|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jul 4, 2013 5:16:12 GMT -5
How do blind people think?
Pictures are mute. What gives them meaning is language, i.e. function, which is the same as meaning.
Take two random and different pictures, A and B. Where in those two pictures is located their "difference"? Remove B, A still looks exactly the same as before, so difference can't be intrinsic to A. Same goes for B, so difference can't be intrinsic to B. The two pictures don't say that they are different from each other, they don't say anything at all. Thoughts do.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 4, 2013 5:57:59 GMT -5
Some people just cannot do simple Simple to one is complex to another. and vice-versa
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 4, 2013 6:00:14 GMT -5
Can I see a picture of yours? That's pretty personal. Maybe you should take it to the unmoderated section. especially since he didn't offer to flash one of his ... hmmmm ....
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 4, 2013 6:03:24 GMT -5
How do blind people think? Pictures are mute. What gives them meaning is language, i.e. function, which is the same as meaning. Take two random and different pictures, A and B. Where in those two pictures is located their "difference"? Remove B, A still looks exactly the same as before, so difference can't be intrinsic to A. Same goes for B, so difference can't be intrinsic to B. The two pictures don't say that they are different from each other, they don't say anything at all. Thoughts do. You're taking top literally. His "picture" or "map" or your constructs of language -- in the abstract, these each refer to a form of conceptual structure that can be named and characterized.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jul 4, 2013 6:33:17 GMT -5
You're taking top literally. His "picture" or "map" or your constructs of language -- in the abstract, these each refer to a form of conceptual structure that can be named and characterized. I've discussed this with him before. I think he really does mean it literally that without pictures we can't think. Maybe I've misunderstood him, then I hope he will articulate his position with more clarity.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 4, 2013 6:40:58 GMT -5
You're taking top literally. His "picture" or "map" or your constructs of language -- in the abstract, these each refer to a form of conceptual structure that can be named and characterized. I've discussed this with him before. I think he really does mean it literally that without pictures we can't think. Maybe I've misunderstood him, then I hope he will articulate his position with more clarity. Well there's another point that I could make here about how different people think differently ... some are more inclined toward abstraction, others aren't ... some are good at spatial visualization, some aren't -- it's a long list. In any event, it's just a model that differs from yours, although I do see how you would find the two difficult to reconcile.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 4, 2013 7:42:51 GMT -5
You're taking top literally. His "picture" or "map" or your constructs of language -- in the abstract, these each refer to a form of conceptual structure that can be named and characterized. I've discussed this with him before. I think he really does mean it literally that without pictures we can't think. Maybe I've misunderstood him, then I hope he will articulate his position with more clarity. All three of us are programmers and intimately familiar with computers. As computers have been a fast and recent emergence, we have had to borrow and morph the language we use in other contexts to tame the purely abstract domain. In the context of computers we have hijacked the term "image" to refer to the abstract pattern of bits, how the bits are organized spatially in relation to each other. We hijacked the term because there was no domain specific analog. It was a novel domain needing to be mapped, and so we borrowed and overloaded terms through analogy. The essence if the term "image" that lends itself to being borrowed is that an image is a static snapshot of the spatial arrangement of a bunch X, whatever X is. The sense in which I use "image" is the same with respect to qualia. Take a snapshot of all the present qualia across all dimensions of qualia occurring, sight, sound, texture, emotion, thought, etc. and that creates a static image of the moment. String a sequence of momentary images together and that creates a temporally evolving image. Boil the image down to key essential relationships, eliminating extraneous qualia, that creates a concept. However you think and reason, whatever the meaning experienced for your symbols, it is a refined image that has been distilled from the image of your raw experience. It includes all dimensions of qualia, not just visual.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 4, 2013 7:56:42 GMT -5
I've discussed this with him before. I think he really does mean it literally that without pictures we can't think. Maybe I've misunderstood him, then I hope he will articulate his position with more clarity. All three of us are programmers and intimately familiar with computers. As computers have been a fast and recent emergence, we have had to borrow and morph the language we use in other contexts to tame the purely abstract domain. In the context of computers we have hijacked the term "image" to refer to the abstract pattern of bits, how the bits are organized spatially in relation to each other. We hijacked the term because there was no domain specific analog. It was a novel domain needing to be mapped, and so we borrowed and overloaded terms through analogy. The essence if the term "image" that lends itself to being borrowed is that an image is a static snapshot of the spatial arrangement of a bunch X, whatever X is. The sense in which I use "image" is the same with respect to qualia. Take a snapshot of all the present qualia across all dimensions of qualia occurring, sight, sound, texture, emotion, thought, etc. and that creates a static image of the moment. String a sequence of momentary images together and that creates a temporally evolving image. Boil the image down to key essential relationships, eliminating extraneous qualia, that creates a concept. However you think and reason, whatever the meaning experienced for your symbols, it is a refined image that has been distilled from the image of your raw experience. It includes all dimensions of qualia, not just visual. yeah ... that's the picture I had of you's picture of pictures anyways ...
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jul 4, 2013 8:33:09 GMT -5
I'm not a programmer. With computers we were forced to formalize our thinking and strip it down to function alone. The computer is not merely a recorder. A recorder is just recording the series of on/off (on/off is the "image" in your vocabulary). The computer functions on a meta-level where it acts according to encoded rules that say that if a certain configuration of on/off is recorded then a certain action is to take place. In other words, the level on which function is operational is detached from the pure materiality of the on/off image. On/off, like a picture, is totally neutral and meaningless, it is on the level of function when we get something that resembles thinking.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 4, 2013 13:25:10 GMT -5
I'm not a programmer. With computers we were forced to formalize our thinking and strip it down to function alone. The computer is not merely a recorder. A recorder is just recording the series of on/off (on/off is the "image" in your vocabulary). The computer functions on a meta-level where it acts according to encoded rules that say that if a certain configuration of on/off is recorded then a certain action is to take place. In other words, the level on which function is operational is detached from the pure materiality of the on/off image. On/off, like a picture, is totally neutral and meaningless, it is on the level of function when we get something that resembles thinking. What do you mean by function? And what is your occupation and education so I have a better reference for your commonly encountered mental constructs?
