To expand on Yilun

There are definitely some distinctions in the effect and "power" between languages, for example lets consider the language of LATIN and English. You may say to yourself right now, "Latin is dead, what is so good about it," but i would have to contradict you, I would have to say that Latin provides more description, precision, and accuracy when it comes to describing an object. This is so important because one major point of language is to communicate to another the full entirety of an object, which is more difficult when using mere English.
Look at science for example, all the specie names of all organisms are recorded in the Latin language. This is not for the purpose to create another medium of some obscure knowledge, but instead it presents more background on the object being describe, it sometimes reveals past thoughts or beliefs, chemical makeup, and most importantly physical descriptions that you just can't get from the English name.
For example, the plant Cat's Claw, what does that mean?, does it mean that the plant is a cat's claw bearing plant, now lets look at the Latin name for Cat's Claw, Uncaria tomentosa, with this Latin name you can derive that the plant is hook like and that some part of of it is woolly or fuzzy like, in this case the leaves. This definition and description could be no way, no how received, when all you get is "Cat's Claw," forcing you to do more research than you would have to when you get the Latin name. What im saying is that some languages provide a reduction in obscurity than other languages, that some languages provide more than others.

Languages

Just to answer Mr. Perkins' question in class today, if one language is better than another. In my opinion, major languages such as English, Chinese, French, Spanish... are about the same level. These languages have been spoken and translated by many different races. Through learning and understanding other languages, countries can perfect and develop their own language. Chinese words like Fengshui has also become an English word. After chocolate was introduced in China, they kept the word with a similar pronunciation (Chinese: chao ke li). Americans and Chinese developed and perfected their language by learning from each other. Japanese is basically a combination of Chinese (kanji), English (katakana) and Japanese (hiragana). Kanji are Chinese characters and katakana follows the English pronunciation. Before the Japanese create their own writings, they learned Chinese and began to write in kanji. Then they wanted to create their own language, which is the hiragana. When the English speaking countries began to grow more powerful, many new western ideas were introduced to Japan, so they added the katakana. Japanese is a perfect example of languages learning and developing from each others.

Not all languages are at the same level. Some languages are better than others. Celeste Biever's research describes the language of a Brazilian tribe. Their language, Pirahã, contains only “one, two, many” for numbers. Two is highest number they can count, the rest: 3~infinite, are simply categorized as many. Even though the Brazilian tribe does not often need to count, their language is inferior than most languages. The limit of their language also limits their thoughts. People from the Pirahã tribe can hardly tell the different between 4 things in a row and 5 things in a row. They get more confused as the numbers grow. If the Pirahã tribe made connections to major languages such as English, they might be able to develop their language.

For more detail, here is the link http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6303.html

Tying Up Ends (or, The Making of a Gordian Knot)

In the last few student posts an idea has been floated that there is no absolute or objective reality, or that if there is, it really does not matter as long as there is intra-personal constancy of perception and inter-personal constancy of communication. There was also the introduction of the wonderful phrasing "looks-p" and "is-e." If there is no absolute or objective reality, or if it does not matter, then there seems to be no point in talking about "is-e." The character of Socrates in Plato's dialogue Theaetetus drew, albeit insincerely, on the doctrine of Protagoras that "man is the measure of all things, alike of the things that are that they are and of the things that are not that they are not" to suggest omitting the verb "to be" altogether and replacing it with "to become." Thus we would not say, "The book is red," but "The book is becoming red."

And yet no one communicates or thinks this way. We say that the book is red, that murder is wrong, and that our love for one's family just is, that it exists. In fact, all of our declarative statements and even our questions are grounded in an assumption of absolute, objective reality (that is, right up to the point where we want to invoke a relativistic viewpoint in a discussion of some thorny topic like ethics, politics, or religion.) When the teacher asks, "Why were you late," neither the student nor teacher thinks that the question or the answer are about an individual's perception of reality, no matter how constant that perception may be.

So let us assume for a moment that there is an absolute, objective reality, one that can be described "is-e." Is there not a sense in which many, perhaps most, people want looks-p to be the case to be the same as what is-e the case? In other words, don't most people want and even believe that their perceptions and objective reality more or less agree? In the movie The Matrix, Neo is disappointed when he looks at a restaurant where he used to eat, only to realize that it is an illusion. By the same token, we despise the character Cypher because he chooses the false world of perception over the less pleasant but real world.

So, are our thoughts and language about absolute reality just a pointless bit of mental flotsam? Does our ability to conceive of and talk about absolute reality serve no more purpose than our ability to talk of unicorns? Or is it possible that our deepest assumptions in everyday life correspond to the fact of absolute reality? If so, could the pursuit of knowledge not be seen as the ongoing effort to square what looks-p with what is-e?

LTP Paper Guidelines

Here is what you need to know for the paper that is due November 29:

You are a scholar of some renown, known for your work in Language, Thought, and Perception. Recently it occurred to you, "If I could but devise a way to capture my three most important generalizations about language, thought, and perception in some visual way, so as to make them intelligible to a wider audience, I could attract governmental, philanthropic, and academic attention and secure funding for further research." You have worked hard to produce your visual symbol of your three generalizations, and now you must present your visual by describing it in a paper to be delivered to a public audience.

Your visual symbol, picture, or diagram must have

1. a title
2. all its parts labeled

Your paper must:

1. explain the symbol, picture, or diagram
2. explain your three generalizations in language, thought, and perception

More on Darmok

For those who are curious about what was actually being said in the Star Trek episode "Darmok," check out this Word document, which contains info from the Web:

http://nclatin.org/documents/Darmok%20On%20the%20Net.doc

There is also further discussion in this document that could prompt discussion on the blog.

Some New Terminology

In order to help us to be concise and clear, I'm suggesting some new terminology.
To describe how something is perceived, in the MOST RAW sense, we will discuss how it phenomenologically is perceived; for example if something looks phenomenologically (now on known as "looks-p") small, it could be either a toy car or a car in the distance. Saying that something looks-p small is not claiming that the observer's perceptual experience supports the judgment that the object really is small.
To describe how something really is, in an objective sense (and don't give me crap about 'no objective reality', it's beside the point), we will discuss how it epistemologically is perceived; for example if something is-e small, then it really is small, in objective reality. Saying that something is-e small is a claim that the object is in reality small.
Hopefully this language facilitates discussion and avoids miscommunication.

In Regards to Knowing

Throughout the posted blogs and the during TOK class the subject of analyzing if we really know anything has come to play. I doubt any one person can be absolutely right, but should we not take into consideration the definition for knowing. I do realize that this question has been evaluated on the blog before, but that was at the beginning of the semester and now we have more knowledge to base our opinions.
We now understand that our senses are our only means of knowing and that those senses cannot be trusted.
We understand the need for faith, underlined in every way of knowing, but so far we have not incorporated this new way of thinking into the definition of knowledge.
If we believe that our senses are the only way of knowing the world and that our own unique perception guides our senses then we must also believe that our perception is the only way to know the world.
This perception is the only form of knowing we have. It is as true to you as the ten fingers on your hand (hopefully!).
Although what you perceive maybe radically different from the person sitting next to you in class, it is still your reality and your knowledge of that reality.
You could also have the opinion that what you perceive as reality is not in fact the universal reality, but do we really live in a universal reality were there is only one absolute truth? I don't believe we do (but maybe in your our reality you do). We do exist with other people so we have adjusted to a life by simplifying language, inferring, presuming, and assuming what may not have been said; we do this with the deliberate intention of making life easier, simplifying first and fixing the misunderstanding in communication rather than being specific to the point where one simple sentence can take a minute to say. For example, John walked to the store, can become John at two o'clock in Chicago time on the eleventh of August in 2007 walked on concrete paved at twelve noon in Chicago time on the tenth of September of 2000 at two o'clock in Chicago time on the eleventh of August in 2007 to the store at two o'clock in Chicago time on the eleventh of August in 2007. Was all of that really necessary? Not really, so in most human languages it is unnecessary and rarely ever used.
Anyway, what I really want to get across it that we do know something, not everything, but something and that should always be kept in mind.

