Hi All,
Here's a new question for you to think about and make your contribution on this thread. Remember - your contributions to these blog threads will be taken into account for your semester grade, and there is not too much time remaining to contribute for this semester...
Are ways of knowing more like mirrors or filters?
PS Please remember that a new thread does not mean the older ones are finished - you can continue to argue and discuss there...
emotions mirrors your inner feelings and reflect who we are. if you are naturally a grumpy person you tend to be sad and angry and this affects the way you interpret different situations and clouds your judgements. for example I.A Richards has a theory that if someone says a word such as night to a crowd of people, people will interpret it in various ways.. if someone is sad it may be interpreted as darkness or death... if the person is happy it can be interpreted as the end of a good day or a time to relax. Temitope J
ReplyDeleteways of knowing are like mirrors to some extenct because a mirror doesnot always give u a true image of urself and also different mirrors dipict different images.To get back to my point sometimes what we know can be false will not
ReplyDeleteconvey the true picture of the world.
the different images dipicted by mirrors represent the different ideas we aquire when we search for knowledge which can be either true or false.
I think ways of knowledge are both mirrors and filters however I think that one is secondary and one is primary. I think the mirror is primary and the filter is secondary, I would link the mirror to basic ways of knowing which are sense perception and emotion. I would say when someone sees something or gets knowledge through emotion he or she will know filter their knowledge in order to gain knowledge.
ReplyDeletei disagree with tafadzwa's post that ways of knowing are like mirrors to some extenct because a mirror doesnot always give u a true image of urself and also different mirrors dipict different images.take a good example of a girl who puts makeup on her face.when she looks at herself on the mirror she will see that girl with makeup.and if she is not wearing makeups there is no way she is going to see a girl with makeups so i think mirrors give you a true immage of what you see.
ReplyDeleteI'm interested in Sefakor's comment that sense perception and emotion are basic ways of knowing. This would imply that language and reason are somehow... what? More advanced? More complex? More uniquely human? More recent adaptations? I think pursuing this line of enquiry might be worthwhile? What do you think?
ReplyDeleteFollowing up to sefakor's comment, I think some ways of knowing can be likened to filters and others, mirrors in the sense that ways of knowing like sense perception or emotion just look at things from one point of view (which can be likened to a mirror) and would have to go through some form of reasoning and thought (filtration process) before knowledge gained can be more realiable. Therefore without the more advanced "filtration" process i.e. reasoning, language and thought, knowledge gained would be flawed in so many ways.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Shawn that some ways of knowing can be likened to mirrors and filters.
ReplyDeleteFor example, lets take sense perception and emotions. They are like mirrors because they only give what 'you' perceive or feel but not what others perceive or feel. In the same way with mirrors, truely you dont expect me to stand infront of a mirror and the mirror gives me Shawn's image instead of mine unless it's a magic mirror!!!
Language is more of a filter because there are times when you really want to express something through language but its not possible and you would often hear peolple lament, "Oh, I don't know how to say it"
This means that Language tends to limit the extent to which we can think.
Remember that we have talked a lot about representations during the course. Consult your notes.
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of representation do we get from a mirror? And what kind from a filter?
I think ways of knowing are more like filters although it reflects the kind of person you are, way you interpret something usually depends the kind of mentally you have, which maybe due to your culture or sometimes individual influence, which is in accordance to Temitope's post
ReplyDeleteok im going to look at this question from a different point of view. at the moment i think ways of knowing are both mirrors and filters. for instance, when we gain information through our senses and rational, we retain them in the exact same way we got them (i.e. if you see a yellow coloured shirt, you'll definitely keep a yellow image in your brain and not a green colour). and also for reported knowledge, when we hear something from someone we keep every single word the person said in mind.
ReplyDeletehowever, the ways of knowing become filters when it is time for the information gained to be output. for example, when you are telling someone what some other person told you, there's a high probability that you'll summarize the information and then as the information is passed on from person to person it actually becomes more brief (or it may even change- Chinese whispers). and also with the inferred knowledge, we try to work out or think about the information we've gained and thus we output what we think is right (therefore the information has undergone filtration)
Lianne Griffin
This is quite similar to Lianne's post since she beat me to it...but...
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, ways of knowing are both like filters and mirrors. My reason for saying this is that we may not always sense or see or hear or taste how the thing actually is due to certain factors. For those that are like mirrors, (i.e., empiricism) we usually see or hear or taste just as they are.
