need your opinion 5

Read each paragraph tell me if you agree or disagree with the paragraph

1.

Synesthesia is a neurological phenomenon in which stimulation of one sensory or cognitive pathway leads to involuntary experiences in a second sensory or cognitive pathway.

Top-down and bottom-up theories of perception are interesting, yet complex processes to fully comprehend. Therefore, I will simply state that Top-Down Processing is when perception is constructed by cognition (Bypass Publishing, 2013). For example: A woman putting her hand inside her messy purse, searching for her keys without being able to see inside it. She is searching with her visual memory of what she knows is in her purse. Bottom-Up Processing is when perception directs cognition (Bypass Publishing, 2013). For example: Watching a mosquito fly around the room. The eyes see the mosquito. The ears hear the mosquito buzzing (perception). The brain perceives these sensory cues and directs the behavior of swatting the mosquito away.

One specific type of synesthesia is called Chromesthesia. This type of synesthesia has to do with sound-to-color responses. Chromesthesia is described as “synesthesia in which color is perceived in response to stimuli (as words or numbers) that contain no element of color” (Merriam-Webster, 2019). One very famous artist was said to have experienced this neurological phenomenon, Vincent Van Gogh was his name. Although most synesthetes hypothesize this in response to his paintings there has been no way to confirm this. Another famous artist, Billy Joel, is a self-proclaimed musician with chromesthesia and grapheme-color experiences. As he described in an interview with a Psychology Today writer “When I think of different types of melodies which are slower or softer, I think in terms of blues or greens. When I have a particularly vivid color, it’s usually a strong melodic, strong rhythmic pattern that emerges at the same time” (Elise, 2016).

Based upon testing my own perceptual patterns with an online test “Are you a Synesthete?” from the website Synesthesia.com, I would say that synesthesia itself is based upon higher-level processes. The idea that by displaying a simple letter or word is capable to trigger an internal color image would be regarded as high-level. Whereas the displaying of the word or number in a colored font to test the match-up or discrepancy with your own internal color response, would be considered more low-level processing.

2.

Robinson-Riegler & Robinson-Riegler (2012) defines synesthesia as “experiences in which input from sensory system produces an experience not only in that modality but in another as well”. One common type of synesthesia is where a person associates a letter or number with a color. Psychology Today (2016) states that 5% of the population in world has synesthesia and that there are over 60 different types reported. Synesthesia seems to be more based off low-level or higher-level processes. Ramachnadran & Brang (2008) state that it depends on type of synesthesia being experienced. For example, someone who is associating roman numerals with a color then it would be low-level but if a the person associates the color with days, weeks, years then it would be higher-level processing. Synesthesia seems to run in families and can be linked to genes that person has. Richard Phillips Feynman is quoted by Synesthesia Digital Library (2012) as saying “When I see equation, I see the letters in colors, I don’t know why.” Bottom-up theory insists that perception drives cognition while top-down theory insists that perception is developed through cognition (Mayhorn, 2013). Top-down theory claims that the reason foreign language is not perceived by individuals of outside culture is because there is no cognitive map to perceive the meaning. As well as other ways certain cultures see certain processes.

3.

Students should be permitted to use cognitive enhancers if their reasons for using these enhancements are reflective of ideals of personal excellence.

Cognition is the complex interaction between a multiplicity of mental functions and neurological processes. In respect to overall cognition, according to Enck (2013) the use of cognitive enhancers by affecting neurotransmitters in the cortical and sub-cortical systems augment the capacities of focus and concentration. Yet, cognitive enhancers do not bypass or “shortcut” the workload or the experience of academia (Enck, 2013). A student using cognitive enhancers still has to do the same amount of academic work, but in augmenting his or her capacities of focus and concentration, they are simply using these capacities more efficiently and effectively (Enck, 2013). Achievement in academia ultimately rests upon the student. A student, whether using cognitive enhancers or not, still has to make a decision to actually do the work. It is true that cognitive enhancers do directly affect a student in ways that a laptop or quiet apartments do not, yet the decision to do the academic work is the antecedent condition for academic success. Simply using cognitive enhancers or any enhancement does not guarantee academic success

The argument Enck (2013) uses is that of virtue or human excellence. He suggests that universities want virtuous students or those which poses virtue. He states that a virtuous student may choose to use cognitive enhancing drugs for reasons of self-improvement and this illustrates that under certain conditions motivation can determine the permissibility of using enhancements (Enck 2013).

However, before explicating his claim, he states the need to clarify the negative aspects of his claim. “My claim is not that a virtuous student would always choose to use cognitive enhancers, but that the situations and reasons a virtuous student would consider as justifying the use of cognitive enhancers are rather limited” (Enck 2013 p.158). In academia, a virtuous student has the practical wisdom for judging the situations and the reasons for when to use or not use cognitive enhancers.

4.

Stimulants or cognitive performance-enhancing drugs are an area that I am personally acquainted with. Not only have I been prescribed Adderall myself when I was younger for a misdiagnosed case of ADHD, but my son was prescribed Adderall at age 3 for a short 5 months, and I have seen many people misuse them throughout my life. My personal experience with Adderall started at age 12 when I started losing focus and had uncontrollable energy, typically in the school setting. However, once side effects did not subside and I became more anxious and lost my appetite social anxiety became clear and the medication was switched to better met my needs. My son was given Adderall after his diagnosis of Autism; however, his hyper activity went through the roof and aggressions became worse. When we officially stopped giving him the medication, he began to have epileptic seizures. However, I have seen and continue to see stimulants misused among individuals more than individuals who need them. Though such medications have proven beneficial for specific disorders they can have severe side effects and are prevalent in misused drugs in college students (Hartung, Canu, Cleveland, Lefler, Mignogna, Fedele, & Clapp, 2013).

In, “College Students Should be Allowed to Take Smart Drugs: A debate”(2015), the director of the Neuroethics Research Unit at IRCM, explains neuroethics as a new interdisciplinary field which studies ethical questions related with neuroscience. This is the process understanding the ethics behind understanding what is ethically correct. This Video debates whether it is moral to refrain from allowing cognitive enhancing drugs to the general population. Questions such as can these chemicals be harmful, can they cause academic achievement dominance such as steroids in athletes, can addiction occur, can these drugs make you smarter, is expanding the mind a negative thing? As I am having trouble with the library loading, I chose to use this debate to support my notion that this act should be banned. On the debate the opposing side argued that there is no proof that these pills make individuals smarter, no way to distinguish a line on who can use these substance college kids, adults, and so forth. Though it was rebutted that such medications increase dopamine which is scientifically proven to increase attention. However even individuals for the non-medical use of “smart pills” in college students brought light to the potentially fatal side effects of these medications. Stimulants can cause heart arrythmia, heart attacks, and even sudden death in users. There is always to potential of misuse, addiction, and increased agitation as well. It is suggested that such medications should be encouraged in learning individuals almost being compared to a simple tums to relieve a heartburn, as it has the potential to increase attention, motivation, and aid in overall awareness.

In sum there are some benefits to stimulants when in an educational setting. Honestly, I could probably benefit from them as well, however the benefits do not out weight the risk for me. A huge grey area is distinguishing which students would use it and if it gives students using them an advantage over non-using peers? If so, this could be considered cheating being against all academic policies. And what of the individuals who need these substances who do not get the same benefit?

 
Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!

NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.