Brown Book: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 383: Line 383:
In the case 67), by calling certain creatures “reading machines” we meant only that they react in a particular way to seeing printed signs. No connection between seeing and reacting, no internal mechanism enters into this case. It would be absurd if the trainer had answered to the question whether he read the word “table” or not, “Perhaps he read it”, for there is no doubt in this case about what he actually did. The change which took place was one which we might call a change in the general behaviour of the pupil, and we have in this case not given a meaning to the expression, “The first word in the new era”. (Compare with this the following case:
In the case 67), by calling certain creatures “reading machines” we meant only that they react in a particular way to seeing printed signs. No connection between seeing and reacting, no internal mechanism enters into this case. It would be absurd if the trainer had answered to the question whether he read the word “table” or not, “Perhaps he read it”, for there is no doubt in this case about what he actually did. The change which took place was one which we might call a change in the general behaviour of the pupil, and we have in this case not given a meaning to the expression, “The first word in the new era”. (Compare with this the following case:


∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
<p style="text-align:center;">{{nowrap|∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;∙&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;∙&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;∙&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;∙&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;∙&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;∙&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;∙&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;∙&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;∙&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;∙}}</p>


In our figure a row of dots with large intervals succeeds a row of dots with small intervals. Which is the last dot in the first sequence and which the first dot in the second? Imagine our dots were holes in the revolving disc of a siren. Then we should hear a tone of low pitch following a tone of high pitch (or vice versa). Ask yourself: At which moment does the tone of low pitch begin and the other end?)
In our figure a row of dots with large intervals succeeds a row of dots with small intervals. Which is the last dot in the first sequence and which the first dot in the second? Imagine our dots were holes in the revolving disc of a siren. Then we should hear a tone of low pitch following a tone of high pitch (or vice versa). Ask yourself: At which moment does the tone of low pitch begin and the other end?)
Line 403: Line 403:
{{parBB|70}} assume that he reads off a text by transcribing it, say, from block letters into cursive script. For in this case we can assume the rule of the alphabet to have been given in the form of a table which shows the block alphabet and the cursive alphabet in parallel columns. Then the ''deriving'' the copy from the text we should imagine this way: The person who copies looks {{BBB TS reference|Ts-310,74}} up the table for each letter at frequent intervals, or he says to himself such things as, “Now what's a small ''a'' like?”, or he tries to visualize the table, refraining from actually looking at it. ‒ ‒
{{parBB|70}} assume that he reads off a text by transcribing it, say, from block letters into cursive script. For in this case we can assume the rule of the alphabet to have been given in the form of a table which shows the block alphabet and the cursive alphabet in parallel columns. Then the ''deriving'' the copy from the text we should imagine this way: The person who copies looks {{BBB TS reference|Ts-310,74}} up the table for each letter at frequent intervals, or he says to himself such things as, “Now what's a small ''a'' like?”, or he tries to visualize the table, refraining from actually looking at it. ‒ ‒


{{parBB|71}} But what if, doing all this, he then transcribed an “A” into a “b”, a “B” into a “c”, and so on? Should we not call this “reading” “deriving” too? We might in this case describe his procedure by saying that he used the table as we should have used it had we not looked straight from left to right like this: but like this: though he actually when looking up the table passed with his eyes or finger horizontally from left to right. ‒ ‒ But let us suppose now
{{parBB|71}} But what if, doing all this, he then transcribed an “A” into a “b”, a “B” into a “c”, and so on? Should we not call this “reading” “deriving” too? We might in this case describe his procedure by saying that he used the table as we should have used it had we not looked straight from left to right like this:
 
[[File:Brown Book 1-71a.png|180px|center|link=]]
 
but like this:
 
[[File:Brown Book 1-71b.png|180px|center|link=]]
 
though he actually when looking up the table passed with his eyes or finger horizontally from left to right. ‒ ‒ But let us suppose now


{{parBB|72}} that going through the normal processes of “looking up”, he transcribed an “A” into an “n”, a “B” into an “x”, in short, acted, as we might say, according to a scheme of arrows which showed no simple regularity. Couldn't we call this “deriving” too? ‒ ‒ But suppose that
{{parBB|72}} that going through the normal processes of “looking up”, he transcribed an “A” into an “n”, a “B” into an “x”, in short, acted, as we might say, according to a scheme of arrows which showed no simple regularity. Couldn't we call this “deriving” too? ‒ ‒ But suppose that