This weaker version seems to make more sense to me. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is in effect two propositions, which in a very basic form could perhaps be summed up as firstly Linguistic Determinism (language determines thought), and secondly Linguistic relativity (difference in language equals difference in thought). This topic of determinism and relativity can be applied to many areas – the study of to what extent technology influences our lives is termed the technological determinism debate. In psychology, discussion of this nature regarding the effect of environment and genetic makeup on our lives is called the nature/nurture debate. In a ‘purer’ form, there are philosophical questions of free will and determinism.
Kahneman (as cited in Edgar, 2007) explains it in the limited capacity theory of attention. According to it, “the brain contains limited-capacity central processor responsible for analyzing incoming information and integrating it to information already held in memory” (Edgar, 2007, pp.11). Thus, when a person tries to do many things at once interference can occur if those things compete for the same pool of resources. However, Macleod (as cited in Edgar, 2007) showed that it is possible to do two things at once without interference. In his study, participants had to carry out a visual and an auditory task and respond to them by saying ‘bip’.
The NLP Communication Model Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is about the ability to discover and change the way we communicate (internally, with ourselves, and externally, with others) in order to achieve our specific and desired outcomes. The NLP communication model is based on cognitive psychology and was developed by John Grinder and Richard Bandler. According to the NLP communication model, when someone behaves in a certain way (their external behaviour), a chain reaction is set up within you (your internal response), which in turn causes you to respond in some way (your external behaviour), which then creates a chain reaction within the other person (their internal response), and the cycle continues. The internal representations that we make about an outside event are not necessarilythe event itself.Typically, what happens is that there is an external event and we run that eventthrough our internal processing. We make an Internal Representation (I/R) of thatevent.
Indirect Realism- There is objection to direct realism, by studies done on perception and psychological processes realists have distinguished between external objects as the causes and objects of perceiving and closed sensa which is the functions of our brain. The form of this view has been named representative realism. This view as well, has its own defecits, and has also been criticized by philosophers. This view has been modernized to introduce a more acceptable theory on perception. Representative Realism, “seeing a table.” The actions involved in seeing this object both through the brain processes is derived from the sensa and that we are directly aware of our senses, which form together what we know as the shape, size, color and other properties that we visualize.
Realism emphasizes the ultimate importance of the natural world, that is, the physical, material, sensible universe. Pragmatism suggests that reality is not static in the sense of depending on absolute ideas or matter, but rather is ultimately "in process" and must be constantly probed and determined by social experimentation. Existentialism holds that reality is not objective, rather it is subjective and must be constructed by each individual. The implications of these worldviews for three examples of ethical dilemmas relating to information technology, those concerning piracy, privacy, and authority-deception are described and discussed. Keywords: Metaethics, Information ethics, Idealism, Realism, Pragmatism, Existentialism, piracy, privacy, authority-deception Introduction "Metaethics" is a term subject to potential
Throughout the centuries Philosophers and Scientists have argued over the idea of computers having a mind or a “consciousness,” can a computer or a machine truly grasp the meaning of what it knows or is that particular computer only going off what is programmed within it’s hard drive? In some aspect we can compare the mind to that of a hard drive of a machine. The brain is merely a tissue that is activated by physical processes, which we know as intelligence and emotion. The same goes for a computer, its main component or “brain” is ran by multiple processes reacting to a specific situation leading to a particular outcome. However, can a machine react in such a way to have emotion, perceive and understand like that of a human mind and have a consciousness?
“Common-sense functionalism” is the product of the combination of two separate theories (Functionalism and Common-sense) intending to strengthen the idea of the general shape of the theory of mind. Simply put, it is a description theory of meaning and reference. The meaning and reference of a term is given by a description of a set of properties. This new theory departs from and rejects the antiquated dualistic theory of the mind, has adopted a part of the behaviorism theory, and redirects us into another vicious circle filled with yet more open-ended questions. I will explain the basic ideas of functionalism and explain how common-sense plays a role in the theory.
256 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ROBOTICS, VOL. 23, NO. 2, APRIL 2007 Gesture Spotting and Recognition for Human–Robot Interaction Hee-Deok Yang, A-Yeon Park, and Seong-Whan Lee, Senior Member, IEEE Abstract—Visual interpretation of gestures can be useful in accomplishing natural human–robot interaction (HRI). Previous HRI research focused on issues such as hand gestures, sign language, and command gesture recognition. Automatic recognition of whole-body gestures is required in order for HRI to operate naturally.
He is opposed to the idea of the separation of the senses. He argues for more of an integrated body that uses multiple senses as a means to better understand the world. Pallasmaa quotes the psychologist James J Gibson who defines the senses as “as aggressively seeking mechanisms rather than mere passive receivers.” The senses are actively searching for constant interaction and understanding of this world. He writes “Instead of the five detached senses, Gibson categorizes the senses in five sensory systems: visual system, auditory system, the taste-smell system, the basic-orienting system and the haptic system. “[1] He even writes about theories that argue for 12 systems, though he doesn’t explore this topic at large.
Next, I will explain Lewis’s reply about why Knowledge Argument can’t refute physicalism. Finally, I will express my own opinion and show my reasons. Frank Jackson puts knowledge Argument forward. Although he thinks that physical knowledge provides us with some information relate to the world, and help people to understand the world in an objective way. However, in the process of experience, human cannot feel the “feeling” using the concepts of that “feeling”, which is named Qualia.