Whilst the central executive is the most important and versatile component of the working memory model, there is no empirical evidence demonstrating its existence or how it functions. It is difficult to devise a test for its existence or verify that it is a separate component from the visuo-spatial sketchpad or the phonological articulatory store. Baddeley suggests that the central executive acts as a system that controls attention-based processes rather than a memory store. This differs from the phonological loop and visuo-spatial sketchpad, which are specialized storage systems. The central executive enables the working memory system to selectively attend to stimuli and ignore others.
I disagree that Hume's arguments to causation are successful to a full extent due to the fact that Hume's challenges criticise causation from the point of view that empirical evidence is our only source of knowledge, suggesting we cannot know whether the effect due to cause can be discovered because "the effect is different from the cause, and so can never be discovered." Yet why should we apply the limitations of our ability to state that God does not exist? To further evaluate, Hume states we are bound by empirical data and so we will only be able to 'induce' that the regress of cause and effect exists and so this regress falls foul to Hume's Fork. The criticism of Hume's challenge is formulated in the sense that because philosophically and empirically "we will never know the true origins of the universe" it does not mean that "the universe is the "brute fact" as stated by B. Russell. A second challenge of Hume is that we are able to possibly imagine that something can cause itself into existence.
Essentially, it is believed that there are no transcendent moral thoughts to be known or ascertained by individuals. David Hume initially pointed out that it would be illogical to derive facts from values – facts cannot be used in the assignment of values. This was later referred to as the is-ought gap, fact-value distinction, or “naturalistic fallacy” to use the term coined by G.E. Moore. Naturalists would argue that moral values can indeed be derived from facts by employing what is morally “good” as an empirical rather than deontological property to it.
A descriptive grammar looks at the way a language is actually used by its speakers and then attempts to analyse it and formulate rules about the structure. Descriptive grammar does not deal with what is good or bad language use; forms and structures that might not be used by speakers of Standard English would be regarded as valid and included. It is a grammar based on the way a language actually is and not how some think it should be. 18. What is the difference between form and function in a sentence?
Gaunilo argues that just because someone can conceive of something it does not make it a reality and that there is not one way to conceive of God - the very fact that Gaunilo was arguing with Anselm proves that everyone coneives of God differently. He used the ideo of a ‘Perfect Island’ to show his point by saying everyone can imagine a wonderful remote island but this does not mean the island exists. Anselm responded to Gaunilo’s criticisms. He stated that God is non-continent whereas all other things on Earth are contingent. Aquinas also presented an objection to Anselm’s ontological argument.
“Since the mind is seen as a completely nonphysical entity, the mind (or soul) cannot be generated through the biological process of reproduction” (Hasker p. 67). This is what concerns both Data and Picard. That even if Data could be taken apart and put back together, the soul of Data would be lost. Picard is saying that Data is more than just an Android. Picard is in the belief that Data’s mind might be a program, but he is able to make decision on his own, making him an individual with a mind, and irreplaceable.
Using Formalism to interpret cannot be effective because the readers need to understand the background information. Without the background, the story becomes comparable to a pound cake with no toppings, bland and uninviting. Formalism ignores the cultural context, the author intentions, and how the story affects the reader personally. Formalism by definition ignores specifics such as what the author’s intentions were in the story. Fast’s intentions turn out to be an attempt to describe human nature.
What can the gray zone tell us on these grounds? Levi is not a historian and is not obliged to settle the conflict between judgment about identity and judgment about behaviors. However, he writes: “Each individual is so complex that there is no point in trying to foresee his behavior… nor is it possible to foresee one’s own behavior.”59 He also demonstrates that even in extreme situations an analysis of actions and practices is the best way to reach a credible approximation of reality. Even though various people as individuals or as groups appear in the gray zone, Levi describes the gray zone mostly in terms of functions, practices, and states of mind, weaknesses and/or resistance. This is true even in the case of Rumkowski, who
logical) evidence, and are sometimes based on a single experience or observation.” (Mcleod, 2013) No one can predict the behavior of another person because we all have free will, the decision to choose whether we act or not. Psychology can then be described as the attempt to understand why a person behaved a certain way, but psychologists can in no way, shape or form predict the probability of the same person repeating a specific
In this work, Locke contradicts the theory of innate ideas and put forth the concept of the human mind as being a “tabula rasa” or blank slate where it is void of any ideas. Locke believed knowledge came from two sources: externally through the five senses and internally from functions of the mind such as perception, reflection, and doubting. Although both are important in the development of knowledge, the mind’s interactions between the two sources are the decisive