However, we may not always sense or see or hear or taste how the thing actually is due to certain factors. Also, sometimes, other people may perceive the same things in different ways from how I perceive them. So…does this draw attention to truth?…Who can we really believe? Is my perception right and the other person’s wrong?
Moving on to filters, we hear about certain events and happenings all around the world, but do we know into detail every single thing that happens? We cannot always know everything. By this I mean that what we perceive or sense might be just a fraction of the whole which we do not even see half of. Knowing through “report” or testimonials may be a very good example for this. Let’s say there is a car accident, and later I’m reporting this to someone who was not on the scene. What I tell the person is only what I remember, only a fraction, hence the person will not know into detail, what really happened before or during or after the accident. Thus, we can say that ways of knowing are more like filters…this is what I have to say……
So could we say that a person who believes our ways of knowing are like mirrors will tend to believe that objective knowledge is achievable, and by extension perhaps that there is such a thing as absolute truth?
ReplyDeleteWhereas a person who believes our ways of knowing are like filters will be more likely to be more modest in his/her claims about knowledge - ie we can only ever have partial knowledge, maybe absolute truth is beyond our reach, perhaps even that it doesn't exist and therefore knowledge and truth are relative?
Or maybe you think this picture is too neat...?
A mirror reflects an image, meaning that it is the true image that is formed (we can assume that we are dealing with a plane mirror). However with a filter, it allows certain things to come through and others not to (like in the filtration of sandy water through filter paper). Therefore in likening any way of knowing to a filter we are saying that only selected knowledge can be obtained in this way and by likening any way of knowing to a mirror, we are saying that it reflects an absolute truth. Therefore is it not possible that within the supposedly individual ways of knowing there are circumstances where they can be seen as mirrors and other circumstances where they can be seen as filters? And if you can obtain knowledge,as I believe you can, by a mix of two or more of these ways of knowing,(in which case the obtained knowledge would probably be more reliable and hence we could be more certain of its validity) then wouldn't you say that they are or at least can be definite overlaps in the mirror and filter arguments? Then, therefore, the two can exist as a mixture bringing us to the conclusion that both exist simultaneusly in the obtaining of knowledge (whether by a single means or by multiple means).
ReplyDeleteI think ways of knowing could be both mirrors and filters and sometimes a mixture. I don't know about the rest of the class but i think emotions are stronger than what we actually think them to be. If we are taking into consideration emotions as a way of knowing,then i would call them filters because our expression of our emotions are limited by our human bodies. It is therefore possible to only be able to a express a toned-down version of what you actually feel. I remember in class Kwame. k mentioned that our interpretations and expressions of diffrent emotions through facial expressions are limited because there are only so many contortions we can make with the muscles on our faces. This supports my arguement because if we wer to take an example of two people: person A just lost a mother and person B failed an test and they were both to sit in a room and cry, knowing the circumstances, we know that person A's sorrow is far deeper than person B but the most we can possibly do with ourselves is cry. A third person from the outside will therefore see them and interpret them to have about the same degree of sadness. This is why in Ghana especially, some mourners don't just cry, they jump about and scream and wail and roll on the ground (I'm talking about genuine mourners not the paid ones =D) it is not because they just want attention (most of the time bear in mind i'm talking about geniune mourners here kwame.k =D) but because the act of crying, available for humans to express sorrow is just not enough. In the case of the third person watching the two people crying in the room, the knowledge gained about their sadness has been filtered due to the human body's inability to effectively portray emotion because he can see that both people are sad, but he doesn't know just how sad they are and will not realise how different their feelings actually are. I have a lesson now but i will be back on how they are like mirrors..
ReplyDeleteJessica Elizabeth Longdon
Are ways of knowing more like mirrors or filters?Depends on what you are looking for.As humans,we cant see everything(perhaps most things) that exist. However through our sense perception, we can gain some amount of knowledge. What we are able to see is what we get. Our sense organs give us a reflection, a picture of our world, our reality. Therefore I'd say they are like mirrors because as humans through our ways of knowing we are given a representation, a reflection of the world.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this may not be the entire or "absolute" truth but just the truth about the world we are ABLE to experience; a different perspective and dimension of the world. For example,there is a vast differnce between the world as we know it and that if fish . The fish that live in the ocean also experience different truths of the world that humans can never know about.
