Every piece of entity has aspects to it. Depending upon the context, we take the requisite/appropriate aspect of the entity. But there is a default aspect (commonsensical) aspect to entities also. When there is no particular context, we take the default aspect. For example, when there is no particular context in the case of a sentence like – John gave a ball to Jack – we take the default aspect of Jack (or John) as just a person i.e. ‘an alive human body’; not the other aspects like his religion/ethnicity, his mind, his feelings, his profession, he as a father/son/brother/..etc. This is the default commonsense aspect of John.
Going by another track, the first sensory path of perception of any data is visualisation (visual imagination). We first try to visualise anything being told or taught to us. When we read such as the above sentences, our mind conjures up an image, and it is of a person which is just an alive human body – nothing more (and which is handing over a ball to some other one).
So the two tracks match – Commonsense and Visual imagination. Both have their default perception-aspect of a person in a context-less environment, as an alive human body. Is there a reason for this match?
Is it that because our primary sensory faculty is vision (60% of the brain is used to process visual signals), our commonsense has gotten modeled based on that? The other possibility seems less likely – that somehow there is an internal mechanism called commonsense, and our senses have evolved as functionaries of this fundamental sense. Or is it so?
One thought on “Default aspect of data – via Commonsense & Sensory mechanism”
Consider referencing – Picture Producers “Conceptual Categories (slide) – first item PP(picture producer) : physical object. Actors must be an animate PP, or a natural force.” – See here: https://people.cs.pitt.edu/~wiebe/courses/CS3730/Spring2013/cd.pdf