Mental+Model+Question


 * Please make sure you bold face your name and put them in alphabetical order (by last name) to receive full credit. Thank you. (M. Grdinic)**

Eyewitness testimonials may not be completely accurate, however, they can still be an important aspect of our justice system if their flaws are realized. The bigger flaw with eyewitness testimonials is how our brain and/or experiences may alter our memories with time, rather than the inaccuracy of the mental model. For example, I have heard of cases in which an innocent person was chosen from a line up by a person who was convinced of their guilt. The problem in this situation is that the chooser had forgotten some aspects and had filled in the details falsely not that during the conversion from the objective world in which the crime was committed to the subjective world of the chooser's mind something had been lost. If the chooser could see both the innocent person and the real perpetrator at the same time, she/he would be able to identify differences between the two people.
 * Marielle Billig**

3. As this article seems to suggest, there is no absolute truth. Because of inconsistent interpretations of "sensual data," if you will, between peoples, objective models of reality can be difficult to agree upon. This brings to mind a sort of Cartesian philosophy; Descartes rejected perception as unreliable and formulated a logical model of thinking, deductive reasoning. Of course, deductive reasoning along with inductive is the framework of the scientific method. However, objective reality can not really be claimed by anyone. A majority of people on the planet claim to know the objective reality that their religion is correct, true, and maybe even verifiable (or so they think). Others find this unacceptable. They say, it violates principles of logic and rejects the scientific method. Objective reality seems very hard to establish. However, perhaps objective reality is not so hard to establish. Subjects defined by people (such as mathematics) can perhaps have objective realities. Equations have objective realities. One plus one is always equivalent to two unless your name is Winston Smith.
 * Blank, Andrew**


 * Matthew Bondy**

Eyewitness testimony is a problem simply because of the nature of memory – people’s biases and opinions tend to infiltrate the way they perceive reality. Another contributing factor may be the way in which eyewitnesses are questioned in long depositions, being cross-examined, etc. Studies could certainly be done in order to find the most accurate way to question witnesses, but then again, would lawyers even want to know the results of this? Or would they just want to use their tactics to pull the desired testimony out of witnesses? We see here an instance where science might potentially aid in dealing justice in a way that DNA analysis has done… only this time using the mind. It’s cool. We know that eyewitness testimonies are becoming unreliable for many reasons. But first things first,we have to talk about how the brain works. We know that the brain holds mental models that are storing an event, sound or anything that you specifically remember. But, you remember the big picture. The big picture that is held. Also, these mental models are simplifications of the real thing. Using these points it shows how faulty an eyewitness account could be. If someone was testifying in court it would show the big picture, but when they are asked for small details, the brain creates the small stuff and it tends to be what is being asked of them. For example, what color was the robbers shoes? Were they red? They tend to make an image of them in red shoes then even though it is not true. Next is that models are simplification of the real thing. For example now testimonies are simplifications, and then usually not as detailed. As Patrick Jane in the Mentalist said “ Studies constantly show that eyewitness identification is wrong as often as it is right, because the human brain is not a computer.” This is exactly what the article said.
 * Dylan Ekenberg**

**Shoshi Center** **2:** Even if scientific models are flawed and incomplete, if the models function in nearly the same way as whatever they are trying to represent, they are doing a good enough job that we get the gist of the objective reality. People may view things in different ways but their interpretations should be more-or-less the same, and if the models resemble each other from person to person, our subjective reality must correlate with the objective reality to the extent at which we can guarantee that the model does represent objective reality quite/somewhat accurately. Each person views things such as color a bit differently; the the differences are minor and can be ignored. As long as blue to one person is blue to another, it doesn't matter if one person sees a lighter blue than the other. And if we can trust each other that we are seeing the same color in reality, we can trust that a model (subjective reality) can do a good job of portraying the objective reality.