Finally to support the claim that they are like filters I would just like to say that our ways of knowing are adaptations we have developed to obtain information necessary for our survival, comfort, recreation, knowledge etc. So though there are millions of truths about this world, our ways of knowing are the features or characteristics which have narrowed and tapered these truths down to the world as we know it.....a world, whose knowledge (gained only to the limit of our capabilities/ ways of knowing) is necessary for our existence on it.
well in my opinion... some ways of knowing are filters whiles others are mirrors. I think reasoning will be a filter because from the previous knowledge you get through sense perception or testimony, you process this information to gain new knowledge. for example, being told that sharks live only in salty water i will reason and know that sharks do not live in fresh water. Also, choosing to accept what you believe will be like filtering.
ReplyDeleteon the other hand, i think that sense perception will probably be mirrors. a mirror is used to see the exact image and clearly, you see a chair as a chair and nothing else.
lastly, i would believe that testimony will be a filter because as the knowledge is passed round and told, the facts change quite a bit. this tells us that it has been 'filtered' to maybe, suit the one saying it. just like gossip...
eddie
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, Kioko mentioned something that I disagree with. What I believe is that it is possible for language to limit how we can EXPRESS ourselves or COMMUNICATE, and not necessarily how we THINK.
ReplyDeleteI think language acts as a mirror in the sense that it normally reflects our thoughts and emotions, and to me, sense perception usually mirrors things in the outside world (that is, if we can trust our senses). I think that agrees with one of Dionne's points.
Just to add, language can also serve to spread untruths (which can actually become truths to some people!), so then, can we put faith in language as a way of knowing? Well, of course, that's where reasoning comes in. Yet still, one should bear in mind that circumstances can incline someone towards a certain standpoint. Be it the source of information, the presentation of the information, its content, the time at which it is shared - something can influence what we accept and do not accept. I find that a very important point to consider.
Emotion can be a filter in a sense because (from what I learned in class), emotional experiences can help us know more about emotion itself and our behaviour as human beings.
I completely agree with Maame Adwoa that ways of knowing can act as both mirrors and filters. Looking at sense perception, using what we see shows that we get a mirror image of our world (usually...and regardless of how identical it may be), but then sight can also act as a filter because we can use evidence from what is seen to verify or evaluate knowledge; e.g. witnessing an event or fact ourselves to find out whether something is true. Furthermore, I agree that the combination of the ways of knowing, whether as mirrors or filters (but the combination definitely has to be a mixture of the two types) helps to improve the validity of our knowledge/judgments. Naturally, if that didn't happen then we cannot always be completely sure of what we claim to know.
At Mr. Kitching's first question (November 7, 2009 7:16 AM) I think reasoning is a bit higher (if not the highest) if you create an imaginary pyramid of the ways of knowing, because after we perceive anything in the world it's up to the individual to interpret, analyse and evaluate whatever we have gotten through language, sense perception, etc. Reasoning helps us to draw conclusions and make our own judgments, proving to be a filter and what sets everything in stone. To me, sense perception simply helps us "absorb" the things around us, and connecting what is perceived to previous knowledge gives us or leads us to the conclusion that we reach. The connection is what I believe to be the reasoning part. Thus, one ends up using the mirror-filter method.
I also agree with Jessica about emotions, but then as I read it I was thinking about sense perception as well; there ARE limitations to how we can express our emotions, however, there are also limitations in terms of the extent to which we can perceive, and the extent to which what we perceive is true. A good example is facial expression - if a facial expression is not so "readable" or familiar, interpretations can differ greatly (if it's even possible to interpret).
In general, I think the biggest issue for humans as a group is truth - whether what we agree on as truth is really true, what the criteria for truth is, who determines truth...the list goes on.
