I can hardly imagine a photograph that doesn't suggest a thought. Some are more overt, like Wynn Bullock who claimed he made photographs that illustrated the time-space continuum.
John Dewey on "What is Thought": http://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/Dewey/Dewey_1910a/Dewey_1910_a.html One definition he speaks of is anything that goes through our mind.
David is certainly right that there are many definitions of thought... but there are scientific definitions as well as philosophical definitions. See: http://www.blackstarreview.com/rev-0150.html
Kim
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 9:12 PM, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 07-Aug-10 18:08, Kim Mosley wrote:I don't see that it partakes of any of the aspects that characterize thought. But it seems likely that no two of us have the same definition of "thought", or that any of us has any really precise definition of it. I think the real problem is that it's a high-level philosophical concept rather than an actual scientific concept.
Isn't photography (and all non-verbal art) thought without words?
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
--
Kim Mosley
mrkimmosley@xxxxxxxxx
Website: http://kimmosley.com
Blog: http://kimmosley.com/blog
