Even though functionalism was not my assigned definition, I enjoyed listening and discussing the viewpoint of functionalists and whether or not this was a good theory of consciousness to believe in. I believe functionalism is a better alternative to behaviorism and the identity theory because it encompasses some aspects of both. Functionalists believe that purely the functional roles control the different mental states. This includes the behavioral side of mental states as well as the physical side, such as neural activity and physiological sensations. Some may be able to criticize that the nature of consciousness is not functional even though it may have functional characteristics. This includes the idea that people exist in the world without a conscious, even though this is a controversial idea. I think consciousness is mainly what makes a living, breathing, functioning human being a person. I do not think that there are humans that exist without a consciousness, and even if these such humans did exist, I do not think they would be considered “people”. They may act and behave the way we do, but that missing piece of human consciousness would keep them from understanding what ‘normal’ people (conscious people) feel and believe.

In his ted talk, I found the first theory Chalmers used to explain Consciousness to be very interesting. That consciousness is fundamental  and that it can’t be explained in terms of anything more basic and that any beliefs or ideas from their are simply built upon it just as anything relating to time or space can only be built upon them. I think it needs to be viewed this way because any of the studies done in this area have all associated some other variable with consciousness. And even the idea of one having a conscious is debated by some. No evidence for consciousness even exists in the physical world and when we try to find evidence all we find is more unanswered phenomena, Chalmers first theory therefore seems to make a lot of sense.

Based on the research that I did for the mind and consciousness session; which was interactionism vs. epiphenomenalism, I looked more into them after class and I personally think that the interactionism thought process is more convincing than epiphenomenalism. Just like we discussed in class, interactionism is the idea that the mind and body are two separate entities yet they impact each other. I agree with this, I think that both the mind and body control different parts of a person yet they are fully capable of impacting each other. An example is stress. When some one is stressed out, that’s a mental thing associated with the mind yet it is scientifically proven that being stressed weakens the immune system and a person tends to get physically sick if they’ve been stressed for a period of time. An example of the body impacting the mind is, let’s say, when you’re working out and you lift a heavy weight, you begin to feel a stress on your arms. This physical stress leads your mind to think that you can’t lift a weight that heavy and you begin to tell yourself you can’t do it. Because of these examples, I think that interactionism is the most convincing idea of consciousness in the argument of that and epiphenomenalism.

The Himba are a tribe from Northern Namibia. They do not classify blue and green differently, the way we do in Western Culture, but they do differentiate between many different shades of green. The tribe was tested and had difficulty discerning between blues and greens that Westerners could easily differentiate between, but had no trouble telling the difference between shades of green that are almost identical to Western eyes. Further, the English language has 11 different color categories while the Himba only have 5 different color categories.

This also shows how linguistic differences can affect the way that different people perceive color. While it is hard to quantify the ways that people perceive color, this is one example of a possible explanation for why people perceive color differently.

I found this article and thought it was helpful for relating the class discussion to recent news in the court system regarding same sex marriage. I liked how this article specifically showed what states have legalized same sex marriage, what states have struck down gay marriage bans (making the legalization of gay marriage in these states more promising), and where gay marriage bans are still upheld. This article discusses the future of gay marriage legalization in these states a lot, and I think that once the case goes to the Supreme Court, which will happen sooner or later, I think that gay marriage will be officially legalized. Since the majority of the US has legalized gay marriage, the acceptance of gay marriage has increased greatly in the past decade. I can easily see this trend continuing to rise in the future and seeing these marriage bans in the four states being declared unconstitutional. The article link is copied below for anyone who wants to read more about it!

