it truly is conscious. Putnam claims that despite this uncertainty, it would be discriminatory to deny the android the assumption of consciousness, for it would be a decision based solely on their physical composition. Therefore we ought to decide to view the androids as conscious.

                One could say that perhaps Putnam is being a bit too generous in this decision, however. The one thing an android cannot not be is a man-made machine. At no stage of their “mental” development and learning does an android cease to be a robot created by humans. Even if at some point (not necessarily the point Putnam decided above) the android arrives at “true” consciousness, it will not become an organic (of the typical natural sense) creature to which we can more easily relate. It seems to follow, then, that the default position is that the android is not special. If the robot is not conscious, it is not a person and therefore cannot be discriminated against. One must demonstrate quite well that the android is conscious in order to overturn this default viewpoint.

                Putnam would disagree with this default stance view of the android. In attempting to create artificial intelligence with the hopes of it attainting consciousness, one has already granted the android a sort of specialness; we want to be able to say that it is conscious. In a way, you could see the learning android as a human fetus; not yet resembling the anticipated final stages of its development. Like many would see no problem terminating the fetus at this early stage, not many would say that you could discriminate against the fledgling robot. However, after a certain point, we say that the fetus is finally a person, or at least person enough to consider aborting it wrong. Like we would want to be generous in our views of the infant during this abortion, we would want to be generous in our views towards the android. We would rather accept a lesser android as conscious than discriminate against any conscious android that we refuse to see as conscious. The consequences of being wrong about an actually conscious android are much worse than those of being wrong about an unconscious android.

Rejection of the Rejection of Materialism

      What is perception exactly? Is it the awareness of external and physical things, or rather could it be from immaterial things instead? This is a hotly debated topic to this very day and has also been in the past with the likes of Locke and Berkeley leading the charge. I tend to find myself agreeing with Locke and his theory of a causal theory of perception.

      Locke's theory of perception rests on the idea of materialism. In this theory, things are given primary, secondary, and even tertiary qualities. Primary qualities are those such as number, movement, extension, and solidity - things that can be seen directly by us. Those qualities we as humans mainly deal with such as color, texture, smell, and sound are the secondary qualities. Scientifically speaking, we do not directly perceive these things. Take for example color. Objects do not directly have a light color emitting from within themselves that is white. Rather, light from the sun or other objects hit an object and reflect the light into the rods and cones withing our eyes causing the objects to appear white. It is in this indirect way that materialism  exists. There are some experiences such as this appearance of color that we cannot unsee. We can't help but experience these things.

      However, Berkeley argued against materialism and for immaterialism. The main argument for this theory is that the experiences materialists do rely upon these experiences to characterize things and all the expereiences are mental. He then argues that that which is mental is not material and thus material things are mind-dependent. 

       However, I would argue that Berkeley's ideas that are supposed to be completely mental are not all that way. Take for example again the experience of smelling a rose. I cannot unsmell a rose, and imagine that I am smelling one for the very first time. Berkeley would state that is experience is completely mental, however there is something very material indeed in the sensing process. Very specific molecules bind to receptors in the olfactory sensors of our nose in the body which then relay a message of this smell to us. Without these exact molecules binding, however, the experience would never occur. Regardless of it being a mental association, these physical entities are responsible for the perception.