Addressing Ben Tucker's "Futility and (keep reading) Relative Perceptual Accuracy":

Although I agree for the most part with your statements about the lack of practical application for a discussion of an "objective reality" I somewhat disagree with your separation between internal and external perceptions such a sight. For instance, you mentioned the "position and velocity" as being external perceptions while "color" was labeled as being internal. My question for you is: do you make a distinction when an "internal" perception influences an "external" decision? For example: if you are sitting at a stop light and your relative internal perception conveys to your senses that the light is green. And based on your associations with a green light, you push down on the accelerator and drive out into the crowded intersection....only to realize that the light really isn't green (at least no one else perceived it internally as being green!) so your flawed internal perception led to a costly external reaction...(a car accident). How would you explain your idea that "concerning internal perceptions, relative accuracy is the only thing that matters" to the owner of the Lexus you just hit?

Senses are the closest to Truth

We've been talking about senses for a while now. I admit that our senses are not perfect, but I do not agree with people who claim that we know nothing. We might not know everything, but we do know ALOT! Just because things like illusion and hallucination occur, doesn't mean that we don't know anything. Just because we got one math problem wrong, doesn't mean we don't know math at all. Illusion happens very rare compare to our normal perceptions. Most of the time, we won't call a cow a horse. Also, we have many (5,6?) senses for a reason! During Ali's group's presentation, we listened to some different sounds, and people made different guesses. Even though our ears did not tell us exactly what those things are, in reality, our eyes will tell us. When i hear something ringing, i might not know what it is, but if i follow the noise, I'll find out if it's the alarm or cell phone. We can also train our senses. We might not be able to smell our way home like salmons; we might not be able to see the floor from the sky like eagles. But that doesn't matter. Human and animals and plants evolve to adapt to the environment. We can't do certain things because we don't need to. We don't have to use our nose to get home, we can remember it. We don't have to see from that high, we can use a telescope. If we really need to, then just like a professional tea taster, we can train our senses and maybe evolve. And who cares if we are only brains in a laboratory? What we see, smell, taste, feel and hear are the only reality for us. I understand there are people who are (for example) color blind. How do we know if that's not what reality is? Maybe they are the only normal ones and the rest are all color blinded. But it doesn't matter! The society depends on the majority of people. If all people say it's red, then it's red! It's like a vote. If everyone vote for Roger, but Jon is (in reality) a much better person. We can't just screw everyone else and make Jon the president!

We Do Know

In response to a comment by IBBUTTERFLI4LIFE, "DO WE REALLY KNOW ANYTHING?The answer is simple. No, we do not. We know absolutely nothing about anything," I want to make a separate post.

We must be careful that discussions of problems of knowledge do not lead to the conclusion that nothing can be known or that there is no truth. Here a bit of specificity is important. We must talk about degrees of certainty, rather than some binary state of knowing or not knowing. I am completely comfortable saying, and believe I am truthfully saying, that I know my car is in the parking lot, I know 2+2=4, and I know I love my children. Yet I know all these things with different degrees of certainty relative to the ways of knowing I have used. Would I stake the life of my children on my knowledge that my car is in the parking lot? Absolutely not. I am aware of the problems of knowledge that experience, which is the method I use to know that my car is there, can produce. Just because it was there yesterday, and every day that I have taught at NC, does not mean it will be there this afternoon. I am reasonably certain it is...certain enough to say confidently "My car is the parking lot," certain enough not to feel anxiety as I leave the building this afternoon, but not certain enough to risk the lives of my children on this knowledge.

