Michael+Clavell

This quote stood out the most because I and many others have problems with goals. The problem is without the"Infinite Possibilities" of your dreams life is goals are difficult to aspire too. If you think about many of the greatest inventions and changes in the world have come from people who could combine imaginative ideas with rational thinking. Think of a spaceship... Imagine living 500 years ago and someone told you that there was going to be a big giant hunk of metal that will be able to fly into the stars. They would have thought you were crazy and now this idea is a reality. The balance between rational and imaginative thinking is essential however to the to life. Im sure we have all met somebody who was way to raional and reserved. This is usually really boring to be around the person because they put way too much though into life and will never dream the "impossible dream". While people who dream too much lack the rationality to achieve this goals. Its people like Albert Einstein and Benjamin Franklin who love to think and explore ideas previously not explored and combine this with intelligence and rationality. Simply put life would progress if it wasnt for people who enjoyed both of these characteristics and put them to amazing use to change humanity. I agree, it is the combination of imagination and reason, creativity and practicality, inspiration and perspiration (i.e hard-work), risk-taking and pragmatism that produces the best things in life.
 * Assignment 5**
 * [|Guy Forsyth]**: The trick is to combine your waking rational abilities with the infinite possibilities of your dreams. Because, if you can do that, you can do anything.

- If people speak more than one language, is what they know different in each language? Does each language provide a different framework for reality? This is a Difficult Question because reality is similar in many ways for all people speaking all languages. For instance, the sun goes up and down in all countries (Text Changed dont know how to fix) and this will not change in certain countries because they speak a different language. What they know usually doesn't change because of the language spoke. Table Means Table wither I say it in Spanish or English. One difference which is interesting is that in some languages like spanish all nouns have a El or La attached to them which assigns a gender role to the them I am not sure if that if this is done at random or if it is done on purpose but it is noteworthy. In some cases however the are different connotations assigned to a word which can change their knowledge of that particular word depending on what language the word is spoken in So what would your conclusion be? That there are some parts of experience that are so straightforward and objective, the sun rising and setting would be your example, that language cannot alter our perception of it, but there are other concepts that are by their nature open to interpretation, and that these can have connotations given to them simply by the language used to express them, even before we start adding our own individual associations to them? Another question would be, is it the language alone that influences your perception of reality or is it the culture in which the language is spoken? So, to take an example from Boroditsky's article, if you speak Turkish in Turkey, where there is a culture of not trusting second-hand reports, you have verb forms that differentiate between an account of something you have seen for yourself and an account of something someone has told you about. If you move to a country where there is a tradition of trust, for example Iceland, would those verb forms still influence you to be cautious about second-hand reports?
 * Assingment 4**

Is it possible to think without language? How does language facilitate, extend, direct or limit thinking? This Question is really thought provoking and It is really diffucult to give a correct interpretation of it. How can I determine if I can think without language by using language to logically progress through the question? This is a very good point. Part of the problem with thinking about this question has always been that we can't realistically or ethically do the experiments to find out. We would have to take people whom we know are cognitively able to acquire language and deliberately deprive them of the opportunity to do so. What i have come up with is that no you cannot think without language. However dont assume that this language is all vocally. In many societies prior to the modern age spoken language was not present. Actually, I'm not sure about this, are societies possible without language? Do language and society develop in parallel? What is a society? Do ant colonies and prairie dog packs count as societies? They are non-verbal, but do they have a rudimentary form of language? I don't know the answers to these questions. Many people spoke through signs and body language. Obviously a blend of body language signs and vocal language is the most effective form of communication. When I think about there is no way to communicate without language. Say i wanted to have a cup of water. Well if I could not directly say that I could point a glass and point to my throat. or turn on the facet and point to it. Ect.Some form of communication is nescerarry to think or convey anything.

You make good points. Try to go a bit further with them in the next assignment. (Also, read your work through to catch small errors.)

• What possibilities for knowledge are opened to us by our senses as they are? What limitations?
 * Assingment 3**

So many things are opened up with our senses. Each sense provides a exclusive pathway of knowledge that is irreplaceable. For example, when I took a trip to the Bahamas with some family friends I meet a girl who was blind. It was extremely interesting learning about her and the limitations of knowledge because of being blind. One question that was profound for me was when she asked me what the color green looks like. While so simple for us it is impossible to explain to somebody. Just think of how you would describe a color? This also goes for all the senses like how to you describe sound or sour candy. You really can't. This does not mean however that people in any of these senses could not be intelligent and just as smart as any of us. Think of Helen Keller, both blind and deaf she was born into the world with the cards stacked agaisnt her. But that didn't stop her and she became one of the most inspirational people. They are some limitations with basing knowledge only on the senses. How do describe your soul and those feelings you get inside you that when you love somebody and hate somebody. This knowledge is in my opinion just as important as knowledge of the senses. Yes, you bring up two good points here:  1. I think, and I think you do too, that we can learn things through second hand experience i.e. we can understand what something is like through someone else's description or portrayal of it (probably not in the exact same way we would from first-hand experience, but still in a meaningful way). But d o we always depend on analogy to do this i.e. do we understand things we have not experienced only by being able to refer them to things we have? This would explain why we cannot explain color to a blind person because she would have no point reference, nothing with which to make an analogy in order to move from the known to the unknown? On the other hand if there is any truth in the theory that we are born with some concepts already in our minds and that these are independent of sense experience, then it might be that a blind person does have an idea of color, but she would never be able to confirm that her idea was in line with those of us who have sight. Did you think to ask your friend in Bermuda whether she saw something specific in her mind to correspond with the word green, or what was it that she did think every time a color was named? 2. How do we learn, experience, understand and describe the metaphysical things in life like love, the soul etc., things that by definition are not observable through the senses, (or at least not directly or essentially observable, although their effects might be). Many people doubt the existence of the soul, but hardly anyone disputes the reality of love, why is that? Is there some essential difference between these two metaphysical phenomena?

• Is the nature of sense perception such that, as Huxley suggests, sensations are essentially private and incommunicable?

For the most part sense perception is private and incommunicable. Like i mentioned above it is extremely difficult if not impossible to explain sight, sound and all the other senses. Sometimes though trough art this senses can be understood. Many paintings while not saying anything in terms of words, describe so much and usually the feeling you get looking at a interesting painting are impossible to describe with words.

I am glad you said "for the most part" because, despite the fact that I find Huxley's insights wise and thought-provoking, I think it is helpful not to think in too extreme terms when considering perception. It seems obvious that we can ever be sure that we are experiencing exactly the same sensations as someone else, but we humans have developed many forms of communication in our efforts to connect with one another and share our experiences, and most of us intuitively and profoundly believe that we do frequently understand what someone else is trying to tell us. I like that you thought about paintings as they are often trying to capture what cannot be caught in words.

Thoughtful work again, thank you 6/7


 * Um my other assignments got deleted some how when I try to post Assignment 3. :( At least I got them graded**