Visual reality: a new insight.

[Upchurch]

Actually upchurch, you're talking about images perceived which have been created by the brain/mind.

Actually we're talking about the mind imaging the external world through data inputed by the senses, in this case, the eyes. Why would need the perception of sterioscopic vision if all our minds would need is the final image?

I also find it interesting that you rely on material world concepts like photons and distance to try to argue that there is not such things as photons or distance, but that's neither here nor there (so to speak).

The awareness of 3 dimensions is a mind-given construct. I thought we'd already agreed to this? Remember that photons say nothing of distance, so that the mind/brain creates the image or awareness of distance for itself. Right?

At no point did we agree on this. A single photon can doesn't say anything about distance, but the multitude of photons that we receive from different objects provide multitudes of information.

So when you speak about the awareness of 'blurring' within the image that the mind/brain has already constructed for itself, you must acknowledge that the blurring is a phenomena of the construct, and not of the incoming photons. Agreed?

I agree it is a phenomena of the perception, errors on the part of the awareness in interpreting the information.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Re: Re: Re: Re: A few points.

We aren't even aware of individual photons

I read somewhere that a single photon can be detected by the eye in an otherwise darkened room.. I Admit it was a dubious source, but it sounded cool..

Do you know if this is true or not?

 

[Upchurch]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few points.

Do you know if this is true or not?

I don't think it is. There are certain luminations that are too dim for the human eye to detect. Now, I may have this wrong, but more illumination = more photons. So if there are a certain number of photons that are undetectable by the human eye, one certainly would be undetectable.

 

[Dancing David]

Re: A few points.

I've been thinking.

Firstly, we know that photons yield no information of distance traversed. Consequently, the concept of "distance" is a given, by the brain, to the abstract reality it creates of the [supposed] external reality for its own awareness.
So, how do we know that this distance (from the observer to the source of this light) even exists? I mean, if a photon says nothing about distance traversed, how do we know that any distance has been traversed?
Some of you gave reasons, such as some regions of light obscure other regions of light as they move across our vision... thus infering that some regions of light must emanate from sources which are closer than others.
But guess what? The same effect is seen on a 2-dimensional TV screen. So it doesn't automatically mean that some objects are closer than others.
Why would the brain choose to believe it was seeing 3 spatial dimensions instead of 2, particularly when it was only seeing photons giving info of 2?
What is it within the info yielded by photons which forces the brain/mind to think there are 3 spatial dimensions?

The question is one that is know to some materialists but not all, our brains have a need to make things up and to fill in gaps. So when we see the visual cues in a 2D picture that say it is a 3D picture, our brains make up the 3D effects.

Most of it was learnt in the Reneassance when artists learned about depth perception they also st8udied how to make things looks in 3D.

The thing is that it is not a phenomena of the photons, it is a phenomena of learned association, through out our lives we are exposed to the visual cues of a 3D object, such as the darkness on the side away from the light denoting the 3D shape of the object. So when an artists shades a picture to give us the same effect , our brains seize on that visual cue and act upon it.

So it is not information carried by a single photon but the aggregate of photons that makes our brain do it.

 

[lifegazer]

There are a very large number of ways. Triangulation is one, boucing a photon of a distant object and timing it is another. using measuring tape is yet another. I can go on and on.

Russ, you are failing to distinguish between abstract awareness and [supposed] actual external reality - the source of the photons.
What I mean by this, is that 'we' see what is constructed for us by our brain/mind. And the brain/mind sees (we assume) the external reality. We do not.

It doesn't choose, it is hardwired. Also, with stereoscopic vision, we are seeing photons that give info on three dimensions.

Yes, we are seeing a 3-dimensional abstract-realm. We even see that we have two eyes. That's part of what is perceived too. That's part of the mind's own construct.

Let me ask you this: If photons give one eye no details of a concept we know as distance (in external reality), then why should two eyes?

 

[Upchurch]

If photons give one eye no details of a concept we know as distance (in external reality), then why should two eyes?

Because two eyes, by their very nature of being distinct eyes, are seperated by a physical distance. Remember that whole steryoscopic vision thing? It only works if the input is coming from two sources that are not located at the same point.

Are you familiar with triangulation?

 

[Dancing David]

Ian of the Interesting:

If you were paying attention you would have seen that some of us might have actualy agreed with you, but then you would have to get off the pedastal of the Underappreciated Genius wouldn't you?

And here I thought you were smart, looks like you really just like to argue.

Sigh.

There are some phenomena of the visual field that do fall directly into what you are saying, that is why a newly sighted person might recognise a dog through smell but not sight.

And I agree even if they had a visual cortex that was capable of creating a coherent visual field , they most likely would not visualy recognise a 'cube' when first seeing it.

So stop stomping your feet and holding your breath and tell us why you think that is important.

A materialist would just say, no brainer they haven't learned the visiual reference to the previous tactile map of a cube. So what?

There is no magic part of the mind that holds the template for 'cube' where the different senses go for reference, all associations are learned.

So if you are done throwing your tantrum, why not tell us why you think that it is important that a newly sighted person wouldn't recognise a cube?

I would have predicted it, big whoop.

 

[Dancing David]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few points.

I read somewhere that a single photon can be detected by the eye in an otherwise darkened room.. I Admit it was a dubious source, but it sounded cool..

Do you know if this is true or not?

Hmm, sound like a questioin for Dr. mecrutio!

I don't know, I always thought the threshold was higher than a single photon.

 

[Dancing David]

Actually upchurch, you're talking about images perceived which have been created by the brain/mind.

I have said that already and repeatedly. But they are constructed from information sent to them by the sense organs.

The awareness of 3 dimensions is a mind-given construct. I thought we'd already agreed to this? Remember that photons say nothing of distance, so that the mind/brain creates the image or awareness of distance for itself. Right?

Yeah so, that doesn't mean that an apple is really flat does it? The fact that our eyes create the brains create a 3D illsuion doesn't mean that the 3D world doesn't exist. All perception is an illusion LG. I already know that, which is why I chose nihilism.

BTW do you see the 'blind spot' in your eye when you look through one eye, no you don't. That is because your brain makes up the image there. Cool huh?

So when you speak about the awareness of 'blurring' within the image that the mind/brain has already constructed for itself, you must acknowledge that the blurring is a phenomena of the construct, and not of the incoming photons. Agreed?

That is a cart horse question LG, the photons do not transmit the blurring directly, but they can be represented on a TV screen, like when you look at a photo taken on a foggy day. When the light bounces off the photo and then eneters your eyes, there is already the information that our brain percieves as blurry.

The information of the blurring is carried by the photons and then interpreted by our brains to give the depth effect.

So I would say that blurring is information carried in the picture but that the depth interpretation is done by the brain.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few points.

Hmm, sound like a questioin for Dr. mecrutio!

I don't know, I always thought the threshold was higher than a single photon.

O.K. you have me thinking now.... ( dangerous )..

I'm sure you have heard of the ' slit ' experiments, and questions about how do the photons ' know ' if there is one slit or two, thus creating interference patterns.

It seems that one photon should be enough in light of the question of ; why should the receptors respond to an arbitrary number, rather than just one?

But I will defer to a more informed opinion..

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Diogenes


I read somewhere that a single photon can be detected by the eye in an otherwise darkened room.. I Admit it was a dubious source, but it sounded cool..

Do you know if this is true or not?

I heard it was more like seven, but I can't remember where I heard it. IIRC, Penrose touched on it in The Emperor's New Mind.

 

[lifegazer]

"The awareness of 3 dimensions is a mind-given construct. I thought we'd already agreed to this? Remember that photons say nothing of distance, so that the mind/brain creates the image or awareness of distance for itself. Right?"

All perception is an illusion LG. I already know that, which is why I chose nihilism.

What?!
How does the conclusion follow the observation? You lost me on that one.

 

[Dancing David]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few points.

O.K. you have me thinking now.... ( dangerous )..

I'm sure you have heard of the ' slit ' experiments, and questions about how do the photons ' know ' if there is one slit or two, thus creating interference patterns.

It seems that one photon should be enough in light of the question of ; why should the receptors respond to an arbitrary number, rather than just one?

But I will defer to a more informed opinion..

I found this the key phrase is 'absolute threshold' and in this article the authoer says a 'few quanta of light' are all that are needed to trigger a dark adapted retina.

More article here

The issue as to why a specific number of quanta is that there may be a threshold for the variation in the photopigment rhodopsin.

 

[Dancing David]

What?!
How does the conclusion follow the observation? You lost me on that one.

I guess I am not an absolute nihilist, it just comes from having a father who was an athropologist and a mother who was a literature major, then I studied psychology.

Although I do believe that the universe appears to have come from a nothing that was really a 'something'.

My take on hihilism is that nothing know by humans is true, everything we know is just a product of the biological nature of being. It is all abritrary and open to interpretation So while I may 'see a car', I know that I am just having a perception made up by my brain for my benefits. So I feel that applies to all human concepts, they are just handy referents that we use in speech to denote meaning. That meaning has no real correlary in the 'real' world. And it seems to even be a subject of some debate as to wther or not the real world exists. I already had rejected the mental world as false by the age of fiveteen and the 'real' world soon followed. So I believe that i have perception but they are only approximations of the experience of the sense organs.

I keep forgetting that Nihilism scares people, I figure you just go on and assume that the oberservations you make are just a best guess and subject to revision at any time.

I still have morals and ethics and try to enjoy the false world of perception as much as I can.

 

[lifegazer]

My take on hihilism is that nothing know by humans is true,

Contradictory statement, since you're proclaiming this as a truth.

everything we know is just a product of the biological nature of being.

Unfounded assertion.

So while I may 'see a car', I know that I am just having a perception made up by my brain for my benefits.

True. So at least you know you have a mind. The Mind is the creator of the things it puts upon 'your' awareness. As discussed in this thread, your reality of things is a mind-construct. And whilst we cannot be sure about the things, there can be no doubt about the mind itself.

You can know your own reality by going to the source of its construct. But note that "the brain" is a thing within that construct. It's in your awareness, along with everythin else.

 

[hammegk]

Johnny: Are you sure the two schemes are equivalent?

UR: Well, my young friend, if you can figure out a way to tell the difference, I'll buy you a malted.

Sounds good to me; undefined monism + agnosticism is the unassailable stance imo.


Or is that just another drive-by by a strawman???

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammy said:
Sounds good to me; undefined monism + agnosticism is the unassailable stance imo.

Any ontology that fits the observed epistemological parameters is groovy. And unassailable, since there is no way to prove it one way or the other.

~~ Paul

 

[Mercutio]

Re: Re: Re: A few points.

Do you actually ever have anything to say other than go and read the same books that you have swallowed?

Interesting...I thought there was a chance you had asked the question because you wanted to learn something. Apparently not.

These "same books that you have swallowed" were written by people who used to have the same questions you were asking. And they may have done a bit of the thinking you have been doing. The difference is, they did not stop there. They challenged their conclusions, tested their assumptions, read the works of others before them who had addressed the same questions...and found the subject so fascinating that they dedicated their lives to its study.

I am constantly amazed at the level of detail with which the human visual sense has been studied. Yes, there is still a great deal to study, but we know an incredible amount about it. I have friends who have studied color perception for over 20 years. Another who has studied depth perception for over 10 years. These are not people whose interest in vision is an idle curiosity.

But I suppose their conclusions are of no interest to you. Sitting around thinking, you have come to conclusions that satisfy you, and that is good enough. All I can say is, I am very glad that the place you are now was only the first step in a long, long road for these others. It's a helluva journey. You ought to read about it. Um...yeah, it's right there in that book.

So tell me...have you ever taken any interest of yours beyond the "sitting and thinking about it" stage, to the "let's see if my conclusions actually hold water" stage? You might want to try it sometime. Hey, if you are interested in some tried-and-true methodologies for testing some of your ideas...yup, it's right there in that book.

 

[Beleth]

A single photon contains no information about distance of its generating object, true, but multiple photons, traveling different paths from that object and through a lens, do. The distance an object is away from your eye has a definite, observable effect on where the real image of that object is on one's retina.

This is basic optics, and the reason why bifocals are a good thing.


Apologies if this has been said before.

 

[hammegk]

Any ontology that fits the observed epistemological parameters is groovy. And unassailable, since there is no way to prove it one way or the other.

~~ Paul

You seem to imply there is a smorgasbord of options. What am I missing as I see just 2: body, or spirit?