Response to the Role of Lies/ Humbug

In offering knowledge, it think that lying and humbug play a detrimental role. Lying is the worse of the two, I think, because the liar is at least partially knowledgeable about the subject at hand; otherwise he would not be capable of creating a complete inaccuracy, in which case he would be spewing humbug. (It is true, of course, that someone who has no knowledge of a subject can give a compete inaccuracy when speaking of it, but rather unlikely). The liar must have a specific purpose for creating falsities. Generally, this purpose is to deceive (either in what is viewed as a malicious or a helpful way). Therefore, the liar is knowingly offering incorrect knowledge. This is detrimental to any issue of knowledge because a discussion can not develop unless there is active and ethical (trustworthy) participation. He who 'humbugs' should be viewed in a less intense light because he is not specifically trying to harm anyone, but only advance his own purpose or protect himself from consequences. It is generally clear, however, when something is a load of b.s. because, unless the culprit is a highly trained expert, the ideas of the argument will not connect and thus there will be no coherence. For the person who is seeking knowledge, it should be reasonably clear whether or not the informant is honest or just b.s'ing. Furthermore, it is the knowledge-seeker's responsibility to not openly accept the information of an unknown (or known!) individual, but to search for expert opinions or findings that support his claim.

Man really is the one and only Measure

Throughout the last 3 presentations during TOK, one idea has remained the key and constant, and that is that our senses/perceptions are the basis for all we know. Whether it be called sense datum, perception, hearing-as, or seeing-as, whether it be based off of a belief, convention, or a name previously given, we humans have taken a step beyond the cold, hard reality-to make our lives simpler. We HAVE ignored extra possibilities and we HAVE skipped the tedious listing of all plausible instances. We have done this, because none of that matters! Today, when the group showed the ladder of categories, referring to the farmer and Elsie and Bessie the cows, it was crystal clear that generalizations were being made. Bessie was being categorized as a cow, and then an animal, then an asset, then wealth. (that's probably not completely accurate, sorry!) If, later, the farmer refers to his cow as his asset, he has skipped a few necessary levels of categorizing.
BUT here is the key: the number of conflicts that actually arise from a lack of categorization explanation, I assure you, is fewer than the number that would arise if everybody was forced to review each and every level of categorization of any one thing before actually referring to that thing.
Yes, when we humans make inferences, name things, or even just believe things, we are skipping steps, steps, and more steps. We are assuming, presuming, inferring, and referring back to our own faulty beliefs, which were based on even more faulty assumptions. And, all of a sudden, we seem to be living in a world that we actually know NOTHING about! How can we do this?; how can we live, day by day, year by year, just being A-OK with all the faulty/lack of reasoning around us??? DO WE REALLY KNOW ANYTHING?
The answer is simple. No, we do not. We know absolutely nothing about anything. And here is where you pick your path: you can trust the world your fellow human-beings have created, pleasantly questioning your own existence every so often, recognizing the faults of the human's perception, yet staying at least semi-content with the way of the world. Or, you can get rid of every last scrap of knowledge you possess, burn all your books, abandon your house, go find a tree, scrap your clothes (how do you really even know that they are clothes???), and start at the beginning, observing life through the eyes (whoops! that's a sense!) of someone void of all emotion, personality, all senses, etc.
In further reading of Abel's, "Matn is the Measure," we will most likely read about more problems of knowledge in our world. And rather than test out each new theory, each new exposure of humanity's faults, we can recognize and understand that we human's are not perfect. Any further hypothesizing and "what-if"fing" is an unnecessary use of time and energy that could be used trying to advance the world we have created, faulty or not.
so, I guess if you want one sentence for that, "ya gotta trust, or you're bust!"

