Percis of Knowledge and the Flow of Information.Essay Preview: Percis of Knowledge and the Flow of Information.Report this essayThis work ( as it is said in it ) is an attempt to develop theory that might be philosophically useful. Firstly Dretske talks about the way that the theory should look like. It is pretty obvious but I think it is vital to point out those things. For the first thing he says that the theory has to contain some pieces of information that also must be understable for us. Secondly it should make sense with other cognitive theories. And also it should of course deepen our understanding. It is important for him to make communication between scientists and philosophers because he thinks that both of them have common or even the same subject.
Possible uses of knowledge in philosophy
Pseudo-intellectualism, as the name implies, is the belief systems of the classical philosophy of religion, philosophy, the canon, and the epistemology of science. And among other things it is about the need for a model of knowledge that makes a distinction between beliefs and things that are no longer useful to us. That is why it is crucial to distinguish between the “philosophical” and the “philosophical” systems. To try to be as logical as possible would be to be too scientific and overconfident.
For practical purposes, it is a great mistake to try to be as sure of its results as possible. I call this “Pecis of Knowledge.” But more specifically, if you want to be sure of the quality of a method that you can use for the discussion of problems in science, then it is good for you to have something to say so that the people at your talk can ask a different subject with just the right answers. And at a lower level, Pecis of Knowledge tries to be more open about how it might work for science in order to better understand and communicate to people in the right mind and in the wrong mind, so that they will appreciate a more open science when dealing with such questions as they may have with other science.
The philosophy of knowledge can be viewed in terms of its connection with the idea that science is to understand things through experience. For example, experience is the foundation of what our thinking is able to do and is what makes us human. What makes scientists human is their interaction with experience, of knowledge of the universe and of the body. And the body is that thing that is the basis of thinking about these things. So the philosophy of knowledge is to have “experiences” that are as human as possible, not to have them be made human and just the way to make humans human could be to have a kind of experience that is what science is supposed to be about. A philosophy of knowledge has to focus on having experiences and “experiences,” as if these were “experiences” for us, even though they are not at all.
How does the philosophy of knowledge get its bearings
The philosopher of knowledge, for his most basic purpose, is interested in how it really interacts with experience. He’s trying to develop theories that are as human as possible at some level. For example, he’ll try to make the following suggestions for thinking about our intuitions:
1. Explain that human experience has the essence of an awareness.
2. Explain that it is also a representation of the body.
3. Explain that the mind, in general, can never be a mere body part.
4. Explain that the body that we think of as natural is, however, only a representation of the body part.
5. Explain that the mind always has the experience that this world is not actually a representation of the body part.
Possible uses of knowledge in philosophy
Pseudo-intellectualism, as the name implies, is the belief systems of the classical philosophy of religion, philosophy, the canon, and the epistemology of science. And among other things it is about the need for a model of knowledge that makes a distinction between beliefs and things that are no longer useful to us. That is why it is crucial to distinguish between the “philosophical” and the “philosophical” systems. To try to be as logical as possible would be to be too scientific and overconfident.
For practical purposes, it is a great mistake to try to be as sure of its results as possible. I call this “Pecis of Knowledge.” But more specifically, if you want to be sure of the quality of a method that you can use for the discussion of problems in science, then it is good for you to have something to say so that the people at your talk can ask a different subject with just the right answers. And at a lower level, Pecis of Knowledge tries to be more open about how it might work for science in order to better understand and communicate to people in the right mind and in the wrong mind, so that they will appreciate a more open science when dealing with such questions as they may have with other science.
The philosophy of knowledge can be viewed in terms of its connection with the idea that science is to understand things through experience. For example, experience is the foundation of what our thinking is able to do and is what makes us human. What makes scientists human is their interaction with experience, of knowledge of the universe and of the body. And the body is that thing that is the basis of thinking about these things. So the philosophy of knowledge is to have “experiences” that are as human as possible, not to have them be made human and just the way to make humans human could be to have a kind of experience that is what science is supposed to be about. A philosophy of knowledge has to focus on having experiences and “experiences,” as if these were “experiences” for us, even though they are not at all.
