What were your impressions of the lecture and Test from Dr. Gillian? In your opinion, what should the average person know about how our brain perceives the world? What are the larger implications of this?
I thought Dr. Gilligan's Lecture was pretty interesting. I wish she had passed out some notes along with lecture, she talked very fast and i did not have enough time to type out the notes that she was presenting to us. The fact that i was always rushing to get the notes down so i wouldnt miss them before she moved on to the next slide took away from my learning experience. I felt that the information that was shared was really helpful to understanding how perception effects knowledge, but I felt as though there was so much presented in not enough time that I was unable to grasp all of it. I thought the test was interesting; it helped to prove the information that was presented to us. For example, when the sentence 'dog is a man's best fiend' flashed on the screen I wrote down that I saw 'dog is man's best friend'. This helped to show that the brain does fix things for us. I thought it would have been more effective to do the test first, instead of the notes. I feel like if the test was first I would not have been equipped with the knowledge I just learned, and not have been as aware of the tricks that the brain can play on my mind. It would have been more interesting to then compare our results to the knowledge learned in class, and it would have helped with the understanding of the knowledge. I feel like the average person should be aware of how your brain tires to fix things for you, and how that affects how you see the world. I also think it would be important for the average person to know that focus can make it so you may not be able to see what is directly in front of you. For example, in the ball toss video that we watched, I did not notice the gorilla the first time. I feel like if the average person were to watch that video it would give them a better understanding of how they are only aware of a fraction of what actually happens around them, and how their brain can block out what is not being focused on. An example of this is my own life is at the barn that I used to ride my horse at there was a shooting range and hunting in the woods near by, which is probably not the safest thing to have near a horse barn. At first I found the constant noise of gunshots in the background eerie. Overtime though I didn’t notice them until someone who had not been to the barn pointed them out. As I learned from this presentation, your brain tends to block out stuff you see or hear on a daily basis. Which is why I didn’t hear the gunshots in the background anymore, even though they were still there. This function of the brain can be highly dangerous though. In the case of gunshots at the barn, we would often take our horses out on trails in the woods. Being so used to the gunshots we didn’t hear them. If a hunter or were to come near us (which wouldn’t have happened, hunting was prohibited) we may have not heard the danger near.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Abel Questions.
How does Bertrand Russell differentiate between “knowledge by acquaintance” and “knowledge by description”? (Check out the footnote at bottom of p. 19)
Bertrand Russell differentiates between the two knowledges by saying that acquaintance is only 'raw feels' and that knowledge by description is 'knowing that'. Knowledge by acquaintance is when you know someone; you know how they are feeling by what they do. Knowledge by description is when you know that something is something. What I mean by that is like " I know that the sky is blue". In English these two different types of knowledge have the same word 'to know'. However in other languages it is easier to identify the difference because there are two separate words for each one. For example, in Latin the two words are scire and cognoscere.
How does Abel distinguish between “knowing how” and “knowing that”?
Able distinguishes between knowing how and knowing that by saying that knowing how is something that can not be easily expressed. You cannot tell someone how to breath or how it feels when your foot itches but you know how to do it and how it feels. Knowing that is when you know a fact or something like "I know if I drop something it will fall because of gravity".
What does he mean when he asks: “can knowing how theoretically always be reduced to knowing that? What is Abel’s answer? What do you think?
What he means is to ask if every type of knowing how knowledge can be explained through knowing that, for example: you can know how to ride a bike, and you can also know the physics that make it work. Able doesn't think that every type of knowing how knowledge can be reduced down to knowing that knowledge, and I agree with him. For example: you can know how water tastes but you can not know that water taste the way it dose with out experiencing it.
How does language become a problem of knowledge?
Language becomes a problem with knowledge because, for example: in the English language there is only one word for the word 'to know' while in others there is two to signify knowing that and knowing how. Also words like very, and highly. How can you accurately express how much those mean. Language tends to use words for estimation, which can throw off knowledge when trying to be communicated. Also language limits you to not being able to explain raw feels. For example: if you know how it feels to be in love, you cannot accurately describe this emotion to another person.
