4 ms·

Its likly to be largely an illusion; There was a talk from a neurologist years ago, when he demonstrated that mental images don't act like real images. If you

by cortic 6y ago

Its likly to be largely an illusion; There was a talk from a neurologist years ago, when he demonstrated that mental images don't act like real images. If you picture something like a pirate, and someone asked you about the scene, eg; what color are his trousers, what kind of shirt.. You will get a question that you don't instantly know, your mind will quickly 'colour/paint in' so you can answer, but the important part is that you didn't notice that bit was missing before you were asked, which is not now a real picture acts - you would have noticed the pirate had no trouser without needing to be asked about them. eye-sight itself is an illusion to some degree, eyes don't send images, they send data that is re-assembled into a construct of abstractions, aka you don't see a cup until you know its a cup. there are a lot of optical illusions that exploit this.

jjk166 6y ago
Look at your computer screen. Really take it in. Where is the banner? Where is the exit button? What is the color of your underwear? Perhaps you will remember what color underwear you put on this morning, perhaps you will check, but it would be pretty weird if your underwear's color was constantly on your mind. Nevertheless, I doubt you would argue that your underwear did not have color while you weren't thinking of it. Now open up an image of a pirate on your screen. Click on the window and drag it down until the bottom half is off the screen. What color are the pirate's trousers? The computer is only displaying a portion of the image, so technically the pirate's trousers don't exist. But nevertheless the data in the image file would suggest that the pirate does in fact have trousers of a certain color, even if that color is just a number. You are correct that visual memory does not work like a photograph, but why would it? Your eyes don't send photographs via mail to a little post office in your head, your vision is a means of processing the signals of huge numbers of neurons firing together. Visual processing ought to the same circuits in the brain as vision, the fact that it behaves like vision is evidence that those circuits really are in use. Of course what I imagine is an illusion, no one is proposing that simply by imagining an object it will manifest in reality. The point is that it is exactly the same sort of illusion as the one that my brain makes when I see real things, and thus my perception of my visual thoughts is the same as my perception of the visible world.
- cortic 6y ago
  I think you are cheating a bit, first the instruction was to picture a pirate, not a bit of one. Second, the exercises purpose is to demonstrate that missing information in an image is obvious whereas missing information in a mental image is not. And the point is that picturing something to many feels the same as looking at a picture, but in actual fact that feeling is an illusion. >my perception of my visual thoughts is the same as my perception of the visible world. If this were true, you would not know when the picture of the pirate was partially off the screen. Or conversely you would know that the mental image of the pirate had no trousers before being asked.
  - jjk166 6y ago
    Okay, here's an experiment less subject to philosophical interpretation: Picture Jack Sparrow (assuming you feel like you have a good memory of pirates of the carribean). In particular, picture his sparrow tatoo. Write down what color it is. Then look online at an image of it [0]. Is the color the one you wrote down that you pictured? Repeat this again for any image you feel like you remember. If your mind were simply making you think that you were picturing things correctly, what you write down should rarely match reality. On the other hand, if you are actually storing visual information, your memory should pretty regularly be correct. Not everyone actually does store data visually, it really could go either way. With regards to your comment, the instruction was to picture a pirate, not a pirate's shirt. If you look at a photograph of someone, do you become instantly aware of all information contained within it with perfect detail? If so you must be great at where's waldo. For the rest of us, we perceive a gross overview at first and to identify any details we must focus in. But the fact that we don't know where waldo is before we look for him does not mean our brains are retroactively placing him into the picture. [0] http://www.jacksparrowcostuming.com/tatoo.htm http://www.jacksparrowcostuming.com/tatoo.htm
  - Tor3 6y ago
    > I think you are cheating a bit, first the instruction was to picture a pirate, not a bit of one. But the idea that when you see a (real) picture, or scene in the real world, you actually see it all - thats an illusion. The mind doesn't work that way. You only see the little bit you're focusing on, but the brain tries to trick you into believing that you see it all. What really happens is that when you want to know about the trousers you focus on the trousers. Until you do that you don't actually know. If someone asks you to describe details about the pirate's clothes you'll first scan every part sequentially, add what you see to a list of answers, and then answer. Things work the same when you imagine a picture (for those who can do that) - you'll know the details only when you focus on each detail, and, as the image wasn't a physical one on the table top the mind fills in as and when it's needed. Just as when you process a physical picture.

by cortic 6y ago

jjk166 6y ago

Look at your computer screen. Really take it in. Where is the banner? Where is the exit button? What is the color of your underwear? Perhaps you will remember what color underwear you put on this morning, perhaps you will check, but it would be pretty weird if your underwear's color was constantly on your mind. Nevertheless, I doubt you would argue that your underwear did not have color while you weren't thinking of it. Now open up an image of a pirate on your screen. Click on the window and drag it down until the bottom half is off the screen. What color are the pirate's trousers? The computer is only displaying a portion of the image, so technically the pirate's trousers don't exist. But nevertheless the data in the image file would suggest that the pirate does in fact have trousers of a certain color, even if that color is just a number. You are correct that visual memory does not work like a photograph, but why would it? Your eyes don't send photographs via mail to a little post office in your head, your vision is a means of processing the signals of huge numbers of neurons firing together. Visual processing ought to the same circuits in the brain as vision, the fact that it behaves like vision is evidence that those circuits really are in use. Of course what I imagine is an illusion, no one is proposing that simply by imagining an object it will manifest in reality. The point is that it is exactly the same sort of illusion as the one that my brain makes when I see real things, and thus my perception of my visual thoughts is the same as my perception of the visible world.

cortic 6y ago
I think you are cheating a bit, first the instruction was to picture a pirate, not a bit of one. Second, the exercises purpose is to demonstrate that missing information in an image is obvious whereas missing information in a mental image is not. And the point is that picturing something to many feels the same as looking at a picture, but in actual fact that feeling is an illusion. >my perception of my visual thoughts is the same as my perception of the visible world. If this were true, you would not know when the picture of the pirate was partially off the screen. Or conversely you would know that the mental image of the pirate had no trousers before being asked.
- jjk166 6y ago
  Okay, here's an experiment less subject to philosophical interpretation: Picture Jack Sparrow (assuming you feel like you have a good memory of pirates of the carribean). In particular, picture his sparrow tatoo. Write down what color it is. Then look online at an image of it [0]. Is the color the one you wrote down that you pictured? Repeat this again for any image you feel like you remember. If your mind were simply making you think that you were picturing things correctly, what you write down should rarely match reality. On the other hand, if you are actually storing visual information, your memory should pretty regularly be correct. Not everyone actually does store data visually, it really could go either way. With regards to your comment, the instruction was to picture a pirate, not a pirate's shirt. If you look at a photograph of someone, do you become instantly aware of all information contained within it with perfect detail? If so you must be great at where's waldo. For the rest of us, we perceive a gross overview at first and to identify any details we must focus in. But the fact that we don't know where waldo is before we look for him does not mean our brains are retroactively placing him into the picture. [0] http://www.jacksparrowcostuming.com/tatoo.htm http://www.jacksparrowcostuming.com/tatoo.htm
- Tor3 6y ago
  > I think you are cheating a bit, first the instruction was to picture a pirate, not a bit of one. But the idea that when you see a (real) picture, or scene in the real world, you actually see it all - thats an illusion. The mind doesn't work that way. You only see the little bit you're focusing on, but the brain tries to trick you into believing that you see it all. What really happens is that when you want to know about the trousers you focus on the trousers. Until you do that you don't actually know. If someone asks you to describe details about the pirate's clothes you'll first scan every part sequentially, add what you see to a list of answers, and then answer. Things work the same when you imagine a picture (for those who can do that) - you'll know the details only when you focus on each detail, and, as the image wasn't a physical one on the table top the mind fills in as and when it's needed. Just as when you process a physical picture.