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/07/us/appeals-court-upholds-same-sex-marriage-ban.html?_r=0

I think Corvino made some very interesting points in his videos. I specifically found his video about gay marriage being a threat to religious freedom very interesting. One thing he explained was the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage. While I understood what this meant, I never previously looked at the issue in this sense. Because of media coverage, I always just heard individuals bickering about it being wrong or right and individuals citing sacred texts such as the Bible to understand the definition of marriage. Another point he made was that he understands why people don’t want to recognize legal marriage for relationships they disapprove of. This made me think of the scenario in which a father doesn’t approve of the man his daughter may be seeing. In most cases the girl is going to continue to see the man she likes regardless of whether her father disapproves. The same goes for gay marriage, even if gay marriage is never fully legalized by the federal government, individuals will still find a way to be together. Corvino also specifically talked about what freedom of religion meant. And one point he made was that by being tolerant of all religions we need to be tolerant of what that religion believes in and approves of such as same-sex unions. We can’t pick and choose what we think is right or wrong. Of course if a religion says it is okay to physically harm someone, it is okay if outside forces intervene, but things like marriage I think fall into a different category and if freedom of religion is truly valued, people need to learn what it means to also be tolerant of the practices that take place in other religions.

Researchers at a university in Israel have concluded a study that compared brain scans of new moms, new straight dads, and new gay dads and found that gay dads develop brain patterns that resemble both mothers and fathers. The lead researcher explained that when two fathers are co-parenting, “their brains must recruit both networks, the emotional and the cognitive, for optimal parenting.” While there have been studies that have showed that children raised by homosexual fair no worse than children raised by heterosexual couples, this is the first study that shows why this may be. This is also one of the first steps towards discrediting the argument that a child needs both a mother and father in order to receive a quality upbringing.

In class on Wednesday, someone had mentioned how there might be some challenges for kids growing up in a same sex household in regards to possibly being judged by other kids at school and thinking differently than others. Though I wish it weren’t I do believe that some of this is true. I automatically thought back to an episode of Modern Family where Mitchell and Cameron are a gay couple who adopt a Vietnamese girl named Lily. In one of the episodes, she begins going to school and telling everyone she meets that she is gay. She won’t stop saying this because she believes that who you are is derived from your parents. Because her fathers are gay, then she must be as well. This relates back to how kids with same sex marriage view things differently. Yet, I think that if the public as a whole was more accepting and stopped portraying homosexuality as something that is out of the norm and something that is so different or wrong, I think that this notion will go away. This show to me portrays just how normal homosexuality is and how gay or lesbian couples are capable of raising kids and having typical lives just as much as heterosexual couples are. They did a good job in showing how to educate younger kids and families as whole on the concept of homosexuality is completely and undoubtably normal. If more people were open to this and started educating others, then I think that kids raised in same sex households will become something as normal as kids raised in interracial households, hetero households, and much more.

For most states, same-sex adoption is made legal case by case by a judge. There are 16 states however that definitely allow same-sex adoption. Some states allow second parent adoption (when one person adopts the child of his partner). There are only two states where same-sex adoption is illegal by law: Mississippi and Utah. Ohio specifically allows single LGBT individuals to petition to adopt, but does not allow a same-sex couple to jointly petition to adopt or second parent adoption. This is surprising considering the shortage of adoptive parents nationwide. According to a study by Rachel Farr of the University of Virginia, same-sex couples are more likely to adopt trans-racially compared to heterosexual couples. Therefore, it only makes sense to allow same-sex couples to ability to adopt nationwide because not only will the number of parents wishing to adopt increase, but more minority children will also be adopted.

I found many flaws in Gallagher’s piece opposing same-sex marriage. One point that left me dumbfounded was Gallagher’s argument that marriage is for the reproduction of children, and thus same-sex marriage should not be allowed. It’s true that same-sex couples cannot themselves reproduce, but it’s not as if disallowing any type of union between people of the same sex would drive them into heterosexual relationships, where they could reproduce. Furthermore, Gallagher refutes the idea that there is evidence that children raised in same-sex households are not worse off than children raised by heterosexual parents. She then goes on to discuss how the institution of marriage is in shambles – half of marriages end in divorce, the majority of children will experience a fatherless or motherless household, etc. Does Gallagher not consider that even if children raised by gay parents are worse than children raised by straight parents, they are almost certainly better off raised by any two people (same sex or not) than only a mother or father? She is essentially making the argument for proponents of same-sex marriage by saying this because it would seem that a homosexual couple adopting children would be better than what they are currently experiencing. She goes on to shoot herself in the foot again by almost pinning the problems facing marriage on the same ideals that allow same-sex marriage, when she previously states how little of the population is made up of “same-sex registered domestic partnerships.”