Talons Philosophy

An Open Online Highschool Philosophy Course

By

Sleeping – Positive Aesthetic Experience

This image of a man cuddling a woman in his sleep would be my subjective view of a positive aesthetic experience at its maximum.

 

By

Application of The Theory

Application
  • Concentration is conducive to a positive aesthetic experience
  • The level on which the aesthetic experience occurs is immediate and personal, not distant
  • A positive aesthetic experience is not helped by questioning the purpose of the experience or activity
  • When you are too busy focusing on the reason why you are doing something, the enjoyment and beauty is taken away from your aesthetic experience
  • Perhaps the point is to concentrate, to live and work in those environments in which we concentrate best, and to not begin to ask, “What is the use of this concentration?” because it is in concentration that we find the mental state that we want.
  • Certain environments and certain stimuli are more conducive to getting our “attention centered on our activity”
  • Positive Aesthetic experience can be had, simply by focusing on input from our external environment
  • We should live and work in the environment in which we concentrate best
  • We create our own personally tailored experience, by singing, imagining, moving, and playing

Questions for Discussion:

Why wouldn’t questioning the purpose be beneficial for a positive aesthetic experience?

Could having a blank mind limit our levels of concentration?
 

By

Cognition and Language – Personal Theory of Knowledge

Proposition: All our knowledge starts with the senses, cognitive thinking proceeds, and knowledge is the conclusion of such cognitive thoughts.  Language, however, has handicapped the process of acquiring knowledge.  Through the application of language in cognitive thinking, knowledge is lost, or not to be had, due to the imperfections of the human-made tool to express.  Due to such applications, knowledge is an imperfect bi-product.

Syllogism: If language is imperfect, and cognitive thinking utilizes language, then knowledge is imperfect.

  1. Language is imperfect
  2. Cognitive thinking utilizes language
  3. Knowledge with the utilization of language is imperfect then

Observations: History shows that as time has gone and language, knowledge, and information has progressed as time has, so has the advancement of humankind has progressed.


Breakdown

Definition of Language: Communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols.

Definition of Cognitive Thinking: The application of following critical skills: Attention, Working Memory, Processing Speed, Long-Term Memory, Visual Processing, Auditory Processing, and Logic and Reasoning. All definitions of prior terms can be found through the link.

Language is imperfect

To express the imperfections of language I will bring up a scenario.  Were I`d like you to indulge yourself into the scenario.

Two humans come together. One human, John Smith, has been set with the goal of describing his lizard, Emily, to Robert Doe, where Robert Doe has to procure an exact image of Emily and her nuances using only language. Interaction has occurred and Robert has an image of Emily, but is it Emily really. Language can`t describe the sensory experience from feeling the texture of Emily`s skin. John might go about using a simile “like touching sand paper”, however, that is not an exact representation of Emily`s skin. Language describes sensory experiences through similes and metaphors to get a sense, but only a sense, and not an exact replication. The inability to describe senses, has put a crack in the dam that is language, and therefore renders it imperfect.

The image at the bottom shows the interpretation of the distribution of knowledge between two conscious entities. It shows that you can`t distribute a whole thought, from one entity to another, and that a general thought has been passed to be interpreted.


Cognitive thinking utilizes language

1381941182

The Pirahã are an indigenous people, numbering around 700, living along the banks of the Maici River in the jungle of northwest Brazil. 

To looking into cognitive thinking utilizing language, instead of creating a scenario I am going to look into one regarding an indigenous people, were their lacking of numbers affect their cognitive thoughts.

The Pirahã are an indigenous people that speak Pirahã, a language consisting of a 12,000-word piece based on just eight consonants and three vowels.  Among Pirahã’s many peculiarities is an almost complete lack of numeracy, an extremely rare linguistic trait of which there are only a few documented cases. The language contains no words at all for discrete numbers and only three that approximate some notion of quantity—hói, a “small size or amount,” hoí, a “somewhat larger size or amount,” and baágiso, which can mean either to “cause to come together” or “a bunch.”

With no way to express exact integers, the obvious question is: How do the Pirahã count? More pragmatically, how do they ask for two of something instead of just one?  Answer – They don`t.

