Test your brain...

[MJ5150]

Can you read either of these paragraphs?

7H15 M3554G3 53RV35 7O PR0V3 H0W 0UR M1ND5 C4N D0 4M4Z1NG 7H1NG5!
1MPR3551V3 7H1NG5! 1N 7H3 B3G1NN1NG 17 WA5 H4RD BU7 N0W, 0N 7H15 LIN3
Y0UR M1ND 1S R34D1NG 17 4U70M471C4LLY W17H 0U7 3V3N 7H1NK1NG 4B0U7 17,
B3 PROUD! 0NLY C3R741N P30PL3 C4N R3AD 7H15.

I cdnuolt blveiee that I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd what I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in what oerdr the ltteres in a word are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is that the frsit and last ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can still raed it whotuit a pboerlm. This is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the word as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? Yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!

-Mike

 

[INTP]

Dude, spell check is your friend.

Actually, not only can I read it, but it didn't slow me down much. Big blocks of text with no white space slow me down as much as this did.

If you care to get really abstract, the words don't really exist on the screen/paper anyway. Words are constructions within the mind, as well as the ideas behind them. IME, though, people either get this right away or else vehemently disagree. YMMV.

 

[MJ5150]

I don't follow your comment about words don't exist. If I write them on paper, there they are on the paper. They are in my mind too, but how are they not there on the paper? I don't want to argue, but I would like to be enlightened as to your thinking.

-Mike

 

[wild4oldcars]

The second was much easier to read. The first took a little deciphering but I made it.

And the words do exist. Words can exist without thought, even.

 

[INTP]

I don't follow your comment about words don't exist. If I write them on paper, there they are on the paper. They are in my mind too, but how are they not there on the paper? I don't want to argue, but I would like to be enlightened as to your thinking.

-Mike

If you write scribbles of ink on the paper, those scribbles are not letters or numbers, and they're not words. Your mind processes the light reflecting from the paper and ink and forms the shapes into letters or numbers, and words. (Letters and numbers are a different level of abstraction from words, so I'm making a distinction, just for this discussion.

Consider the following, in which the "letters" exist in the negative space:
http://www.optical-illusions.com/view/175-Try-To-Read-This.html

Or this one, where the scribbles of ink (or pixels in this case) form what your brain processes as either a letter or a number, depending on context.
http://www.optical-illusions.com/view/161-B-or-13.html

I know it sounds silly, but I think it's still useful to think about in this context.

 

[INTP]

Words can exist without thought, even.

Perhaps it won't surprise you that I disagree with this statement. Whether blotches of ink or pixels, or as mouth noises, the "words" only exist in the mind.

 

[MJ5150]

I know it sounds silly, but I think it's still useful to think about in this context.

Gotcha, I follow now. It makes sense.

-Mike

 

[PortlandBass77]

idk if this is good or bad, but I could read everything except whatever this: "53RV35" is.....

 

[two fingers]

idk if this is good or bad, but I could read everything except whatever this: "53RV35" is.....

"SERVES"

"THIS MESSAGE SERVES TO PROVE....."

If that phrase is unfamiliar to you, you probably wouldn't glean it from context.

 

[ZenG]

I read both those and what was somewhat baffled by the fact that I got through them about the same speed as normal....and I got the meaning in both cases...

The faster I read them, the easier they are to grasp...........weird.....

 

[Bob_Ross]

I don't follow your comment about words don't exist. If I write them on paper, there they are on the paper. They are in my mind too, but how are they not there on the paper?

Perhaps it won't surprise you that I disagree with this statement. Whether blotches of ink or pixels, or as mouth noises, the "words" only exist in the mind.

Philosophers and neuroscientists can make a very compelling argument that the words don't actually exist in the mind either

...but it does depend on your definition of "exist". Or "in". And maybe "mind" also. So maybe linguists are the ones who can make that argument most compellingly?

Suffice to say that if I write the words "duck butter" on a paper napkin, most folks would agree that the characters representing "duck butter" exist on that paper napkin. Whether the words that "duck butter" represents exist [sic] anywhere is up for debate, since there's no physical location in the brain that one can point to and say "There's the duck butter!"

