how our mind creates the images of objects in our brains — Don Wade

a big enough intelligence could read/understand/know your entire post in one second. just by pattern matching the shape of it to its corresponding understanding in the mind. the shape of it would be equivalent to one word for us.

----------------------

mind, brain, and consciousness are 3 very different things:

the mind is just an echo, and a remixing (imagination), of sense data after experiencing it.

sense data is in consciousness not the mind or brain

the brain is consciousness inner sense data fabrication of the thing beyond it creating it, whose image is then echoed in the mind when you think of a brain

cut open the top of your skull and open your brain to the visual center. then pull your eyes up and over and point them down at the electrical impulses in your visual cortex. look at those electrical impulses. that is consciousness's inner sense data fabrication of itself.

your next epiphany should be to realize the real you is beyond anything you can see. now you can throw your science books out and go meditate and transcend the body.

Seems like philosophers have been kicking that around for over two thousand years, and I still don't believe we "see" it yet.

language and knowledge is an illusion. its just association in the mind for utilitarian purpose. which is why its impossible to create an artificial intelligence without a body.

which is why its impossible to create an artificial intelligence without a body. — Miller

AI without a body...sounds like an algorithm...but really not impossible.

AI without a body...sounds like an algorithm...but really not impossible. — Don Wade

Kinda like those perpetual motion machines on youtube. haha

I concur with the OP. Symbolization, which a word is, is always an extra layer added to the symbols themselves unless...we're mistaken or haven't yet deciphered how language actually codes information.

Ess-Aay-Dee :point: S-A-D :point: SAD :point: :sad:

Nothing about "S" or "A" or "D" or "SAD" (the symbols: the letters & the word) gives us a clue about :sad: (the referent, the emotion).

However, I've noticed that it's always harder, impossible even, to say there's nothing going on than there's something going on.

In the case of the latter (there's something going on), all that's needed to do is detect a pattern based on some preexisting theory or paradigm. That is to say, we're in our comfort zone, our knowledge.

As for the former (there's nothing going on), you'll have to always consider the possibility that our ignorance prevents us from/precludes the identification of a pattern.

To make the long story short, it's not easy for me to tell apart there's no pattern from there's a pattern but I can't see it.

Food for thought: As an introduction to the puzzle of pronunciation, to pronounce "T" we need to be able to read and pronounce "Tee" but then there's a "T" in "Tee". I can't pronounce "Tee" unless I know how "T" is pronounced but then I can't pronounce "T" until I know how "Tee" is pronounced. Chicken or egg! What are the implications for deciphering vocal aspects of a language with only written samples available?

If we use the grouping-theory of gestalt to look at how we create words from letters, we can visualize how the different letter groups can be used to create words. The words then become the objects, made up of different letters, similar to how our brain uses different visual stimuli to create objects. I would like to use this as an example of what could be defined as "advanced gestalt theory". Advanced gestalt theory is different from just gestalt in that the established principles of gestalt are used to show how our mind creates the images of objects in our brains - not just the principles themselves. — Don Wade

Keeping in mind that there is a huge amount of research about how language is transmitted, organized, and used. Chomsky et. al. plus lots of others. Language is much different from other types of sensory input and processing. A lot of the rules of grammar and word formation seem to be built into genetically controlled cognitive structures.

Gestalt is a German word generally "loosely" translated in English to mean: "The whole is different from the sum of the parts". Originally, gestalt was adopted by psychology to cover about a half-dozen "rules" (or principles) to show how our brain organizes visual information. One of those rules is about "grouping", and demonstrates how the brain organizes (visual stimuli groups) into what we "see" as objects. The objects are then different from the different stimuli sums used to create the objects - hence, the whole is different from the sum of the parts. — Don Wade

Wow! I had no idea where the name "Gestalt" came from. My eldest works with a visual group named Gestalt! He does digital art that frames stages with moving effects at Lalapalooza in Chicago and now in Minneapolis for the New Years celebration! His visuals are going to be the count down visuals as well!
Exciting! And now the name of their group makes a lot more sense! Thank you :flower:

Wow! I had no idea where the name "Gestalt" came from. My eldest works with a visual group named Gestalt! He does digital art that frames stages with moving effects at Lalapalooza in Chicago and now in Minneapolis for the New Years celebration! His visuals are going to be the count down visuals as well!
Exciting! And now the name of their group makes a lot more sense! Thank you :flower: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

That's interesting as well! Gestalt seems to have a lot more influence and connections than I first thought.

Gestalt is somtimes perceived as difficult to understand, but that may be because it's not taught in school the same as familiar classes. Learning the principles of gestalt is worth the effort though - in my opinion.

No.

Advanced gestalt is pre word, consider the big bang as an advanced gestalt.

Words are double so it would be a "professional gestalt."

Advanced gestalt is pre word, consider the big bang as an advanced gestalt. — Varde

Gestalt considers the whole is a result of the sum of the parts - with an added extra-part that is called "emergence". I don't understand your concept that gestalt is a "pre word". In my opinion, "professional gestalt" would be someone that knows about gestalt. However, just knowing about gestalt doesn't mean you have advanced-knowledge of gestalt.

As to the big bang: If we knew what was before the big bang, such that the big bang was the result of a grouping (the sum of the parts), then we might conclude the big bang was (some form of) gestalt. However, I don't have a clue as to what may have been before the big bang.

As for the former (there's nothing going on), you'll have to always consider the possibility that our ignorance prevents us from/precludes the identification of a pattern. — Agent Smith

Good deep thinking! I like it. Reminds me trying to understand "emergence" when we are conditioned to believe in reductionism.

"Grouping" is one of the principles of gestalt that I like best because I can visualize it all around us in everyday life. However, we are trained in Epistemology to see only Reductionism. Like many other things, if repeated enough, it becomes habit. We (humans) have a habit of seeing things only through the lens of reductionism. Therefore, items like "emergence" dont fit, and are basically ignored by science. Emergence still happens though. Life itself is an emergent property. Just being able to visualize our environment through the lens of gestalt - rather than through the lens of reductionism - is a plus.

I don't quite get the notion of emergence. To me it's like saying a child dependent on his parents is not fully a person or like thinking light is matter because light needs matter to exist. Just saying. I maybe completely off the mark though, do bear with me. You know, it's different but not really.