Q:The question that I am asking you is, in school if there were no grading system, how would students be able to be graded and would it be a better alternative?
In response to your question(s) I do believe that grading within colleges can be biased in some situations. For example, in some classes the one who sucks up to the professor gets a better grade over the student who works harder but does not participate during class. This is just one little example on how grading can be extremely unfair and biased in some situations. Truly what is a grade? Does a grade reflect what type of person you are or does it portray your overall competency in the subject. I would have to say in most grading systems, your overall competency in the subject is what will earn you an excellent grade. Professors truly like to see the student that will work hard in order to achieve an excellent grade and even sometimes getting to know the professor at a personal level wont hurt at all. However there is a term that we are well aware of and that is the "teachers pet". For those who do not know who the teachers pet is, usually it is a person that will do anything the professor wants, in laments terms this would be known as "sucking up". However who is to tell you that you are a D+ writer or a C- mathematician? Just because a professor earned a doctoral degree (PhD), which in many cases is a research degree does not mean they have full competence in the subject. They may have competence through what they have experienced and researched but they do not have competence in everything (which some believe they do). Ever since my collegiate career began, I have not had any professors that were unfair to me. Each and every one of them has stated what they expect out of their students and how their grading system functions on the first day of classes. You know what to expect out of all of them on day 1 and if you do not like their teaching style, drop the class, or look on a professor ratings website (www.ratemyprofessors.com) to see how other students liked or disliked this professor. However I have experienced students that would purposely suck up to a professor, doing anything to please them. They would agree with them on everything even if they were wrong, they would ask the most ridiculous questions, and even try to have lunch with them in their office to know them at an ultra personal level. This for an example should not constitute on who receives the better grade because being the professors best friend shouldn't equate as anything that would affect the students grade. What should affect the students grade is if he or she completes all of the assigned work, studies hard for the tests, attends the class when it is scheduled, and participates in class (If it is part of the grade). If all of these expectations are met, then the student should receive an excellent grade being a B+,A-,or an A.
While on the other hand I do understand when you gave the scenario when students were appealing their grades in an attempt to receive one better than the present. One though crosses my mind when I think about this. First and foremost, why is this student appealing the grade? Was it because this individual was treated unfairly due to their gender, age, or race? Or was it because that they felt like they deserved the grade even though they did not? In my opinion, you should not be able to appeal a grade because the professors authority should be respected, thus not being challenged. In most cases the individual is either a lazy student or their "sucking up" tactic backfired on them. You earn the grade that you receive, the grade does not earn you. In my experience, I have met many people who believe that they should only receive straight A's because they are a straight A type of person. This is completely ridiculous because people only deserve the grade of an A if they work extremely hard for it. They are not given out like candy on Halloween to a special "trick or treater" and you cannot buy them by monetary means or other (stated above). Usually in most situations in the process of a grade appeal, the university or college is on the same side as the professor. They will defend them at any means possible, even if they are right or wrong. This is not a win-win situation but more of situation that cannot be won in most cases and should be abolished. I can understand about people that do receive grades based on biases and that is unfair. But shouldn't the university hire people who fit the universities criteria?
However you general question was that should we abolish the grading system. in this situation, I will say no. The reason why I would say no is because then the people who usually do nothing during class would recieve the same outcome as the person who worked their tail off in class. Also, what would be the criteria for admission into graduate schools and professional schools (law,medicine,pharmacy)? There frankly would be no type of criteria for admission because the grading system would be erased and with it being erased we would have nothing that would separate Person "A" from person "B".How could we deal with such a system and another more important question is how would this function in education at all levels? The grade you earn is the grade you should properly receive and there should be no debating over it. If anyone is disappointed with their previous grades then work harder the following semester.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
Truth (Of Experience and Of Correspondence)
During the previous class we had discussed the two theories of truth, through experience (constructivism) and correspondence. truth of Correspondence basically states that if the statement corresponds the way the world is, it is true, but if it does not then it is false. On the other hand, truth of experience states as long as the individual experiences something like a rock it is true and if it is not experienced then it is false. For example does a rock only exist if we experience it or does it exist based upon if it corresponds with the world, being present. Personally an item such as a rock does exist through both theories because the rock may not be in existence to a person who had not experienced what a rock even is. But on the other hand, there are millions of rocks that exist throughout the world in which do correspond the way the world really is. Sometimes these terms are confusing but I would like to analyze each in detail.
Such is in the case of experience or from a constructivist perspective objects and events have to be experienced to be true. An example would be that do mountains exist if we do not even perceive or experience them. German philosopher and psychologist Ernst Von Glaserfeld would probably state that you do need to experience a mountain to believe that it is true. Lets say that if a constructivist lived in an urban environment like Boston,Ma, mountains would not exist if one was to remain in the city their whole life. However skyscrapers, big businesses, forty floor apartments and condominiums would exist but not mountains. Theoretically mountains do exist in general and can be viewed pictorially or on a map but how can you convince a constructivist that a mountain actually exists. You could not state or proclaim that there is such thing as a mountain because they would deny of such thing would exist. A constructivist would have to experience a mountain via climbing, sightseeing, or being one with the mountain (meditation). This theory does make sense but to the normal person you could state that the constructivist has no common sense and a lack of geography. How could someone become dumbfounded to the point that they deny the existence of mountains, even though they are present. An example that was given in class about a couple weeks ago was that constructivists would deny that their hands exist and that hands are a figment of our imagination that only our brain tells us mentally. This is a ridiculous statement because our hands do exist anatomically and we do experience our hands on a daily basis. If our hands were to be separated from our body, then we would feel uttermost pain and suffering which would imply that our hands do exist.
Truth of correspondence states that if something corresponds with the way the world is it is true and vice versa, then it would be false. Now let us analyze the theory in relation to mountains again. Mountains do exist on a correspondence theory basis because mountains do exist with the way the world is. They are prevalent over the entire world ranging from the United States to China. There are pictures and even physical notations on maps and it does correspond the way the world is. If we said there were no such things as mountains, then the theory would be false. However do mountains correspond to the way the world is or do they not? If they did not, what are some examples?
Such is in the case of experience or from a constructivist perspective objects and events have to be experienced to be true. An example would be that do mountains exist if we do not even perceive or experience them. German philosopher and psychologist Ernst Von Glaserfeld would probably state that you do need to experience a mountain to believe that it is true. Lets say that if a constructivist lived in an urban environment like Boston,Ma, mountains would not exist if one was to remain in the city their whole life. However skyscrapers, big businesses, forty floor apartments and condominiums would exist but not mountains. Theoretically mountains do exist in general and can be viewed pictorially or on a map but how can you convince a constructivist that a mountain actually exists. You could not state or proclaim that there is such thing as a mountain because they would deny of such thing would exist. A constructivist would have to experience a mountain via climbing, sightseeing, or being one with the mountain (meditation). This theory does make sense but to the normal person you could state that the constructivist has no common sense and a lack of geography. How could someone become dumbfounded to the point that they deny the existence of mountains, even though they are present. An example that was given in class about a couple weeks ago was that constructivists would deny that their hands exist and that hands are a figment of our imagination that only our brain tells us mentally. This is a ridiculous statement because our hands do exist anatomically and we do experience our hands on a daily basis. If our hands were to be separated from our body, then we would feel uttermost pain and suffering which would imply that our hands do exist.
Truth of correspondence states that if something corresponds with the way the world is it is true and vice versa, then it would be false. Now let us analyze the theory in relation to mountains again. Mountains do exist on a correspondence theory basis because mountains do exist with the way the world is. They are prevalent over the entire world ranging from the United States to China. There are pictures and even physical notations on maps and it does correspond the way the world is. If we said there were no such things as mountains, then the theory would be false. However do mountains correspond to the way the world is or do they not? If they did not, what are some examples?
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Hans or Russell
During the beginning of the book, three of the four characters start by discussing about Julies Govier in regards to the letter to Alison Bridges about his sub-average grade (C-) and further into other philosophical topics such as constructivism, metaphysics, and solipsism. However, the conversation turns into an argument or debate between Russell and Hans, with Alison being the intermediate or the conversational referee. Both characters (Russell and Hans) have a solid background in philosophy but seem to have different perspectives on many of the issues discussed. Again, it is tough to distinguish who is seemly more convincing but t\in the end, Hans seemed more convincing than Russell did.