Question 3 Everything that we know to be "objective" is not, in reality, completely objective. Because everything we come into contact with in this world is based on our own mental models of objects and ideas, everything is put into relative perspective. Therefore, nothing is known for certain, and there is no real truth that can be absolutely proved. Although this is a very pessimistic and impractical view, our modern society has, based on the majority, set standards by which we live our lives. It is not always implied that our ideas are merely models because of the constant acceptance that the standard way of thinking is "truth" unless otherwise disproved. Personally, I believe this is a positive way of life. Everybody has a different idea of what the "truth" is, and we can gain other perspectives, wisdom, enlightenment, and a bigger picture of how our universe works by exploring the differences in truths. People also live their daily lives based on their own truths. They define reality as whatever they can comprehend with the basis that is their common knowledge model. Humans were born with specific mental models of the world and do not know any other reality. Therefore, if everybody thinks they understand reality, that's all that matters. Because there is no "right" answer or "real" truth to base our claims off of, all perspectives of reality are true reality in the minds of the beholder.
 * Jeremy Chin**

Question 2 We can never know for sure whether the scientific models we are surrounded by are in fact actual representations of objective reality. You could take any broad subject and argue that there are many people who have different interpretations. However, in some cases people view things fairly similarly which can give us a base board to build our knowledge upon. This makes me wonder, are some of the things we learn and view as simple knowledge actually assumptions or merely what we believe is correct or factual? Yes, there are things that are constant, such as the quadratic equation, which can be proven to be accurate, but then there are the more general areas of our learning in which I believe we may not really have an understanding of objective reality.
 * Chron, Courtney**

Question 2 Since scientific models are incomplete and simplified, it perhaps isn’t certain that we can confirm if they represent objective reality. Nonetheless, scientific models are still very important to our understanding of reality. It is crucial for us to acknowledge that these models are not perfect nor will they stay the same. We can never be really certain of everything. However, like it is written in the article, “The key question is whether [mental models] allow us to operate effectively in the world.” I largely agree with this statement and believe it is applicable to scientific models. Scientific models will change when they don’t work effectively enough for us, and this is prevalent throughout history. Perhaps we can’t be certain of objective reality but we can try to work effectively in it. All we need to be is resilient and looking for new discoveries.
 * Crowe, Sam**

Question 3: We can claim to know objective reality because we notice characteristics of it in order to form our models of it. For example, a scientist might use the mental model of the element copper, number 29 on the periodic table, to think about a substance he notices is reddish brown, shiny, solid at room temperature, malleable, and ductile. A little kid probably wouldn’t think of it as the element Cu before anyone has taught him that model, but he could still notice that the same substance is hard, reddish brown, shiny, and can be bent. Although these are two different mental models, many of their attributes are the same. When people’s observations follow a trend in this way, it’s likely that somewhere amidst all of the observations lies objective reality. With that said, I don’t think we can claim to know exactly what objective reality is. Like the article from class said, “Scientists assume that an objective world exists. But we can only know it through the models our brain creates.” No matter how hard we try not to, our minds must make models and generalizations to make sense of the world and retain knowledge. So while we can claim to know there is objective reality, and that we probably know some of its characteristics, we can’t be certain that we are right about it.
 * Kathryn Jancaus**

Since the process of the brain gives meaning to everything we can visualize, objective reality is only considered objective because it's what society generally considers true. There isn't a perfect way to determine what is subjective versus objective, but assumptions are made as to what is most likely the truth. The reading used the color example to show how everybody can have different perceptions depending on the mental model created by the brain. Despite the variations in mental models, consistencies with other people lead to determining objective reality.
 * Matt Coleman**

Question 3: Technically we can never claim to truly know objective reality. However if multiple people have extremely similar mental models of a situation or event, we can make a pretty accurate claim of what happened. The ironic truth of the matter is that even though we all have different experiences and different things that shape our mental reality, everyone still shares similar experiences. We are taught in school to operate under society's collective mental model which gives us all a basis for what we consider truth. Additionally we now have things like video tape and photography which makes it easier to accurately determine truth if the mind fails initially.
 * Kim Hill**

Question 1: Although eye witness testimonies are not always 100 % accurate, they still have there benefits. After reading this article, it became evident that nothing we percieve is 100% accurate. I think it is still beneficial because it gives the judges different perspective on the same problem. Having this variety of opinions/perspective can help the judges create their own model of the crime committed. The problem with eye witness testimonies is that people only recall certain parts of an event. This may be decieving to people who are listening to the testimonie since they are trying to create their own mental model of what happened. Overall, i believe that eye witness testimonies should still be used. However, i think that the judge defianately would need more evidence.
 * Nadia Homedi**

Question 1: I believe that the interesting thing about eyewitness testimonies is that a lot of the mental models may be based on a fragment of memory in a particular incident. As most people do not possess photographic memories, it becomes very difficult to recall specific features or details. The brain may trick the witness into believing he/she is right, but just like with the game "Telephone", there is a limit to how much information remains at the end of all that "retelling" of the story. The mental model may even be predicated based on race even though people don't admit it. Since it's difficult to know specific details on another person's race, the witness will be subjective. It may seem to not matter at the time, but people may have been imprisoned falsely under someone's mental model, or how the defendant presents themselves or looks to the witness. There is no way to be truly objective in humans, only machines can partially accomplish that by recording every single detail. Our brains are living things and thought is intangible, unlike a computer. Question 1: I can definitely understand why eyewitness testimony has come under more fire in the last few years. As this idea of the "mental model" has emerged as a primary way to explain personal views and ideas on situations, testimony experts have most likely discovered that each eyewitness has his or her own mental model, and that model is certainly not objective. Also, as what was previously defined as objective science becomes more and more vague, individuals who are not properly trained in forensic or criminal sciences cannot be fully trusted with determining the outcomes of a case. Each person's "perceptions" shape their own, unique mental model, so perhaps our own criminal system can no longer be considered objective!
 * Edward Kang**
 * Alex Kaplan**

1. Eyewitness testimonies may be becoming more unreliable as we continue to learn more about the human mind because the images that people claim as fact can be subjective. Whether viewing from other perspectives, or not picking up on close detail, everybody perceives things in different ways. The perspectives that people choose often lead stem from their opinions of the situations in general, whether consciously or subconsciously. Therefore, these testimonies can be seen as biased. I believe that the closer to getting information about the whole picture, the closer we can get to the truth. It is necessary to hear as many people's perspectives as possible to see different sides, and to ensure that the details match up.
 * Kerstein, Arin**

3. I don't think that we can claim to "know" objective reality. The idea of subjectivity means that we will never be 100% certain about any one thing in the universe. This is an odd thought, because of how many things society presents as certain. While I think it's beneficial to be aware of the fact that nothing is 100% true, we can only let it affect us to an extent. If we were to question every idea that was presented to us as a fact, it would paralyze us daily. I think the better question to ask our selves is not how we can claim to know, but when we should claim to know. Certain facts are presented as objective reality for a reason or that we do not have the ability to question. However, part of being a student is experiencing the process of questioning. Each time we complete an experiment in class, it's out way of questioning the facts that are presented to us.
 * Natalie Knez**

1. We know that eye witness accounts can be unreliable because the witnesses accounts are subjective. Just like many other observations we make, there I s no way to determine truth, degree, or any other measure of reality. If I were to say that the bank robber was wearing a black shirt, I could be colorblind and really the shirt may have been red. While it may seem unrealistic that someone would be colorblind without knowing it, that is a plausible situation if someone had problems identifying colors or was only slightly colorblind. A eye-witness might say that the robber was tall, but if that witness was only 4 feet tall, it would be very difficult to use that account effectively. The eye-witness may have some bias that compels them to tell a certain account. All of these are great examples of how eye-witness accounts can be so subjective because there is no one "true reality
 * Ethan Matlin**

Tommy Muldoon
 * 2: many models we use in school only represent a fraction of what is truly happening in the entire system. For example, in a field model, only one type of energy is usually shown. This provides us with a small portion of the total information needed, with the rest being supplied by other models. These models can represent objective reality through pieces of information, that, when put together, show the full energy changes of a system. This idea can be applied to all sorts of models, breaking down what happens and reconstructing it to find the whole picture. These models work because each minor model is an accepted example of what is happening. This means the model is accepted by all as a standard, making it our objective reality.

