Notices
Results 1 to 55 of 55

Thread: What is the mechanics of perception and does it limit our perception?

  1. #1 What is the mechanics of perception and does it limit our perception? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    22
    Before I begin I wantto explain some things. This subject has actually been something of adark obsession of mine for some time now and it's possible some ofthat may come out in this thread so I wanted to give you someforewarning of that. This subject is extremely important to me, soplease give only fair-minded and well thought out answers that aregrounded in fact. And if the world of science doesn't have absolutefacts to back up the answers I request, if humanity is simply doesn'tknow for sure please say so.


    I can only imagine thatthis is a very unusual way to start a thread on this forum but thereit is.


    My question is abouthuman neurology and what limits it might have.


    All my life I have beena very creative and artistic personbut lately I've been wondering ifthe binary nature of the human nervous system puts a definite limiton the different things we can perceive.


    As far as I know, theway the human nervous system works is that we have chains of nervecells that run from the photoreceptors in our eyes or the hair cellsin our ears and run directly into the brain.


    When one of the sensorsand is triggered it sends a jolt of electricity along this chain andinto the brain. Because the brain knows exactly where each chain ofnerve cells is connected to, it identifies where it comes from andwhat form of perception it should be translated into.


    Sort of like how anintruder steps on a pressure sensor, which completes the circuit,turning on a light on a control panel. The person sitting at thepanel knows there is an intruder and where they are because of thelabel on the light.


    This also explains howsynaesthesia works, because a wire from the ears has been mistakenlyconnected to a light on the visual section of the control panel.


    As I understand it,whatis transmitted by our senses is pure electricity, it is only thislabelling by the brain that allows our perception to function, thereis absolutely nothing distinctive that is inherently carried by theelectricity itself.


    This means that oursensory perception is binary, digital and the only variation comes inthe frequency of electrical spikes being sent by our senses.


    All this so far is onlymy current understanding of neurology, please tell me if I am wrongor if it's more complicated than that.


    What bothers me isthis, as I see it, visual perception is like a pixelated displayscreen like the one you're looking at right now. Made up of many dotsthat each display one solid colour and are not capable of anythingelse. As light hit and activates this mosaic of photoreceptors, ourbrains blend and smooth these spots together to create an illusion ofa continuous image. As a matter of fact I stumbled across an articlewith this diagram claiming that's literally exactly how it works.

    And I imagine the sameapplies to our four other senses.

    This is the part thatbothers me.


    If all this is true,doesn't that mean there are "gaps" in our senses?Like how alow-ress digital camera cannot capture certain details or how adigital display cannot show things in between its lightbulbs. If theinformation coming into our brains is purely digital in nature, doesthat mean there's only a finite number of different images we canperceive?


    Is my interpretation ofneurology correct?


    Do we know enough aboutneurology to say that?


    Is there enoughscientifically proven information to back that up?


    I found an articlesomewhere that said our current understanding of neurology iscomparable to when we thought disease was caused by an imbalance ofhumours in the body. Is that true?


    I've been told that wedon't really know how senses work. That no one's ever been able toplug and eyeball into a computer and thus monitor the signals comingfrom it. Is that true? Has no one ever done that?

    Is the diagram picturedabove scientifically accurate and truthful?


    The reason this bothersme is that I have always been a very artistic and creative person.But I'm afraid that, due to the pixel like nature of all our fivesenses, there is inherently a finite number of different things wecan perceive. And thus, practically speaking, a finite number ofdifferent things that an artist can create. A vast number but afinite number nonetheless.


    That may be trivial tosome but it's devastating to me..


    Also, I am aware thereis a theory that says matter can only be arranged a finite number ofways and a finite space. That is what started me down this path. ButI have exhaustively discussed this in other places, in this case Iwant to focus only on sensory perception.


    Thank you for yourattention.


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Tailspin View Post
    Is the diagram picturedabove scientifically accurate and truthful?
    I think it is reasonably accurate.

