Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#47 to #43
-
lolsrsslybro (09/13/2013) [-]
I'm not really quite sure what point you are trying to make. Or why you thumbed me down....
#84 to #47
-
tyraxio (09/13/2013) [-]
You derped at the fact that we considered the chair a chair because it looked like a chair.
The point was, it DIDN'T look like a chair. It had some very basic attributes that we connect with chairs which led us to assume that it was a chair although it didn't look like a chair we had ever seen before.
The point was, it DIDN'T look like a chair. It had some very basic attributes that we connect with chairs which led us to assume that it was a chair although it didn't look like a chair we had ever seen before.
#124 to #84
-
lolsrsslybro (09/13/2013) [-]
But it looks like it COULD be a chair. Just because we've never seen a chair that looks like that doesn't mean that we can't subconsciously judge it to be one. Making the connection IS recognizing that something is similar or alike. If you've never heard/seen of an ostrich in your life and you saw a picture of it, would you assume it to be a bird? It's not like any other bird you've seen before.
#159 to #127
-
lolsrsslybro (09/13/2013) [-]
well yes, the human brain is amazing. but relatively speaking our ability to categorize things with similar characteristics is not really an amazing concept (in my opinion). it's a natural ability that other animals are also capable of.
