Re: Phonemes

Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
On Sep 15, 4:10 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
A painting as an "allegory of seeing": another meaningless phrase.

Look up my interpretation on my website
www.seshat.ch/home/seeing.htm (IIRC),
at the begin a long section of quotes from Leonardo.

How does it follow from this that he performed your experiment with the
Mona Lisa?

He performed _his_ experiments,

It takes no experimentation for anyone to realize, as most of us *have*, that we read by scanning line by line because you can't just look at the center of a page and absorb its content.

this led him to a theory
of seeing, which he visualized in the Mona Lisa,

According to whom?

and I,
much later, happened to make the same experiments

You haven't established yet that he performed any experiments, let alone that you performed the same ones.

again, recognizing Leonardo's intention in the Mona Lisa,
and interpreting it as an allegory of seeing.

Another way of looking at it is that people who aren't familiar with the
field don't have the information that would make it plain that your
theories are absurd.

People join the art history seminar seeing and leave it blind,
no longer able to just look, hampered by the concepts
they stuffed their head with.

People leave Tony Robbins seminars, religious revivals, and new age gatherings of all kinds feeling empowered and unfettered. Inspiration is an amazing thing. It can also be entirely illusory--the power of suggestion.

> I observed this in many cases.
And the same goes for linguistics. One can know an awful
lot about linguistics but damn little about language.

What do you mean, can and can't? You mean your experiment was to see if
it's possible to fix your eyes in one place for minutes at a time? You
don't need to be looking at the Mona Lisa for that.

I told people: look at this picture and fix it, don't turn
your head, don't move your eyes, just fix them on
the picture on the wall. Okay? Now over there is the
clock. Please go on looking at the picture, and try
to tell me what time it is, but, I repeat myself, whithout
turning your head and your eyes. Some people tried
and told me correctly that they can't make out the fingers
of the clock, while others simply could not keep their
eyes on the picture and had to shoot a quick glance
over at the clock. They were just not able to fix their look
on a single spot of the visual surroundings. I mean this
when I said that some people were unable to repeat my
visual experiments.

Some people have better peripheral vision than others. This is a revelation?

OK. So phonetic processing involves both the brain and the motor system.
Is this novel to you? Do you expect it to be novel to anyone else?

My prediction is that MRI pictures will be different whether
words are pronounced silently (in the way I explained so
many times)

You haven't explained it at all. You keep *saying* it, and it remains a contradiction. Remember--you were asking a few exchanges back why no one is taking you seriously? Well, continuing to claim that you've done something that is inherently a contradiction even after it's been pointed out to you that it is might be one reason for that.

or whether they are voiced, and the neurological
representation of phonemes must be located in the specific
area differring from the one of the voiceless articulation.

It can't be an experiment if it doing it is a contradiction in terms.
Either you are pronouncing the words or you are being silent. You aren't
doing both.

Then you may prefer a complicated version: do as if you
were pronouncing the words, move the jaw, the lips,
the tongue, but do it all silently, not even whispering,
so that not even a little bit of air streams along the vocal
chords ...

Oh, that was *so* complicated. No, it was easy, it was clear, and it has the advantage over your "silent pronunciation" description that it makes sense and can be understood.

It still doesn't indicate how it proved anything.
.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast