Post at least two responses of 150 words each to one or more of the section discussion prompts

Subject:WritingPrice:16.86 Bought3

Share With

Post at least two responses of 150 words each to one or more of the section discussion prompts. In other words, you may respond two times to the thread of one of the discussion prompts, or once in each of two threads, and so on. You may respond directly to the prompt and/or respond to a classmate's response. To earn full credit, follow these guidelines: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Your responses should show clear understanding of the corresponding course material and original critical thinking. Include explicit reference to concepts, ideas, theories, principles, and/or research findings in the textbook or other learning resources provided. Students should paraphrase (state in your own words) concepts from the textbook or other learning resources; direct quotations do not show understanding and may not be used. Students may also include personal examples or opinions if appropriate, but these should be acknowledged as such and should reflect the student’s understanding or analysis of concepts from the course material. ADD SOMETHING NEW TO THE CONVERSATION. Be sure to read all existing posts for a prompt before composing your response. You should not just be repeating what someone else has already said. Reply to this: Prompt 2 Much research is being conducted on how to repair faulty sensory organs using devices such as personal guidance systems and eyeglasses, among others. Do you think that researchers should attempt to improve normal sensory capabilities beyond their "natural" range (e.g., making human visual or audio capabilities more sensitive than normal)? What benefits might enhanced sensory capabilities bring? What problems might it cause? Consider these questions with regard to any of the senses. If you are not the first to respond to this prompt, be sure to read others’ responses so as not to repeat what has already been said. Add something NEW to the conversation! Responses already posted make sure to add something new: Response 1 As someone who has worn glasses since age 12, I think that researchers should attempt to improve normal sensory capabilities beyond their natural range. I can barely see clearly 6 inches in front of me without my glasses, but my eye doctor gave me a glasses prescription that allows me to see at 30/20, which is better than the "normal" person who sees at 20/20. Having this better vising has allowed me to read things further away and be more aware of all of my surroundings. I think if we were to improve the normal sensory capability of vision, we would have a lot less car accidents and things would be a lot safer due to being able to see more. One of the biggest causes of car accidents is vision impaired people and if we were to improve everyones vision, you would expect the number of car crashes to decrease. That being said, a problem with this is that many people may be opposed to having better vision due to the need for glasses/contacts and those without bad vision may forget to wear their glasses/contacts, thus the positive impact would not happen. Response 2 I think that enhanced sensory capabilities could potentially change the way humans function, including from an evolutionary perspective. Humans have developed their range of hearing, range of seeing, and range of other senses based on what is useful for survival. Humans don't have as good of a scent like dogs because over time, they have evolved from hunter gatherers to having a complex agricultural system. In that process over time, they developed a different range of scent based on what is needed to survive. I think that making sensory capabilities beyond "natural" could be helpful. Better vision and hearing could improve one's quality of life, especially if they are already considered impaired in someway. One scenario where I can think that it would be harmful is that if humans had "better" sight, there would be no need for opticians or the industry of having an eye doctor. Many people would be opposed to eliminating this field of work because it brings in revenue and jobs to people. Response 3 I think enhancing the standard sensory capability is a double-edged sword. Take some specific professions as an example. If advanced technology allowed humans to own double amounts of taste buds that roughly 20,000 (according to the book that normal is 10,000), the professions like chefs and gastronome will benefit from the doubled taste buds. They can be more sensitive to track and distinguish different tastes, which can promote their career development. However, the negative effect is that since their taste is more sensitive than ordinary people's, they may feel distasteful or insipid for normal foods. Also, since their intensity of taste stimulus is much more sensitive, if they taste the extreme spicy or bitter food, they will feel agony. The uncomfortable feeling may continue for longer than ordinary people. In general, I think that researchers should attempt to improve standard sensory capabilities beyond the normal range. Advanced technology obviously can change human life, especially for disabilities. For instance, the hearing-aid to repair the hearing disorder and the red soft contact lenses for Color blindness correction. Response 4 I believe there are potential benefits to expanding human sensory capabilities beyond their natural range, however, only to a certain extent. Many professions could benefit from having improved senses. Pilots with heightened sight could see farther and might fly better. Firefighters might be able to save more lives with better hearing to detect people. Eventually, though, expanded sensory capabilities become too extensive to be worth these types of benefits. Having enhanced hearing in a noisy city could make sound debilitating. An increased sense of taste or smell could make all food unappetizing. Moreover, with an increased sense of touch, you could feel more physical pain and with an increased sense of sight, your vision could feel like looking through a magnifying glass. For all the benefits of increased senses, the negatives of sensory overload are equally ample. Until researchers can find a way to increase senses without sensory overload, the best improvements to human senses might not be to increase their sensitivity but instead, to increase the sensory ranges humans can experience. Similar to how a dog can hear higher pitches than humans, or certain insects can see more colors than humans, increased sensory ranges could provide unique sensory benefits of their own without increasing sensory sensitivity to the point of overwhelm. Reply to this: Prompt 3 Watch the video "Brain Tricks" (in the supplemental folder of this section) What concepts from Module 13 (Perceptual Organization: Constructing Our View of the World) of the textbook were shown in this video? Does the "System 1" vs. "System 2" thinking described in the video relate to top-down vs. bottom-up processing? If so, how? If you are not the first to respond to this prompt, be sure to read others’ responses so as not to repeat what has already been said. Add something NEW to the conversation! https://youtu.be/JiTz2i4VHFw Responses already posted so you make sure to add something new: Response 1: System 1 (green brain) is when top-down processing takes place. Top-down processing is when the brain captures information throught the eye by understanding the context without needing to decode the individual parts. This is used to when the brain quickly registers the scenario using depth perception and perceptual constancy. Depth-perception is the brain integrating two images from both retinae to form one image. By doing so, estimate the distance between objects and person. Perceptual constancy is knowing that objects do not change in size or color though the retina shows a change in image. System 1 is able to assume and conclude the gist of the picture or the sentence. System 2 (red brain) is slow thinking which kicks in later. It uses bottom-up processing to process information from single components to form the whole. It registers visual illusions which are physical stimuli that regularly show errors in perception and adjusts accordingly. System 2 takes time but is more detailed than System 1. Response 2: The examples of the lines that look like they’re different lengths and the women who appear to be different sizes are examples of visual illusions as discussed in Module 13. The lines example also supports the Muller-Lyer illusion, which explains the illusion in which two lines of the same length appear to be different because of how our eyes perceive them. Our system 1 brain operates automatically and requires little effort on our part. This is inherently linked to bottom-up processing because it allows us to take in sensory information quickly. Top-down processing uses more complicated knowledge and experience, which slows down our thinking and uses System 2 brain. This is where visual illusions come into play. Our System 1 cannot stop seeing the illusion because it is instinctive and uses bottom-up processing to disseminate the information quickly. Using our System 1 brain is beneficial for these type of simple activities because if we engaged higher level thinking all the time, we would be exhausted all the time.