An observation, in this sense, is a thought or idea that is communicated.

A remark, is the communication. The remark is supposed to convey the idea, or form an image, in the mind of the listener.

We see what people say every day.

Seeing is observing, not the other way around, and not in the limited visual sense, as of light impinging on retinal cells. Sorry.

*siggggggghhhhhh*

A remark can convey the 'image' brought on by observation. The remark is not the observation itself.

A remark can convey the 'image' brought on by observation. The remark is not the observation itself.

Exactly! And that's the same sort of muddled, backward thinking he applies to everything. Can't tell the cart from the horse.:rolleyes:

It's all semantics of course.
People use 'observation' in this sense all the time, thus the basic premise is true.
However, it is a different meaning of 'observation' than the initial perception of whatever is being observed.

Words are slippery. No surprise there.
That's why, in science, definitions are important. When one requires preciseness, then one should be very careful about one's vocabulary.


By the way, it is interesting to consider that, while the perceptions are made before the remark, often people are do not put things together until their communication apparatus comes into play.
A large part of being human and being intelligent has to do with our use of language. Thus, actually putting the words down, spoken or written, can help solidify any perception into what could be termed an observation. In this sense, the 'observation' (perception) and 'observation' (remark) come at the same time. Rather, the perception in this case is not perception of the initial stimuli, but the model of it within one's own mind. Its incorporation into a schema.


Semantic.

It's all semantics of course.
People use 'observation' in this sense all the time, thus the basic premise is true.
However, it is a different meaning of 'observation' than the initial perception of whatever is being observed.

Words are slippery. No surprise there.
That's why, in science, definitions are important. When one requires preciseness, then one should be very careful about one's vocabulary.


By the way, it is interesting to consider that, while the perceptions are made before the remark, often people are do not put things together until their communication apparatus comes into play.
A large part of being human and being intelligent has to do with our use of language. Thus, actually putting the words down, spoken or written, can help solidify any perception into what could be termed an observation. In this sense, the 'observation' (perception) and 'observation' (remark) come at the same time. Rather, the perception in this case is not perception of the initial stimuli, but the model of it within one's own mind. Its incorporation into a schema.


Semantic.

I do understand what you're saying but I would still mildly disagree. ;)

When someone says, "Allow me to make an observation here..." or "My observation is..." it's always following the actual observation (perception) itself. And while it may well be a refined thought, it still occurs after the initial observation.

Is that the line of thought you were following or did I jump tracks?

Simply put:

Observation = input
Remark = output

8. a remark, comment, or statement based on what one has noticed or observed.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=observation

Like I said, semantics.

You can do all sorts of stupid shit with semantic word play if you're of a mind to. See, Frud is trying to use one definition of the word 'observation' and then in midstream apply it as if it were a different definition.

That's why people that overuse the quotation mark are generally swindlers or fools.

A remark can convey the 'image' brought on by observation. The remark is not the observation itself.
”
Exactly! And that's the same sort of muddled, backward thinking he applies to everything. Can't tell the cart from the horse.Tell what cart, you sure it's not a unicorn again?

Also, to any fresh readers of this thread, the initial post may seem rather common sensical, and it is. But, the objection from those who have posted such comes from context.
This is merely a continuation of some rather nonsensical semantic gyrations elsewhere.

A remark can convey the 'image' brought on by observation. The remark is not the observation itself. Where does anyone say it is? I said the remark is a communication.

Exactly! And that's the same sort of muddled, backward thinking "he" applies to everything. Can't tell the cart from the horse.Tell what cart, you sure the horse isn't another virtual unicorn?

When someone says, "Allow me to make an observation here..." or "My observation is..." it's always following the actual observation (perception) itself. Right. So you communicate, not the idea, by giving the pattern in your neurons to someone, but by turning it into words. Words are meant to convey something.
So you are trying to get an image that looks like the one you can see in your memory, into words, so you can recreate the same, or a similar image in a listener's (and watcher's--language is partly visual) mind.

So what's your word for "image in someone's mind"?

Tell what cart, you sure the horse isn't another unicorn?

What are you on about ?
Look up the definitions of 'observation' and 'remark'.. then try again.

Where does anyone say it is? I said the remark is a communication.

A remark is a communication, but an observation is not.

Did you happen to read the post where I provided one of the definitions of 'observation'?

8. a remark, comment, or statement based on what one has noticed or observed.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=observation

Like I said, semantics.

You can do all sorts of stupid shit with semantic word play if you're of a mind to. See, Frud is trying to use one definition of the word 'observation' and then in midstream apply it as if it were a different definition.

That's why people that overuse the quotation mark are generally swindlers or fools.

And that's also why I prefer real science to his sort of semi-science garbage - ALL the definitions are totally agreed upon BEFORE anyone starts talking.

(Please not that I'm not talking about new terms that may come into use as a result of new theories or discoveries but rather existing terms that become 'fixed' so that everyone involved can communicate clearly without this rather obnoxious word-play.) :bugeye:

Did you happen to read the post where I provided one of the definitions of 'observation'?

Do you mean this ?
Thus, actually putting the words down, spoken or written, can help solidify any perception into what could be termed an observation. In this sense, the 'observation' (perception) and 'observation' (remark) come at the same time.

It's like you said, "a remark, comment, or statement based on what one has noticed or observed.".
A remark is based on an observation, how then can they be the same ?

Hey Enmos: Where does anyone say it is an actual visual or sensory experience? I said the remark is a communication. So WTF are you talking about here?

We see what people say every day. But I can't see what any of you think you're onto here. You look like your trying to chase a non-existent rabbit.

Seeing is observing, not the other way around, and not in the limited visual sense, as of light impinging on retinal cells. Sorry.

P.S. "the definitions of observation and remark":

L obvservo, observare: vt. watch, observe, heed.
L re + marca, marcae: back, or again + n. mark or sign, or later Ger. coin.

(I took L. at high school btw)

Where does anyone say it is an actual visual. or sensory experience ? I said theremark is a communication. So WTF are you talking about here?

What the fuck are you talking about ? lol

Do you mean this ?
Thus, actually putting the words down, spoken or written, can help solidify any perception into what could be termed an observation. In this sense, the 'observation' (perception) and 'observation' (remark) come at the same time.


Umm.
No.
I meant this:
8. a remark, comment, or statement based on what one has noticed or observed.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=observation

It's like you said, "a remark, comment, or statement based on what one has noticed or observed.".

Yeah. That one. That's not what I say. That's what the dictionary says.
That's a definition of the word 'observation'.

A remark is based on an observation, how then can they be the same ?

Words usually tend to have more than one meaning. And one use of a word actually being to denote something based upon another use of the word is quite common. It's sort of like a child of the original word.


Where does anyone say it is an actual visual. or sensory experience ? I said theremark is a communication. So WTF are you talking about here?

Well, as long as you limit your use of the word, then you're doing fine.
However, based upon your history, I have the feeling that you're trying to work this into your quantum observer effect thing and if you did that then you would be guilty of mangling the english language.

So.
I suppose I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

Your initial post is plain common sense and should really be in one of two forums: linguistics or philosophy.
It doesn't seem to have much to do with this one.

Yeah. That one. That's not what I say. That's what the dictionary says.
That's a definition of the word 'observation'.


Hmm ok fair enough..
It's all rather confusing though..

My apologies Frud.. I'll leave you alone now.

Hey Enmos: Where does anyone say it is an actual visual or sensory experience? I said the remark is a communication. So WTF are you talking about here?

We see what people say every day. But I can't see what any of you think you're onto here. You look like your trying to chase a non-existent rabbit.

Well.. no offense but you can certainly NOT see what I am saying.

Absolutely. So what are you saying?

P.S. And no offense taken, either.

Words are meant to convey something.
So you are trying to get an image that looks like the one you can see in your memory, into words, so you can recreate the same, or a similar image in a listener's (and watcher's--language is partly visual) mind.

So what's your word for "image in someone's mind"?

P.P.S We have to invent the above "talking" in this mode. Text is fundamentally, or subtly different, because we don't see or hear it.

Absolutely. So what are you saying?

P.S. And no offense taken, either.

I'm not saying a thing, I am writing though.. ;)

Words are meant to convey something.
Absolutely, that's why definitions are important.

So you are trying to get an image that looks like the one you can see in your memory, into words, so you can recreate the same, or a similar image in a listener's (and watcher's--language is partly visual) mind.
Sometimes. I don't always have an image in my mind when I am saying something. You are talking about describing an object to someone.

So what's your word for "image in someone's mind"?
Mental image ?
Definition from Dictionary.com: Psychology. a mental representation of something previously perceived, in the absence of the original stimulus.

So what's your word for "image in someone's mind"?

Concept.

So the guts is:

When we hear sound (in stereo), is an image created (a pattern)? How about the other senses? All our 5 (or 4 -if you lump taste and smell together) senses are neural in nature. Differentiated, specialised neurons or neuronal assemblies and support cells are what each of our senses actually is. The senses all convey patterns of signals to the brain.

How is the way any sense of the external world works, any different? Don't they all result in much the same thing? We differentiate the source, but the destination is some kind of image, or picture.