The primary reason why I found Hans more convincing is that he seems to have this aura to him, similar to a sage, and his responses were refined in relativity to Russell. Russell jumps to far more conclusions then Hans, thinking that they are in complete accordance with the topics. For example in the beginning of chapter two, Russell seems to think that they in accordance over Jules Govier’s letter of disappointment. In return, Hans disagrees with Russell, stating that he is far too quick to judge, jumping to hastily conclusions. In addition, Russell does not have as much conclusive evidence as Hans has. There seems to be two roles to this argument is that Russell would be the “rough draft” to this argument while Hans would be the “editor/proofreader”. I am not saying that Russell is false in his interpretations, he has some good points to his arguments but they lack substance. Russell is sliding down a slippery slope (an argument fallacy) and he seems to believe that his assumptions are correct, on all aspects of the playing field. Sometimes Russell does remind me of Ernst Von Glaserfeld in which, he defends what he thinks is correct but is not.
Transitioning to chapter three, starting on page sixteen, the argument shifts from ontology to constructivism. Russell states that there is such thing as an unexperienced rock, existing out of thought. He gives the example of Alison stumbling on the rock along a trail in Vermont. It is true that she does not think it into existence, but that more likely that the rock was never noticed instead of experiencing a rock. Hans questions that how can you tub your toe on a rock you have never experienced; it does not make any sense. Again, this brings us to the theory that Von Glaserfeld brewed up that we can unexperience things, such as an apple. Russell is basically making minimal sense and I feel that if Hans has more expertise in the field of philosophy even though he is an education professor and Russell is supposed to be the philosopher.
1.Is Russell committing a numerous amount of argument fallacies and if so, which ones other than a “slippery slope”?
2.Does anyone else agree that Hans is more convincing than Russell or is it the other way around, Russell is more convincing than Hans?
The primary reason why I found Hans more convincing is that he seems to have this aura to him, similar to a sage, and his responses were refined in relativity to Russell. Russell jumps to far more conclusions then Hans, thinking that they are in complete accordance with the topics. For example in the beginning of chapter two, Russell seems to think that they in accordance over Jules Govier’s letter of disappointment. In return, Hans disagrees with Russell, stating that he is far too quick to judge, jumping to hastily conclusions. In addition, Russell does not have as much conclusive evidence as Hans has. There seems to be two roles to this argument is that Russell would be the “rough draft” to this argument while Hans would be the “editor/proofreader”. I am not saying that Russell is false in his interpretations, he has some good points to his arguments but they lack substance. Russell is sliding down a slippery slope (an argument fallacy) and he seems to believe that his assumptions are correct, on all aspects of the playing field. Sometimes Russell does remind me of Ernst Von Glaserfeld in which, he defends what he thinks is correct but is not.
Transitioning to chapter three, starting on page sixteen, the argument shifts from ontology to constructivism. Russell states that there is such thing as an unexperienced rock, existing out of thought. He gives the example of Alison stumbling on the rock along a trail in Vermont. It is true that she does not think it into existence, but that more likely that the rock was never noticed instead of experiencing a rock. Hans questions that how can you tub your toe on a rock you have never experienced; it does not make any sense. Again, this brings us to the theory that Von Glaserfeld brewed up that we can unexperience things, such as an apple. Russell is basically making minimal sense and I feel that if Hans has more expertise in the field of philosophy even though he is an education professor and Russell is supposed to be the philosopher.
1.Is Russell committing a numerous amount of argument fallacies and if so, which ones other than a “slippery slope”?
2.Does anyone else agree that Hans is more convincing than Russell or is it the other way around, Russell is more convincing than Hans?
Response: Jacob Wheeler (2/5)
Q; Words are Indicators of What?
In general throughout history, over thousands of generations words have been essential for communication among humans and animals in which we can express our own feelings or proving our points. Communication is essential with one another because if there was no such thing as communication via words, how would we communicate, excluding body language? It has been true that communication through body language is successful but can we communicate exactly what we want to at a given moment. For example if I was having a great or bad day, how would I express those given factors that made my day go by extremely well or bad. I could by telling anyone pictorially or writing on paper but could that type of communication function in everyday life? Generally speaking in the instance of people who are deaf, they speak through sign language which could be a form of body language, and has been extremely successful since sign language has been innovated. However what if we did not know what these words meant? This brings me to the question that you generally asked and what truly are words indicators of? In my opinion words are tools that we (humans,animals)use to communicate with each other. Each word has its own meaning and each meaning is mostly distinct but some words can be synonymous with each other. For example when an individual expresses an enjoyment for anything, each word has a different meaning e/g I love sports because of the competitive nature. Every word is the example sentence has a different meaning and with those different meanings a complete sentence is put together. But in general words have different meanings,each word indicates a specific meaning or definition, and we have used words as tools for everyday communication.
