Weebly



Everyone understands the concept of an education and what it can do for your future. But, do they all understand the importance of an education and what it can do implicitly? It is a common misconception that the explicit knowledge gained from education are the only useful tools that are necessary to be successful. What I have found so far in my journey is that there is more to be learned from implicit knowledge (informal or interpreted education) than explicit knowledge (formal education) because I believe implicit knowledge is what determines who you are and your perspectives of the world. It is important to note that the more explicit knowledge one has the more power they have to learn implicitly. Based on this belief, I have come to learn a lot about who I am, how I think and what I am capable of. My education has come from many places, but I do believe that most of it has been implicit. The way I look at it, if you compare the amount of time we have spent outside of an explicit educational setting to the time inside, you will see that we have been in an implicit setting way more often. Not to mention, if you consider the amount of knowledge you gain from the time you are born to the time we first go to school, the amount of information gained from implicit education has a very large lead. We start off as little breathing creatures that only know how to cry and drink milk. Then after about 3 years, we were already communicating, processing longer thoughts, and most importantly we learn about imagination. From this point, the amount of knowledge you gain from explicit education never catches up with the amount of implicit education because of this “lead” that implicit education has. Although implicit education grossly outweighs explicit education, I do think that an explicit education is necessary to help continue you the growth of your implicit knowledge. What I mean is that without our explicit education, the amount of implicit knowledge that you can grasp will eventually level off. The reason for this is that the knowledge you gain in an explicit setting exponentially increases the level of your thought process, allowing you to learn more things and link more thoughts together. Both forms of education are necessary for survival and are dependent upon each other for growth, but in the long run, the amount implicit education will be far greater. Regardless of which has been more pertinent my life, every second that we are breathing is an opportunity to learn, and I plan to learn until the day that I die.Education is a pivotal experience necessary for success in life. And through the explicit knowledge gained through education, I hope that you will find that it goes farther than that. What you can implicitly learn from this knowledge will substantially increase your chances of success. By knowing this, education becomes even more important to finding out who you are, because the questions you ask about explicit knowledge will open new doors that are not initially perceivable. Due to this, I have found that the only way to gain a better grasp of the world around you is through implicit knowledge. It is difficult to say that implicit knowledge will always provide new and useful knowledge, but the idea that you can learn from things you have not yet experienced is my motivation for furthering my education. Although I feel that I have a better grasp, I find it necessary to continue my education even further so that I may appeal to my motivation. Regardless of which type of education has been more pertinent my life, every second that we are breathing is an opportunity to learn, and I plan to learn until no longer breath.Discipline 1: Social and Behavioral SciencesArtifacts:YouTube video of a response to a news article pertaining to my coursework at the time.YouTube video of a comparison of Mexican and American FamiliesDiscipline 2: Mathematics?Hw assignment done in MatLab (completed in engineering course but it is mostly math.Quiz from Calculus 3Minor:? PhilosophyPaper written in PHI 3100- Ancient PhilosphyFinal Paper for PHI 3100Discipline 1: Social and Behavioral SciencesArtifacts:YouTube video of a response to a news article pertaining to my coursework at the time.YouTube video of a comparison of Mexican and American FamiliesArtifact #1:Explicit knowledge: Empathy is limited.Implicit Knowledge: I can use this to make adjustments to my speaking and video production skills. I notice that I tend to say “uhm” a lot and the camera was very shaky. Artifact#2:Explicit Knowledge: Practice makes perfect.Implicit Knowledge: I can infer that all cultures are different and an understanding of that culture allows one to connect more with that culture. If you are able to connect with others, then you are able to learn much more from your experiences.Discipline 2: MathematicsHw assignment done in MatLab (completed in engineering course but it is mostly math.?Quiz from Calculus 3Exam from Calculus 2Artifact#1:Explicit Knowledge: (please see example below implicit knowledge)Implicit Knowledge: The theme of being able to come to the same solution with different methods is apparent (see Analyst page in E-portfolio). Each of these problem can be solved by a computer aided program as depicted in the example below, or they can be done by hand. In each case, you will come to the same conclusion.(See page 8 for next artifact)1. The distance a projectile travels when fired at an angle is a function of time and can be divided into horizontal and vertical distances.H(t) = t Vo cos()V(t) = t Vo sin() - 1/2 g t2H(t) and V(t) are the distance traveled in x and y direction. Vo = 100 m/s is the initial velocity, g = 9.81 m/s2 and t is the time, 0 <t < 20 sec. Calculate the vertical (V1, V2 and V3) and horizontal (H1, H2, H3) distances traveled for angles /2, /4 and /6. Graph horizontal distances in x-axis and vertical distances in y-axis for all three cases. You will have three lines, make one solid, one dashed and one dotted. Add a legend to identify which line is which.2. Populations tend to expand as P = Poert , where P is the current population, Po is the original population, r is the rate, expressed as a fraction, t is the time. If you originally have 100 rabbits that breed at a rate of 9% per year, find how many rabbits you will have at the end of each year for 30 years. Create a plot with three subplots. In the first subplot plot t versus P on a rectangular coordinate system. In the second subplot; plot t versus P, scaling the x-axis logarithmically. In the third subplot; plot t versus P, scaling both axes logarithmically. Add title to each graph.3. The vector G represents the distribution of final scores in a course. G = [68, 70, 56, 78, 97, 65, 87, 84, 72, 90, 99, 85, 79, 96, 64, 88, 76](a) Use Matlab to sort the data and create a bar graph of the sorted scores. Add Title, and axis labels.(b) Create a histogram of the scores. Add Title, and axis labels.4. Create a vector of x values from 0 to 20, with an increment of /100.y = x sin(x) and z = x cos(x)(a) Create an x-y plot of y.(b) Create a polar plot of x and y.>>%Problem #1>> t = [0:20];>> V = 100;>> g = 9.81;>> H1 = t*V*cos(pi/6);>> V1 = t*V*sin(pi/6)-(1/2)*g*t.^2;>> H2 = t*V*cos(pi/4);>> V2 = t*V*sin(pi/4)-(1/2)*g*t.^2;>> H3 = t*V*cos(pi/2);>> V3 = t*V*sin(pi/2)-(1/2)*g*t.^2;>> plot(H1,V2, H2,V2,':', H3,V3,'--')>> axis([-100 2000 0 600])>> legend('H1 V1', 'H2 V2', 'H3 V3')>> title('Projectile Distance'); xlabel('Horizontal Distance'); ylabel('Vertical Distance')>> axis([-100 2000 -600 500]) >> % Problem #2>> p=100;>> r = .09;>> t = 1:30;>> P = p*exp(r*t);>> subplot(2,2,1), plot(t,P), title('t vs. P'); subplot(2,2,2), semilogx(t,P), title('semilog t vs. P');subplot(2,2,3), loglog(t,P), title('log t vs. log P');>>% Problem 3a>> G = [68 70 56 78 97 65 87 84 72 90 99 85 79 96 64 88 76];>> bar(sort(G)), title('Final Scores'), xlabel('Students'), ylabel('Scores');>> % Problem 3b>> hist(sort(G)), title('Final Scores'), xlabel('Number of Students'), ylabel('Scores');>> %Problem 4>> x = 0:pi/100:20*pi;>> %Problem 4a>> y = x.*sin(x);>> z = x.*cos(x);>> plot(x,y), title('x vs. y'), xlabel('x axis'), ylabel('y axis');>> % Problem 4b>> polar(x,y), title('Polar x vs. y'), xlabel('x axis'), ylabel('y axis');Artifact#2:Explicit Knowledge: iterated integralsImplicit knowledge: I use the equations and theorems learned in calculus to visually represent ideas in my head, even things that do not necessarily involve mathematics. I am unable to actually depict accurate descriptions of equations in my head, but I use the visual representation to help better understand the concept I am applying it too.Minor:? PhilosophyPaper written in PHI 3100- Ancient PhilosophyFinal paper PHI 3100Artifact#1:Explicit Knowledge: Please see paper below on the Logos.Implicit Knowledge: Definitions and meanings of words matter. The same sentence can mean something totally different to another person. We have a general understanding of ideas like love, justice, peace, and freedom, but ultimately everyone has their own definition for the concepts designed by the experiences they have had.Brandon RosadoPHH 3100- Ancient Philosophy2nd Paper11/30/2016What is the Logos?The Logos is a word that has been under constant change since its first mentioning by Heraclitus. Due to its constant change, there have been several definitions developed by several different groups throughout history. Definitions include speech, reason, discourse, and literally word across many groups including religions such as the Sophists, Hellenistic Judaism, Christianity as well as few lone philosophers along the way. Heraclitus’s concept of the logos was his answer to the one of the many, which he believed the definition to mean fire. His concept was centered around the logos, or fire, being the universal thing that interrelates everything in the universe. Much later after Heraclitus developed this concept came the Stoics. They believed that the logos is a force that governs all things and permeates throughout everything in the universe. It has always existed and