Hi , Elliot, Erin & Jonathan,
I agree with Jonathan:
> ELLIOT: "> My definition of uniqueness is "different
> in every aspect".
>
>
> Jonathan replied: "I think that your definition is unworkable.
> Something "different in every aspect" would, in MoQ terms, it would be
> PURE DYNAMIC QUALITY.
> I maintain that such a beast would go completely unnoticed -
> pragmatically, it would not exist.
>
> You need some recognizable feature to recognize something in the first
> place. Its uniqueness may stem from just one single piece of
> non-conformity among hundreds of non-unique features.
>
> Jonathan
I agree with Jonathan. When we perceive part of the mechanics of the
process is looking for patterns. If something is so anomalous we will not
'see' it, i.e. recognize its existence. The mechanics of perception will
bring the sense data into the brain but our belief/patterns in our mind will
prevent recognition. To illustrate this point a [should be famous]
experiment was done and written up:
In ‘On the perception of incongruity: A paradigm.’ From The Journal of
Personality, vol. 18, 1949, pp. 206-223, Jerome S. Bruner and Leo Postman
discuss an experiment in visual perception using a device that can flash
images onto a screen at high rates of speed. The images they showed to
establish a base line of accurate perception were that of an ordinary deck
of playing cards. The heart of the experiment was to discover what happens
when individuals are confronted by the unexpected, by incongruent images.
To demonstrate incongruentcy they used a non-ordinary deck of cards, which
includes amongst other anomalous cards, a black ace of diamonds. The
results of the experiment showed that the test subjects failed to recognize
the anomalous cards for what they were and instead claimed that they saw
what they expected to see, a red ace of diamonds instead of the black ace of
diamonds they were actually being shown, for one example. “Our major
conclusion is simply a reaffirmation of the general statement that
perceptual organization is powerfully determined by expectations built upon
past commerce with the environment. When such expectations are violated by
the environment, the perceiver’s behavior can be described as resistance to
the recognition of the unexpected or incongruous. The resistance manifests
itself in subtle and complex but nevertheless distinguishable perceptual
responses. Among the perceptual processes which implement this resistance
are (1) the dominance of one principle of organization which prevents the
appearance of incongruity and (2) a form of ‘partial assimilation to
expectancy’ which we have called a compromise. When these responses fail
and when correct recognition does not occur, what results may best be
described as perceptual disruption. Correct recognition itself results when
inappropriate expectancies are discarded after failure of confirmation.” pp.
222-223.
We have to have some sort of recognition of prior pattern, some similarity
or else we won't 'see' /accept somethings existance.
> ELLIOT: "> My defintion of uniqueness is "different in every aspect". Is
too Aristotelian extreme in its presentation. 100% different won't get
recognized as the journal article demonstrates. 99% difference will
eventually get recognized. And then that uniue thing will become a pattern
stored in memory to aid in seeing similar things.
Gary Jaron "People shape, and are shaped by, ideas."
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:12 BST