In general throughout history, over thousands of generations words have been essential for communication among humans and animals in which we can express our own feelings or proving our points. Communication is essential with one another because if there was no such thing as communication via words, how would we communicate, excluding body language? It has been true that communication through body language is successful but can we communicate exactly what we want to at a given moment. For example if I was having a great or bad day, how would I express those given factors that made my day go by extremely well or bad. I could by telling anyone pictorially or writing on paper but could that type of communication function in everyday life? Generally speaking in the instance of people who are deaf, they speak through sign language which could be a form of body language, and has been extremely successful since sign language has been innovated. However what if we did not know what these words meant? This brings me to the question that you generally asked and what truly are words indicators of? In my opinion words are tools that we (humans,animals)use to communicate with each other. Each word has its own meaning and each meaning is mostly distinct but some words can be synonymous with each other. For example when an individual expresses an enjoyment for anything, each word has a different meaning e/g I love sports because of the competitive nature. Every word is the example sentence has a different meaning and with those different meanings a complete sentence is put together. But in general words have different meanings,each word indicates a specific meaning or definition, and we have used words as tools for everyday communication.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Re:Ed Manak (4/19)
Q:Is there, in fact, a difference between experience and conceptualization?
Throughout the past week we have analyzed the works of Ernst Von Glaserfeld and what radical constructivism is. He presents a debatable question in which can we experience anything that is not conceptualized, such as an unconceptualized apple? In general I believe we can experience a conceptualized apple because we know the physical properties in which it is round, red, and derives from an apple tree. However on the other hand, can we experience and unconceptualized apple and if we can, what is an unconceptualized apple? When the term unconceptualized comes to my mind, I envision something that is foreign to me, something that I cannot even envision whatsoever. For example something that was unconceptualized to me about a year ago was the subject of philosophy because I did not know what the subject was or even what the main goals of philosophers are because I had never taken a course in this discipline. There was no concept even thought of and thus this subject was unconceptualized as of last year and before. However once I had taken a philosophy course, the concept of the subject was conceptualized and I understood what philosophy is, what the main concepts of the discipline are, and the message philosophers are trying to send. In regards to an unconceptualized apple, I would believe there is no such thing to many individuals because we know what an apple is and we can envision the concept of an apple. But there are a certain number of individuals that do not know what an apple is such as new born babies and toddlers. The reason why is because they are far to young to understand what an apple actually is but they may know what it is but pictorially and not what it actually is. Also Dr. Johnson states that there is no such thing as unconceptualized apples because there is no concept of an unconceptualized apple. The reason why is because it violates the principles of truism is because how can there be no concept of an apple that is not a concept. This whole topic just sounds like a double negative and is extremely confusing. Truly when Ernst Von Glaserfeld tries to prove his point with this subject it seems as he knows the he is wrong but still tries to defend his points, which he does a great job of.
Now to get back to your question Ed, I believe that experience and conceptualization are not synonymous because these are two completely different words but they do correlate with each other. In one case experience is a particular instance of personally encountering or undergoing something while conceptualization is when the mind mentally forms a concept (an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars). However wouldn't anyone have to experience something before it is even conceptualized. Such as in the case of apples, how would you be able to form a concept about an apple before if it is not experienced. For example if I was foreign to what apples were, how would you describe it to me, and if so would it be described through experience? Experience through description would probably be the easiest way for anyone to from a concept. Personally in my current anatomy course you can describe what a heart or an organ is but how will I know what a heart or an organ (specific) looks like? There must be pictures involved to even envision what a heart truly is and better yet, to experience what a heart actually is through laboratory dissection would form a complete concept in anyone's mind would be the ideal goal.