i think ways of knowing are like mirrors and filters however thoughts are more like mirrors while reasoning can be likened to filters. This is because reasoning is like raw data maybe thoughts, being processed as Eddie stated. i agree to a greater extent that testimony is also more like a filter as inferred knowledge and reported knowledge from individuals are different. Mirrors are similar to thoughts because just as the mirror interprets the image laterally, thoughts also differ based on the way one views the world. The brain reflects what we see and hear in our thoughts which are filtered through reasoning to result in testimonies. Just as mirrors show lateral images so are our sense perception, reasoning and thoughts. Not everything we see any reason is right therefore there is no logic truth in things that are universally accepted. This because you know the mirror shows your left side of your body to be in the position of your right side but we have accepted it. this also proves that if thoughts and reasoning are filtered then individual perception controls the facts of the world
ReplyDeletetimah
I like Liannes analysis of this arguement and i will like to add to it, I believe that ways of knowing are filters as well as mirrors as i have said previously, this is because i can gain knowledge about a particular issue from a friend or book, internet etc. but i have to filter this knowledge down to what is true and what is false. something such as a moral judgement depends on an individual such as a bomb killing six million people in America some people may see it as helping the world, helping us reduce the high population and some others can see it as the loss of lives and the death of families and be disappointed. so this makes me still wonder is there a right or wrong emotion?? which we are discussing in class. so this can also be related to a mirror, the way we react to this situations can mirror the type of person we are.-Temitope J
ReplyDeleteHie everyone, I think this all depends on who you are and what you as an individual think of the ways of knowing.For instance I can not gain knowledge from what you have experienced because i have never experienced what taught you to gain that knowledge. For instance a baby can still be burnt by a fire even if the mother has been burnt by the same fire.The fact that the mother has been burnt by the fire does not been that the baby can not be burnt by the fire. What i am saying is that the ways of knowing can only be mirrors to an INDIVIDUAL ONLY.And unless that same individual does not share with the world the special knowledge ha or she has then the world is at loss of the knowledge that it is supposed to know. Lets take the famous Charles Darwin and his theories,if he had not shared the knowledge he had gained about Evolution, then man would not have known what evolution was. This is what i call mirror knowledge.Whereby you gain knowledge by practical means and you mirror it to the world. I think the ways of knowing are more like mirrors.
ReplyDeleteerrmm.... i'd like to disagree with Cynthia's point.
ReplyDeletei think ways of knowing act as both mirrors and filters universally: it does not depend on who you are. have you ever heard of a human being who stores as well as outputs verbatim every single bit of information he has gained?? i've heard of a fictional story in which the personna just used to think about everything that happened the previous day: he never forgot even the tiniest detail. due to this he started living in the past.
well i think that if there is someone like that he is probably too smart or crazy by now. and also he'd be one of a kind because even babies filter and mirror stimuli!
.......THIS IS PROBABLY THE REASON WHY THE STORY IS FICTIONAL!!
so Cynthia do you filter or mirror information?
Lianne Griffin
ok ermm.... i think that sounded like a personal attack.
ReplyDeletesorry i'd like to scratch the last question "so Cynthia do you filter or mirror information?".
thanx
Lianne Griffin.
I believe that ways of knowing are like filters. Basically as humans we are open to all kinds of external stimuli but its our ways of knowing that helps us interpret all this incoming data. For instance I never truly know how I feel about a subject until I realize what emotion I'm feeling and link to an emotion I know that I've felt before. I think that even though we don't always realize it emotions are more like filters than anything else. Emotions can be so unconscious that sometimes they tell you what you're actually feeling.
ReplyDeleteWays of knowing can be said to be a mirrors or a filters, depending on how you look at them. They can be mirrors because they reflect the personality of the person, in terms of emotion, the beliefs of the person in terms of intuition, the sensory acuity of the person in terms of sense perception and the intelligence quotient of the person in terms of reasoning. On the other hand, ways of knowing can be portrayed as filters because they are the tools with which we construct our knowledge base from the experiences we gain from the objective world. Different people of different races, beliefs, cultures, attitudes, ages and even different species have different degrees to which they can utilize their tools of knowing and these differences are what result in different perceptions that are filtrates of a real world.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLike some people's comments, i also think our ways of knowing are more like mirrors to some extent.like in a mirror the image we see is the actual representation of the object,however, we do not see or hear the same things.
ReplyDeleteon the other hand, our ways of knowing are filters because even though we see something, we do not see all of it due to nature of our senses, for example.
As most people have already stated, some ways of knowing are more or less, like mirrors, while others also act as filters. From what we did in class concerning emotions, it could be seen that really, our ways of knowing could be like filters in that we might end up knowing things through expression or emotions, but then these same emotions or expressions could actually deceive us into thinking something that the person exhibiting the emotion(s) might not even be thinking of or have in mind. In the contrary, our ways of knowing could be like mirrors in the sense that we actually see or perceive the same thing as the object. An example is Steven's example about an image in a mirror, which I think is a good example. Through our sense organs and sense perception, we are able to come up with certain ideas and concerning real life issues. Another example is for instance, Chelsea, my favorite team is playing and it is known that if Chelsea wins, I will be happy, and then I'm happy when the match ends and Chelsea has won. This would be interpreted by everybody who sees me as a win for Chelsea, even though there might be other reasons for my happiness.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, I think our ways of knowing are rather kinda balanced, in that some could be filters and others, mirrors.
Thank you.
