>Cheerskep said; > From all this, you may "understand" why > Kate's assumption of a "boundary" in > her phrase "the boundary between seeing a thing and > understanding it" gives me > trouble. I don't clearly "understand" her > notion of "boundary" but I'll try > this: When we receive raw sense data -- in, say, the form > of a vision or sound > -- there is a millisecond before the first association > arises in our mind. The > line between those two may be considered the > "boundary" between "seeing" and > (to a degree) "understanding". > > But all the neurologists and scientists dealing with sight tell us that > seeing is essentially constructed in a feedback looping between eye > mechanisms and cognition. This works against the linear, Cartesian, > assumption. So, indeed, "understanding" can rest on faulty science as well > as on faulty beliefs, or limited cognitive function, to say nothing of poor > eyesight.
Cheerskep implies that communication should begin with a blank slate with both the agent communicator and with the receiving communicator. But of course, the agent has all sorts of messy tags on any word she chooses and so does the receiver. We do rely on cultural norms to guide communication WC > > > ************** > Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for > FanHouse Fantasy Football today. > > (http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