Throughout the past week we have analyzed the works of Ernst Von Glaserfeld and what radical constructivism is. He presents a debatable question in which can we experience anything that is not conceptualized, such as an unconceptualized apple? In general I believe we can experience a conceptualized apple because we know the physical properties in which it is round, red, and derives from an apple tree. However on the other hand, can we experience and unconceptualized apple and if we can, what is an unconceptualized apple? When the term unconceptualized comes to my mind, I envision something that is foreign to me, something that I cannot even envision whatsoever. For example something that was unconceptualized to me about a year ago was the subject of philosophy because I did not know what the subject was or even what the main goals of philosophers are because I had never taken a course in this discipline. There was no concept even thought of and thus this subject was unconceptualized as of last year and before. However once I had taken a philosophy course, the concept of the subject was conceptualized and I understood what philosophy is, what the main concepts of the discipline are, and the message philosophers are trying to send. In regards to an unconceptualized apple, I would believe there is no such thing to many individuals because we know what an apple is and we can envision the concept of an apple. But there are a certain number of individuals that do not know what an apple is such as new born babies and toddlers. The reason why is because they are far to young to understand what an apple actually is but they may know what it is but pictorially and not what it actually is. Also Dr. Johnson states that there is no such thing as unconceptualized apples because there is no concept of an unconceptualized apple. The reason why is because it violates the principles of truism is because how can there be no concept of an apple that is not a concept. This whole topic just sounds like a double negative and is extremely confusing. Truly when Ernst Von Glaserfeld tries to prove his point with this subject it seems as he knows the he is wrong but still tries to defend his points, which he does a great job of.
Now to get back to your question Ed, I believe that experience and conceptualization are not synonymous because these are two completely different words but they do correlate with each other. In one case experience is a particular instance of personally encountering or undergoing something while conceptualization is when the mind mentally forms a concept (an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars). However wouldn't anyone have to experience something before it is even conceptualized. Such as in the case of apples, how would you be able to form a concept about an apple before if it is not experienced. For example if I was foreign to what apples were, how would you describe it to me, and if so would it be described through experience? Experience through description would probably be the easiest way for anyone to from a concept. Personally in my current anatomy course you can describe what a heart or an organ is but how will I know what a heart or an organ (specific) looks like? There must be pictures involved to even envision what a heart truly is and better yet, to experience what a heart actually is through laboratory dissection would form a complete concept in anyone's mind would be the ideal goal.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Re: Sarah Dion 3/31
Need Vs. Want
First and foremost I do completely agree with many of your thoughts and statements that you have articulated. In general when it comes to what humans need only a small handful of things come to mind such as shelter,nutrition (food), and a sense of well being (social interactions etc.). However in America, our culture promotes that we must or should purchase immaterial items that honestly, we do not need what so ever. For an example what is the point of purchasing something that you do not need such as a pair of $200.00 Oakley sunglasses. It is true that these sunglasses may last us a couple summers and springs and they may be durable, but what if they are not? Could you purchase a cheaper pair of sunglasses of a generic brand that would be of the same quality? Truly humans do have the ability of choice but mostly will try to keep up with society in an attempt to be trendy or with the fashion period. Again I know personally many people who drive a car that is worth over 50,000 dollars and what is the point of having a car of this worth. The same goes for the car as for the sunglasses. The car may be extremely luxuriant and spacious but at the price of what? Sometimes I believe that certain individuals have more of an egotistical personality when they have to have the best of everything. Having the best car,clothing, watch, and even the best suits (Italian Imported leather etc.) is so important to them because they have to only settle for the best. But why not settle for average, middle class, but having all of the money that could be saved up safely in a savings account to secure a successful future and even retirement? The reason why is that Americans have been brainwashed by society, being deceived into what they don't need is truly something the "normal" human being does need. It can be confusing most times but society in the United States will not change for a small population of human beings, thus staying constant until the end of time if that does exist.
Q:Is it possible that language is shaping our view of the world? Or could we just be shaping language?