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jul 4, 2013 14:29:43 GMT -5
What do you mean by function? Same as what the dictionary says. And I actually already described it in the above post.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 4, 2013 15:40:13 GMT -5
What do you mean by function? Same as what the dictionary says. And I actually already described it in the above post. I left out the other uses of the word. The definitions vary and the one I am most familiar is the programming version, which is a way of transforming input to output. You used the word but did bot define it clearly. Are you meaning "function" as a transformation or mapping in a specific way: Example: the function of a knife is to cut. Input: something seamless. Output: something separated. All tools with a function change the state of the world in a specific way. There was a prior state (image) and a post state (image). Even if the effects are abstract, anything with a purpose or function is will change the image/pattern of something. Are you using function in a different sense than this?
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jul 4, 2013 15:50:12 GMT -5
Sounds okay to me.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 4, 2013 16:11:44 GMT -5
I'm not a programmer. With computers we were forced to formalize our thinking and strip it down to function alone. The computer is not merely a recorder. A recorder is just recording the series of on/off (on/off is the "image" in your vocabulary). The computer functions on a meta-level where it acts according to encoded rules that say that if a certain configuration of on/off is recorded then a certain action is to take place. In other words, the level on which function is operational is detached from the pure materiality of the on/off image. On/off, like a picture, is totally neutral and meaningless, it is on the level of function when we get something that resembles thinking.I'm still tripping over what you mean with this sentence. What does materiality have to do with anything? It's all qualia/phenomena. If you are calling it meaningless because you perceive it as intrinsically inert, I'm going to question that view. That is treating the image as isolated from the context of evolving images experienced and independent of the space of possible functions which may operate on the image. The meaning experienced when looking at a "picture of your favorite pet" is all the associations that arise when looking at the image, all the responses you can have to those associations, and the ability to manipulate the picture, hang it on a wall, burn it, put it in a drawer, or place it where you will frequently encounter the picture to evoke the associated memories and emotions. The meaning experienced when looking at your couch is a conglomeration of all your past experiences on the couch, attached emotion to those memories, how you feel about the couch now, the ability to sit in it, lay out on it, do things while sitting in it, sell it, burn it, reupholster it, move it around your flat, etc.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jul 5, 2013 5:46:33 GMT -5
I'm not a programmer. With computers we were forced to formalize our thinking and strip it down to function alone. The computer is not merely a recorder. A recorder is just recording the series of on/off (on/off is the "image" in your vocabulary). The computer functions on a meta-level where it acts according to encoded rules that say that if a certain configuration of on/off is recorded then a certain action is to take place. In other words, the level on which function is operational is detached from the pure materiality of the on/off image. On/off, like a picture, is totally neutral and meaningless, it is on the level of function when we get something that resembles thinking.I'm still tripping over what you mean with this sentence. What does materiality have to do with anything? It's all qualia/phenomena. If you are calling it meaningless because you perceive it as intrinsically inert, I'm going to question that view. That is treating the image as isolated from the context of evolving images experienced and independent of the space of possible functions which may operate on the image. The meaning experienced when looking at a "picture of your favorite pet" is all the associations that arise when looking at the image, all the responses you can have to those associations, and the ability to manipulate the picture, hang it on a wall, burn it, put it in a drawer, or place it where you will frequently encounter the picture to evoke the associated memories and emotions. The meaning experienced when looking at your couch is a conglomeration of all your past experiences on the couch, attached emotion to those memories, how you feel about the couch now, the ability to sit in it, lay out on it, do things while sitting in it, sell it, burn it, reupholster it, move it around your flat, etc. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about the naive materialism, or qualiaism or whatever, these are all just the expressions of the totalitarian dream. The totality is never really dynamic, because whatever sequence there is can still be reduced to one unmoving image, then all particularities are erased in favour of one primitive totality, and then the totality is neutral and meaningless, nothing is happening, it doesn't become, instead it's just there. Function can only be apprehended from within an already engaged position which presupposes particular and interactive entities. Same goes for thinking, you can't encode "if totality --> then totality". You have to encode function in the form of "if X --> then Y". If you shift your intellectual position to that of the totality then you're denying the effectivity of any function because you think that actually it can be reduced to "just totality, period" and that this totality is the only effective entity. The point is that when we think, we think function. To think function is to think particular and interactive entities. And even though there may only exist the totality, when encoded functions are to be effective then precisely because their interpretation of what reality is is effective, regardless of how ontologically accurate their presupposed model. In other words, function thusly encoded, ignores whatever is materially given, but remains effective nonetheless, so in order to be effective it must insist on a level other than the totality. Or, when we fully integrate/reduce the function into the totality then precisely because to grant it sufficient insistence is not justified, precisely because we think that the function not is effective. But if we don't then precisely because the function is effective, i.e. real enough. And in all this I haven't even begun to reflect on the fact that the notion of the totality is itself merely a thought construct. This reflection is the less complicated one and would be the final nail into the coffin of the totalitarian dream and would require us to shift attention to how function manifests and it what it effects. I have already written down this reflection in sdp's Jed thread.
|
|