visual detail - CORRECTION
daanBACHvdb at wins.uva.nl
Mon Nov 8 17:06:07 EST 1999
Your question on why it should be stored is true, but not relevant in
this case. What I meant was: consider two identically shaped rocks. The
minute details actually reach your mind. How? By which pathways?
ken collins schreef:
> >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 environment.
> >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 :-)
> still doesn't.
> >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
to reply, remove BACH from emailaddress.
(sorry, had some SPAM-trouble)
More information about the Neur-sci