Futility and (keep reading) Relative Perceptual Accuracy

We lost some class time today. It simply vanished, was sucked into the abyss. That abyss was the isolated pit of futile theorizing. This pit sucks you in through brain-in-a-vat scenarios and personally created realities and once you're in, it's hard to get out. It's isolated because it seems to have no practical application, so no connection to our lives. It's the pinnacle of perverse examples and counterexamples that seem to exist only in philosophical discussion and not in daily life. Basically, it's a maelstrom out of which nothing constructive may emerge. Pretentious diction and crappy metaphors aside, it's a waste of time.
When we cross the line from language, thought, and perception into "how do we know that we know that we know that we know that we know", no good can come of it. So, getting back to where we should have been - if our perception is always wrong, and our perception is the closest we can come to reality, then we can never know reality. I use the term reality with the assumption that we are not brains in vats but rather that we are brains in environments that are, more or less, what we think they [environments] are.
Yet despite that fact that we don't experience reality directly, (it's masked by our flawed perceptions and corrupted by interpretations from prior knowledge), we seem to do pretty well moving about the world. For instance, I don't know that what I see as red is the real color of an object. Given some "objective reality", I don't even know if the object has color in any way that we understand the concept - but it doesn't matter. It's not important that my perception is "accurate", but rather that it's constant. I'll do a pretty good job identifying colors on a test as long what I perceive as red doesn't change to green; as long as how I experience depth and distance stays the same as it's been for my life so far, I think I can do pretty well not getting hit by a car and picking objects up off of tables. Therefore, the concept of objective accuracy of perception is irrelevant. There is such a vast amount that we can't be very sure about, let alone know, that we can't go by comparing what we perceive to what is supposed to really be there.
So given that objective accuracy is irrelevant we've got to find something about perceptual accuracy that is relevant. Ladies and gentlemen, behold relative accuracy. My perception in relation to an objective reality doesn't matter as long as my perception is constant relative to itself. Rather than be sucked into the abyss of objective perception, brain-in-a-vat, and electrical manifestation, let's stick to something that matters- relative perceptual accuracy.
Edit: So I realized something- my statements about relative perceptual accuracy are only right for internal things like color perception. It DOES matter if my relative perception doesn't line up with objective reality in some (many) external cases- even if I always perceive depth and distance a certain way, my mode of perception could be inaccurate in such a way that I perceive a car as far away with constant and accurate relative perception, but such that the car is, in an objective sense, about to hit me. Point is, even though my sight met my qualifications for relative perceptual accuracy, it wasn't right objectively, and the car hit me [How's that for practical application]. Therefore, revised with this in mind: Given that my perception's inaccuracies with respect to my objective environment are either slight or internal [I could be wrong with my perception of distance by a small portion of the distance, and my perception of color might not be the objective color], my perception is good enough.
-OR-
Split perception up into internal and external [internal is something like color and external is something like position and velocity]. Concerning internal perceptions, relative accuracy is the only thing that matters. Concerning external perceptions, relative accuracy is good enough with the assumption that the inaccuracies of senses are slight enough to not make a difference.

Knowledge through senses?

I just have a further example to add to today's topic of whether or not one can gain knowledge through one's senses. There is an illusion I found online a few weeks back that claims to be visually arbitrary--that is, one person sees it one way, another sees it another way, but not both. We've all seen this in optical illusions, but this illusion was different: it differed from person to person in its direction of rotation! I looked at it quite skeptically at first. It is the figure of a woman rotating clockwise. It was undoubtedly clockwise; there was no question in my mind about its rotation. My friend came in after I had watched it a few moments and said "That's a silly illusion; there's no question about the way it's spinning. Counter-clockwise." I was absolutely shocked. We tried for a while fruitlessly to convince eachother that the figure was spinning the opposite direction. We each had this firm "knowledge"--but neither of us was either right or wrong. After watching it a while, I was surprised when I actually witnessed the figure change rotational direction. One can actually force their visual system to reconstruct the image. This fits in very nicely with today's discussion; what I witnessed when viewing the figure wasn't true knowledge at all, though I was convinced that it was. My senses gave me knowledge that was neither true nor false; the figure may rotate either way. Then again, this rotation is constructed from simply alternating images and is not rotating at all, so perhaps the interpretation was indeed false. Either way, my senses did not lead me to absolute knowledge, which leads me to wonder: If my senses can mislead me in such a trivial fashion, do they mislead me in much larger ways every day? I now see that as an entirely plausible idea. And if anyone wants to try the illusion, here's a link, along with a great article about it: http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=27 (I suppose as a warning, it is indeed the figure of a woman. Not graphic but a bit detailed.)

