Results 11 to 17 of 17
Thread: Epistimology, Theory of Knowledge, Ways of Knowing and the Scientific Method.
-
01-21-10, 09:59 PM #11
Re: Epistimology, Theory of Knowledge, Ways of Knowing and the Scientific Method.
Originally Posted by KapnKrunch
Chaos is important but at the level I am in (and the level I teach as well) we don't really get into it. I am in a psychology program for neuroscience (but I have taken enough math I am a dual major plus Bio, chem, O-chem, physics, geology, CS, anatomy, etc.) and most psychology students start to freak out when you spring even 200 level statistics on them... my Professor lectures on nonlinear dynamic theory and the class shrinks by half! My job is to come in and turn his 90 slide lecture into 15 slides of bulleted broad points. Hopefully I will get into the CNS (hah, another great pun!) at NYU and then I can talk to colleagues about this sort of thing... as it stands now I have to walk all the way over to the math department to add elements to my empty set.
-
01-21-10, 10:53 PM #12
Re: Epistimology, Theory of Knowledge, Ways of Knowing and the Scientific Method
Originally Posted by KapnKrunch
Technically no quality time has pased until the tortoise reaches 100m because then he starts. Mainly because one has an initial velocity of 10 m/s and the other has one of 1 m/s. The first one will most obviously catch the other on a point that he has been quite easily. When achilles starts the tortle will be 100m ahead, that will take 10s for him. It will then be 10m ahead of him by the time he reaches the toroises starting point so in theory he should catch up to the turtle a second later.
1m/s*100m = 100s
10m/s*100m = 10s
1m/s*10s = 10m
10m/s*10m = 1s
11s to catch up. Realtively.
The problem with that is that it is talking about an imaginary line subject to relative points. Just like the relative 1.0.... + relative 1.0.... = relative 2.0..... We all know there is never really an actual .0 number, but our brain fills in the space and allows us to make things 1, like 1 apple with a bite out of it will never be equal to another apple with the same bite out of it.
But we say in every basic math book that "if suzie has 1 apple and bob has 1 apple, if bob gives his apple to suzie how many apples does she have?" When in reality we know that there is no such thing as a 1.000000000000... apple.
One will never be the same as the other, and that I think it what differentiates the real world and these fantasy video games, That never the same look, no matter what there has always been an atom that has moved, that has moved the skin out slightly, that has changed his weight the slightest. But in video games, on computers these are always the same, always perfect, always strange. Which is why game designers spend alot of time making things look different, because different things look real. And only then, when EVERYTHING is different that we can call video games an alternate reality.
Wooo Philosophy! :9
-
-
01-22-10, 12:00 AM #14
Re: Epistimology, Theory of Knowledge, Ways of Knowing and the Scientific Method.
Originally Posted by PizzaSHARK!
Code:____ U ___ u _____ U _____ u __ __ ____ _ __ _ _ U _____ u U| _"\ u \/"_ \/|_ " _| \| ___"|/U|' \/ '|uU| _"\ u|"|/ / ___ | \ |"| \| ___"|/ \| |_) |/ | | | | | | | _|" \| |\/| |/\| |_) |/| ' / |_"_| <| \| |> | _|" | __/.-,_| |_| | /| |\ | |___ | | | | | __/U/| . \\u | | U| |\ |u | |___ |_| \_)-\___/ u |_|U |_____| |_| |_| |_| |_|\_\ U/| |\u |_| \_| |_____| ||>>_ \\ _// \\_ << >> <<,-,,-. ||>>_ ,-,>> \\,-.-,_|___|_,-.|| \\,-.<< >> (__)__) (__) (__) (__)(__) (__) (./ \.) (__)__) \.) (_/ \_)-' '-(_/ (_") (_/(__) (__)
-
01-22-10, 09:59 AM #15
Re: Epistimology, Theory of Knowledge, Ways of Knowing and the Scientific Method.
I'm no scientist but human behaviorism and quirks have always fascinated me. I love people and the interactions so the next paragraph is based solely on my interpretation of my social interactions.
I guess that there is allot of randomness in the world, but I also believe that that's because we just don't have the acquired knowledge of how to read the chaos to begin with. I'm not saying chaos isn't chaos but rather some randomness can be chalked upto unknown factors.
Originally Posted by SoySoldier
My belief is that the brain is the main conductor for the soul, the rest of the body is too but not to the extent of the brain. I like to think of the bodies hold on the soul more of a residual charge... The brain is the only computer capable of reading the randomness of the soul to my knowledge to this date. Also because of various genetically variances no 2 brains are similar.
Example: (I'm going to use Soy for this one - hypothetical of course).
Soy and Max goto a gamers anonymous meeting for their addiction to violent games. In order to receive a token of the first step into the meetings they must make a small speech to tell people why they are there etc.... Soy goes first and speaks firmly and loudly for 2mins, Max goes next speaks quieter and stifles laughter a few times for 3 mins.
What just happened is 2 people were given the exact same task, the outcome was different, the result the same. They received their token and went home. But that interaction just changed say 30 different people because now they have some piece of information added to their brains that will change the outcome of their lives forever. With that being said the difference in response of Soy and Max shows that it's the very effect of these instances manipulates and modifies behaviour on a sub-conscious level. I don't think it'd be true to say every brain is the same, I think many similarities exist. So based on that it is most certain in my eyes that any input given to a human brain develops a new way of thinking (aka changes those chemical paths that we can't even see..). So I guess you could call that randomness, the fact that it's constantly changing due to new assimilated information. If we can understand how to measure these instances I think we can truly understand the greatness of the human soul.
I'm curious to know where all this energy comes from?
-
01-22-10, 11:13 AM #16
Re: Epistimology, Theory of Knowledge, Ways of Knowing and the Scientific Method.
Originally Posted by maximusboomus
-
01-22-10, 01:57 PM #17
Re: Epistimology, Theory of Knowledge, Ways of Knowing and the Scientific Method.
Originally Posted by maximusboomus
Indeed no two brains are the same. Sure they handle the same tasks in same areas (normally, those who differ usually have injuries or mental problems), but the actual shapes of the neural networks in my Broca's Area (one of the language centers) is very likely unique to myself and no other brain.
As far as randomness being a product of our level of understanding, that is dead on accurate about Nonlinear systems in general. There is a large amount of probability based on what is called "error" or "noise" although those words are misnomers. Noise in a nonlinear system is simply variables we have not yet accounted for and built into our model for the system. As we learn more and our ability to make complex models increases, the noise shrinks; eventually a nonlinear system will become linear in theory (we can make absolute predictions instead of probability based predictions).
Here is a power point slide set I use to give psychology students an overview of nonlinear dynamic systems... it's pretty basic but it gets the major points across.
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks