"My friend and I are stranded on an island. Unfortunately, you are
both fatally ill. It just so happens that you have an antibiotic that
can cure your illness. Sadly enough, there is just enough antibiotic to
save only one person. How could you and your friend choose which one of
you will take the antibiotic? "
Pros:
- If I take the cure, I will stay alive and keep going with my life..
- If my colleague takes the cure he stays alive.
- I give my colleague the cure while he/she are asleep, therefore I have no conscious.
Cons:
-If we both don't take the cure we both die.
-One of us must have to die.
- We both want each other to take the cure.
What I would do:
- I would have divide the cure into two, giving each on of us a half so we both don't get cured but we are capable of postponing death and try to search for help, if we cant we both die we did our best job.
Monday, December 2, 2013
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Reflection Greg Craven's logic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zORv8wwiadQ - His video
In my opinion Greg's logic simplifies and adjusts people's ways of thinking. All of a sudden one of the most complicated issue have been divided on two 4 possible out comes. He deeply believes that not choosing the 'B' column would be the most realistic decision to eventually achieve to minimize Economical, Social, Political, Environmental and Health futuristic catastrophes, whereas choosing column 'A' would cause only 'cost global depression', if global warming does really exist of course.
On the other side I tend to believe that just like trying to minimize the chance of a great loss, why not increase the chance of a great win? Since there is a chance of 50%, loads of money could be spent on education, support people who suffer from starvation, decrease taxes, increase awareness of health issues, support innovation and other beneficial ways to achieve a better world and again there is 50% chance! The problem is that it is mostly human nature to 'play it safe', human in their nature (not all of course) do not like to take risks, and by taking risks of crazy unbelievable ideas we have reached great technology, and development of amazing concepts that did not seem possible because in order to actually benefit eventually risks got to be taken.
Another point I would like to point out is that the worse case scenario in column 'A' is not as better as we think than the one in column 'B'. Stating that if money is spent to prevent global morning but it does not actually exist, there would be a 'cost depression' but if we really think about it all these Economical, Social, Political, Environmental and Health subjects rely on MONEY. So if money would be lost it could affect the exact same topics that were mentioned in column 'B'. Running an hospital, a business, managing political issues around the world, living up in social places they all rely on money therefore there would be not a much of a great differences between the two losses where all the subjects I have just mentioned would be affected harshly which brings us back to the thought why not try to play it big and maybe benefit more for our future.
Using Greg Craven's logic:
Assuming there is an error alert in all public shopping places in Uganda, but there is nothing to eat in my house, what could be the possible outcomes?
In my opinion Greg's logic simplifies and adjusts people's ways of thinking. All of a sudden one of the most complicated issue have been divided on two 4 possible out comes. He deeply believes that not choosing the 'B' column would be the most realistic decision to eventually achieve to minimize Economical, Social, Political, Environmental and Health futuristic catastrophes, whereas choosing column 'A' would cause only 'cost global depression', if global warming does really exist of course.
On the other side I tend to believe that just like trying to minimize the chance of a great loss, why not increase the chance of a great win? Since there is a chance of 50%, loads of money could be spent on education, support people who suffer from starvation, decrease taxes, increase awareness of health issues, support innovation and other beneficial ways to achieve a better world and again there is 50% chance! The problem is that it is mostly human nature to 'play it safe', human in their nature (not all of course) do not like to take risks, and by taking risks of crazy unbelievable ideas we have reached great technology, and development of amazing concepts that did not seem possible because in order to actually benefit eventually risks got to be taken.
Another point I would like to point out is that the worse case scenario in column 'A' is not as better as we think than the one in column 'B'. Stating that if money is spent to prevent global morning but it does not actually exist, there would be a 'cost depression' but if we really think about it all these Economical, Social, Political, Environmental and Health subjects rely on MONEY. So if money would be lost it could affect the exact same topics that were mentioned in column 'B'. Running an hospital, a business, managing political issues around the world, living up in social places they all rely on money therefore there would be not a much of a great differences between the two losses where all the subjects I have just mentioned would be affected harshly which brings us back to the thought why not try to play it big and maybe benefit more for our future.
