> You may have a deadline - but, alas, an impossible project > won't even make Sai's suggested end of September deadline. > :=( I suggest not surrendering to the assertions of others, but using them only as additional hypothetical data. The merit in pursing a non-linear language might come from as much from failures as successes - or degrees of success. Moreover, don't let armchair "science" (a.k.a hypotheses) displace actual attempts & tests. > Actually, what this makes me think of is that Remi's row&col > example was just a different, direct-conversion format for > nested parenthesis. While I like Remi's row&col example and can perceive that 2D/3D/4D ideograms might be able to convey relationships otherwise difficult, I believe that whatever the system, there will still be a translation from the image/though to the ideogram(s). Sure, I can imagine a 4D image meaning "my screaming harpy-esque mother", but there's a translation once it passes from being a pure image. If I need pass that image on to another, then a whole set of standardizations cause more translation. > Which is why it is so strange to me to have it be portrayed > as the communication itself, and suggestions for something > else therefore appearing like a desire for telepathy by contrast. It shouldn't be strange. As a species, we show a long continuing history of taking the description (whether written word, spoken word, sculpture or mental image) to be the same as the object, event, or experience. > For that matter, it might serve as a test of competing > theories of thought. If a system accurately mirrors the > theory, then the one that is more accurate should also be the > one with higher comprehension, retention, > quick-comprehension, etc. rates, and be more robust against a > game of Telephone. This I can get behind, which it is why I'm eager to see the results of the "competition". I had hoped to make my own contribution, but alas I've not yet found a free CAD that will allow me to create, rotate and morph my own "ideograms". > No, no, no! I'm very serious. We're living > in a 4D universe (space and time) and the > concepts we handle with our mind are also > 4D. So to be able to record thought, you > need a 4D medium. Thank you. I too live in a 4D world, and my "images" morph across time. As far as my mental images, I believe that they "move" forward and back in time just as they do in the other 3 dimensions: mentally seeing my deceased father is neither more nor less real to me than mentally unfolding & folding a tesseract, though the connotations/associations and subtleties are much denser for my image of my father. To me, the argument of linear vs. non-linear, besides suffering differing definitions of those terms as much as from differing defs of 2D/3D/4D, is one of density of information recorded via a medium and transferred to another mind. > Sounds like a topic heading to me... Mysticism? Here? I refer you to the plethora of minute-by-minute posts on www.beliefnet.com.