Ravi, (01)
Common experience is a prerequisite for two or more people to
understand one another, even when they both speak what might be
called the "same" language. But experience includes much more
than just visual images. (02)
RS> ... do not the visualizations (since people do not want to
> call them picture theory of theory meaning) and mental constructs
> (models) expressed audio-visually or through subsequent clarification
> processes (similar to silent movies?) get us to communicate cross
> culturally and beyond restrictions of a particular language? (03)
Visualizations, by themselves, are not sufficient. The same picture
can be interpreted in many different ways. Trying to get meanings
across just be pointing is extremely difficult without some degree
of shared experience. (04)
For example, if you point to somebody's head, are you pointing
to (a) person, (b) head, (c) face, (d) nose, (e) nostril? (05)
And why are you pointing? (a) to designate a person or part of
a person that had been discussed, (b) to order that person to be
(c) rewarded, (d) banished, (e) punished, (f) praised, (g) executed? (06)
The number of possible "meanings" of an image is vastly *greater*
than the number of conventional meanings of a word. (07)
> ... rather than depending too much on text! (08)
It is sometimes said that a picture can be worth a thousand words.
But it is also true a single word can sometimes be worth a thousand
pictures. One very powerful word is "no". But there is no picture
that can say "no" -- except by a convention that was originally
explained in words. (09)
John (010)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (011)
|