governs everything through overflow. The overflow concept can be described with the depiction of a rain cloud. Very small particles of water begin to collect over time and eventually turn in to a cloud. When the water particles become large and heavy enough, rain is produced as those particles are removed from the cloud. What the rain drop represents is the overflow; the cloud can no longer hold the water particles so they simply fall out. With the concept of the logos there is a slight difference to the representation to the water droplet as the water droplet is not forced out of the cloud where the overflow of the logos seems to force out its overflow. The overflow that is released is what permeates the universe and governs all things. The Stoics break this concept down in to two basic parts a passive element and an active element. Matter acts as the passive element and the Logos, or overflow of the Logos, acts as the active element. As the passive element, matter is essentially just there; it does not move or do anything unless the Logos has acted upon it. The logos guides matter in certain directions and forms and through this interaction created the universe and everything in it. The Stoics believe that the mind is the only thing that cannot be governed by the logos.The concept of the logos according to the Stoics has been a major front runner for the definition of logos, and because of this, it has become embedded within the philosophies of major groups and religions. For example, the concept of god in Christianity and Hellenistic Judaism is the direct equivalent of the logos according to the Stoics. Needless to say, the idea of the logos has been interpreted differently by many but the central idea of a governing force seems to remain a constant in all interpretations. At this point, the concept of the logos begs a question that most will not entertain however it is very important to ask: Does the logos exist? By this I do not mean a physical entity with supernatural powers, but more of an energy source or catalyst that actually governs all things. The reason for entertaining the existence of the logos stems from my belief that there is no governing force. Before learning about the logos and its origins, it was my belief that all matter has always existed and that our placement in the universe (living human beings earth) was due to random interaction of matter. Naturally, I tested my theory by comparing it with the concept of the logos.My initial justification begins with trying to compare my idea of the one of the many with Heraclitus’s idea of the logos being the one of the many. My belief is that the one thing that interrelates all things is interaction, more specifically random interaction. Everything was created by interaction of matter that all happened in a random fashion. Analyzing this, I came to the conclusion that interaction is the governing force of all things. In relation to the Stoic notion of the logos governing all things, I could say that interaction is my definition of the logos, the governing force of all things. If the equivalency of these two concepts is accurate, then what I have proven is that the Logos does exist. By supplying a definition or synonym to the logos, as others have in the past, I have claimed that there is a connection to the logos, thus proving the existence of the logos. Taking this further, the one thing that all of the definitions of the logos have in common is the logos itself. That being said, I cannot disprove that the logos exists, but technically it also does not prove that I am wrong in my belief of the one of the many.If we were to compare the stoic notion of the logos to my notion of the logos there are similarities and of course differences. The major similarities are that random interaction can be broken into two parts just like the stoic notion. The passive element is matter and the active element is interaction where interaction guides matter into the form of the universe. The more obvious similarity is that the two both are believed to govern all things. However there is an underlying difference within that similarity as the stoic notion says that the mind is the only thing that is free and not governed by the logos, it is my belief that interaction directly governs the mind. The support for the idea that interaction governs the mind came to me from a scenario that I thought of. What if we took a baby and placed it in a room for its entire life and then compared the mental development of that child with another that has lived in the real world its entire life. It is my assumption that the child who was in a room its entire life would be less mentally developed than the other. Another assumption would be that the mind would be less developed. Limited or close to no interaction over the course of a life time will certainly produce an outcome where mind and mental development differ from those who were not limited to interaction proving that interaction at the very least has some sort of governing force over the mind.Artifact#2:Explicit Knowledge: See final paper below where I make an attempt at proving my own existence.Implicit knowledge: The information gained from philosophical inquiry can be very useful in providing answers to many fundamental questions that seem overwhelming to answer.Brandon Rosado12/9/16Final paper- PHH 3100In my previous semester of college, I took a course called the philosophy of psychology. In that class there were many great ideas that were brought up and talked about, but the one that stood out the most was Rene Descartes’s mind body dualism and his meditations. In his writings called meditations, Descartes’s goal was to try and figure out a fundamental fact or idea that he could base and prove all other things true from it; yet another attempt at the question of the one and the many. The topic within the meditations that stood out the most was he tried to prove his own existence. What he came up with is the idea and famous quote “I think therefore I am.” Essentially what he believed was that he existed as a thinking thing, because he could think, he existed. One night, after that course was over, I had trouble sleeping because I was overwhelmed with all of the things that I had to do and all of the bad things that that kept happening. The question that became redundant was “why do things always happen to me?” As I was laying there I answered myself with, “things happen to you because you exist”. For some reason I thought about Descartes trying to prove his existence and I was so enthusiastic about the thoughts that were passing through in my head and I thought that it would be a great Idea to document so that I could come back to it later and see If it was really as awesome as I thought it was when I wrote it. So literally at 1200am I got myself out of bed to write out on the white board in my room, and this is what I wrote. Part one: “ Why do things always happen to me?Why do things always happen to me? Things happen to me because I exist. Because things only happen to things that exist, it proves that I exist. the fact that I am conscious/unconscious about it proves I have a mind. If I do not exist things do not happen to me; I do not have a mind respectivelyLife proves existenceLife is proven by things happening to meBecause I am alive and things happen to me I exist and am real. Because I am conscious or unconscious about the things that happen to me my mind is also real and exists (it is a part of me) body respectively.Part two: Assumptions:Being conscious/unconscious proves lifeThings can happen to the body but that’s not meMe- the you that is you or the me that is me that you know or that I know is separate from bodyMind is dependent upon existence of bodyBody not dependent upon mind.If the mind is not dependent upon the body, then this could prove existence or nonexistence of divine intervention (god or gods) or some other fundamental governing force or forces.Part three:What if when you die, heaven is really your unconscious mind, you know, that large percent of the mind that cannot be accessed.That would mean that the little voice in my head is my governing force and my god. My own god. Everyone is their own god because no one can access another person’s mind, no one is the god of another.We are all gods, why do we live in such hard existence- death homeless ness, poverty, murderSome gods are more developed than others and some are also luckier (status)There are good and bad godsPart four:If we are our own gods then who created us? Things have always existed, just because we can’t see it (looking through telescope is like looking back in time – 14 billion age of universe) doesn’t mean it’s not there, the spectrum of visibility constrains thisBecause things have always been in existence you are the force that created you- by your god/mind, You me I- body plus mindUniverse is separate governing force- unknown- randomness. Universe created body but what creates mind?In all of time of existence and the things that have happened there are infinite possibilities [time does not exist technically because there is no beginning to the universe]Isn’t it possible that the mind was created from the universe randomly (or on purpose by some unknown governing force of the universe)”I was reminded of this thought stream as I was learning in this course. The topics that I learned and contemplated were the question of the one and the many, the logos, the nature of the soul, and Forms versus the forms. While writing my last paper in this course, on the logos, I wanted to add this script in there because I know that I had written something down about a governing force. But when I found the pictures of the original writing, I found that there were many topics within the course that I had thought about before I even took the course. Since there are no restrictions on this paper I chose to use it for this assignment. It has been a year since I have come back to what I wrote that night, so I decided to write it out, and analyze it to see if there was any truth