To answer both of your questions, I believe that us as humans are shaping language to communicate easier with multiple ethnicities. For example from the early neolithic ages, the neanderthal (caveman) used to communicate with each other through body language, which was successful for the time age. Moving even later into the future, our language of English derived from "Germanic" tribes (Germanic language etc. if I am correct and even before, Latin. so in general, we as humans have shaped language (personal opinion) if that has answered your question
First and foremost I do completely agree with many of your thoughts and statements that you have articulated. In general when it comes to what humans need only a small handful of things come to mind such as shelter,nutrition (food), and a sense of well being (social interactions etc.). However in America, our culture promotes that we must or should purchase immaterial items that honestly, we do not need what so ever. For an example what is the point of purchasing something that you do not need such as a pair of $200.00 Oakley sunglasses. It is true that these sunglasses may last us a couple summers and springs and they may be durable, but what if they are not? Could you purchase a cheaper pair of sunglasses of a generic brand that would be of the same quality? Truly humans do have the ability of choice but mostly will try to keep up with society in an attempt to be trendy or with the fashion period. Again I know personally many people who drive a car that is worth over 50,000 dollars and what is the point of having a car of this worth. The same goes for the car as for the sunglasses. The car may be extremely luxuriant and spacious but at the price of what? Sometimes I believe that certain individuals have more of an egotistical personality when they have to have the best of everything. Having the best car,clothing, watch, and even the best suits (Italian Imported leather etc.) is so important to them because they have to only settle for the best. But why not settle for average, middle class, but having all of the money that could be saved up safely in a savings account to secure a successful future and even retirement? The reason why is that Americans have been brainwashed by society, being deceived into what they don't need is truly something the "normal" human being does need. It can be confusing most times but society in the United States will not change for a small population of human beings, thus staying constant until the end of time if that does exist.
Q:Is it possible that language is shaping our view of the world? Or could we just be shaping language?
To answer both of your questions, I believe that us as humans are shaping language to communicate easier with multiple ethnicities. For example from the early neolithic ages, the neanderthal (caveman) used to communicate with each other through body language, which was successful for the time age. Moving even later into the future, our language of English derived from "Germanic" tribes (Germanic language etc. if I am correct and even before, Latin. so in general, we as humans have shaped language (personal opinion) if that has answered your question
Monday, April 12, 2010
Radical Realism
Radical Constructivism is a prominent proponent of radical constructivism, which claims that knowledge is the self-organized cognitive process of the human brain. That is, the process of constructing knowledge regulates itself, and since knowledge is a construct rather than a compilation of empirical data, it is impossible to know the extent to which knowledge reflects an ontological reality. For example, our hands are real, tangible, and are a physical component anatomically on humans. However, radical realists believe that hands are not anatomically there because our brain is telling us that they are present even though our mind could be deceiving us. Such as in the examples that if someone were to lose a limb (extremity), constructive realists would say that there is no arm present, (which there is not) but in response the human being who had lost the limb may think that the limb is still there. This brings me to the argument that traditional realist theories of knowledge assume that truth is a correspondence relation (as stated in Dr. Johnson’s blog post). For example when a concept (C) corresponds to the way the world (W) is, it is true (and false otherwise). Now when we analyze that if we can conceive an “unexperienced apple”, we must analyze the argument from both sides, the view of a constructive realist and the side of a non-constructive realist (Can range from an epistemologist to a normal human being).
From the view of a constructive realist, we probably can conceive an unexperienced apple because the knowledge of an apple is a self-organized cognitive process of the human brain. In laments, terms if we have knowledge of an unexperienced apple, than an unexperienced apple can be conceived by the human mind. However, from another perspective, an unexperienced apple cannot be conceived by the human mind because there is no such thing as an unexperienced apple. From the view of a normal human being, the inexperience of an apple is more of an event rather than a concept. You can experience an apple by consuming it or making it into some type of art. Nevertheless, as from the equation stated in Dr. Johnson’s blog, (When a concept (C) corresponds to the way the world (W) is, it is true (and false otherwise) this statement does not correspond with the way the world is thus being false. In addition, we must ask are these concepts in the mind, can they be conceptualized, and are some of these concepts some of “x”. If these first three questions do not correspond to an unexperienced apple (does not exist because it does not correspond with the way the world is, than the statement is false) than we cannot conceptually experience an unexperienced apple.
1.Is there such thing as an unexperienced apple?
2.Why do constructive realists argue with “things” that are here (such as hands) are not real?
From the view of a constructive realist, we probably can conceive an unexperienced apple because the knowledge of an apple is a self-organized cognitive process of the human brain. In laments, terms if we have knowledge of an unexperienced apple, than an unexperienced apple can be conceived by the human mind. However, from another perspective, an unexperienced apple cannot be conceived by the human mind because there is no such thing as an unexperienced apple. From the view of a normal human being, the inexperience of an apple is more of an event rather than a concept. You can experience an apple by consuming it or making it into some type of art. Nevertheless, as from the equation stated in Dr. Johnson’s blog, (When a concept (C) corresponds to the way the world (W) is, it is true (and false otherwise) this statement does not correspond with the way the world is thus being false. In addition, we must ask are these concepts in the mind, can they be conceptualized, and are some of these concepts some of “x”. If these first three questions do not correspond to an unexperienced apple (does not exist because it does not correspond with the way the world is, than the statement is false) than we cannot conceptually experience an unexperienced apple.