Using Greg Craven's logic:
Assuming there is an error alert in all public shopping places in Uganda, but there is nothing to eat in my house, what could be the possible outcomes?
|
Not going to shop
|
Going to Shop
|
Terror alert in Uganda
|
|
Saving your life, but staying hungry. :)
|
Great chance of getting captured to 'uncomfortable'
situation. :(
|
Terrorism takes place
|
|
Staying at home and hungry :(
|
Finally eating a good burger! :)
|
Terrorism not taking place.
|
Monday, October 14, 2013
Is Seeing Believing?
Belief, a concept that varies from every individual's opinion. The world is covered with lots of different beliefs, from religion to personal beliefs. However what we believe in mostly relies on what we see or what we don't see. Religions such as, Christianity, Judaism and Islam believe in the 'God' we never see. Why is that? For example, if I will tell a random person that I have 10 million dollars in my bank account, as much as it is not realistic it does not differ from the concept of religion and believing in someone that creates miracles. Us, human mostly don't believe in things that are not in the range of our imagination, however we never stopped believing in god. Of course that there are people who do not believe in god however, many industries are relied and based on that amazing thing we have never seen. So in order to believe in something, we have to sort of jump from the conscious we have to a complete belief otherwise we would have stayed hanged up in the air, which in reality happens to most of us. On the other hand, optical illusions can make us believe in something that does not exit at all, which brings me to a conclusion the seeing and believing do not rely on each other. Therefore, in order to really believe in something all that is required is just to make up a decision on whether we believe in that thing or not even if we don't see, but if most people are like me it is really difficult to take that decision to decide.
Saturday, October 5, 2013
identifying the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and its limits!
“Languages differ essentially in what they must convey and not in what they may convey.”
Around 7 billion people live on the planet currently and we all speak different languages. Whorf claims that the languages we speak differ by the way they clearly convey different concepts and not by our different interpretations of this concepts. He believes that by the way each language is structured affects our perception on the world and the environment and also the apprehension we have on various concepts. For example, if we let people who speak different languages, give voices to things such as 'bed' or 'fork' the tone we will give to the object will mostly depend on whether this object is masculine or feminine in our language.
Moreover he remarks that in some languages the use of specifying directions rely on north, south, east, west instead of left, right, in front of and behind. He believes that even though a person might not be able to know the means of right or left and so more, it does not necessarily require that they may not understand its concept.
In addition, Sapir-Whord hypothesis is divided into both the linguistic determinism and linguistic relatively. He states that the linguistic determinist basically determines our thoughts and how one is perceived his or her reality depending on their mother tongue and linguistic relatively obeys the idea of the variation of views we have on different perceptions on concepts due to our mother tongue language.
Another great example that made me really wonder on how different people experience the world affected by their mother tongue is the example of if a two different people that speak different concepts of maintaining directions would enter a hotel and both of their rooms would look exactly the same from left to right the only difference would be that they are placed in front of each other, the person who uses the concepts of left and right would not be able to think of any differences of the placement of the objects whereas on the other hand all the concept of directions and placement of north, south east and west would fully reverse a person's way of thinking.
Around 7 billion people live on the planet currently and we all speak different languages. Whorf claims that the languages we speak differ by the way they clearly convey different concepts and not by our different interpretations of this concepts. He believes that by the way each language is structured affects our perception on the world and the environment and also the apprehension we have on various concepts. For example, if we let people who speak different languages, give voices to things such as 'bed' or 'fork' the tone we will give to the object will mostly depend on whether this object is masculine or feminine in our language.
Moreover he remarks that in some languages the use of specifying directions rely on north, south, east, west instead of left, right, in front of and behind. He believes that even though a person might not be able to know the means of right or left and so more, it does not necessarily require that they may not understand its concept.
In addition, Sapir-Whord hypothesis is divided into both the linguistic determinism and linguistic relatively. He states that the linguistic determinist basically determines our thoughts and how one is perceived his or her reality depending on their mother tongue and linguistic relatively obeys the idea of the variation of views we have on different perceptions on concepts due to our mother tongue language.
Another great example that made me really wonder on how different people experience the world affected by their mother tongue is the example of if a two different people that speak different concepts of maintaining directions would enter a hotel and both of their rooms would look exactly the same from left to right the only difference would be that they are placed in front of each other, the person who uses the concepts of left and right would not be able to think of any differences of the placement of the objects whereas on the other hand all the concept of directions and placement of north, south east and west would fully reverse a person's way of thinking.
