[John]
> the verbal description is linear and
> interpretative whereas with the picture, it's all there in one quick
> gestaltish glance.
[ Ian]
> The picture symbolically will enable recall of xxxx thousand
> words-worth of conceptual thought, not because those words jump out at
> you or can be inferred with or without any interpretation from the
> image, but because the story / message has already been communicated
> and understood - and hence associated with the image(s) thereafter.
I hold out a leaf to you.
1) You can just experience its shape, smell, texture, etc.
2) You can identify it in some way (in part dependent on the knowledge you
have)—e.g., as a leaf, a part of a plant, a green object.
Now I show you a picture or photo of it.
3) You can identify "what's in the picture" [presumedly using the same
knowledge as in 2)].
Next I say, “Get me…[showing the picture]!”
4) You can interpret what is wanted in many ways: as the original leaf, as a
similar leaf, as any leaf, as part of a plant, as a green object, as this very
picture, as any picture, and so on.
So the questions are: i) Is the identification in 2) & 3), the same kind
of process as the interpretation in 4) & ii) is the interpretation in 4) the
same kind of process as understanding a language?
Craig
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