or sound logic to it. “Things happen to me because I exist” - In this first part, I actually make an attempt to prove two important things. The first is that I prove existence by making the claim that things only happen to things that exist, and the second is that I have a mind because I can be conscious/unconscious about things. For the former, only things that exist can have things happen to them; this includes the body, mind, physical objects and non-physical objects(ideas, thoughts, and emotions). If something does not exist, then nothing will happen to it. For the latter, I can have ideas or thoughts about things (the conscious/unconscious denotes whether I am awake and actively control my thinking or asleep and having thoughts that are uncontrolled) and because thoughts only happen in my mind, I prove the existence of the mind. In relation to Descartes, the claims that I make are supportive of the existence of the mind and the body. But all I have done here is simply prove that the mind and the body exist. In the next part of the thought process, I make a series of assumptions that parameterize the thought process of the existence of the mind and the body.“Things can happen to the body but that’s not me”- At this point, it is important to explain what I mean by the term “me.” What I thought at that time was that the mind and bod were separate, but after looking deep within I came upon the conclusion that if the mind is dependent upon the body, then obviously there is a relationship between the two and they cannot be separate. I am a combination of my mind and my body, where most of who I am exists within my mind. The reason it is a combination is based on the claim that the mind is dependent upon having a body, however my body can exist in death without a mind. In the last section of part two, I say that “If the mind is not dependent upon the body, then this could prove existence or nonexistence of divine intervention (god or gods) or some other fundamental governing force or forces.” A clarification here needs to be made; If the mind can exist without a body, then this might be the proof of a god, and if the mind cannot exist without a body then there is non-proof of a god. The thought process here is that if that mind is not dependent upon the body, then physically there is no governing force of the mind, so there must be some other force that governs how the mind transcends from one type of being to another, and if it is dependent upon the body then without a body a mind cannot exist and therefore is governed by the body itself.For the third part of the excerpt, I focus primarily on unconscious mind and run with the idea that the mind is not dependent upon the body and make the claim that the unconscious mind is equivalent to heaven. By equivocating the unconscious mind to heaven, I have accepted that there is a place that we go when we die, and that the governing force of where we end up is determined by how our unconscious mind is structured. Our heaven is essentially whatever we want it to be, however because it is stored in our unconscious mind we are unable to define it exactly (in my opinion the unconscious mind is extremely difficult to control leading to the lack of definition). The unconscious mind is governed by the voice in my head (to me this is somewhat controllable while I’m awake and extremely uncontrollable while I’m asleep), and that voice is essentially who I am. Sometimes I choose to listen to it and other times I ignore it.In the fourth part, I talk about creation of self. The major claim made here is that the universe, through its random interaction of things in existence, creates the mind. The way I see it, we are made up of things that exist in the universe, and over time we developed and changed into the formation we are today. That formation is a combination of physical and nonphysical things (body and mind). The conclusion that can be made from this is that the universe created the mind and the body, and that the force that is you created you. At the end of this section, I contest that there may be another way that the universe has formed us when I say that the universe could be random or it could be on purpose. If the universe and everything in it was created through random interaction, then there is no actual god, however if everything in the universe was created on purpose, then there would have to be some other governing force to create that purpose, essentially god. The conclusion that I have come to accept is that everything in the universe is a random occurrence of events that led to our own existence. Throughout the course of random action we were developed by our environment (the universe), and our minds are what creates who we are. How we are created is directly determined by the randomness of the universe, but because it is random it is impossible to predict and control. If our minds are what created us, then that means that it is the governing force of the self. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download