For a test, lay down on a table, a line of evenly spaced items, say batteries, and the Pirahã were asked to make a second line just like the first. For another, a line of items were shown and then hidden from view. Again, they would be asked to procure a second line just like the first. In both cases, no mistakes were made as long as the lines were just two or three items long. But the proportion of correct responses generally drops significantly for numbers exceeding 2 or 3. This was true for all tasks, including a non-visual test that involved clapping. English speakers, on the other hand, make no errors at all, except when a relatively long line of items, say seven or more, is shown quickly and then hidden. We can only count so fast, after all, but the Pirahã appear not to be counting at all—because, well, how could they? Instead, they’re employing an “analog estimation strategy,” which works well for a few items but breaks down beyond that.

Through the experiments done, from the link, you can see how language has affected the knowledge of a people and how they have stunted cognitive thoughts.

Knowledge with the utilization of language is imperfect then

Using math 1+2=3 the logical argument proposed is both valid and factually correct, therefore it`s sound.


After the conclusion of my theory regarding Cognition and Language, I have come to believe that if the genetic code can be broken down into a language applicable to humans, we can take a step to furthering knowledge. To support this theory and bring understanding to it I will reiterate a previous blog post of mine.

In the genetic model, the environment is paradoxically all-important. The information in the genes cannot express itself in bodily structures unless they are in a complexly specified suitable environment–so much so that 99% of the information for building an organism may be thought of as located in the environment and only 1% in the genes themselves (the proportion is not strictly quantifiable). The environment acts as a trigger for selective gene transcription, which in turn has an effect upon the immediate environment. As the information in the gene expresses itself in response to the structure of the environment, and the environment in turn responds to the action of the genes, the organism slowly begins to materialize. It is as if matter itself contains most of the information for life.
In terms of cognitive development, this means that genetic and environmental information act concurrently to construct cognitive structures. Some of the environmental information that activates certain genes may come through the senses; for instance, cats are unable to perceive vertical lines if they are not exposed to them before a certain age, and children who have not heard a language before the age of ten will no longer retain the capacity to acquire one. More complex scenarios with intermediate control structures are also possible, as an alternative to a continued role for the genes.

 

 

By

Erasing the Boundaries

Vincent`s upbringing on the viewing of rationalism and empiricism and talks of genetic code, which intrigue me, have led me to look into erasing the boundaries. So I begin by putting forth the question of empiricism again: What evidence is there that cognitive processing is not wholly dependent on information from senses? If it is not from the sense, where is it from?
Through the proposal of evolutionary psychology, there is no sharp line that can be drawn between information that originates in the environment—including that acquired from the senses—and information that is conveyed through genes.

In the genetic model, the environment is paradoxically all-important. The information in the genes cannot express itself in bodily structures unless they are in a complexly specified suitable environment–so much so that 99% of the information for building an organism may be thought of as located in the environment and only 1% in the genes themselves (the proportion is not strictly quantifiable). The environment acts as a trigger for selective gene transcription, which in turn has an effect upon the immediate environment. As the information in the gene expresses itself in response to the structure of the environment, and the environment in turn responds to the action of the genes, the organism slowly begins to materialize. It is as if matter itself contains most of the information for life.

In terms of cognitive development, this means that genetic and environmental information act concurrently to construct cognitive structures. Some of the environmental information that activates certain genes may come through the senses; for instance, cats are unable to perceive vertical lines if they are not exposed to them before a certain age, and children who have not heard a language before the age of ten will no longer retain the capacity to acquire one. More complex scenarios with intermediate control structures are also possible, as an alternative to a continued role for the genes.

While the rationalist argument agrees with the genetic model in that both affirm that cognition is dependent on structures that do not derive from experience, the genetic model has historicized rationalism, playing the part of empiricism in undermining its claims to transcendental universals. Thus, the distinction between empiricism and rationalism has become largely meaningless, like two aspects of the same coin that have fused into a sphere.

Read More

 

By

“Democracy is the road to socialism” – Karl Marx

Premise 1: Democracy is a form of government in which citizens have ownership over the government

Premise 2: Socialism is citizen’s ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.

Premise 3: Citizens have ownership over the government therefore have ownership over economy.

Conclusion: Socialism is the true form of democracy.

Read More

 
css.php