Question One Eye witness testimonies obviously are inefficient means of deciphering what is truth because each person can perceive an event differently. Additionally, it is often difficult to remember specific details, or deets, as some call it. In doing this, also make assumptions about the way the eyewitness conveys these events. What our words mean to us can often mean something entirely different to someone else. Personal biases also affect the way in which we communicate information. There are far too many barriers to properly have an eyewitness explain precisely what occurred. The large amount of variables present make this a bad means of determining an event. There is really no certain way to determine objectivity of an event.
 * Newman, Daniel**

Josef Niemann An eyewitness in any crime will remember a general idea of the event but will be unable to remember specific details. This combined with the fact that over the time between the crime being committed and the witness’s testimony there will be further deterioration in memory until he or she forgets all the important details. Furthermore, it is up to the eyewitness to interpret all of his memories into words that are supposed to summarize the event. Then it is up to a jury of peers to reinterpret the words into a cohesive story and is expected to make a decision on a crime. This chain of events might lead the jury to make a wrong decision.
 * 1

Question 2: If scientific models are always incomplete and simplified, the only way we know that they represent objective reality is if they produce results that are the same or very close to those we observe. Our observations might be flawed or different from person to person, as the article pointed out. But how often does it actually matter? Just like different people might solve a math problem differently but get the same answer, different people might see the same event or object differently but interpret it the same way. This is what happens the vast majority of the time. If it didn't, people would argue about things like the colors of objects all the time. I have literally never seen this happen, even though people's eyes and brains most likely perceive colors differently from each other. It's just conterproductive to take into account people's slightly varying perceptions on a daily basis, because the differences are negligible. So, since we can trust that our observations are reasonably consistent to reality, it's reasonable to say that a model that agrees with our observations is accurate.
 * Whenever I log off the spelling of some of my words change?**
 * Kevin Ray**

Question 2: If scientific models are always incomplete and simplified, there really is no way of truly knowing what represents objective reality. If you are going to believe in the scientific models, then you must have faith in them. Everyone is going to view things differently and create different models for everything, but it is all our own reality we are choosing to believe in. It doesn't matter what you agree or disagree with, but believing the models you create are real is the only way of knowing that this it truly represents reality.
 * Josh Simone**

//Question 3:// It is possible to know objective reality. In order to do this all one needs to do is reject the reality of others: solipsism, or at least a form of it. By viewing our reality as //the// reality we get rid of all sorts of ugly metaphysical qualms, such as how all people can relate. I do not believe in a solipsism which states that I myself am the only being in the world, but I find it very convenient to view my reality as objective, as should we all. The only case in which this falls apart is in the case of mental illness, in which it is not conducive to view your own reality as objective--luckily, if one is mentally ill, society will inform them so they know their reality probably isn't objective. It may be a little narcissistic, but I believe that the way I view the world is the world, and am assured in this fact. The fact that various models--scientific theories that model the universe, pictures that model the world that both I and others find pleasing--work only reassure me in that my worldview is right and objective.
 * Ross Steinberg**

Jonny Wagner Question 1: It is pretty evident thateyewitness testimony has gone under fire recently. The testimony itself is mental model to explain what the person saw thought or heard during the time of the crime. The testimony is just a way of explaining what is in the witnesses brain based off their perception of what happened.Numerous times people could have a false perception of what has happened or are purposely lying to try to sway the outcome one way or another. The eyewitness provides no hard evidence and the evidence that it does provide can only be based off of perception depending on whether the evidence is important, perceived to be true, or all of the above. Since we can't go into a persons brain and see what has actually happened for ourselves we can only learn so much about what they thought the saw, proving eyewitness testimony is isn't as important as it can be thought of.