What do you think William James means when he says: “Life defies our phrases?”
I think William James is trying to say that our experiences help dictate to what we say and do and know. If we listen to a certain type of music we are able to make a statement on if we like it or not. If we have not heard that type of music, then there is no way we can comment on it.
What, according to Abel, is the difference between “experience” and “propositional knowledge”?
The difference between experience and propsitional knowledge is one id learned by doing and the other is learned from an outside source. For example an experience would be ridding a bike, and knowing hoe to ride it from that. The propositional knowledge here would be knowing the physics of how to make the bike move and why it does.
What are Abel’s Four Conditions for propositional knowledge? Where have we seen this before?
Abel’s four conditions for propositional Knowledge are as follows. His first one is about truth. You can know something because it is true. For example 3+3 = 6, and you can know this because it is true. The second is belife. In order to know something you have to believe it, you can not possibly say that you know the sky is blue but you don't believe it. You can however make the statement that you believe the sky is blue but do not know it. Belief is independent from knowing but knowing is not independent from belife. The third is that in order to have knowledge and or belife there must be a certain amount of justification to this knowledge. For example you can guess the numbers of a lottery ticket, and belive that they are right, and get them right, but you do not know the numbers. The fourth one is knowledge that has no evidence that could make your belife not true. For example, if you look at a clock you know that it is that time. We have heard this from the plationic knowledge that we learned about in class.
Why does he add a Fourth Condition?
He adds a Fourth Condition to show that some knowledge does not need evidence to be knowledge. You can know that it is a certian time without having the evidence that it is.
Bertrand Russell differentiates between the two knowledges by saying that acquaintance is only 'raw feels' and that knowledge by description is 'knowing that'. Knowledge by acquaintance is when you know someone; you know how they are feeling by what they do. Knowledge by description is when you know that something is something. What I mean by that is like " I know that the sky is blue". In English these two different types of knowledge have the same word 'to know'. However in other languages it is easier to identify the difference because there are two separate words for each one. For example, in Latin the two words are scire and cognoscere.
How does Abel distinguish between “knowing how” and “knowing that”?
Able distinguishes between knowing how and knowing that by saying that knowing how is something that can not be easily expressed. You cannot tell someone how to breath or how it feels when your foot itches but you know how to do it and how it feels. Knowing that is when you know a fact or something like "I know if I drop something it will fall because of gravity".
What does he mean when he asks: “can knowing how theoretically always be reduced to knowing that? What is Abel’s answer? What do you think?
What he means is to ask if every type of knowing how knowledge can be explained through knowing that, for example: you can know how to ride a bike, and you can also know the physics that make it work. Able doesn't think that every type of knowing how knowledge can be reduced down to knowing that knowledge, and I agree with him. For example: you can know how water tastes but you can not know that water taste the way it dose with out experiencing it.
How does language become a problem of knowledge?
Language becomes a problem with knowledge because, for example: in the English language there is only one word for the word 'to know' while in others there is two to signify knowing that and knowing how. Also words like very, and highly. How can you accurately express how much those mean. Language tends to use words for estimation, which can throw off knowledge when trying to be communicated. Also language limits you to not being able to explain raw feels. For example: if you know how it feels to be in love, you cannot accurately describe this emotion to another person.
What do you think William James means when he says: “Life defies our phrases?”
I think William James is trying to say that our experiences help dictate to what we say and do and know. If we listen to a certain type of music we are able to make a statement on if we like it or not. If we have not heard that type of music, then there is no way we can comment on it.
What, according to Abel, is the difference between “experience” and “propositional knowledge”?
The difference between experience and propsitional knowledge is one id learned by doing and the other is learned from an outside source. For example an experience would be ridding a bike, and knowing hoe to ride it from that. The propositional knowledge here would be knowing the physics of how to make the bike move and why it does.
What are Abel’s Four Conditions for propositional knowledge? Where have we seen this before?
Abel’s four conditions for propositional Knowledge are as follows. His first one is about truth. You can know something because it is true. For example 3+3 = 6, and you can know this because it is true. The second is belife. In order to know something you have to believe it, you can not possibly say that you know the sky is blue but you don't believe it. You can however make the statement that you believe the sky is blue but do not know it. Belief is independent from knowing but knowing is not independent from belife. The third is that in order to have knowledge and or belife there must be a certain amount of justification to this knowledge. For example you can guess the numbers of a lottery ticket, and belive that they are right, and get them right, but you do not know the numbers. The fourth one is knowledge that has no evidence that could make your belife not true. For example, if you look at a clock you know that it is that time. We have heard this from the plationic knowledge that we learned about in class.
Why does he add a Fourth Condition?
He adds a Fourth Condition to show that some knowledge does not need evidence to be knowledge. You can know that it is a certian time without having the evidence that it is.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Based on our conversation in class, what is the point of the story: "The Mouse That Ate The Cheese?"
The point of the story "The Mouse That Ate The Cheese" is to show different types of knowing. Each Charecter in the story has thier own form of knowlege on whether or not the mouse ate the cheese. The only charecters that had true knowledeg that the mouse did infact ate the cheese was Adrian, Virgina, and Bill (and of course the mouse knew). Bill knew that the mouse ate the cheese through justification. He saw that the mouse ate the cheese, and he belived what he saw. " 'Well, have it your own way. I just know what i saw' ". Since he saw the mouse eat the cheese and he belived in the fact that he did see this happen, through justification he had knowledge of this event. Adrian and Virgina, however, did not see the mouse eat the cheese. They were told by Bill that the mouse ate the cheese. "Bill obviously wasn't joking, his story was plausible enough and she knew him well enough to accept this evidence as true". From knowledge by acquaintce Virgina ans Adrian know Bill well enough to know that he would not lie or joke about a mouse eating a picece of cheese. They too come to know that the mouse ate the cheese through justification, they were told by authority (Bill), a prior knowledge of the event (Bill), and it seemed reasonable enough of a story. The other two charecters Alice and George do not know that the mouse ate the cheese, however they do not have this knowledge for to very different reasons. Alice belived that the mouse ate the cheese but had no knowledge that this infact was true. It is not true because there is nothing independent from her belief, she can only believe that the cheese was not eaten, she can not know it. George does not believe or know that the cheese was eaten by the mouse. He had been told by pest exterminators that there were no mouse in his flat and he belived them. He refused to belive what Bill was saying about the mouse, and since he did not belive in the possibility of a mouse being in his flat, there is no way he can know it.
The point of the story "The Mouse That Ate The Cheese" is to show different types of knowing. Each Charecter in the story has thier own form of knowlege on whether or not the mouse ate the cheese. The only charecters that had true knowledeg that the mouse did infact ate the cheese was Adrian, Virgina, and Bill (and of course the mouse knew). Bill knew that the mouse ate the cheese through justification. He saw that the mouse ate the cheese, and he belived what he saw. " 'Well, have it your own way. I just know what i saw' ". Since he saw the mouse eat the cheese and he belived in the fact that he did see this happen, through justification he had knowledge of this event. Adrian and Virgina, however, did not see the mouse eat the cheese. They were told by Bill that the mouse ate the cheese. "Bill obviously wasn't joking, his story was plausible enough and she knew him well enough to accept this evidence as true". From knowledge by acquaintce Virgina ans Adrian know Bill well enough to know that he would not lie or joke about a mouse eating a picece of cheese. They too come to know that the mouse ate the cheese through justification, they were told by authority (Bill), a prior knowledge of the event (Bill), and it seemed reasonable enough of a story. The other two charecters Alice and George do not know that the mouse ate the cheese, however they do not have this knowledge for to very different reasons. Alice belived that the mouse ate the cheese but had no knowledge that this infact was true. It is not true because there is nothing independent from her belief, she can only believe that the cheese was not eaten, she can not know it. George does not believe or know that the cheese was eaten by the mouse. He had been told by pest exterminators that there were no mouse in his flat and he belived them. He refused to belive what Bill was saying about the mouse, and since he did not belive in the possibility of a mouse being in his flat, there is no way he can know it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