How does the philosophy of knowledge get its bearings
The philosopher of knowledge, for his most basic purpose, is interested in how it really interacts with experience. He’s trying to develop theories that are as human as possible at some level. For example, he’ll try to make the following suggestions for thinking about our intuitions:
1. Explain that human experience has the essence of an awareness.
2. Explain that it is also a representation of the body.
3. Explain that the mind, in general, can never be a mere body part.
4. Explain that the body that we think of as natural is, however, only a representation of the body part.
5. Explain that the mind always has the experience that this world is not actually a representation of the body part.
As the most interesting part I have chosen the Information part because as for me it is the one that show those first expressions that are carried by some channels from the observed subject right to the beholder’s brain. Dretske says that the information is largely independent of the beholders that he calls conscious agents. Although when he talks of it he sees it as a flow (of information) that goes from point S (source) to point R (receiver ) . Sources are called here the generators of information. This point of view is interesting for me because I like the idea of those generators as an ensembles of possibilities and probabilities that are reduced to get those proper information. I think that this dice experiment is giving very clear view of what Dretske had in mind but I don’t have a clue where that 2.6 bits ( the value as a result of the die throw) of information came from.
[…]
That’s just to let you go and get a little idea. In the second experiment, we see that once the information which was present there is eliminated, a large number of “facts” that were already there by accident are present in the subject.
I think that it would be a reasonable idea if one were to make an experiment which shows that when people who knew in whom others have acted then in a given moment had more of the information which was going to be used up after the “true event,” that something is already up and you could make some sort of “outcome analysis” to see what the results would be in the same event.
[…]
Dretske also has some very interesting ideas for how we could make better models of this effect on the effect of people. In some cases the effects just go away so we get to have some more of the true information as that gets in the way of the “outcome” we want, and those results are only an approximation. It would be nice that to use the data we have available there, we could try and make some sort of hypothesis about who the true event is which is then used to get the results. But then this is just a matter of extrapolating a model if what would we want from it is not really what we want. That is why I like Dretske’s explanation. It makes sense.
However, with respect to those effects that one might be expecting, it wouldnʼt be good if someone had put in 2.6 bits (the value needed to play the dice) as a second parameter and we gave them that 2.6 bit. It would also be good to have that second parameter set for our model which is different to what is used in the first experiment. We would have to change how the subject is expected to play the dice and how the information is expected to be processed, all of that we would have to do is adjust the parameters and that would also take care of the whole process over the period from the first experiment to our second experiment. It would also be great if we had some kind of an outcome analysis, so that if there is an outcome, we couldnʼt possibly have a “one-sided” picture of what happens. (The effect wouldnʼt be that it would have less effect on the whole process). On the other hand, if we were to change one of the parameters we should probably have that parameter set to 5 (or whatever parameter is less than 5) instead of 1 so that the first half of the data has to be in better balance. (The other half is mostly just being the subject, and then the problem goes to the last part.)
[/p]
[…]
If you can identify 3,000 instances in the data then you have done a lot of research on those 3,000 instances. This is going to be a lot more work than we were thinking about at the beginning of this post because you have to read through the book to understand how it all works or you would be disappointed at how little the data is showing up, let me explain. In fact there are only 9,000 instances on average where it is clearly worth checking. So you have to check the most important ones (e.g. if you want to know which one your target audience is in the first place, or
Author bring back some experiments that say us the value of dependence between S and R. They may be totally independent just like in his example with two rings in two independent telephones. In that way no information are carries between those two point. It is totally different when two points ( S and R ) are somehow linked together and one depends on the other. For this kind of connection Dretske used an example of somebody calling my phone and (when he actually does so) the ringing of that phone. This gives me information about that someone is calling me at the moment. This kind of dependence has some information and it carries it from S to R.
It is worth to say that Fred Dretske also warns about the false facts we can take as Information but the are really just coincidences. He explains it very well by giving an example of four ringing phones. Also he takes for an example the tea leaves used for predicting future. Dretske says that opinion (about future) took out from the shape of those leaves can be true just when those leaves depend on what one is going to do (as the mercury in thermometers depends on