>Subject: Re: visual detail
>From: kckpaulc at aol.comABCXYZ (ken collins)
>Date: Mon, 08 November 1999 02:34 AM EST
>Message-id: <19991108023454.15385.00000692 at ng-ba1.aol.com>
>>>Subject: visual detail
>>From: daan daanBACHvdb at wins.uva.nl>>Date: Sun, 07 November 1999 06:28 PM EST
>>Message-id: <38260B37.C0491951 at wins.uva.nl>
>>>>I found out about visual perception, that the further we go into the
>>brain (following afferent pathway) larger cells (complex and
>>hypercomplex) keep track of constantly increasing abstraction. First of
>>lines, then of shapes etc. So this is a way macroscopic features can be
>>extracted from a visual scene.
>>>>Now my question is - because I cannot find anything about it - does
>>anyone know wether something like that also exists for detail (ie
>>microscopic features)? In other words: how is detail preserved in the
>>afferent visual pathway?
>>on this, the future might prove me wrong, but, when the details exist in the
>environment, why store them internally? why not store only information
>sufficient for 'recognizing' the details when they are experienced, or to
>recreate them via successive approximations, as Artists do, with one brush
>stroke prompting the next? (why artists continually refer to their subjects
>>the 'image' is in the light... in the EM. why recreate it, and store the
>recreation, in the brain?
>>in this way, storing abstract TD E/I-minimizations, which allow
>not only takes care of everything, but also eliminates the
>completely-unnecessary step of 'translating' from an internal 'visual image'
>during 'normal' processing.
>>in this view, the 'TV screen' is the retina.
>>this view can be tested experimentally by recording from the retina, for
>instance, during REM-Sleep. if the view is correct, there will be retinal
>activation even in the absence of light, and which is the 'TV screen' for
>>i'm inclined this way, although i've not searched for such in the literature,
>from close observation of my own experience. i routinely think in pictures...
>can be 'watching' TV, not seeing the TV, but, rather, the 'thought' that i'm
>'thinking'... the more-demanding the thought, the more the external
>'disappears'... i'm sitting there, eyes on the TV, but, afterward, realize
>i 'missed the show', or a portion of it, even though i was 'looking' at the
>it's the same with respect to audition; 'listening' to a lecture, only to
>realize a bit later that i was 'elsewhere', and didn't even hear the protion
>the talk... but i can recall the imagery of the problem i was working on.
>>i'm sure it's a matter of selective 'attention' because, when a stimulus
>arrives from the TV, like those obnoxiously-realistic telephone rings that
>advertising folks deliberately stick into their commercials, my internal
>'goes away', if only briefly, and i see the TV image.
>>the environmental EM is so rich. we routinely 'see' the same stuff, without
>consciously Seeing it, until we learn a bit, then, and only then, do we See
>there's internal 'feedback' that's necessary, and i might be wrong, but i've
>come to see it as happening in the retina, where the full richness of the
>environmental EM bathes the nervous system in its wealth of information...
>the nervous system takes what it recognizes and 'disregards' the rest...
>more, recognize more, See more. Science does such as a matter of course. So
>Religion and Philosophy, come to think of it, only Religion and Philosophy do
>more of the inside-out Seeing than does Science... Interesting insight.
the work reported on in the _Scientific American_ article, =demonstrates= that
the tuning of 'consciousness'' happens beyond the retina, which, although it
was not what i'd in mind when i wrote what's quoted here, is what, i now see
i'd recklessly implied. i was talking about =vision-, itself... the 'Seeing' of
a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. i see the retina as a 'window' on
the visual-spectrum EM, and what we experience as 'seeing the light' is 'just'
an experiencing of the energy-content in the visual-spectrum EM that falls on
our retinas. this energy-flow varies in a way that 'reflects' the
energy-content of the =effector activations= that are required with respect to
external objects... of course experience enters into it's interpretation... a
dumbell (which, just now, i feel is an appropriate object for discussion) is
heavier than a styrofoam similarly-shaped-and-colored thing... but the images
of the things are mapped into our nervous systems through the 'EM windows' of
our retinas. being 'conscious' of the steel-styrofom difference is not a
function of the retina... we become 'aware' of that only once we've gained
somatosensory and proprieoceptive experience
i'd =really= like to know if there's any retinal activity during 'REM sleep
consciousness'. anyone know?
what i'm after is the 'TV Screen' (which, i believe is a metaphore used by F.
R. C. Crick, and which i might have gotten from his "Thinking About the Brain"
article in the Sept, 1979 issue of _Scientific American_.)
do folks who's retinas don't function, or have ceased to function, still have
'visual images', say, of objects they sense through 'touch'? if so, then the
'TV Screen' is not in the retina. if not, then it is. do these folks 'dream' in
'pictures'? if so, are there any descriptions of their 'dream pictures' in the
i want to understand the 'TV Screen'... the 'window' to light... the 'window'
to visual-spectrum EM.
the other stuff... the selective-attention pertaining to what's seen is all
'addressed' via TD E/I-minimization with respect to the 'nonlinear-perspective'
stuff that's discussed in AoK, Ap6. all objects in 3-D space are 'easily'
'selected' be-cause their nonlinear perspective info has a rigorously-ordered
'group discipline' (J. J. Hopfield's term). the solution to the 'binding'
broblem that's in NDT, and which is, albeit, only conceptually (8-bit, 2-D,
ascii-'graphics'), demonstrated in the INFOCALC.BAS program that i've posted,
derives in the nonlinearity of perspective.
'blurring' an object's nonlinear perspective info 'camoflages' the object.
>don't ask me to 'volunteer'. the thought of electrodes in my retinas doesn't
>attract me :-)
>there's an article in the Nov. 99 _Scientific American_, "Vision: A window on
>Consciousness", by N. K. Logothetis, p68. Gusee i'll have to take the 'time'
>to read it now that i've "gone off half cocked" :-)
>>i'll comment further, after reading the article, if it's necessary.
it was necessary.
K. P. Collins
>>cheers, ken collins