Of the Principles of Human Knowledge

In George Berkeley's Of the Principles of Human Knowledge, Berkley explains that one only perceives ideas through the mind.  He extends his explanation further by stating that only ideas can not exist without the mind.  This is true.  How can one perceive anything without having a mind in the first place.  However, he attempts to defend his statement by saying that matter can not exist without being perceived and this is not the case.  Berkeley attempts to defend himself by stating in point 17.  "If we inquire into what the most accurate philosophers declare themselves to mean by material substance; we shall find them acknowledge, they have no other meaning annexed to those sounds, but the idea of being in general, together with the relative notion of its supporting accidents.  The general idea of being appearth to me the most abstract and incomprehensible of all other; and as for its supporting accidents this, as we have just now observed, cannot be understood in the common sense of those words; it must therefore be taken in some other sense, but what that is they do not explain."  He later asks how is it possible for people to know that solid, figured moveable substances exist without the mind.  So by stating this, it is possible to claim that everything outside of the room I am in could potentially not exist and this is certainly not the case.  If I were to call someone, does only their voice exist?  What if I were hallucinating? Do the hallucinations exist?  There appears that Berkeley's theory has several holes that do not follow up.  He later explains that there are spirits (or I am assuming God) that can perceive only through the senses and they always are view which can not always be seen by humans.  In point .35 he states that "I do not argue against the existence of any one thing that we can apprehend, either by sense or reflection. That the thing I see with mine eyes and touch with my hands do exist, really exist, I make not the least question.  The only thing whose existence we deny, is which philosophers call matter and corporeal substance.  And in doing of this, there is no damage done to the rest of mankind, who, I dare say, will never miss it".  It is ironic that he stated earlier that the other philosophers  can not explain material substance; however he wants people to except his idea because why not?  There is no harm in his belief.  So people just to except that matter only exists because spirits and humans are able to perceive them.  There is no proof and his theory completely defeats the purpose of Chemistry.  I feel that Berkeley was correct stating that one can only perceive through their mind; however, the rest of his theory is not based upon anything and relies upon spirits or God as an explanation for everything that exist and thus can not be proven.   

Brain vs. Mind

Is someone  being defined by their brain and its functions, or is it defined by something greater, such as the concept of the “mind?” I would say that, as far as we know, the brain’s functions are the only things that control what we do and feel. If that’s all that we currently know about the subject, then why would we venture to guess that there might be something supernatural? People do the same thing with deities by having no knowledge and still choosing to believe in them. It’s not that I’m saying that there is no way that the “mind” is what controls us, I’m just saying that since we have no knowledge of that concept being true, then we should stick with what we know and say that the brain is what defines us.

                There are those who say that the “mind” is what defines us because they feel that if the brain was all that there was to us, then our bodies would be all that we have and we wouldn’t have the possibility to live on after death. Humans long for the notion that we are more than just our physical selves and that there is part of us that is eternal in nature.

                The way I see it, people experience the world through the senses, and therefore are able to visualize this outside world in many ways. Since all we visually experience is the world around us, we begin to think of ourselves as detached to something like the brain. It is just this illusion that we are above our bodies that drives us to assume that we are something more than a series of biological functions. In the beginning of times, I would not object to this conflicting argument as much as I am doing now. That is because in today’s world we have been able to observe the brain and learn exactly why we experience what we experience.

                Some people have told me that there may be a “mind” deeper inside the brain that we just aren’t able to observe. However, even if this were the case, then the so-called mind would end up being something physical, just like the brain. Therefore, the only counterargument would be that there is a “mind” inside of us that does not physically exist, which is completely absurd.

                My argument is that literally every single experience that we have, whether it be an experience of pain or pleasure, is just our brains performing their everyday tasks. Some people like having the idea that there are certain feelings like “love” and “existentialism” that rank higher up than normal feeling, sometimes seeming supernatural. But when it comes down to it, love is just and instinctual feeling of connection with another human, most likely having to do with an extended time of connecting physically with someone.

                I will always hope that there could be something greater, but that is just a hope and I have no intention of forming belief system out of it.

The Nature of Ideas in the Third Meditation

WHAT DESCARTES SAYS

In his Meditations on First Philosophy, René Descartes, in the Third Meditation, writes:

So it is clear to me, by the natural light, that the ideas in me are like pictures, or images which can easily fall short of the perfection of the things from which they are taken, but which cannot contain anything greater or more perfect.

In other words, it seems that Descartes claims that ideas are like pictures insofar as they are less great or less perfect than the reality from which they stem.  It follows, then, that Descartes believes that it is impossible for an idea to be greater or more perfect than the reality that causes it.

POTENTIAL OBJECTION

One might disagree with the above claim made by Descartes and counter that it is indeed possible for an idea to exceed the reality in greatness or perfection.  This person, when offering his objection, might put forward counterexamples in the form of two thought experiments.

