k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]
Tue Jan 20 17:32:57 EST 2004

Hi, Dag.

"Dag Stenberg" <dag.stenberg at> wrote in message
news:buj3ll$c4l$1 at
> In bionet.neuroscience k p  Collins <kpaulc@[----------]>
> > "k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]> wrote in message
> > news:af0Pb.15869$q4.5300 at
> >> > >That is, "vision" is nothing more than the map-
> >> > >ping of light onto the retina.
> >
> > The neural Topology is for doing all of this information-
> > processing. It can't waste energy doing stuff that'd only
> > impose huge complication in the midst of the rest of what
> > it must accomplish, precisely because all of that complicated
> > stuff is already being done in the retina, and would be totally-
> > redundant if it were recreated internally.
> I cannot help thinking that it would be useful if Ken read just a tiny
> bit of visual physiology in between. There is a whole lot going on after
> the retina, and it is not all point-to-point projection either. Please
> read up in any modern textbook.
> Dag Stenberg

I stand on what I've posted, Dag.

So, since the topic has become
'suggesting' to others what their
'shortcomings' are, I 'suggest' that
you spend some 'time' working at
extracting information-content
from dynamic visual imagery.

Somewhere in that effort, you'll
come to understand the position
I've discussed :-]

The problem is =HUGE=, and,
if it's size isn't daunting enough,
the fact that it must be resolved
on a hierarchy of energy-converg-
ence that has 'real-time' at one end,
and that the neural Topology suc-
ceeds, Magnificently, at this, is the

All the 'parlor-talk' about "How
wonderful it is that I am a free-
standing, highly-mobile, autono-
mous entity, yet I can =see= the
world around me!" is nothing but
'hype' on the parts of folks who've
not given any thought to the problem
outlined in the paragraph above.

The sheet of paper 'sees' the 'world'
that is projected upon it through the
lens - but it doesn't have enough
intelligence to understand what's
right-there to see.

In the above, I'm being facetious,
of course, but only in working to
convey the essence of the problem.

"Seeing" isn't just experiencing light.

The sheet of paper 'experiences'

"Seeing" is experiencing the =inform-
ation-content= that is conveyed via
the 3-D energydynamics that are

Big-difference - =HUGE=.

The easiest way to beging to get
a handle on "seeing" is to observe it
becoming instantiated in newly-born

You know - follow the dynamics of
their coming to "see" as their massive-
ly-learning brains perform the work
of their final, activation-dependent
'wiring' of themselves.

Pay particular attention to one set
of things: eye-hand coordination.

During the course of the Infant's
first 'year', it goes from 'nothing' to
being robustly-exact.

=This= is an example of what "see-
ing" is. It's not in the 'pictures'. They
come as 'freebies' - just like on the
sheet of paper.

But the =Seeing= that enables the
one-'year'-old Toddler to orient
visual attention to the grape [that
is, hopefully, without pesticides] on
the tray of the Infant's high-chair,
including yoked, convergent 3-deg-
rees-of-motion eye movements,
and the deep affective alignment that
'spurs' these eye movements which
bring the image of the grape into
front-center focus upon the fovea,
and, simultaneously, 'recruit' co-
ordinated hand-arm-trunk-neck-
head motor activation that don't
'just happen' to direct the Toddler's
grasp to extend in 3-space to the
grape, but are =purposful= with
respect to it in a way that derives
in the =information-content= that's
in the 'light', and, simultaneously,
'recruits' coordiated auditory and
motor-speech activation, through
which the Infant's vocal apparatus
[diaphram, vocal cords, tongue,
jaw, and all of its facial musculature]
to manifest sound-energy - "gape!"
[substitute our fond rememberances
of Infant's you've known uttering
their first attempts at saying "grape"
in their Native-languages].

And what's above is a bare 'carica-
ture' - a 'cartoon' of what's actually
going-on within the Infant's brain -
all of which is made-possible through

The 'pictures' are right-there on the
retina - freebies - just like on the sheet
of paper.

"Seeing" consists of all this other informa-
topn-content-derived neural processing.

Don't get me wrong. I, too, enjoy very-
much experiencing the 'pictures' - the
'movies', and marvel that, unlike the
sheet of paper which has the same
opportunity but cannot act upon it, I
can act upon the 'light' - act upon what
I see with my own two eyes.

But all that part of vision is is what's
right-there on the sheet of paper.

Think about it. If we 'saw'-internally',
then we'd not have to go to the movies,
we'd not have to watch TV. We wouldn't
even need eyes - we wouldn't have to
interface with the 'light' :-]

But we do interface with the 'light', and
the image that the 'light' projects upon
our retina remains right-there.

Why is this so 'strange'?

Does anyone think that, when one picks
up a pencil, the 'pencil' exists within one's

It's why, in my prior post in this discussion
of aware-consciousness, I stepped through
the 'lower' senses [olfaction and somato-
sensation]. It's easier to see that, in them,
what's actually going-on is distributed
information-content 'addressing' [AoK, Ap6].

It's the 'same' with respect to vision and

The 'images' are upon the retina, just as the
'touch'-of-an-object is on one's finger-tips
[hand, arm, leg, trunk, face, big-toe, etc.]

What happens is =just= what evolutionary
dynamics have converged upon, and, from
the perspective of =all= EM, the Human
visual system is blind to the vast majority
ot the 'sea' of EM in which we exist.

All we see is what would 'give us a bump
on the head' if we didn't detect it - and
that is why, if one looks, one sees that
all the 'pictures' are is an evolutionarily-
converged-upon coupling of internal 3-D
energydynamics with external experiential
3-D energydynamics.

What is 'strange' about the fact that, given
a system that is capable of 'emotion', of
standing upright, movement, which has
drives and needs, etc., when a 'window'
upon the larger reality opens-up, the intern-
al functioning of that system becomes
strongly-coupled to the information-content
that is conveyed via the 'light' that comes-
in through that 'window'?

=There are= dynamics that are analogous
to the water-crystals in the lawnmower
experiment, but, in the neural case, these
are abstract - they aren't the 'pictures'
themselves, but 'graspings' of this or that
feature of the information-content [which
I'm Certain no one will understand [yet]].

What about stuff like the experiments
that have disclosed that 'mental rotations'
of an image, or the mental-folding tasks
that are used to 'measure intelligence' [:-]?

The experiments disclose that such mental-
rotations occur in real-'time' [refs given in
AoK, Ap6]. Doesn't this mean that there's
an actual image in-there, and that it literally
being rotated? I mean, why else would the
observed real-'time' occurrence of such
mental-rotations be as it is?

It's as it is =not= because there's an actual
'image constructed' within the brain, but
be-cause =all= such 'rotations', 'foldings',
etc. are =addressed= via sequential motor
"templates" [AoK, Ap5] that are "subord-
inately-coupled" [AoK, Ap5] to visual-
sensory 3-D energydynamics.

[So, if you want your Child to score high
on 'iq tests', make sure that they do lots
and lots of stuff with their hands - or just
let them watch you while you do lots and
lots of stuff with your hands in your cellar
workshop :-] [Thank You, Dad.]

There's extremely-very-much more in a
discussion of aware-consciousness, but
I can't even begin to discuss any of it
until this basic stuff [which has been in
AoK all along] is understood.

Anyway, sorry about this rather 'strong'
response, Dag, but 'suggestions' that I've
not done the work [the reading] are not
founded in-Truth, and such, when directed
at me, usually does evoke a 'moving toward'
Truth on my part.

And, Truth is, that I've been wanting to
get back to rereading in the contemporan-
eous Literature. It's just that I've seen [with
my own two eyes] that =someone= has to
do what needs to be done with respect to
enabling folks to see the basics that've
been in the Literature for decades.

That's what I do, and I've pretty-much
'given-up' on ever being allowed to read-

What good is it if one person knows all
this stuff, but no one else does?


So I work at this basic 'level.

It's not without Reason that I do so.

I've Witnessed the Consequences inherent in
folks 'skipping' what's all right-there, if only
folks devote themselves to Seeing it.

Cheers(?) Dag, ken [k. p. collins]

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list