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
The relationship between language and thought
Question: Why is the ruthless totalitarian regime, described in Orwell’s novel purging Oldspeak and imposing Newspeak? What assumptions are being made about the relationship between language and thought?
Answer: In Orwell’s novel, the people whom are supportive towards the idea of the imposition of Newspeak clearly state that the thought and language walk together 'hand in hand', and believe that destroying the oldspeak, would be more of an efficient way of communication. They serve the idea that in order to be able to understand a certain concept of a word the need of knowing its defintion/explanation is the only way in which we will be able to understand it or even bring it in our daily life or in other words, how can use something that does not exist?
For instance, in our minds we think in typical a language, we use different adjectives to describe our feelings, meaning that if these specific words to how we feel did not exist we would feel this way or basically be limited in our thoughts or even expressing our emotions. A great example is when the Spanish colony had took over South America in the 15th century. They claim that, when the people who have seen the Spanish ships heading towards their coast could not protect themselves since they did not know what they were standing against, they did not know all the concept of 'sailing' or what were 'Ships' therefore they could not THINK of it as danger, or in other words they were just staring at an unknown object coming towards them. This just shows that in order to think of something and have an opinion about it, knowing its concept is a must to really and fully understand it.
Answer: In Orwell’s novel, the people whom are supportive towards the idea of the imposition of Newspeak clearly state that the thought and language walk together 'hand in hand', and believe that destroying the oldspeak, would be more of an efficient way of communication. They serve the idea that in order to be able to understand a certain concept of a word the need of knowing its defintion/explanation is the only way in which we will be able to understand it or even bring it in our daily life or in other words, how can use something that does not exist?
For instance, in our minds we think in typical a language, we use different adjectives to describe our feelings, meaning that if these specific words to how we feel did not exist we would feel this way or basically be limited in our thoughts or even expressing our emotions. A great example is when the Spanish colony had took over South America in the 15th century. They claim that, when the people who have seen the Spanish ships heading towards their coast could not protect themselves since they did not know what they were standing against, they did not know all the concept of 'sailing' or what were 'Ships' therefore they could not THINK of it as danger, or in other words they were just staring at an unknown object coming towards them. This just shows that in order to think of something and have an opinion about it, knowing its concept is a must to really and fully understand it.
Sunday, September 22, 2013
The affect of word choice
Question: In the example of foreign policy, how does word choice have an impact on the message conveyed?
Answer: To begin with, many politicians do not write their own speeches and that is because the importance of word choice. Each word symbolizes a different thing and could be interpreted in a variety of ways. Each word we speak or hear illustrates an image in our mind and our brain associates
this word with other words and images. For example, when we hear the word 'peace' or 'love', we immediately imagine calmness or think about the people we care about. However, the best example I could give is what I just wrote, that is because when my intention was only to write 'peace' the word love came up to my mind, proving how our diction has an affect to the feelings we experience and thethoughts we think about. In the case of foreign policy, each politician has chosen their words carefully in way to create a greater impact on our thoughts and making us think what they want us to think, just like in the case of Adolf Hitler where his excellent speaking has affected a whole nation. When Obama has used the term 'Slam-dunk' referring to the chaos in Syria, was in order to create an image of violence, or in the case of 'red-line' where we associate 'red' with 'danger' or even 'blood' or at least in my case. Therefore when the message conveyed is needed to be powerful or catchy enough to be stuck in our minds the play of word choice has a great impact on how we sympathize or not sypathize with specific occasions and how we link this words with our emotions and imagination.
Answer: To begin with, many politicians do not write their own speeches and that is because the importance of word choice. Each word symbolizes a different thing and could be interpreted in a variety of ways. Each word we speak or hear illustrates an image in our mind and our brain associates
this word with other words and images. For example, when we hear the word 'peace' or 'love', we immediately imagine calmness or think about the people we care about. However, the best example I could give is what I just wrote, that is because when my intention was only to write 'peace' the word love came up to my mind, proving how our diction has an affect to the feelings we experience and thethoughts we think about. In the case of foreign policy, each politician has chosen their words carefully in way to create a greater impact on our thoughts and making us think what they want us to think, just like in the case of Adolf Hitler where his excellent speaking has affected a whole nation. When Obama has used the term 'Slam-dunk' referring to the chaos in Syria, was in order to create an image of violence, or in the case of 'red-line' where we associate 'red' with 'danger' or even 'blood' or at least in my case. Therefore when the message conveyed is needed to be powerful or catchy enough to be stuck in our minds the play of word choice has a great impact on how we sympathize or not sypathize with specific occasions and how we link this words with our emotions and imagination.
Saturday, September 7, 2013
Identifying a KQ from real life situation:
RLS: A survey that has been taken in the US shows the 51% of the Americans do not support an attack on Syria due to its use of chemical weapons.
KQ: To what degree of certainty do our emotions affect our ability to decide what is good and bad?
KQ: To what degree of certainty do our emotions affect our ability to decide what is good and bad?
Sunday, September 1, 2013
Creating a TOK Question - Using the ladder of abstraction.
1.Knowledge Claim: "Mr. Moussay's grandfather's says the fruits on his trees are ripening earlier and earlier in the year, and this must be due to global warming."
2. Topic: Global warming.
3. Implicit question about the situation: How does global warming cause the fruits to ripen?
4. Open-ended question about knowledge in the context of the real life situation: How does Mr. Moussay's grandfather can stop the fruits from ripening from global warning?
5. explicit open-ended question about knowledge using TOK concepts: To what extent, has Mr. Moussay's grandfather has used 'Memory', 'Experience' and 'Natural sciences' to identify the cause of the fruits ripening?
2. Topic: Global warming.
3. Implicit question about the situation: How does global warming cause the fruits to ripen?
4. Open-ended question about knowledge in the context of the real life situation: How does Mr. Moussay's grandfather can stop the fruits from ripening from global warning?
5. explicit open-ended question about knowledge using TOK concepts: To what extent, has Mr. Moussay's grandfather has used 'Memory', 'Experience' and 'Natural sciences' to identify the cause of the fruits ripening?
Saturday, August 24, 2013
MY FIRST TOK ASSIGNEMNT!!
As my first TOK assignment I have to rank my IB subjects from the ones in which in my opinion are the most important as knowledge providers and has affected my knowledge the most. As much as it sounds easy, I have tried to think what subjects are the most important in life. Now, I bet most people would jump immediately to a conclusion and claim Math or English, and that is totally understandable. However, that is not necessarily the subjects that has mostly affected my point of view in life. So in order to do this assignment I had to take another step backward and try to look at the greater picture and first try to figure out who am I.
1. Hebrew: I have chosen Hebrew as the 1st subject in which as provided me in my opinion with the most knowledge since I have met a conclusion that our first language we speak, mostly defines the type of person we would be. Each language has it's own unique way of speaking and communicating and as we all know communication is the key factor for understanding and respecting people's thoughts and ideas. Each language is affected by a different cultural background and each culture believes in a different keys of respect and beliefs. Therefore in my opinion Hebrew is the most important subject that has affected my knowledge in life.
2. English: My 2nd choice is English for almost the exact reasons I have chosen Hebrew as my 1st. Since English is my second language, it taught me to look at life from another prospective like people from another places around the globe. It gave me clearer idea of a different culture and different people and taught me to respect people's different cultural views in which I think I wouldn't gain if my only speaking language stayed Hebrew.
3. Spanish: Even though I have never learned Spanish in my life I have decided to place in my 3rd rank. That's because it shares the same reasons with Hebrew and English and will allow me to meet a different culture which I have never got the chance to be familiar with.
4. Math: Math being only my 4th rank is because that although it is involved in every topic in life and holds the world, I tend to believe that it does not necessary teach me anything about living with other people. For instance, if math did not exist, yes it is true, we would have been stuck in the same position for 2000 years. However it does not mean we wouldn't be able to live in peace with each other and overall what we don't know does not hurt right?
5. ITGS: My 5th rank is ITGS since many people believe that the world we live in depends a lot on how technology will affect our life in the long term. Therefore I believe that this particular subject could benefit me in the future, although not as much as the subjects I have chosen above.
6. Physics: My last rank is Physics not because I think this particular subject will not
provide me with any important knowledge in life. I just believe that it has the least relation with how I would act and interact with the people around me.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)