1. Imagine a man who lives in a small village.  He was born in the village, raised in the village, and has lived in the village for his entire life.  In fact, he never has ventured outside of the village; and what is located in the village is all that he knows.  The tallest structure in the village is a two-story house.  Every other structure in the village is a single floor.  Now, according to Descartes, no idea can be greater than the reality from which it comes; however, it seems completely reasonable to believe that it is possible for the man to have an idea of how a three-story structure would look and be built.  A three-story structure is greater in size than a two-story structure.  Thus, it is possible, contrary to what Descartes claims, for the mind to have a picture or image of something that is greater (a three-story structure) than the thing from which it is taken (the two-story house).

2. A young girl is taking her first class in mathematics, and she is being exposed to some basic geometry; the main thing that she is being taught are the shapes and their names.  Now, her teacher is quite old and has an unsteady hand; all of the lines that he draws on the chalkboard are always crooked.  The young girl never has seen a perfectly straight line.  However, based on the crooked lines that she has seen the teacher draw on the board, it seems completely reasonable to believe that it is possible for the girl to have an idea of a perfectly straight line (how it would look).  A straight line is more perfect than a crooked line.  Thus, it is possible, contrary to what Descartes claims, for the mind to have a picture or image of something that is more perfect (a straight line) than the thing from which it is taken (the crooked lines drawn by the teacher).

WHAT DESCARTES LIKELY WOULD REPLY

In reply to the above objection, it is likely that Descartes would say something like this:

Well, in response to the second thought experiment that you offer, you should have continued reading because, in the Fifth Meditation, I write, “I find within me countless ideas of things which even though they may not exist anywhere outside me [for example, a perfectly straight line] still cannot be called nothing; for although in a sense they can be thought of at will, they are not my invention but have their own true and immutable natures.”  In the case of a line, the crooked lines that the teacher has drawn on the chalkboard are not the reality from which the girl conceives of how a perfectly straight line would look.  The image that the girl has in her mind comes from the true and immutable nature of a straight line.  This idea is conveyed to the girl by her teacher, who likewise has an image of a straight line in his mind; although, he cannot draw one.  The idea that the girl has of a straight line comes from the exact same idea that her teacher has of a straight line.  The idea of the girl is not more perfect than the idea of her teacher.  The idea of the girl does not contain anything more perfect than the thing from which it is taken (the idea of the teacher).  Both ideas are equal in all respects.

In reply to your first thought experiment, I did not intend the word “greater” to mean greater in size; rather, when I was writing, I intended the word to mean greater in the sense of quality.  In the Third Mediation, I use “greater” in a qualitative sense, not a quantitative sense.  With respect to quality, a three-story house (although it is larger) is no better than a two-story house.  Bigger does not mean better.  The word “greater,” as I meant to use it, should be considered the same as “more perfect.”  It refers to the quality of something, not its quantity.

Less is Moore

Upon first reading G. E. Moore's "Proof of an External World," I was frustrated. I had expected Moore to finally prove to me that I am not after all a brain confined to Pollock's vat, but instead I am living a real life in an external world where my actions affect real people whose consciousnesses also exist outside of vats. I found Moore's argument to be ridiculous. I embraced the skeptic's objection to Moore's argument, that Moore did not prove the existence of an external world because he did not prove that his hands could not have been an illusion or part of a dream, and thus not exist. Essentially, Moore proves nothing.

However, Moore gives an intriguing counter-argument to my objection. He claims that my skeptical peers and I misunderstand what he means by "an external world." He proves simply that if he acknowledges the existence of his hands, which exist in an external world, then an external world exists. He proves that since he can acknowledge that his hands exist outside of himself, then the world cannot solely exist internally. In fact, he states that he cannot prove that his hands are not an illusion, as I continually assert, but that it is impossible to prove that reality exists in this way.

I have spent countless nights lying awake in my bed trying to prove that the world is not a figment of my imagination, that the people I love exist only within the confines of my mind. In responce to my worries, Moore would state that I must accept my world is not an illusion on the basis of faith, for it cannot be proved. This moves me, and upon reading it I know it to be true. Moore states, "I know things, which I cannot prove."

