Re: I Miss my Viewfinder !

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 4, 2011.

  1. Mxsmanic <> wrote:


    > This is easy to prove. Show a picture of a tree to anyone, and he'll recognize
    > it as a tree.

    [...]
    > Similarly, you can show a picture of a tree to someone who has never seen a
    > tree, and he will then know what a tree looks like.


    "anyone" would include people who have never seen a tree. So your
    first sentence is false, even by your standards, as you admit
    the possibility later.

    Second, show a person a picture of a palm tree and he'll not
    recognize either a bare tree (e.g. winter) nor a needle tree
    nor a tree in full bloom. So again, your claim is proven
    false.

    > Show the word "tree" to someone, and he will think of a tree
    > only if he reads English.


    He will probably think of computer science or graph theory.

    > The word is just an arbitrary symbol, which requires
    > translation to something meaningful. A picture is a model, which requires no
    > further interpretation.


    See above. A picture cannot contain everything a symbol can
    contain.

    > But show the word "tree"
    > to a person who has never seen a tree, and he still won't know what a tree
    > looks like.


    A verbal description tagged to the word 'tree' works very
    well, and is easily more correct (see above) and needs to
    transmit less information than your tree model picture, since
    the words are digital and the picture analog.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 4, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:


    >> "anyone" would include people who have never seen a tree.


    > Exactly. The analog representation of a tree is a model of a tree, and doesn't
    > require further translation.


    Great. I'll show you a model of something you don't know
    anything about, and it "doesn't require further translation".
    You now know all about it.

    Rubbish.

    >> So your first sentence is false, even by your standards, as you admit
    >> the possibility later.


    > If this is the best you can do, I may as well claim my prize now.


    Your prize is a fool's cap.

    >> He will probably think of computer science or graph theory.


    > He won't think of anything unless he understands English.


    Rubbish. Search for the string "tree" in google for
    non-English languages. Or use google translate. Here's the
    very first listed language for you:
    http://translate.google.de/translat...&bih=717&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wT#af|en|tree
    It seems, in Afrikaans, "tree" means "step" (as in stair).

    So again: Rubbish.

    >> See above. A picture cannot contain everything a symbol can
    >> contain.


    > Symbols contain nothing. They are just pointers to something else.


    A picture is just photons and thus contains nothing as well.
    Only in the brain the impulses from the received photons turn
    to pointers to the memory etc. See, I can nitpick better
    than you.

    >> A verbal description tagged to the word 'tree' works very
    >> well ...


    > Someone who can't read English is no more able to read the description than he
    > is able to understand the word without it.


    Where did you read that the verbal description was a) necessarily
    English and b) necessarily written?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 5, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    >Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:
    >
    >> Great. I'll show you a model of something you don't know
    >> anything about, and it "doesn't require further translation".
    >> You now know all about it.

    >
    >When you are shown a picture of a tree, you know what a tree looks like, even
    >if you've never seen a tree before.


    What a remarkably stupid statement.

    --
    Ray Fischer | Mendocracy (n.) government by lying
    | The new GOP ideal
     
    Ray Fischer, Jun 5, 2011
    #3
  4. Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:


    >> Great. I'll show you a model of something you don't know
    >> anything about, and it "doesn't require further translation".
    >> You now know all about it.


    > When you are shown a picture of a tree, you know what a tree looks like, even
    > if you've never seen a tree before.


    Bulls**t.
    When you are shown a picture of a tree
    http://feministphilosophers.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/christmas-tree-decoration.jpg
    you know what a tree
    http://www.clipartheaven.com/clipart/trees_&_leaves/trees/palm_tree_07.gif
    http://cwis.marywood.edu/archives/IMAGES/Arboretum, Cherry Tree.jpg
    http://www.main.nc.us/graham/graphics/hollow_tree.jpg
    http://www.freeonlinepicture.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/istockphoto_4392120-palm-tree.jpg
    http://cordis.europa.eu/esprit/icons/tree.jpg
    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lPpBsGKzcKM/TJeJf9qPEpI/AAAAAAAAAKs/w_vSoaBxtio/s1600/bleeding-tree-5.jpg
    http://www.freefoto.com/images/15/01/15_01_33---Tree-Black-and-White_web.jpg
    http://nature-plants.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Dragon_tree.jpg
    looks like, even if you've never seen a tree before?
    Really?

    Do you often get laughed out of town?

    > When you are shown the word "tree," you still know nothing about a tree,
    > unless you've already learned English


    Or Afrikaans. They too have that word, even if it means
    something different. That was the first language I checked.

    > and already seen a tree with which you
    > can associate the word.


    I've never seen lots of things with which I can associate
    words. Certain algorithms. (Paint me a picture of a merge
    sort!) Data structures. Electrons and atoms (not true, I've
    'seen' atoms, but only their outer shell, and only in a
    computer backed visualisation of the probe's reaction to
    them). Foreign solar systems and their strange animals. The
    necronomicon. A cat's meow. (ever seen one, I mean a meow?)
    A dog's bark. A silhouetted spaceship before a rising sun
    (as a flag).

    Lots of stuff that is conveyed by words and explained by
    words and where no model exists ...

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 7, 2011
    #4
  5. Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > Ray Fischer writes:


    >> What a remarkably stupid statement.


    > Billions of graphic illustrations over the centuries say otherwise.


    Nope --- they prove that a single model cannot capture 'tree'.
    It takes billions of them.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 7, 2011
    #5
  6. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Jun 7, 5:28 pm, Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:
    > > Do you often get laughed out of town?

    >
    > No, but I do get published, and paid.


    Now I'm wondering what for......
     
    Whisky-dave, Jun 8, 2011
    #6
  7. Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:


    Let me repeat where I proved you wrong (again) and you snipped
    it to avoid embarassment:
    - When you are shown a picture of a tree, you know what a tree
    looks like, even if you've never seen a tree before.
    (proven wrong by example)
    - When you are shown the word "tree," you still know nothing about
    a tree, unless you've already learned English and already seen
    a tree with which you can associate the word.
    (Proven wrong on both counts.)

    >> Do you often get laughed out of town?


    > No, but I do get published, and paid.


    Ah, *you* wrote Hitler's diaries.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 9, 2011
    #7
  8. Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:


    >> Nope --- they prove that a single model cannot capture 'tree'.
    >> It takes billions of them.


    > How many, exactly?


    That differs from person to person, obviously.
    Just to get you to think: How many Jesus statues does it take
    --- if they are the only source and the subject has no previous
    knowledge of religion, especially none of the religions of the
    book --- to completely understand Jesus and his teachings and
    all that he embodies?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 9, 2011
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. MC

    Re: I Miss my Viewfinder !

    MC, May 14, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    375
    ASCII
    May 24, 2011
  2. ray

    Re: I Miss my Viewfinder !

    ray, May 15, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    729
    Views:
    9,211
    John Turco
    Sep 16, 2011
  3. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    Re: I Miss my Viewfinder !

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 16, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    238
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    May 18, 2011
  4. David Dyer-Bennet

    Re: I Miss my Viewfinder !

    David Dyer-Bennet, May 24, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    243
    David Dyer-Bennet
    May 25, 2011
  5. David Dyer-Bennet

    Re: I Miss my Viewfinder !

    David Dyer-Bennet, May 24, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    261
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    May 26, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page