Diving Bell 2

1. What do you think of Bauby's line in Bathtime when he states, "But I see in the clothing a symbol of continuing life. And proof that I still want to be myself. If I must drool, I may as well drool on cashmere."
I think that Bauby is trying to have something in his life that feels normal. Obvioiusly since his condition developed he has been in a hospital, around different people, doing differnet things, a completly different enviorment. And to make it even harder on him he can not communicate with the outside well or even to some people at all. Before being the co-Editor of the French Elle hewould be in constant communication with other people, and be in constant motion, from all of the work that comes with being an editor. The cashmere would give him something that is bringing him back to the old realty that he used to have. Also it is a way to express himself since so many ways of human expression have been shut down to him.
2. Considering how Bauby wrote the book, does it matter that he happened to speak French? How would have the writing of the book been different if he spoke Japanese or Chinese?
It does matter that Bauby spoke french and not any other language like Chinese or Japanese. If he was to speak one of those two languages it would take his system of communication a lot longer to happen, and because it would have taken longer, he may have ended up leaving out stuff that didn't seem important at the time but in the end helped to tell his story and experience better.
3. Why does Bauby find his appearance humorous?
Bauby finds his appearance humorous because he sees that not only is "exiled, paralyzed, mute, half deaf, deprived of all pleasures, and reduced to the existence of jellyfish" but that he is ugly to look out because of the newly formed deformities on his face. All of these piled up on each other and the realisation of them left him to have no other way to react to it but laugh. A "nervous laughter-when, after a final blow from fate, we decide to treat it all as a joke."
4. After reading the Chapter, Cinecitta, think of a place where, if given one last opportunity, you could spend an afternoon. Why did you choose this place? Please describe it in detail.
If i could spend one afternoon anywhere by me self it would have to be at the barn with my horse. Even though it is somewhere i go frequently it would be nice to just have the barn to myself, because it is normally quite busy there. (not that i don't like these people, we all get along very well). When there isn't to many people there it is a very quite and relaxing place where the stress of 'the real world' does not seem to enter. Horses are very needy and in need of constant care. My horse seems to absolutely adore me and when i walk over he perks up his ears and whinnies. Just being with my horse and at the barn doing anything, taking care of him, taking him out for a walk on a trail, or training for show season, seems to take all of my attention off anything else on my mind. Its almost like its own world. Its great.
5. After reading Tourists, please think of why we don't make more of an effort to connect with those that might look or act different than us.
I think we don't make more of an effort to connect with those who are different from us out of fear of leaving our comfort zones. If we interact with someone who looks or acts different it the interaction will be a different from what we are used to. Some people do not know how to act so end up acting pitying, or letting off an awkward vibe. They do not want this to happen however so people end up avoiding these situations. Like in the book, when the 'tourists' were staring at Bauby, and looked away when he looked up. They were unsure of how to deal with his situation because it is different from what they are used to, so they avoided potentially awkward situation or pitying situation and looks away.
6. Read Sausage and then consider the following: if you couldn't eat again, what meal would you miss the most?
If i knew i was never going to be abel to eat again the meal that i would miss the most is pizza, with sour cream and chedar ruffels chips, and root beer.

Dr. Gillan's Presentation

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.

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.

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.

CORN

Tangy Honey Mustard Sauce:
Water, sugar, dijon mustard (distilled vinegar, mustard seed, salt, water, white wine, spices), corn syrup solids, honey, soybean oil, distilled vinegar, food starch-modified, egg yolks, contains 2% or less of the following: mustard seed, turmeric (color), spices, xanthan gum, salt, titanium dioxide, propylene glycol alginate, sodium benzoate (preservative), yellow 5, yellow 6.
CONTAINS: EGG.

I was not able to find any foods with preservatives in it that doesn’t have egg.

I found this list of foods that do have High Fructuous Corn syrup that I thought was interesting: http://www.accidentalhedonist.com/index.php/2005/06/09/foods_and_products_containing_high_fruct

Did any information in the book come as a surprise to you? If so, why do you think that specific piece of knowledge was kept from you? Does the producer of this knowledge have any responsibility? What is your responsibility as a knower?

