4 ms·

This sounds very, very wrong or at least scientifically inaccurate. Human vision does not compromise of a slideshow where the brain fills in missing frames. We

This sounds very, very wrong or at least scientifically inaccurate. Human vision does not compromise of a slideshow where the brain fills in missing frames. We don't see in frames at all. We get a constant stream of information and our light sensitive receptors have a buildup and decay effect. This is why you can still see the last thing you looked at for a moment when you close your eyes quickly. I don't know what this video is based on but it's a great example for not taking anything on YouTube as ground truth. For this video, I would ask the creator supply some serious materials backing up the claims being made.

B1FF_PSUVM 3y ago
> where the brain fills in missing frames. The optical data rate is much lower than required, the brain makes stuff up almost all the time. (ChatGPT is just trying to catch up.)
ninkendo 3y ago
He's talking about saccadic eye movement, using the slideshow as a metaphor to explain how our eyes discard information during the saccade, which is pretty accurate as far as I know. The phrasing was confusing but I don't think he meant to imply that we see a slideshow all the time, just when our eyes are moving/scanning a scene.
treyfitty 3y ago
The guy did his best to present facts he knows to be true. Your comment comes off as entitled, as if he owes you more. He wasn’t the first person to say what he said in the video, so if you want sources, you can Google it yourself.
informatimago 3y ago
But it does. There's a famous experiment, where we display on a screen successive dots (with gaps in between). People see one dot in motion. Now, if half of the dots are red, and the following half are green, and if we ask people to show where the dot change color from red to green, they show the position right in the middle between the last red dot, and the first green dot. This goes to show that brain fills in missing frames, not only in space, but also in time, inventing a time in the past where the color of the dot changed.
enragedcacti 3y ago
It seems like he did fine if you take the Youtube comments' word for it: "As a visual neuroscientist and also a rider, I approve of this message. Very impressive depth of scientific insight into how our vision works, all presented in an easy to understand way." - World-renowned researcher Vladimir Kefalov https://medschool.uci.edu/news/world-renowned-researcher-vladimir-kefalov-joins-uci-departments-ophthalmology-and-physiology https://medschool.uci.edu/news/world-renowned-researcher-vla...
roughly 3y ago
Your view of vision is entirely inaccurate, because the way vision _actually works_ sounds very, very wrong or at least scientifically inaccurate. Your eyes are not cameras and you don’t actually see the light that hits them - your brain constructs its impression of the world, uses the light perceived by your eyes to error correct, and that’s your phenomenological sense of vision. Saccades are real - your brain blocks out input for microseconds and backfills what it thinks you would have seen, manipulating your sense of time, too. Your visual processing takes longer than your auditory processing; synchronous perception too is an illusion your brain pulls to show a coherent world (and is likely part of why optical illusions work - your brain is “projecting” where it thinks the world is a couple microseconds ahead so it matches what you’re hearing). Selective attention is a real thing - check the video someone linked above for a solid example. The peripheral blindness mentioned is real, and occurs for similar reasons to your blind spot (your actual blind spot, the spot in your retinas where your optic nerve passes through your optic dish and you have no photoreceptors, so your brain just.. makes up what should be there). Vision is not a process by which your camera eyes capture an image and your brain reports it, it is a process where your brain makes a guess about the world and tries to truth check it with external stimuli. It is not a faithful process, and where it renders reality, it does so because it’s expected to be sufficiently advantageous for your survival to be worth the effort.

B1FF_PSUVM 3y ago

> where the brain fills in missing frames. The optical data rate is much lower than required, the brain makes stuff up almost all the time. (ChatGPT is just trying to catch up.)

ninkendo 3y ago

He's talking about saccadic eye movement, using the slideshow as a metaphor to explain how our eyes discard information during the saccade, which is pretty accurate as far as I know. The phrasing was confusing but I don't think he meant to imply that we see a slideshow all the time, just when our eyes are moving/scanning a scene.

treyfitty 3y ago

The guy did his best to present facts he knows to be true. Your comment comes off as entitled, as if he owes you more. He wasn’t the first person to say what he said in the video, so if you want sources, you can Google it yourself.

informatimago 3y ago

But it does. There's a famous experiment, where we display on a screen successive dots (with gaps in between). People see one dot in motion. Now, if half of the dots are red, and the following half are green, and if we ask people to show where the dot change color from red to green, they show the position right in the middle between the last red dot, and the first green dot. This goes to show that brain fills in missing frames, not only in space, but also in time, inventing a time in the past where the color of the dot changed.

enragedcacti 3y ago

It seems like he did fine if you take the Youtube comments' word for it: "As a visual neuroscientist and also a rider, I approve of this message. Very impressive depth of scientific insight into how our vision works, all presented in an easy to understand way." - World-renowned researcher Vladimir Kefalov https://medschool.uci.edu/news/world-renowned-researcher-vladimir-kefalov-joins-uci-departments-ophthalmology-and-physiology https://medschool.uci.edu/news/world-renowned-researcher-vla...

roughly 3y ago

Your view of vision is entirely inaccurate, because the way vision _actually works_ sounds very, very wrong or at least scientifically inaccurate. Your eyes are not cameras and you don’t actually see the light that hits them - your brain constructs its impression of the world, uses the light perceived by your eyes to error correct, and that’s your phenomenological sense of vision. Saccades are real - your brain blocks out input for microseconds and backfills what it thinks you would have seen, manipulating your sense of time, too. Your visual processing takes longer than your auditory processing; synchronous perception too is an illusion your brain pulls to show a coherent world (and is likely part of why optical illusions work - your brain is “projecting” where it thinks the world is a couple microseconds ahead so it matches what you’re hearing). Selective attention is a real thing - check the video someone linked above for a solid example. The peripheral blindness mentioned is real, and occurs for similar reasons to your blind spot (your actual blind spot, the spot in your retinas where your optic nerve passes through your optic dish and you have no photoreceptors, so your brain just.. makes up what should be there). Vision is not a process by which your camera eyes capture an image and your brain reports it, it is a process where your brain makes a guess about the world and tries to truth check it with external stimuli. It is not a faithful process, and where it renders reality, it does so because it’s expected to be sufficiently advantageous for your survival to be worth the effort.