Fancher And Rutherford Reading Summary

*After reading chapter 13 in the Fancher and Rutherford reading, I feel like Piaget’s work helped us better understand the cognitive development of children. I feel like the stages of development helps us better understand how children are able to think logically and critically. The stages state the way in which thinking develops. To me, it makes since because as a child I was unable to make my own decision about what would be the better outcome and what would be best for me. However, as I became older I was able to understand right from wrong and how something could be both beneficial and non-beneficial to me. The stages explain how we associate things over a period of time. Once we are able to associate these objects with different objects …show more content…
As I got older I learned not to touch the oven because it was hot and I could get burned. By the time I was 7 I knew that the oven was used to make food and it was very hot. At the age of 15 I knew that the oven had different temperatures which all ranged from hot to dangerously hot however, I knew how to control those different temperatures. I feel like my knowledge of the oven came from experience and watching others cook. If I were to start cooking at the age of 6, I wouldn’t have had a clear understanding of how to control the temperature of the oven. That’s why I agree with Piaget’s stages of development. The way in which I think today, is way better than the way I use to think when I was 18. I think that’s one of the reasons in which children and adults get trialed differently. When making decisions children don’t weigh out the pros and cons, whereas adults look at the outcome of the situation from different aspects because they don’t want to make the wrong decisions. So yes, as we get older our ability to think tends to grow more each …show more content…
Honestly, after reading this article I would say that I kind of had a change of heart about AI. The information presented in this reading caused me to think a little bit deeper on how computers work to process information. In the beginning of the reading Searle compared computers and computer programming to a mind and brain. At first I thought it didn’t make since but once it was explained in greater detail I was able to see how it was related. I think that computers can be taught how to process information like humans but I don’t think that it can fully think like humans. I feel like computers and its software are limited to human tendencies. I feel like the readings are focusing on basic human thinking whereas I am thinking about deep thought critical thinking. I think when it comes to basic things like typing, formulating answers, teaching a lesson or language, yes a computer can break down the words and meaning like we do, but I don’t think it can apply it to real life situations to fully understand how it applies. It’s like the thermostat explain, when it detects that its cold it turns on the heat and air when it’s hot. That’s something we think of doing when the weather changes. Another example is searching for things on YouTube. Once you find a video that is related to what you are looking for, they suggest a number of other videos in which you can look at if that one is not