the perception and the browser

what are presented to our perception on the browser are not;

on the servers, the data are chaotic, they might even be in different servers.
but from the servers where they are chaotically located, to what are presented on the browser to our perception, there are:
the codes, schemas or programmings that make them what/where they are, how they are related on the browser;
to change the code a little bit, the picture might be a bit bigger and the slides might be quicker
this is how we perceive actually:
things in themselves are unknown to us
they are presented to our perception – the farther they are, the smaller they are etc when we see. it means the perception has it own rules to construct the vision,
there are also formulas in the head when we calculate a thing,
we interpret things in terms of ourselves(our own formulas/schemas in our minds) and PROJECT the PICTURE back onto the object;
to change the thinking schema, the vision of truth programmed with the schema can be completely different in the mind, to be projected onto the object;
when you talk a thing bigger than her schema, or a thing which her schema doesn’t apply – the vision she constructs/distorts can be completely wrong, but she is going to project the picture on to you – she drags you into her small formula – then in the communication you probably need to present both the picture and the schema to her to compute/calculate( but with limited experience or… it might be still difficult for her to understand)
now visual thinking, abstruction or whatever:
from my observation, this is completely difficult for Chinese women – I met two German women who could take the languages with pictures attached(not sentimental pictures, but the logical schemas/structures) – it might be because of their language which helps them think in pictures
it is also because they travel a lot( independently sometimes), this help them think indepedently and think in vision, and switch the schemas in the heads when thinking

20100824 A View on West and East by Jun Wang

Twitter Icon Facebook Icon Google Plus Icon LinkedIn Icon Picasa Icon YouTube Icon SlideShare Icon Blog Icon

We do not know the outer world but the world representing to our senses, the world as phenomenon. yes, we interpret the world in terms of ourselves as humans, That’s Immanuel Kant’s worldview

As for logic, it was largely due to the language itself, for the meanings were largely defined in the words to use from which raises the ‘from’, symbol or abstraction, and ‘things’ – or I should say concepts which became the objects of thinking were linked to each other because there were potentially connected due to the meanings already defined in the language, as far as the connections are discovered or maybe though the reflection of the meanings(?), it is easy to put them in different categories for the convenience of thinking)

when people do not need to have systematic theories/models in the heads to apply the world representing to our senses to explain it to feel certain? Yes, when people perceive the lack/absence/need of it, people will develop it, in China we did not need to develop logic. So this is just because we lived in different civilisations. Intelligence is to grasp the rules which the mind integrates with the sources and reproduces it (yes, the intelligence’s creativity). Like the IQ test, there are three figures indicating the rules for us to reproduces the forth – yes creativity (calculation as many people define thinking as), it only matters when people perceive the need of it, once people perceive and develop it, and meanwhile they also perceive their greed… it becomes a problem! It can be helpful, and it can be harmful. Yes, need to learn conscience!

As I just mentioned calculation as thinking. I think thought is easier than art, the former is simply calculation, the are difficult only when there are sets of simple rules combined in and there are several steps to calculate. Computing imitates these well.

Jun Wang

me@junwang.me

http://www.junwang.me