I thought it was surprising that meat suppliers are trying to make it so they animals that they are raising eat corn. They are even using this practice on salmon, which are normally carnivorous animals. By doing this it probably saves money for the companies it self, corn being a much cheaper supply than another that would be needed to feed the animals. However by doing this it affecting the diet of the people who eat these animals. Besides the actually animal you ingest you are also getting nutrients from what the animal itself has eaten. If the animals by large amount of suppliers have only eaten corn then the people ingesting the animals are eating large amount of corn, changing their diet in a way that they are not aware of. If the animal was eating the foods that it would consume if it was not in captivity the humans consuming this animal would get these nutrients passes to them, bus since the animals are not eating this way, the humans are not receiving this. I feel like this specific information is kept from the public because if consumers were to know this, then they would most likely buy from meat suppliers that are not following this corn trend, causing the ones who do to lose massive amounts of business. The producer of this knowledge should have the responsibility to tell people what they are feeding their animals and how it affects their everyday diet. However that will not happen, for it would lead to them losing business. As a knower of this information I have the responsibility of sharing it with others, if I chose to do so.

how do we know what we know?

"How do we Know what we Know? What evidence do you have to support your claim?"
We know what we know because of what we have been told, and because of what we have experianced. We learn what we know from the people who teach it to us. From birth we are taught how to live and to be succsefull in life and society. We go to school where we learn facts and history. We also learn what we known through experiance. We can taste a certain type of food and know what it taste like, and know that the next time you taste it it will have the same taste (unless it has gone bad or something to that account). From experiance you know that when you touch ice it wil be cold, and whenever you touch it again it will still be cold. We know what we know because we rely on the fact that the reality that we see is what is real. Some people question whether "reality" itself is just a very complex dream. But by beliving in the facts thats are told to us when we are young and learning, and when we are experiancing life we belive in the facts that what we know. There is no possible way to prove if every single thing that we know is actually true, but human nature is to belive in the reality that is infront of them. Yes people do question whether the reality that they see is true. However they know what they know by excepting facts that are taught to them.

Do Parents Matter?

How would Gladwell respond to the identity question from August 27th? How would Levitt and Dubner respond?

I feel like Gladwell would respond to the identity question from august 27 by saying that we are our location. Gladwell talks mostly about how peers are what influences a person’s identity, and who they truly are. Gladwell mentions that a child who is born in poverty and in a place in which is full of poverty the child is more likely to be suitable to trouble and likely hood of dropping out of school. Where you live has a lot to do with the type of people you are going to encounter, according to Gladwell. Using the example that if a child is raised in a poor neighbor hood or environment the child is more likely to get in to trouble can also be an affection of the peers that the child would meet in this location. If what Gladwell is saying is true than a child being raised in that type of environment would be influenced by his or her peers of that environment. Making a child it's location. I feel that Levitt and Dubner would respond by saying that we are our family. They seem to believe that is our genes that make us who we are. If we have intelligent parents then we are most likely going to be intelligent. According to them our personality, and ultimately who we are comes from our family, the genes that have been passed down. They believe that when the parent is younger, and setting up patterns in their life on how they handle situations is what affects the child. Not whether or not they listen to Mozart in the womb or not. I do agree with this. i belive that our genes make up a huge part of who we are, but the rest that cannot be decided by genes alone is based on your peers. The people who you hang out with tend to be like you. There is no way that you can possibly interact with someone your own age and not be influenced by thier actions. Whether or not they influnece you not to be like them or not to do something or to be like them they are still influencing you, therefore becoming a part of who you are. I belive that parents do not have as much influence on a child or person as much as thier peers do. A parent is around thier child a significantly less amount of time than they are with thier friends, leaving more time for them to be influenced by them. For example high school cliques are not formed by parents telling them to fit into a certain sterio type, they are made and fit into by the influence of thier friends and how they present them selves.

2/28/08

What were your impressions of the first class? Are we our Name, our Family, our Sex, our Nationality or our Location? If not, then what is responsible for our identity? Do we have an identity apart from our community?
My impression on the first class was that it seems like its going to be one of my favorite classes. I like the debates we have, and the people in my class seem like they wont get to defendsive. I belive ourr names or our nationality or what not do not define our idenity. I think it is our accomplishments and our personality that defines our idenity. When people first met someone or hear of them they normally come up with judgements by the persons name, family, sex, nationality, or location. But once they get to know the person that they have judged by sterio types that society have given them they get to know the real person and form knowlageble judgements on who this person is, showing thier true idenity. If our "idenity" is what we are precived by someone when they first come in contact with us than yes we are our name, family, sex, nationality, or location. But i personally belive that our identity is who we truly are from our personalties and our accomplishments. With this i think we do have an identiy apart from our community. Our community gives our idenity based off of when they first meet us (name....ect.) Since our idenity is something more personal that can not be truly percived until you get to know someone on a more personal level, as in getting to know thier personality and accomplishments we do have an idenity apart from our community.