The nature of Human Experience
Introduction
Failures and success are part of the human experience. People usually consider failures as problems. However, they are part of the lives of humans. Failure and success can together be viewed at as subtraction and addition questions that school children are required to answer. When understood properly, problems are solved and hardships disappear. In addition, human experience is affected by different aspects, including reception and reasoning that are seen through habits, senses as well as choices that one makes. Human beings are capable of choosing between good and bad. They can also choose the path taken by their lives. As such, the explanation given for experiences or events by the legends of literature, art, science, sociology, philosophy, and psychology varies.
Today, there are several difficulties that are facing human beings. These difficulties are the never-ending stages of the learning process of human beings. Ignorance is the cause of the challenges that humanity faces. As they struggle to lead a morally upright life, use minds wisely and control power, humans will have a better experience. Mastering this will end all problems. Nevertheless, this is the viewpoint of a folk-psychologist. Folk-scientists have their opinion and viewpoints as well. Consequently, the focus of this paper is on the experience of humans as expressed in philosophical and scientific viewpoints.
Habit
Habits form a vital part of the daily criteria that humans use to analyze and explain experiences. As such, debates on human experience most probably handle this factor extensively. Over the years, the concentration of folk-psychologists has been on beliefs and attitudes. However, these are just some of the mental states’ aspects (Churchland, 67). Plausibility and autonomy of the opinion of folk-psychologists is reinforced by the consideration of a sample from the non-attitude habits’ proposition. Here, philosophies’ program is the major target.
In regards to habits, philosophy legends can argue in two varying but related ways. First, they may ignore the habits concept completely. Second, they can adapt the term “habit” in psychology by altering it to mean a causal link for an assumed behavioral trend that can be observed. Sociologists can argue this way as well. These arguments are both defensible. However, folk-scientists observe that the best way of debating about habits is considering them in regards to conditional activation and manifestation rather than causal factors (Locke, 9). Therefore, the above-mentioned philosophical arguments cannot win over the arguments of the science legends. As such, the general viewpoint acquired through habits’ consideration by psychologists has captured a paramount attention.
Something becomes a habit when someone does it in a certain manner and frequently. Habits are a composition of 
the skills of human beings. They are part of social behaviors. There are also thoughts habits. Even drug abusers confess that they accepted abusing drug as a habit (Locke, 4). The argument of folk-psychologist is that everybody has a habit of changing the accepted cultures and beliefs minimally. Literature legends and sociologists consider the practice concept as comprising of all habits of a person or the responsibility of individuals, social groups or institutions collectively.
As such, habits are a major aspect of the human experience although the folks have always neglected them. The argument of folk-scientists is that the explanation that a folk-psychologist gives for human behavior and habits can be reasonable only when it adapts a neurophysiologic viewpoint. Folk-scientists argue that the explanation of folk-psychologists depicts great failures. Science legends can explain human activity in a way that differs from that of the folk-psychologists to a level where these perspectives cannot be reconciled.
The claim of scientists is that a discussion on attitudes means that there are no joints. This is because the discussion is not about the natural beings with the possibility of being reduced to neurophysiologic states of mind (Stich, np). Scientists continue to argue that there is no possibility of undisrupted reduction to occur. As such, the opinions of folk-psychology and the proposed ontology should not be considered. Fortunately, the psychological perspective can be rescued by the opponents. This is because there is a healthy autonomy that is enjoyed by some opponents that comes from neuropsychology just because no reduction possibility exist whatsoever (Michael, 2). Additionally, psychological theory seems to be a craft rather than an ordinary theory.
Cognition
Human cognition is also an issue that legends would like to discuss. This is mostly the case because it is related to the appetite of humans. Literally, cognition means to know. The implication of this knowledge might be the memories that are formed after processing inputs and manipulation as well as what is perceived via different senses that include sight, smell, touch, taste and hearing. The cognitive process has its foundation in the direct utilization of knowledge in guiding and adapting actions with an aim of achieving a certain goal. The senses about what one should expect and therefore act accordingly are informed by the past habits and experiences (Michael, 4).
For example, appetites are developed around cognition. Every habit and experience of humans including food stuff, deciding to purchase or even cook food and determining when one should eat is covered by cognition. The mind is able to conceptualize and act on even infinite details in the environment because of human’s cognitive ability. Cognition involves thoughts’ organization into sub-categories (Churchland, 87).
Nevertheless, this can be a false argument because every category does not have clear distinctions. A science legend can break cognition down into different pieces and then another legend notices that they do not have proper distinction and therefore they overlap. Perceptions, memories, attentions as well as proper brain’s functioning can be expounded by scientists further. Proper brain’s functioning can be taken to imply the process through which appetites are developed with the involvement of the whole process of attempting to satisfy food’s craving (Dennett, 140). To illustrate this, specific examples must be provided.
First, the entire process is initiated by the perception that a person feels hungry but the fridge does not have food. This entails feeling, hearing, smelling, tasting and seeing what is available. This way, the person is able to respond accordingly.
Second, the memory stores favorite foods’ names. This enables an individual to order food so that it can be delivered where he/she lives. The memory’s major components can be short-term or working memory, the subconscious knowledge and the long-term memory (Locke, 14).
Third, logistics planning is initiated and allowed to occur by the executive function. This entails ensuring that food delivery coincides with a friend’s arrival, determining the food that will be enjoyed by everybody, solving possible problems, and controlling impulses as one waits for the food among others.
Finally, a person’s focus and attention are shifted from what he/she might be doing to being prepared to respond to the knock of the person delivering the food. The multi-tasking process is also made possible by attention.
This is a scientific viewpoint’s explanation. Here, science legends argue that cognition is made of the simultaneous operations of all the systems. In turn, this forms appetite while stimulating actions that help in the achievement of goals. Luckily, other legends have not argued against this explanation. Actually, a similar explanation is given by cognitive psychology.
People have a specific manner of socializing and this is assumed to be their character. There are different qualities of human beings that include skills, decision-making abilities and social behaviors. Even drug abusers confess that they accepted a wrong behavior. The argument of folk-psychologists is that the habit of all humans entails changing the accepted manner of socialization minimally. Additionally, the socialization concept as considered by literature legends and sociologists is made up of either a person’s habits in entirety or individuals, social groups or institutions’ collective responsibility.
Conclusion
This is an argumentative paper that shows various explanations and assumptions of the human experience that include development of habits, socialization and appetite by science, literature, arts, and philosophy legends. Each group has its explanation and perception of human activities and ideas. Nevertheless, the most autonomous and plausible explanation as illustrated in this study is scientific theory. Scientists argue from properly experimented, well-researched theories and reasonable thoughts instead of beliefs and attitudes as depicted by psychologists’ argument.
With PremiumEssays.net,you are assured of scoring the best grades.We are professionals with a rich experience in academic writing.Our writers,editors and support team work around the globe to ensure you get nothing less than the best.
Work Cited
Churchland, Paul. ‘Eliminative Materialism and Propositional Attitudes’, Journal of Philosophy,
1981, 78, pp. 67-90.
Dennett, Daniel. ‘Two contrasts: folk craft versus folk science, and belief versus opinion’, in: The
Future of Folk-Psychology: Intentionality and Cognitive Science, ed. J.D. Greenwood, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp. 135-148.
John, Locke. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Everyman: J.M Dent, 1947. Print.
Michael, Raeburn. A Picasso Anthology: Documents, Criticism, Reminiscences. USA: Princeton
University Press, 1981. Print.
Stich, Stephen. From Folk-Psychology to Cognitive Science: The Case against Belief.
Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press, 1983.