John, thanks for all the great info in your last response!
On Sun, 2010-09-26 at 08:38 -0400, John F. Sowa wrote:
> But it's convenient to have a
pronounceable word. Therefore, an
> technical term, such as 'entity', would have fewer distractions than
> a more common word like 'being'.
Agreed. I was pleasantly surprised with the clarity provided by Wordnet
on this issue. Wordnet defines entity as "that which is perceived or
known to have its own distinct existence." Thing is an entity that is
not named, a hyponym of entity and within the semantic field of entity.
> > BTW - I tried this experiment tonight as did my daughter. With your eyes
> > closed, try to see the number 1. Can you actually see it, or can you
> > only imagine it ?
> The normal uses of the words 'see' and 'imagine' don't really apply
> to such questions in any clear way.
The purpose of my experiment is to determine whether the brain can
produce signs. At least in the case of my daughter and me, we can't see
the number 1 with our eyes
closed, we only imagine it. By imagine I mean
describe the shape.
> But the recent work on brain scans provides some interesting data:
> 3. When somebody thinks about an image or a melody, brain scans
> show that the same sensory areas light up that were stimulated
> by the senses. However, the frontal lobes, which tend to be
> quiescent in perception, tend to light up during attempts to
> imagine the sensation.
Seems inconclusive to my experiment. Do you know of any experiments
with a purpose similar to the one I describe above?
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx