FW: [steiner] PoF study: mental pictures
You said ….
The mental picture is a pure concept -- which we can have without reference to any sense content -- RELATED TO a particular percept or group of percepts.
OK the part that I want to clear up is this. When there are multiple mental images related to a particular concept how are the percepts for each mental image grouped together so that the mental images are distinct? Could we represent it like this ..
Concept of tree: mental-image-tree1, mental-image-tree2, …, mental-image-treeN
mental-image-tree1: link-to-concept-of-tree, percept1, percept2, percept3 …
mental-image-tree2: link-to-concept-of-tree, percept4, percept5, percept6 …
>Hi Starman,******* If they're distinct trees, yes. As I said before, we first group
>You said ..
>The mental picture is a pure concept -- which we can have without reference
>to any sense content -- RELATED TO a particular percept or group of
>OK the part that I want to clear up is this. When there are multiple
>images related to a particular concept how are the percepts for each mental
>image grouped together so that the mental images are distinct? Could we
>represent it like this ..
>Concept of tree: mental-image-tree1, mental-image-tree2,
together numerous percepts ----the colors green and brown, numerous forms
like the leaf shape, the appearance of the trunk, and perhaps also cones,
flowers etc., as well as the size------ into the object " pine tree" or "
oak tree" or " magnolia tree", each of which is made into a mental image
related to the concept " tree".
Or a person may do it more inexactly or vaguely by grouping together a
set of percepts (of color, form, and size) into a general mental picture of
a tree attached to the concept "tree" ---- but then, a person does not have
several different mental pictures, but only one, and a vague one at that. A
person who thinks that way will not have distinct mental pictures of various
trees but may not even be particularly cognizant of the difference between
one tree and another. So the percepts are not always grouped together to
make a distinct mental image.
How carefully did you distinguish the different kinds of trees you saw
today? Did you really see them? Or did you only really "see" your mental
image "tree"? Then you didn't have distinct ones. That's not uncommon.
Thenat some point people may start to really pay attention and see the
difference between a sumac tree, a magnolia and a silver birch, and they
have distinct mental images instead of one general, vague one of "trees".
So, as with all attempts to abstractly represent things, when you deal
with reality it makes a big difference what particular person you're dealing
with who's HAVING the experience, and what THEIR consciousness is like. It's
similar to how the Philosophy of Freedom arrives at the answer to the
question of whether we have free will or not.
The answer to your question is that sometimes the percepts may be grouped
into distinct mental pictures and sometimes not!
Stay up-to-date with your friends through the Windows Live Spaces friends
If the relation between internalised concept and mental image and percept can be expressed like this
Internalised concept tree: mental image-tree-1, mental image-tree-2, percept, percept ….. percept
mental image-tree-1: percept .. percept
mental image-tree-2: percept .. percept
Then can the relation of the objects to the universal concept be expressed like this
Universal concept tree: object-tree1, object-tree2