The power of Moore's argument is derived from its simplicity and brevity. Rather than attempting to reinforce his argument with complexity, which can invite complications, Moore proves that just a few pages of logic can profoundly influence generations of thinkers.

If you are reading this, let me know what you think about Moore's argument!

Adam Nick

Proof of the External World

Proof of the External World

To prove the existence of the external world the philosopher G.E. Moore created the proof by the simple example of extending a hand and saying “here is a hand” and then extending another hand and saying “here is another, therefore the external world exists.” By this he sets forth the premises that (1) Here is one hand (2) Here is another hand (3) hands are existing objects (4) therefore the external world exists. The key behind this proof is the fact of saying “here is a hand” and also gesturing with that specific hand. If someone were to say “here is a hand” with the idea of a hand in their mind then this would not prove anything of the external world, but because in Moore’s proof the hand can be thought of in the mind, uttered out loud and specifically pointed to it proves that the external world must exist outside of the mind. Moore says that this is the strongest form of proof of the existence of the external world and challenges anyone to try to think of a better proof, he says in order to be a proof (1) the premises must be different from the conclusion, (2) the premises must be something that is the case, (3) the conclusions must follow that premises given, all of these are satisfied by his proof. He says that this proof can be used to prove the existence of anything in the external world, and also prove of the existence of things in the external world in the past. He does this by saying that he held up two hands not long ago, therefore two hands existed not long ago, therefore at least two external things existed not long ago, therefore the external world exists.

            Many skeptics find problems with Moore’s proof; they say that it has proved nothing. They may give the argument that what if his hands don’t exist, and that he is really just a brain in a vat in some laboratory and the external world of which he perceives as being real is merely an idea in his mind or the computer with which his brain is connected to. That he doesn’t have real hands to raise only the idea and perception of raising his hand which doesn’t exist. They could say that he doesn’t really know that his hand exists, and so his second premise would not be the case and his argument would not be valid.

            An answer to these skeptical arguments in the case of the brain in a vat argument we can target the reliability of perceptions to tell us about the existence of the external world. The skeptics say that perceptions are unreliable and do not give a correct answer to what really exists in the external world. That Moore is really a brain in a vat and his perceptions are wrong about there being two hands in front of him. But these skeptics use these same perceptions of the external world, which are wrong, to say that it doesn’t exist. These skeptics are using, according to them, an unreliable method (perception) of deciding if the external world exists or not. 

On Huemer's Skepticism

     In Huemer's first argument on page 156, he says that "In order to know something, I must have a good reason for believing it. This is the premise on which he bases his argument for infinite regression of knowledge. He justifies this premise by saying that "the foundationalist has no way of distinguishing self-evident propositions from merely arbitrary propositions". Essentially, Huemer argues that the foundationalist must find differentiate between a fact that is self-evident (2=2) and a fact that is arbitrary (there is a twelve headed purple dragon living on Venus). He furthers his skeptical argument by doubting criterion for our beliefs and doubting our perceptions of the physical world. In Huemer's argument here, any foundational proposition is self-contradictory and absurd. Our senses are not necessarily accurate, and external objects do not necessarily exist. This argument supports Huemer's thesis that "there is no good reason for thinking anything whatsoever".

     While this argument does appear to be logically sound, Huemer offers no guidelines for how a skeptic should accurately live within his world. Although he has offered a strong argument for not thinking anything whatsoever, how does one live his life from that frame of mind? Human needs for survival and reproduction still exist according to evolutionary principles. Should one instead just sit in a cave their whole life not believing in anything rather than pursuing what evolution deems we should pursue to feel good? Skepticism is a very esoteric set of ideas that makes sense in idealistic terms, but in the form of human lives that are bound by evolutionary restrictions is offers no useful guidelines on how to live. 

     As J.P. Moreland states in answering the skeptic, skepticism is inherently flawed itself because it assumes that its premises count as knowledge. He then proposes an example, "For example, suppose I claim to know that I first visited Disneyland in 1985 and a skeptic points out that it's possible that I'm mistaken. He's right; it is possible. But it doesn't follow that I first visited Disneyland in some year other than 1985, or that I never visited Disneyland at all. Unless the skeptic gives me good reasons to think that I didn't first visit Disneyland in '85, the bare possibility that I might not have isn't sufficient to call into question my claim to know I did." Although a skeptic can always question the possibility that some belief or memory is not real, 
that simple possibility is not necessarily a strong argument, nor is it particularly useful. If a skeptic attacks a

 particularist on the claim that the particularist does not know anything, he is not proposing a rational 

argument. A skeptic does not know anything either. 
     I honestly do not know how Huemer would respond to the argument that skeptics cannot know that skepticism is true, because asserting that it is true requires one to believe that they know something, and they have a good reason for believing it. How does one tussle with the fact that skeptics assert that they have knowledge simply by being skeptics? 

     


   
   

Is Skepticism Worth Believing?

In “A Brain in a Vat” by John Pollock, Pollock tells a first person account of learning that it is possible that the reality humans live in is just the motor cortex and sensory cortex being stimulated as the human brain sits in a vat. The brain is stimulated by a computer that creates a fictitious mental life. This life fits perfectly in accord with reality making all humans unaware that it is occurring. This idea of skepticism seeming has no counterexamples as the computer is perfect and can account for all dissenting ideas.

What we must ask, however, is whether or not it is worth it to believe this or any other skeptic theory. For example, the brain in a vat theory is accepted and proven, I do not believe it should change how people live their lives as it does not cause harm or benefit them in any way. As we continue to live our lives as brains in vats, nothing in our life will change; jobs, families, ideologies, and structure in society will go unscathed. There will be those who become paranoid or begin sects about the brain in a vat idea, but those people will be minorities compared to the entirety of the human race. These groups will stay minorities because by modern human nature we tend to stay with our beliefs and continue with their normal lifestyles.

In retrospect, skeptic theories such as the brain in the vat theory are not important to the way humans do and will continue to live their lives. All skeptic theories attempt to change how reality is and how it is perceived but these do not change how humans will continue to be in the future. Humans have lived a stubborn lifestyle for so long that the discovery of one of these realities to be true would not cause a serious change in human nature.

Direct vs Indirect Realism

As one is born into an environment of endless sensations, one is only able to experience this world with a total of five senses from the time of birth until the time of death.  One would think that if the five senses are the only manner in which one is able to sense or experience the world, then these sense mechanisms must be infallible, because to think otherwise would be the equivalent of introducing doubt in the only system that allows human beings to interact with the world.  This introduction of doubt is the foundation of the Problem of Perception which states a simple question:  “how does one reconcile the apparent obvious truths that our experience of the world is filled with the possibility of certain kinds of perceptual error?” (Crane) 

There exists two forms of thought on the manner to describe how the world is perceived:  Direct and Indirect Realism.  Direct Realists claim that objects found in the natural world are perceived independently of the perceivers. Indirect Realists affirms that objects exist independently of the mind; however, through perception, an individual cannot directly engage with an object, but only with an intermediate of that object.  I favor the claim of the Indirect Realists from a strong background in biology.  Due to the manner in which we mechanically sense objects with our optical system I believe that we are always viewing the world through an intermediate.  For example, the manner in which individuals experience the world is similar to one looking at one’s body in a mirror:  the only way in which one is able to see is through the medium of the mirror (O’Brien).  This example can be further extrapolated to not only the mirror but also to a football game.  Indirect Realists view the world in much the way one would view a football game on T.V.  The event (the game) is occurring at another place somewhere in the world, but when one views the screen one sees the game.  The T.V. is the symbol for how Indirect Realists picture the world because it acts as an intermediate for watching the football game.  This example can be substituted for any other event in the world. 

Due to the documented manner in which our optical system has been explained, it is difficult for me to accept the Direct Realist view of the world because of the existence of the problems of perception.  The perceptual problem of Illusion and Hallucination are quite real, and serve to discredit the Direct Realist view of the world.  

Crane, Tim. "The Problem of Perception." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 5 Mar. 2005. Web. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-problem/>.

O'Brian, Daniel. "Objects of Perception." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,. Web. 2 Oct. 2012. <http://www.iep.utm.edu/perc-obj/#H2>.

No Judgement

A “Brain in a Vat” is a difficult concept for people to grasp and support sometimes, mainly because it is the ultimate argument for Skepticism, but it is a strong argument that ultimately causes a person to question their perception of reality and or the universe.  However some clarification for what we think we know.

Suppose that my brain is in fact in a vat.  What my brain was experiencing would still create a framework for how I could understand the computer that in fact was creating my experiences.  Although I knew I was feeling all of my sensations and experiences but that instead of feeling them in my body and mind, I would acknowledge that I was feeling them in my mind alone.  I also, as all science supports, do not ever experience someone else’s consciousness, or brain in rigid terms, in my concept of this universe.

This is where the clarification comes in.  The Brain in a Vat is an ideal representation for skepticism however it is a better use of support for the refined Individualistic Skepticism. 

We do not and cannot experience the brain or consciousness of other beings we interact with and who exist in our universe (within the computer).  Therefore, one cannot attempt to convince a person’s mind, which exists in our universe that they do not know if they are a brain in a vat, and in fact do not know anything. This is because we cannot know if their brain in fact exists, or only exists in our understanding, because they may not exist.  And if it doesn’t exist can it have knowledge… no.  We ONLY perceive them with or without it. 

These pose questions. If another’s brain does exist, is it connected to the same computer, we cannot know.  If it exists, does it have its own understanding of the universe, its own computer, unconnected from our own? If so we could never transmit the knowledge to it.  If the brain does not exist, then is the knowledge (in loose terms) it gains in fact just add to the knowledge or lack of you have about your universe, your computer… is it your knowledge.  So imposing your views on another would just be reinforcing your own understanding.  Which leaves us; as possibly different existing minds, computers, brains in a vats to only use the knowledge and or expressed experiences of others to build on our own understanding.  Meaning a brain does not have reason or proper capability to judge, transform, or impose our believed knowledge onto others. 

So why try? Well by arguing different understandings of the world, or different believed perceptions we add to our own, no matter if we exist; our brain exists, or others brains exist… we are obtaining understanding, building a larger concept of the universe, which leads to what can be valued as knowledge.

The Human Need for Speed

            Running around on a grass field trying to kick a ball into a net does not seem like something one should risk their lives for. So why do people continually do this to themselves? It could not be for the entertainment factor because it is not entertaining to run around until the point of exhaustion for over an hour trying to score a few points. It cannot be for the endorphins released because people are not always in a positive mindset after they play because they could have lost or played poorly. So then why is it that athletes sacrifice their bodies, mental health, relationships, and free time to play a game? Attachment and emotion take control of logic.

            I have suffered from three concussions in one year due to sports. Logically, I should quit because of the possible long-term affects it could have on my brain. However, I cannot come to terms with quitting. I cannot pin point what is holding me back from quitting my career as a competitive athlete, but I know I cannot live without playing. When I do not play, my body feels wrong. I feel as though something is missing physically, because I am not exercising. I also feel as though something is spiritually missing as though there is a hole in my life that is being fulfilled. I have a constant urgency to get back on the field. But what is causing this urgency? Soccer causes me stress in school and in my life. It also causes me a lot of physical pain. My life would be simplified without it, and I have the perfect excuse to quit. But why can’t I?

            Attachment and emotion; the two words that rule out logic. Playing sports becomes an addiction. It is something that becomes part of you, and without it one’s body becomes physically and mentally affected. The same endorphins are not being released, and also the body is changing due to the loss in muscle mass.  Plus, people become emotionally attached to their team, the game, and the lifestyle that comes with playing the sport. Also, the human urge for competition must be factored in. It is in human nature to always try to be the best you can be, whether that means sacrificing your body or not. People do not settle for average, they want to see the best athlete’s in the world play. The tallest men are playing in the NBA, and the fastest runners are sprinting in the Olympics. Even gold medalists do not settle for anything less than the best. Once they have won a gold medal, they keep training to win more.

            Human beings are willing to sacrifice their bodies, and relationships for sports. The human race lets attachment and emotion overrule what is logical. Does this mean the human race is selfish, or unselfish? If I am putting my brain on the line for a sport, am I being brave or irresponsible? How does this urgency affect our society?