Christopher Cobbina
As some may have stated, some ways of knowing are more like mirrors, whereas others act like filters. Take emotion for instance. It has the ability to reflect the inner feelings of an individual. For example, if Ghana were to win the FIFA World Cup, i would be obviously ecstatic, leading to perform jubilant actions. Thus this overflow of emotion would enable an outsider to gain an outlook of my internal sentiments. Sense perception may also be utilized as a mirror. This is because with the aid of sense organs such as our eyes and ears, we are able to capture and store visual and auditory data from the environment, even though it may not be to the same accuracy. Such data would be replicas from the environment, and can help our understanding of certain life situations.
ReplyDeleteTaking into consideration the idea of filter, reasoning applies most here. With the usage of our brains, we humans are able to process, select, analyze, examine and scrutinize pieces of data. This enables us at obtaining the required information, relevant to the purpose of reasoning in first place.
i think ways of knowing are filter and our thought is a mirror but the thought that we have is affected by the language. all thought can not be expressed by the language because of limited words in our language.but emotion is a mirror and filter because it helps us to get knowledge through it and reflect our inner strong feeling.
ReplyDeletethank you
Samuel Mekonnen
I believe that ways of knowing to be a filter or a mirror depends on the type of person it involves. Whether a realist or a constructivist. ( I know I like talking about these things) For a realist, ways of knowing would be like a mirror, in that the reflection he gets from what is in the mirror is the knowledge of the world he accepts. For example, emotion and reason. For a constructivist, ways of knowing would be a filter. A filter is a device that removes something from whatever passes through it. For a constructivist that creates part of his own world we can see that he filters the knowledge he gets from the world and compares it with his own world he has created. For example, language and perception.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Linda, yes “emotions mirrors your inner feelings and reflect who we are.” And that’s they cannot be the accurate way of knowing. Sometimes these emotions are misinterpreted. People’s ways of expressing emotions are different even though there are some universal expressions.
ReplyDeleteFrom my previous comment I explained how I see ways of knowing to like filters but as I promised this is how ways of knowing are also like mirrors;
ReplyDelete(This explanation is actually from an IG physics student's perspective. Sorry to all those who didn't do IG physics I didn't have any other way of explaining this)
To convey what I feel or think is to give an image- in terms of physics, a 'virtual image' of what I'm feeling or thinking. If human beings were able to transfer images and emotions and thoughts with each other as if we had bluetooth then I would consider ways of knowing to be mirrors showing 'real' images (which is quite impossible btw, still in terms of physics). This is because what exactly I want to convey or express will be my real object. The means by which I express this and the means by which the next person receives this are what we will consider to be the mirror in this analogy- the point the image is created. The what the next person interprets and analyzes is the virtual image of what I had in mind.This virtual image, although it can never be the same as the object, being laterally inverted and depending on the mirror, bigger or smaller than the object, is the same shape and form as the object. So even though I cannot convey with 100% efficiency what I want to say, I can at least send a rough idea across, still allowing for communication.
Selzy...
My understanding of filters in this case is such that ways of knowing influence and affect our thinking. Based on that i will make my contribution.
ReplyDeleteI think that what you know influences what think because you cannot comprehend the unknown. All you can do is imagine or predict the unknown. Evan that is limited by what we already know.
Ways of knowing are not just emotions. What about sense perception and testimonial knowledge. Even emotions, from what I learned from my article is that emotions limit the possible number of actions one can do in a given situation ( to learn more about that you can go to www.plato.stanford.edu/entries/emotion/)
Therefore I think that ways of knowing are more like filters rather than mirrors even though that element still exists. The way one would react to something in that case is a mirror of you but the general knowledge you gain in your lifetime is not a reflection of who you are. Well that is my opinion. I get the impression that people are basing their posts on what you do with the knowledge which is a different issue altogether. The farthest I will agree to ways of knowing being mirrors is that you pick what you want to gain a deep understanding on (education). However, to me, ways of knowing are more like filters are they 'filter' (influence and limit) what you know and how you perceive the world. An example in support of my stance is that someone in a technologically declined area would not know how to use a phone very well. Hence, his ways of knowing have limited his ability to use a phone.
Personally, I feel ways of knowing are like filters as ways of knowing can be limited at times. However, it depends on the individual’s perception of an event/object or situation that determines how they find out certain things. At times humans can be stubborn and select particular things they want to know and remember and discard all the other factors. This is why I agree as way of knowing as a filter rather than mirrors.
ReplyDelete