TED Community » Nicholas Lukowiak

More About Me

I'm passionate about

Cognitive (evolutionary) studies, writing, religion, philosophy, psychology, [human] nature and astronomy.

** Check out my blog!

An idea worth spreading

Talk to strangers,
do not fear anything,
and never be afraid to say "I don't know,"
Don't judge people on how they look,
their age,
or anything else tangible,
judge people on what they preach and question.
Live life.
Find the memento mori

Talk to me about

Anything + Everything
If you do not know what you want to do with your college education
If you just need to talk to somebody

People don't know that I'm good at

Cooking

My TED Story

Found TED off of stumbleupon.com and I was always "liking" (a function of SU) videos of talks on here decided to join. Now a huge advocate of TED.

2 years later - Not as active as I once was, but still partial partisan!

Comments

• TEDCred score: +58.60 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• A reply on Conversation: A deceptively simple question: What is, was, and will always be impossible to occur?

  1 hour ago: Learning to be human cannot make one less human? If anything more of a human, when in pursuit of being better than a 'human' or normal person.
  
  "An enlightened individual is still that individual." This position doesn't seem valid. Enlightenment clearly implies wisdom obtained by trails of effort. How can someone who worked to be more of them self but not different from the person they were? Who a person is, is not a static agent. WE are agents of evolutionary adaption and social relations - if by nature we evolve, than by individual distinction that extension of thought should apply - we evolve when we adapt to reality.
  
  Please define human, in a way, that EVERYBODY will agree is an usable definition. Impossible.
  
  It is impossible these questions will be resolved and applied to public agencies in the next decade.

• A reply on Conversation: What theological implications does the "Psychology" and "Neuroscience" (and possibly biology) of religion (or "God(s)") have?

  13 hours ago: I'll check out the terms soon, thanks Don

• A reply on Conversation: A deceptively simple question: What is, was, and will always be impossible to occur?

  1 day ago: " A human that realizes it is a human, is no longer a human?"
  
  Ha, this is why the social sciences should be stressed more.. Consider the variety of fields of study for the human body, let alone the brain and how the mind works. A better question: "If a human realizes/learns/rationalizes more about their biology, psychology, physiology, etc. they no longer are just a human?" Well, that still doesn't answer the very important question of "what is a human being?" How do we objectively describe ourselves if we are the consensus which establishes conceptuals categorizes? In another sense, how can an individual ever really realize their full potential if they do not know ALL the actuality that can be known about humans? And that answer, will suggest when an 'agent' realizes more about what it is, it is no longer the same agent.
  
  Maslow's Peak Experience // Buddhism's Satori - the questioning of self, and it's existence leading to enlightenment
  Nietzsche's Übermensch // Sagehood - the idea we must become more than human by understanding human nature
  (What it is to be human, is a matter of acceptability from society...While some say we need to "this" to be human, others will say "that" is the worth of being a human)
  
  Compare us to the people from 3000 years ago. I am assured, there will be far more differences than similarities. What will we emphasize as being "human" is a matter of social acceptance, not merely a time dimension. But, now considering the evolution of culture... A 100 years from now, where would our languages and philosophies have taken us? We will be "human" but less identifiable with us as humans now, for we would be more advanced. More developed humans, our ideas of ourselves and our conceptions would have also developed, thus different, thus impossible to solidify timelessly. Unless perhaps you say "we are celestial beings responding to other celestial beings" - which is just too holistic for my taste.
  
  Perfection is like beauty - perspecti

• A comment on Conversation: What does your utopian future look like?

  1 day ago: "It the best society, the rich take public transportation."
  
  I cannot tell you the economic structure nor can I really suggest any good image, but what I do know is what will be the difference between humans destroying our planet or not.
  
  We need a society which is pushing for values of the futurist, science fiction writers, transhumanist and overmen. Simply, we need two major ideas to be the goal of every individual alive today - the Venus Project (or something like it) and the ideals of Star Trek: to explore space to know our place in the universe and to guarantee our species survival by opening our arms as big as possible to other life forms. In a world we realize humans are all the same, will be the world we realize the platinum rule should not be a rule but second nature, an instinct. To treat a stranger like you would a family or friend, without second thoughts, would be an exercise of utopian attitudes. While 'society' and 'culture' are the main issues in these questions of utopians, individual responsibility is where most stress is needed - not how society should function, how individuals should function in society.
• +2

  A comment on Conversation: What theological implications does the "Psychology" and "Neuroscience" (and possibly biology) of religion (or "God(s)") have?

  1 day ago: If there is one thing religion studies and theology has proven in culture sciences, it is one key idea: humans are naturally 'religious.' (keywords: religious naturalism, [cognitive] psychology of religion, AND memetics)
  
  WE group-orientate (most important factor), have rituals, have patterned rationalities, need others to 'feel' as though we 'know' and vice versa, develop dogmas and taboos, create belief systems from the former factors, and then the practical usage of the above (with or without conscious awareness).
  
  Besides the question of a 'creator-God' there are other questions religions worry about, which seem to be innately metaphysical concerns of people: the beginning, the end, the purpose, the reason, and where the 'self' comes into play...
  