1.Is there such thing as an unexperienced apple?
2.Why do constructive realists argue with “things” that are here (such as hands) are not real?
Time
Q: Is time real? What is it? Does it "flow"?
What is time, is it a measurement of the course of a day or week, or is time the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another. Generally, philosophers and scientists have studied time for 2,500 years and nevertheless many issues remain to be resolved. For example, who is the chief discoverer or creator of time? Was it the Neolithic cave dwellers (Neanderthals) or has time always existed since the origin of the planets and of the universes? Who really knows but as time continues to advance or progress into the future, humans tend to age, structures begin to deteriorate and falter, and the earth ages but also regenerates. To answer the primary question, time is real because there is enough conclusive evidence to support what time really is. Time progresses our life as human beings while it flows constantly in a smooth transition.
However one question that I have pondered over many years, is that why is there time and does time ever end? Will there ever be a moment when time will stand still and if there will possibly will be, does that mean the existence of human beings and earth come to an end, expiring? Time is more of a measurement of days, weeks, and years that humans have invented to navigate a complete day (starting with) over the course of 24 hours and branching into larger units (days, weeks, months, years, decades etc.). The concept of the “length of a day” was already implemented by Gods (religion) or by the big bang theory (science) which originated the template to develop a time-related system. On a daily basis, time does flow because if it did not, time would stand still while nothing would progress in an orderly fashion. To analyze the flowage of time there are two theories that physicists have proposed in order to answer how time flows. First and foremost is that the flow is an illusion, the product of a faulty metaphor. Time exists, things change, but time does not flow objectively, although there may well be some objective feature of our brains that causes us to believe we are experiencing a flow of time; but in that case time flows only in a subjective sense of the term. Secondly, the second theory of time flow implies that time low is objective, a feature of our mind-independent reality that is to be found in, say, today scientific laws, or, if it has been missed there, then in future scientific laws. With these conclusive theories which are factual (scientifically), how can time not be real and most importantly if physicists have found answers to prove that time flow is real, how would it be false?
1.How can time be false (scientifically and non-scientifically)?
2.If ‘”time flow” did not exist, what would happen?
What is time, is it a measurement of the course of a day or week, or is time the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another. Generally, philosophers and scientists have studied time for 2,500 years and nevertheless many issues remain to be resolved. For example, who is the chief discoverer or creator of time? Was it the Neolithic cave dwellers (Neanderthals) or has time always existed since the origin of the planets and of the universes? Who really knows but as time continues to advance or progress into the future, humans tend to age, structures begin to deteriorate and falter, and the earth ages but also regenerates. To answer the primary question, time is real because there is enough conclusive evidence to support what time really is. Time progresses our life as human beings while it flows constantly in a smooth transition.
However one question that I have pondered over many years, is that why is there time and does time ever end? Will there ever be a moment when time will stand still and if there will possibly will be, does that mean the existence of human beings and earth come to an end, expiring? Time is more of a measurement of days, weeks, and years that humans have invented to navigate a complete day (starting with) over the course of 24 hours and branching into larger units (days, weeks, months, years, decades etc.). The concept of the “length of a day” was already implemented by Gods (religion) or by the big bang theory (science) which originated the template to develop a time-related system. On a daily basis, time does flow because if it did not, time would stand still while nothing would progress in an orderly fashion. To analyze the flowage of time there are two theories that physicists have proposed in order to answer how time flows. First and foremost is that the flow is an illusion, the product of a faulty metaphor. Time exists, things change, but time does not flow objectively, although there may well be some objective feature of our brains that causes us to believe we are experiencing a flow of time; but in that case time flows only in a subjective sense of the term. Secondly, the second theory of time flow implies that time low is objective, a feature of our mind-independent reality that is to be found in, say, today scientific laws, or, if it has been missed there, then in future scientific laws. With these conclusive theories which are factual (scientifically), how can time not be real and most importantly if physicists have found answers to prove that time flow is real, how would it be false?
1.How can time be false (scientifically and non-scientifically)?
2.If ‘”time flow” did not exist, what would happen?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)