 

[INTP]

Suffice to say that if I write the words "duck butter" on a paper napkin, most folks would agree that the characters representing "duck butter" exist on that paper napkin.

You can put patterns of ink on a paper napkin, but those are not characters. The brain processes the light coming from the reflections and turns them into letters. Both characters and words are abstractions which can be represented by ink on a napkin, but the patterns of ink are not the characters themselves.

I don't know if most folks would agree with me or not, and you may very well be correct. But I'm sure that neuroscientists would, and that's where I'm coming from (as one who follows neuroscience, not as a neuroscientist myself.

I don't really care what philosophers have to say about this, as the science is pretty clear.

 

[Bob_Ross]

You can put patterns of ink on a paper napkin, but those are not characters.

I think we clearly have drifted into the realm of linguistics; surely there is some word you would agree describes the physical residue left by the writing implement on the paper napkin, no? That's what I meant by "characters", I did not intend for anyone to confuse syntax with semantics.

And I will agree (with what I think you're getting at) that those characters/ink stains contain no inherant meaning without a human brain to perceive and comprehend them. My point was that they still don't "exist" within the brain; as concepts they're ephemera.

 

[MJ5150]

What's more is those markings on a piece of paper may mean one thing to one person, have a different meaning for someone else, and not make any sense to another.

-Mike

 

[INTP]

And I will agree (with what I think you're getting at) that those characters/ink stains contain no inherant meaning without a human brain to perceive and comprehend them. My point was that they still don't "exist" within the brain; as concepts they're ephemera.

I agree that just bantering about semantics is not all that useful, and that is not my intent.

Still, I am saying that a character is a concept that doesn't exist outside of a brain. Ink on a paper may have a shape, but that shape doesn't become a character until there is a mind to give it that meaning.

 

[MJ5150]

I can dig that reasoning.

-Mike

 

[INTP]

What's more is those markings on a piece of paper may mean one thing to one person, have a different meaning for someone else, and not make any sense to another.

-Mike

"P" is such an example.

In the Latin alphabet, it has one name, and a corresponding pronunciation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_alphabet

It has a different name and pronunciation in the Cryllic alphabet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrillic

Same ink on the paper, or pixels on the screen. It becomes a letter when viewed, and becomes a different letter depending on the language being read by the viewer.

 

[MJ5150]

I follow. A large pile of construction materials is nothing until someone puts them together to form a house.

-Mike

 

[Bob_Ross]

Ink on a paper may have a shape, but that shape doesn't become a character until there is a mind to give it that meaning.

On that we agree.
...though, I'm compelled to point out that what we're agreeing to is the acceptance of a very specific definition of the word "character" (one which explicitly describes an object capable of conveying meaning if and only if perceived by a sentient mind). Which is why I keep saying this is about liguistics and/or semantics.

And the characters in that sense don't actually "exist" anywhere.

The shapes (that represent characters when perceived by sentient minds) do exist on the paper; but they don't exist in the mind.

 

[INTP]

I agree that this discussion depends critically on the meaning of some of the words. I don't think we're too far off from each other, either.

And the characters in that sense don't actually "exist" anywhere.

To me, this seems like a very specific definition of the word "exist". Prejudice exists, for example. I could get meta- on this but I don't think that would help anything...


FWIW, I brought up this idea in response to this particular thread, because the examples in the OP are so surprising to many. I think the way our minds process symbols is relevant to why we are able to read those items, in spite of them being clearly represented by symbols that are not what we'd normally use. In those examples, our minds make meaning that is not literally written using the normal characters. I extrapolate that to say that our mind is doing the same thing when we do use the normal characters, which I believe, but may be a stretch for some.

My aim is not to be pedantic. But since I think the way our brains process symbols is related to the topic of this thread, and I think it adds to the idea of meaning of what we read, I mention it. If my kid points to a letter or word on the page and says, "C-A-T spells cat", I will say "very good" and not go down this particular path. It's perfectly acceptable to use familiar ways of talking about things. Except when it isn't, and when being more particular increases understanding.

It doesn't always work, unfortunately.