Then there are those who smell colours, and taste sounds, and so on (synaesthesia). What's the story there? No signal mixing? All discrete sensations that stay separate?

p.s. for mental image--Psychology. a mental representation of something previously perceived, in the absence of the original stimulus.

First part of sentence is on the money, but the second needn't be true, you can have a mental picture of something you're looking at. When a school teacher says to "look at" some page in a textbook, they're also inferring the philosophical sense of "look at the ideas on page so-and-so":.

So the guts is:

When we hear sound (in stereo), is an image created (a pattern)? How about the other senses? All our 5 (or 4 -if you lump taste and smell together) senses are neural in nature. Differentiated, specialised neurons or neuronal assemblies and support cells are what each of our senses actually is. The senses all convey patterns of signals to the brain.

How is the way any sense of the external world works, any different? Don't they all result in much the same thing? We differentiate the source, but the destination is some kind of image, or picture.

Then there are those who smell colours, and taste sounds, and so on (synaesthesia). What's the story there? No signal mixing? All discrete sensations that stay separate?

Now I'm confused.. what is your definition of 'image' ?

I'm an image: something like a scene, or a pattern of visual information, maybe a photo or movie. Also anything that forms in a brain, because of it. The word "image" has a broader meaning than a picture. A word is an image (a morpheme, or a sememe).

What's an image in a linux OS? A process image? a boot image? An image matrix in a JPG or MPEG compression? etc. There's the spectroscopic images you have from astronomy, medicine, analytical chem. Forensics- what's a fingerprint? and so on.

I'm an image of my (inherited) genetic material. Like a reflection, or something. All lifeforms are.
But an image is really (just) a pattern, in informational terms.

I'm an image: something like a scene, or a pattern of visual information, maybe a photo or movie. Also anything that forms in a brain, because of it. The word "image" has a broader meaning than a picture. A word is an image (a morpheme, or a sememe).

What's an image in a linux OS? A process image? a boot image? An image matrix in a JPG or MPEG compression? etc. There's the spectroscopic images you have from astronomy, medicine, analytical chem. Forensics- what's a fingerprint? and so on.

I'm an image of my (inherited) genetic material. Like a reflection, or something. All lifeforms are.
But an image is really (just) a pattern, in informational terms.

You talk in riddles.. I just don't feel like guessing which definition you are using.
Good luck :)

Well, again, no apologies are on offer to anyone having difficulty about any perceived definitions being used.

Lots of words in English come straight from Latin. The original meaning might have changed a bit, but the original meaning is relevant--languages never die.

Anyways, there are a couple of those word things that some appear to have a bit more difficulty with than others.

The word "image", is a general term, usually for something like a visual scene, or a picture. But of course, we can see images with our eyes shut, or in a totally dark room (an isolation chamber, which is something that approaches sensory isolation, usually means the observer starts to "make up" sensory experiences, these are images of visual, auditory, etc, sensory inputs).

To see implies looking (with the eyes). But it gets used metaphorically (like, all the time), and we see the point (of an idea), or we see something when smell or taste experiences occur. Synaesthesia is possibly more common than we realise. Even so, the seeing of images, is not restricted (and never has been) to the notion of light impinging on retinal cells.
There are quite a few other uses of these terms, that generally refer to the notion of some kind of pattern in a brain (image in a mind's eye).

P.S. Riddles are my favourite communication mode.

Well, again, no apologies are on offer to anyone having difficulty about any perceived definitions being used.

Lots of words in English come straight from Latin. The original meaning might have changed a bit, but the original meaning is relevant--languages never die.

Anyways, there are a couple of those word things that some appear to have a bit more difficulty with than others.

The word "image", is a general term, usually for something like a visual scene, or a picture. But of course, we can see images with our eyes shut, or in a totally dark room (an isolation chamber, which is something that approaches sensory isolation, usually means the observer starts to "make up" sensory experiences, these are images of visual, auditory, etc, sensory inputs).

To see implies looking (with the eyes). But it gets used metaphorically (like, all the time), and we see the point (of an idea), or we see something when smell or taste experiences occur. Synaesthesia is possibly more common than we realise. Even so, the seeing of images, is not restricted (and never has been) to the notion of light impinging on retinal cells.
There are quite a few other uses of these terms, that generally refer to the notion of some kind of pattern in a brain (image in a mind's eye).

P.S. Riddles are my favourite communication mode.

I'll go along with all of that.

As to your postscript, that is a very stupid form of communication because it forces the reader to make presumptions!! As I've said before, clear and concise usage of terms is a MUCH more efficient practice. :bugeye: And that's exactly why I keep saying that your communications are ineffective, muddled, convoluted and disjointed.

Now - can you "see" THAT "image?":bugeye: It "looks" like something just short of chaos and nonsense.

Right.