Key for TOK Writing

A key feature in writing for TOK, both on exams and in the paper you will write your senior year, is the counterclaim. You must increasingly develop an awareness of and ability to deal with counterclaims to a thesis you are advancing. I was put in mind of this when I read the following wonderful statement by Steven Pinker, the Harvard linguist and author of The Stuff of Thought.

Not only is it a matter of fairness to acknowledge alternatives to the theory I am advancing; it's a matter of clarity and discovery. Much can be gained by contrasting a theory with its alternatives.... (The Stuff of Thought, p. 91)

Show me that you have read this by having it displayed in some big, bold, even permanent way in or on your TOK notebook.

LIES BUILD KNOWLEDGE!!!

I believe lies have many shapes and definitions. There are lies that are for deceptive purposes, and there are lies that are not deceptive but rather are more like arrows pointing to another source of knowledge. Lying for deceptive purposes have moral and ethical concerns, but what if you lie for reasons that are not deceptive, what if you're lying to preserve a secret, that actually might devastate another person in ways irretrievable if spoken truthfully? What if your lie aid another person through ways that cannot be attained through telling the mere truth? Does that make lying wrong? I DON'T THINK SO.....

Lying can be an outlet for keeping secrets that would hurt another and point others to a safe haven that is intangible through telling the truth; when i was a child, i had multiple pets, and as animals, they all share one thing in common, mortality---. When that moment came, that moment that they died, my parents would come up with a lie to soothe and comfort me in ways the truth would never had matched up to.

Think back to when you were i don't know 5, and you got this new dog, would you not feel devastated if you learned that your dear companion died. Parents cover up these devastations with lies not for the purpose to poke at and make fun of your emotions, they do this to preserve your health and well being, for most children in the early years of youth death is not always something that is easily comprehended, its in the child's best interest that these problems are locked up and prevented when necessary, and if necessary brought up when the child have developed some sort of more complex and helpful coping mechanism to get through times as such, if you deny this fact, just imagine yourself stepping into the shoes of a parent, and have to explained to little Suzie why Lassie died yesterday by a drunk driver in the middle of the night.

Another way Lies can lead to knowledge is that, when you do lie, you really can't stop theoretically and truthfully speaking. If you think about it, one lie becomes another, since you need another lie to prevent the discovery of the truth, as these lies pile up higher and higher,they would eventually have to fall over and crush you, forcing knowledge that you have held inside so long to ooze out, it is now possible to say that lies do have many sides, a side of deception, a side that takes over when truth just would not have sufficed, and a side that brings about knowledge that cannot be attained through any other ways.

On Lying and Humbug

I want to offer two areas of language use for your consideration: lying and humbug, the latter being a synonym for the concept more typically expressed in American slang with barnyard metaphor relating to bovine excrement. I trust that your vocabulary will allow you to decipher my circumlocution.

It is considered lying when I know that the amount of money in my pocket is $22.45, yet I tell you I have no money. It is considered humbug when I tell you that Sally has put your check in the mail, yet I have no knowledge of whether or not she has done so. According to Princeton professor emeritus of philosophy Harry Frankfurt, "It is just this lack of connection to a concern with truth - this indifference to how things really are - that I regard as the essence of [humbug]."

What is the role of lying and what is the role of humbug in gaining or offering knowledge? What issues regarding truth are you led to consider by exploring these two distinct uses of language?