My blog contains a large number of posts. A few are included in various other publications, or as attached stories and chronicles in my emails; many more are found on loose leaves, while some are written carelessly in margins and blank spaces of my notebooks. Of the last sort most are nonsense, now often unintelligible even when legible, or half-remembered fragments. Enjoy responsibly.

Friday, September 19, 2008

Do I You See What I See

I apologize ahead of time for this blog post. This is not a blog post for now, but sometime in the future. When? I don’t know. Why? Because the science for it doesn’t seem to exist yet.

If you are reading this sometime in the future and have a solution or know of someone studying what I am suggesting, please contact me. Thank you.

I have been toying with using semiotics as a teaching tool in the hope of creating neurological synesthesia in my son and am not sure if it should be his intellectual/creative choice as to what represents what, or if I should start introducing base images predicated on a combination of light and depth. I mean, as an example, I can’t just pick fractals based on a number that I believe corresponds with whatever is being represented and hope that since there are Fibonacci sequences built into most everything, they must somehow correspond with mental images used as representations.

With respect to belief that it is the interpretations of the visual mental images that have the defining power, there must be a way to understand the mapping in respect to a higher level of thought. What we currently cannot do in the present, through either limitations in our current communication or inability to think in an illustrative manner, is express these in a similar fashion in both mental models and a knowledge representation (without trying to end up in current debate over scientific realism or, for that matter, logical empiricism).

What I’m not sure of is whether or not one is able to use semiotics for daily life while still being able to lower oneself to the extremely primitive spoken level in which we have become accustomed. So again, I'm not sure if there is a middle ground between a perceived esse est percipi and Moore's argument for a sustentative substratum - and not to just default to Locke’s direct-realist analysis of material object proportions - can exist as a communiqué between mental imagery and the simple base ability of information transference between two people.

I guess that my problem with the current science is that we have yet to explore it as a learning tool or as a communicative evolutionary step. Instead it is relegated to an abnormal cross-sensory perception or, worse yet, an unknown, yet allegedly harmful, educational tool masquerading as bad parenting. I believe that in time we will be able to use semiotics to create a new method of learning and communication. My wish and hope is that someone stumbles upon this blog one day and is considerate enough to drop me a line explaining how it is now done.

No comments: