3 ms·
Funny thing about vision, inside our heads, in our consciousness, it feels like we are seeing a picture. As in, we have pictures 'inside our heads'. But they ca
by codeulike 12d ago
Funny thing about vision, inside our heads, in our consciousness, it feels like we are seeing a picture. As in, we have pictures 'inside our heads'. But they can't actually be pictures, they must be data structures.
When our vision centres have analysed the incoming signals from the retina and processed it into information about edges, lines, colours, objects - does that then get reassembled somewhere to make the image we see in our heads? Its a very intuitive idea but that can't be possible. Because if your brain is recreating the 'image' inside your head somewhere, something then needs to look at it (and process it and break it down again to information about edges, lines, colours). But you've already done that! You already have the data, no need to make it back into an image and then re-analyse it again (see Dennett, cartesian theatre, inner observer, homunculus etc).
This is a simple concept but its very hard to get a grip on it, it is so against our intuitive feeling for how these things should work.
I have an analogy with computer games - imagine rendering a frame of a 3D game, Doom or something. The game has information about the 3D structure of the room, where the walls are, where the entities are. Then it goes to the rendering pipeline and that data is used to draw on a 2D screen, creating a 2d image. The light from that image then hits your retina and your vision processing centres break the image down into data again - the 3d structure of the room as far as you can see it, where the entities are, colours. That data is then in your head (obviously not exactly the same data that the game had, but some analogous data structure in whatever weird internal format the brain uses). And thats it! That data is you seeing it! (But no, you think, surely that data is used to recreate the image in my head somewhere....)
Things like the necker cube gives us a peep behind the curtain maybe.
- srean 12d agoWhy does this appear downvoted ?
- nkurz 12d agoI didn't vote, but my guess would be that it's because "aphantasia" (the inability to visualize images) is a popular topic on this site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia. Some people see images in their head, and others (possibly overrepresented here) simply don't. My guess would be that a comment that starts by assuming everyone sees images in their heads was considered misleading and simplistic.
- srean 12d agoMy confusion was slightly different. The parent comment was the top ranked comment yet grayed and continued to remain gray after I upvoter. About your comment, I am very because I am not sure where I myself fall. My mental imagery is certainly not so strong that I can claim with any confidence that I have one. My wife, on the otherhand claims strongly that she can see things in her minds eye and I have ample evidence to believe it. Can those with aphantasia do rough sketches of some familiar object from memory of the object ? There is a loophole in the task though. One can translate the visual imagery into words and remember them. Then one can sketch using the remembered words, not that different from the workings of a deep autoencoder. It really comes down to the nature and geometry of the latent space. Is it a topological space with a topology less boring than a discrete topology. Is it spatial/geometric or symbolic.
- deleted 12d ago[deleted]