What do you think she is seeing? What do you think I think she’s seeing? What do you think he thinks she is seeing?Â What do you think I think you are thinking she’s seeing?
These type of questions may look a. stupid b. infinite. They are neither, by the way; at least the b. is surely not. Contemporary views on the so called symbol grounding argue that we don’t need (and therefore don’t do) infinite loops of ‘attributed reflection’ (e.g., I think that you think that I think that you think… etc”) to make sure that our beliefs are ‘grounded’. Cognitive scientists differ on whether two or three are enough (personally think that we need ‘just a bit more than three; pi seems to be a better number), but in any case that’ far from infinity.
The questions remains if it’s stupid; but that’s not an interesting question to ask. More important is why Summ()n would be interested in these issues of ‘art perception’; and the answer is because we are exploring with Vanabbe Museum a possibility to develop a game slash installation slash interactive performance whereby people would explore each other’s perceptions of art. We had a few preliminary meetings (and more is expected), but the scenarios look exciting. I hope to write many more times about these issues in the very near future.