After reading an article by Endel Tulving, he talks about memory retrieval with regards to the human brain. He states in his thesis "The purpose of the present article is to question the traditional view that remembering the past and knowing things learned in the past represent similar cognitive processes" (Tulving, 1989). He continues by saying "I would suggest that remembering and knowing, as these terms are used here, are more appropriately conceptualized as operations of two hypothetical memory systems, episodic and semantic memory, and that in that sense they are not only similar, as all memory systems must be, but also basically different" (Tulving, 1989). In Tulving's first piece of evidence to support the above thesis he uses an example of a case study.
However, they differ on how they deal with the relation of consciousness with the brain activity. On the spectrum of brain activity, the arguments based on the cognitive criterion range from considering, on the one end, simply a functioning brain with initial brain activity, all the way to the other end, where only
Discourse does not have a general definition , but Foucault ( as cited by Mills, 2004) have stated that the most effective ways of think of discourse is" practices that systematically creates the object which they speak" (p. 61). In other words, what we say and think are two different things. Discourse is also an idea that language is planned according to different areas of social life, and a way of talking about and understanding the world (Jorgensen & Phillips, 2002). Discourses are made up of practices, forms and objects (Mill, 2004). It depends on the understanding that there are much more meanings when people communicate than simply just transferring information (University H., 2008).
Argument in Support of Quine’s Holism In “Two-Dogmas of Empiricism,” W.V. Quine argues that the analytic and synthetic distinction in Epistemology is false. He presents the view that beliefs do not exist independently of each other; instead, our beliefs form an interconnected web. In Quine’s view, all beliefs within this web of knowledge are revisable if we make sufficient changes in other parts of the system.
In other words, Dalton and Elitzure see the theory as useful but only cosmetic. Cohen & Dennett’s (2011) submission support Vervaeke’s grounding of the RR in cognitive function. Cohen & Dennett posited that consciousness cannot be separated from function. This suggests that RR might not address the ‘hard problem of consciousness’, but it is rightly located within the boundary that is fundamental to consciousness and wisdom. The ‘hard problem of consciousness’, was established initially by David Chalmers (1995), as the problem of providing an explanation of the
Brooks goes on to quote writer Tali Sharot to support his argument, which suggests that ““better facts tend to be counterproductive on hot-button issues like gun control.” As Tali Sharot notes in her book “The Influential Mind,” when you present people with evidence that goes against their deeply held beliefs, the evidence doesn’t sway them. Instead, they invent more reasons their prior position was actually correct. The smarter a person is, the greater his or her ability to rationalize and reinterpret discordant information, and the greater the polarizing boomerang effect is likely to be” (Brooks,
Specifically, Thomas More’s Utopia uses satire and exaggeration, but it successfully conveys the point that a society based purely on logic could not function. Similarly, Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal uses satire, but only satirizes one specific aspect, the idea that the extra babies should be eaten, while this is a ridiculous idea, it is much easier to follow than Voltaire’s Candide. In choosing to exaggerate or satirize one specific aspect, their respective points are clearer, proven faster, and the work is better for it. Personally, Candide was a bit annoying, repetitive, and over the top. The character of Candide was laughably impulsive and put little to no thought into his actions.
This can help to better connect with history in general and understand it as a whole rather than a sequence of events. He argues that history should not depart from the literary but strengthen it “by making it touch the effect of the real,”(5).
Many kinds of faulty logic or perception interfere with our ability to think critically, for example, superstition, argument from ignorance, false analogies, irrelevant comparison and fallacies. Therefore, I believe that perception is certainly not reality and most mistakes in thinking are inadequacies of perception rather than mistakes of logics. Perception is defined as the ability to see, hear or becomes aware of something through the senses (Nature of Logic and Perception). However, since the senses are susceptible to personal interpretation, they are therefore potentially unreliable sources of data. If one is able of rationally thinking through the information that they perceive, then they are more likely to make accurate assumptions.
Cognitive behavioural therapy suggests that the ability to change a behaviour is a short term process, whereas Psychodynamic therapy sees change as a long term process, A key difference in these two approaches is that, CBT aim is to change and Cognitive behavioural therapies aim is Insight and awareness (Gabbard, 2004; Wills, 2008). CBT suggests that the focus should lie in changing behaviour rather than emotions (Wills 2008). It could be suggested that a major difference could be explained by the degree of emphasis used in exploring the past to uncover the origins of any maladaptive thinking and behaviour patterns. It could be suggested that it may be useful to include this in CBT in order for the client not to relate to one 's problems as
I would agree with the perceptional insights when we decide to engage with people based on what we think we know about a situation. Though we base our interpretation on our own life and not looking at the situation through their life. Like you stated, we will never know what it is like to be that person. This is just like Nagel's bat analogy, we can observe and make inferences, but we will never know what it is like to be the bat. I think the materialistic observation fits in hear as well.