Matthias,
Your remarks stimulated some interesting thoughts for me re concept
organisation. I agree with what you seem to be implying that every concept
must be a cluster of different POV images, and/or image schemas in the
brain.
But that cluster must have a normal organisation.
The biggest clue it seems to me re how the brain organizes that cluster
comes from our difficulties in drawing - up to a certain stage of artistic
development. We have difficulty drawing things as we actually see them -
hence "Drawing from the Right Side of the Brain". We automatically draw a
straight-on flat POV schema of objects (unless it's a chair, which we'll
draw from the side, because its structure isn't obvious, flat on). And that
presumably is because that's the topmost of our brain's image cluster for
any concept.
And certainly though we immediately draw a flat schema of objects, we do
seem to retain all kinds of moving-around-object movies which will be part
of the total cluster.
P.S. Going off at a tangent, has anyone thought re the technological
properties of the brain that enable it to pull similar shapes of image from
memory with such relatively great speed - e.g. driving wheel, plate, sun,
record etc? Does modern technology offer anything with remotely that
capacity?
Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
"Dr. Matthias Heger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The interesting question is how we learn the basic nouns like "ball"
or "cat", i.e. abstract concepts for objects of our environment.
How do we create the basic patterns?
A child sees a ball, hears the word "ball", and associates them by
Hebb's rule.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The hebb rule only explains how we associate patterns.
It does not explain completely how we create pattern.
If a child sees one ball it has many special features that are irrelevant
for the abstract concept of "ball" i.e. connected matter which parts of
the
surface have a common distance r from a midpoint.
Features like the colors on the ball, the reflexion of light, the value of
r
or the position of the ball's midpoint in space do not belong to the
concept
of a ball.
Remember that we get 10000000 bits per second from the eyes.
But a child extracts very soon from very few examples the right conception
of a ball.
And even if the ball is a relative simple object. It cannot be understood
from seeing alone. The child has to move around the ball or has to move
the
ball to get the information. In a sense it must do some research to
understand what a ball really is.
So the hebb rule is surely important how we associate patterns.
But I think it is only the tip of an iceberg.
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
