In Reply to: Re: Ok, I get it.... posted by Pat D on January 25, 2001 at 12:08:55:
>> snip <<It seems that your definition of imagination differs from those who read and understand English.
http://www.thesaurus.com/roget/IV/515.html
This should cover every mildly relevant example you posted.
You wrote:
"So, without more objective proof, the most probable explanation is that most of it is in the mind. So, yes, burn-in exists, but mostly in the mind."i·mag·i·na·tion (i-maje-na'shen) n.
1.The formation of a mental image of something that is neither perceived as real nor present to the senses.2.The mental image so formed.
I really do not like to argue semantics, Pat. Whether you meant to say something else, or chose your words improperly is only known to you. This is either a case of you failing to grasp the thrust of your own position, or perhaps you simply have not thought it through in enough detail.
Best Wishes,
Felix
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Ok, I get it.... - Fear3000 03:39:50 01/26/01 (1)
- I understand. - Tom §. 09:53:45 01/26/01 (0)