Dear Filippo:

I understand your point but you are talking about
preconscious processing that leads up to a perception,
processing that is physiologically determined to a
large degree but is also subject to memory and prior
experience i.e.. we see what we expect to see - this
is where intentionality and reflection come in. You
see either two heads or a table in the ambiguous
figure based on what you are most prepared to see.
Edge detectors are at work in both instances. The
issue isn't in the data but how you interpret it.

Please don't get hung up on whether the boundary
belongs to the object or not. As I tried to point out,
a boundary can be thought of as part of an object or
as a relationship. I like to think of a boundless
entity as an instance of the center periphery schema,
a relationship as an instance of the container schema
(inside, boundary, outside) in which the boundary is a
relationship, and an object (part or whole) as simply
a container schema that ignores the outside. If you
are interested in cognitive schema read George
Lakoff's book, Women Fire and Dangerous Things: what
Categories Reveal About The Mind although you will be
into psycholinguistics. Wait for my book to get the
design version.

Best regards

Dr. Charles Burnette
234 South Third Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Tel: +215 629 1387
e-mail: [log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD
studies and
related research in Design
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of Filippo Salustri
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 9:43 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: parts, wholes, reflection, etc.


Charles et al,

please see my comments embedded below.

Charles Burnette wrote:
> Dear Filippo;
>
> With regard to your first thought experiment:
> I believe that it would depend on your mind set
> (intention) on entering the room,(what is attended
to
> is an artifact of intention) and that this varies
with
> the emotional salience of the stimulus, and so
whether
> you think part, whole or Ted's apartment depends on
> where your head is, phenomenologically speaking.

Actually, I've read something (I think in Scientific
American some time
in the past couple of years) where they've determined
that certain
characteristics are actually perceived before others.
Eg. colour,
shape, speed of motion, etc. are apparently perceived
in a sequence, and
by different parts of the brain.  I cannot believe
that this sequencing
of what we perceive and when has no effect on how our
minds work.  It's
probably an unconscious thing.   Sorry I don't have
the reference at
hand - bad form, I know.

> With regard to your second proposition:
> I agree that a boundary is essential to being an
> identifiable object, whether part or whole, and a
> topological relationship (link, association,
function)
> requires at least two identifiable bounded objects.
> For me the boundary belongs to the objects not their
> relationship or alternatively a mutual boundary is
the
> relationship (meeting, interface, interaction,
> dependency, function) when treated as a discrete
part
> of a tripartite whole.

But if the boundary belongs to the object, and there
were only one
object in the universe, then what's on the other side
of the boundary?
The boundary *is* the topological connection.  (near
as I can figure)

> Although I obviously agree that objects and
topologies
> are closely related (but intentionally different) I
> don't agree with you that boundaries and topological
> connection are actually perceived (though perhaps
> unconsciously) before parts and
> wholes. With Keith, I think, I believe that one may
> perceive holistically and affectively before
> cognitively (intentionally) deconstructing the
> experience into objects and topologies(although
> experience may be parsed subconsciously and more or
> less instantly). We invite these problems when we
are
> thinking more than feeling. Both work together. (I'd
> also argue that they are never fully disassociated
> even when differentiated.)

I draw the line - purely due to my own ignorance -
when we get to things
like 'feeling'.  However, as I mentioned, there's work
that shows the
brain perceives characteristics of things before the
thing itself.  I
remember one part of the article described where the
researchers had
identified that seeing a ball fly through the air
registered in the
brain as first 'motion', and then other
characteristics.  The brain does
its magic then, and what percolates up to the
'conscious' level is "A
ball's coming right at me!"

...nuts; I wish I could remember which SciAm it was I
read that in...

Cheers.
Fil

>
> Best
>
> Dr. Charles Burnette
> 234 South Third Street
> Philadelphia, PA 19106
> Tel: +215 629 1387
> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of
PhD
> studies and
> related research in Design
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
> Of Filippo Salustri
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 5:10 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: parts, wholes, reflection, etc.
>
>
> Charles et al,
>
> Here's a thought experiment:
>
> There is a white room, bare and featureless but for
a
> red block in the
> middle of the room.  A person is shown into the room
> and asked what he sees.
>
> Does the person see (first):
> a. one thing in another (wholes)
> b. two differently coloured 'regions' (parts)
> c. an engineer's apartment (:-))
>
> And another thing.
> Say you're looking at a block, half of which is red
> and the other half
> of which is blue.  We could say there's a red part
and
> a blue part to
> the block.  What is it about the block that lets you
> say that?  Two things:
> 1. the *difference* in colours (boundary)
> 2. the two 'parts' are connected (topology)
>
> Without these two things, you'd have no idea what
you
> were looking at.
> Without seeing the boundary, you wouldn't know where
> one bit started and
> the other ended - the same applies to the perceived
> boundaries between
> the surfaces of the block and the visual background.
> Without seeing the connectivity, you'd think there
> were two blocks and
> not one.
>
> So, for me, topology and parthood and much more
> closely connected than
> most people think, and boundaries and topological
> connection are
> actually perceived before (tho perhaps
unconsciously)
> before parts and
> wholes.
>
> I've not read anything that'd contradict this, but
I'm
> just an engineer.
>   I'd welcome a psychologist or neurologist to
comment
> on how the brain
> works in this regard.
>
> Cheers.
> Fil
>
> Charles Burnette wrote:
>
>>Dear Filippo, Keith, Michael, Eduardo et. al.
>>
>>I have been addressing the part-whole issue by
>>recognizing that when thinking about parts or whole
>
> we
>
>>are referring to objects and when thinking
>>topologically we are thinking about the relations
>>between or within objects (taken originally either
>
> as
>
>>parts or wholes). Separate intentions (mind sets)
>
> are
>
>>involved. The issue of hierarchy or organization is
>
> a
>
>>matter of structure(relational thinking for its own
>>sake)until one needs to focus on the elements in the
>>relational structure or model(the features,
>
> properties
>
>>or parts being related) at which time the mental
>
> focus
>
>>switches to object description in which each part is
>>treated as a whole. One can go further by saying
>
> that
>
>>a whole is distinguished (thought about) by what is
>>mentally apprehended or experienced holistically
>
> while
>
>>the topological structure considered as a whole is
>>meaningless (except as an abstract structure) until
>>its parts are specified. I think we should look at
>
> the
>
>>issue as more of a cognitive and informational one
>>than as a material or logical one (and then apply
>
> our
>
>>thoughts to each accordingly.) After all, the steel
>
> in
>
>>the bicycle problem isn't the bicycles fault.
>>
>>Best
>>
>>Chuck
>>
>>Dr. Charles Burnette
>>234 South Third Street
>>Philadelphia, PA 19106
>>Tel: +215 629 1387
>>e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of
>
> PhD
>
>>studies and
>>related research in Design
>>[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
>>Of Filippo A. Salustri
>>Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 10:51 AM
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: parts, wholes, reflection, etc.
>>
>>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>It's clear that there are many, many approaches to
>
> the
>
>>part/whole thing.
>>Besides the work mentioned by previous posts, there
>
> is
>
>>also all work of
>>people like Barry Smith, Tony Galton, AG Cohn,
>>Eschenbach, Artale,
>>Franconi, et al, Lesniewski (who invented
>>'mereology'), and so on.
>>
>>My acquaintance with the work in logic and AI
>
> assures
>
>>me that no one has
>>developed a sensible logic that covers 'parthood'
>>without somehow
>>disrupting topology - or vice versa.
>>
>>Also, the different researchers all tend to make
>>certain limiting
>>assumptions of their domains of interest.  In the
>
> end,
>
>>there's 2
>>perspectives one has to choose from.
>>
>>1. parthood is axiomatic; ie, you cannot explain why
>
> x
>
>>is a part of y, you
>>just state it as factual.
>>
>>2. parthood is derived from some other
>>fundamental/axiomatic characteristic
>>(perhaps 'connection' - ie, topology)
>>
>>The difficult is that in conventional parlance, we
>>tend to blend together a
>>wild assortment of different kinds of parthood, but
>
> we
>
>>do not do so to the
>>point where the different kinds of parthood blend
>
> into
>
>>an amorphous blob.
>>
>>This vagueness is further muddied by language
>>artefacts.  For example, one
>>might say "The bicycle is partly steel" which
>
> suggests
>
>>that "steel" is a
>>part of "bicycle".  Do we adopt a linguistic
>>position - ie, we say it that
>>way so we need a way to represent it that way?  Or
>
> do
>
>>we adopt a more
>>semantically based position - ie, "The bicycle is
>>partly steel" => "The
>>bicycle has parts that are made of steel" ?
>>
>>As an engineer, the "semantic approach" works better
>>for me.  But as a
>>designer, I'd also have to say that 'your mileage
>
> may
>
>>vary'.
>>
>>Cheers.
>>Fil
>>--
>>Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
>>Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
>>Ryerson University                         Tel:
>>416/979-5000 x7749
>>350 Victoria St.                           Fax:
>>416/979-5265
>>Toronto, ON                                email:
>>[log in to unmask]
>>M5B 2K3  Canada
>>http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/
>>
>
>
> --
> Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
> Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
> Ryerson University
> 350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada
> Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
> Fax: 416/979-5265
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/
>

--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/