4 ms·
Couldn't it simply take them that long to understand/model the visual input deeply enough to interact with it in complete sentences?
by dwaltrip 10y ago
Couldn't it simply take them that long to understand/model the visual input deeply enough to interact with it in complete sentences?
- taeric 10y agoApologies for neglecting this over the weekend. The claim was "Processed by the eye, yes, but that rises to 100% for images processed by the brain." That is, that the images processed by the brain were 100% constructed by the brain. The implication I got was that the images you perceive are entirely of your own devising. This seems off to me. Certainly anyone that is blind but still able to visualize a room is using constructed visualizations. But, that is a different thing than someone that is able to see. This is different from written words. Which are 100% devised by another being. Maybe assembled by a machine, but the words and the meanings of them are learned and come from taught meanings. Not from raw processed experiences.
- dwaltrip 10y agoI'm not entirely following what you mean, but that's OK. My hunch is our differences lie this concept of "taught meaning". I don't think meanings are taught, in any traditional sense. I think they are absorbed, acquired, and synthesized by the incredible pattern matching of the brain, operating off of direct, perceptual experience. Of course, these experiences includes things like reflection, reading a textbook, having a conversation, watching a movie, daydreaming etc. When one reads a piece of text, it's being interpreted through the complex mental models of the world and layers of meaning that have been built up in the individual's brain over the years. I realize we our now squarely off on a tangent :)