  Practicing a religion, and enjoying it, is natural to human beings. With that can come fundamental or non-fundamental images of God and answers to the above questions, but truly it has never been a question of God that plagues religion... It is the question of the morality championed within the religion. What God is, is unique to every individual that describes God... But what is right and wrong can more easily recorded and made into data, than that of what everyone believes 'God' is or is not.
  
  But, no matter to who, denying truth and morality is always a negative...
  
  The question of evolution makes the God-question all the more interesting, beautiful and wonderful...Not resolved or in jeopardy. To reject this 'reality' is in a sense, to me, rejecting God in the most basic principle: "We are made in the image of the image-less one." This fundamentalist practice of any religion will show high levels of irrationality in optimism and band-wagon reasoning. If we are designed to grow and develop in the 'image of God' that also takes understanding God and what we use to understand God - ourselves, others and knowledge.
  
  Whatever theology has done, it hasn't done enough to change the mind sciences for the better, yet.

• A comment on Conversation: A deceptively simple question: What is, was, and will always be impossible to occur?

  1 day ago: Psychology - the study of the human psyche
  
  The question of the psyche was originally for philosophers to ponder, but now the question has been given to cognitive researchers (and the respected mind sciences).
  
  The problem with studying human consciousness is we have no other type of superior consciousness to compare ours to, so we are in a HOLE as far as finding out where to begin what is 'conscious' or not. We have great ideas, like emotions, memory and reasoning that tell researchers we are conscious, but the general nature of such consciousness, it still a mystery. Because as soon as I rationalized 'this is my nature' I become aware and that 'natural tendency' no longer has as much of an effect on my future reasoning...
  
  Take the Myer-Briggs personality criteria for example: The test dictates your personality TYPE, so if the test is justified (by you or others) to be true and practical - you accept this assessment of YOU. Well, after this 'acceptance' you are no longer that type of personality, you are now 'more of' or a 'variation of' that personality type. Therefore having accepted who you are on an objective standard, has given you reason to alter future rationalities involving yourself.
  
  At the point where we actually begin to map the brain out (in an unified theory), we will still be left with questions of how to use those maps to better the human condition.
  
  So, what will always be impossible, has been and will be is - the perfect education system to train a human being.
  
  OR - just "perfection" in general.
  
  It is impossible for humans to be absolute creatures, being born subjective, but we can be objective (by taking from consensus and communities)... Yet, we cannot conceptualize what our species will become even in 100 years, so how can we be able to ever practice absolute reasoning as a casual occurrence?
  
  A lot is impossible, but it takes creativity and imagination to make practical developments from thinking 'impossible'
• +1

  A comment on Conversation: Optimistic View of The Future

  Apr 30 2013: Transhumanism ideologies involving heavy pragmatic and existential supplements in order to craft singularity of true equality (- all basic needs for human beings as global requirements. Basic needs: education, food, shelter and resources like the internet).

• A comment on Conversation: A Challenge: Taking Responsibility

  Apr 30 2013: Those who are bored take the most for granted... Number one thing being a privileged enough mind to not worry about basic needs like shelter and food... They are taking their mind for granted, what your mind can provide for you is everything and anything as far as bettering yourself as an individual. As far as wanting to be someone famous, well, if that is the goal, you will always be bored.
  
  Perhaps some of this discussion can carry over to recent bombings and shootings in America?

• A comment on Conversation: Are people of faith in fact gullible?

  Apr 29 2013: Perhaps instead of practicing Neo-Atheism, the question of what makes people gullible in general can shred light on some issues here...
  
  First off, people of faith? I will assume 'religious fundamentalist' is your inference, since faith is STRONG belief and as emotional intelligence theory suggest - the separation between emotions and reason are not the fine line philosophers would love to suggest. I have faith humanity will not destroy itself, faith that European countries (plus America) will stop being ignorant toward foreign policies... Yeah I guess that makes me gullible, since the contrary of these faith-based thoughts are more likely.
  
  So, what makes a group of people gullible? Or an individual within a group? (social cognition studies)
  
  Well, like I am sure you read some fine atheist materials (blogs, forums, articles, etc) we can call them scripture. Yet, they are not ancient nor bound to predisposed organizations (per say), but many people would have read the same scriptures and would have based mutual arguments off of them. What we have here is the idea of 'people' letting 'people' know what to think. Well that is a part of human thinking... When I want to know if something is worth thinking, I research or find someone who has the knowledge to get me started with that certain thinking. How can I at any point begin to Question without having known previous answers, questions and solutions to previous Questions?
  
  Essentially what makes people gullible is a state of emotional acceptance they involve themselves with others in order to be comfortable with overall cognition.
  
  A child will accept your candy without thinking you're a stranger, but thinking candy brings them joy. Emotions trumped reasoning, but not a fair example, since as adults we think about what makes us happy as a part of our reasoning.... right?
  
  What you want is a justified way to insult individuals who practice dogmas and biased band wagon thoughts... hard to do when guilty of such....
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: Are people of faith in fact gullible?

  Apr 29 2013: They assume more than they can possibly know - sounds gullible.