    The reason this bothers me is that I have always been a very artistic and creative person.But I'm afraid that, due to the pixel like nature of all our fivesenses, there is inherently a finite number of different things we can perceive. And thus, practically speaking, a finite number of different things that an artist can create. A vast number but a finite number nonetheless.


    That may be trivial tosome but it's devastating to me..
    Of course there are limits to our sense. We cannot see infra-red or ultra-violet light for instance. We cannot see dust mites. We cannot hear sounds that other animals can.

    Sorry this such an issue for you.

    You do realize that every painting ever made of an orange is unique and different. Paintings do not have to be of physical objects anyway. This won't help I suppose but artist will never run out of new paintings.


     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    22
    I'm fully aware we can't see in infrared and that we don't have x-ray vision or thermal vision. That's not what bothered me.


    What I'm asking is, within our type of vision, is there or is there not an infinite number of images that we can perceive?
    Is it continuous or quantised?
     

  5. #4  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,288
    Quote Originally Posted by Tailspin View Post
    Before I begin I wantto explain some things. This subject has actually been something of adark obsession of mine for some time now and it's possible some ofthat may come out in this thread so I wanted to give you someforewarning of that. This subject is extremely important to me, soplease give only fair-minded and well thought out answers that aregrounded in fact. And if the world of science doesn't have absolutefacts to back up the answers I request, if humanity is simply doesn'tknow for sure please say so.


    I can only imagine thatthis is a very unusual way to start a thread on this forum but thereit is.


    My question is abouthuman neurology and what limits it might have.


    All my life I have beena very creative and artistic personbut lately I've been wondering ifthe binary nature of the human nervous system puts a definite limiton the different things we can perceive.


    As far as I know, theway the human nervous system works is that we have chains of nervecells that run from the photoreceptors in our eyes or the hair cellsin our ears and run directly into the brain.


    When one of the sensorsand is triggered it sends a jolt of electricity along this chain andinto the brain. Because the brain knows exactly where each chain ofnerve cells is connected to, it identifies where it comes from andwhat form of perception it should be translated into.


    Sort of like how anintruder steps on a pressure sensor, which completes the circuit,turning on a light on a control panel. The person sitting at thepanel knows there is an intruder and where they are because of thelabel on the light.


    This also explains howsynaesthesia works, because a wire from the ears has been mistakenlyconnected to a light on the visual section of the control panel.


    As I understand it,whatis transmitted by our senses is pure electricity, it is only thislabelling by the brain that allows our perception to function, thereis absolutely nothing distinctive that is inherently carried by theelectricity itself.


    This means that oursensory perception is binary, digital and the only variation comes inthe frequency of electrical spikes being sent by our senses.


    All this so far is onlymy current understanding of neurology, please tell me if I am wrongor if it's more complicated than that.


    What bothers me isthis, as I see it, visual perception is like a pixelated displayscreen like the one you're looking at right now. Made up of many dotsthat each display one solid colour and are not capable of anythingelse. As light hit and activates this mosaic of photoreceptors, ourbrains blend and smooth these spots together to create an illusion ofa continuous image. As a matter of fact I stumbled across an articlewith this diagram claiming that's literally exactly how it works.

    And I imagine the sameapplies to our four other senses.

    This is the part thatbothers me.


    If all this is true,doesn't that mean there are "gaps" in our senses?Like how alow-ress digital camera cannot capture certain details or how adigital display cannot show things in between its lightbulbs. If theinformation coming into our brains is purely digital in nature, doesthat mean there's only a finite number of different images we canperceive?


    Is my interpretation ofneurology correct?


    Do we know enough aboutneurology to say that?


    Is there enoughscientifically proven information to back that up?


    I found an articlesomewhere that said our current understanding of neurology iscomparable to when we thought disease was caused by an imbalance ofhumours in the body. Is that true?


    I've been told that wedon't really know how senses work. That no one's ever been able toplug and eyeball into a computer and thus monitor the signals comingfrom it. Is that true? Has no one ever done that?

    Is the diagram picturedabove scientifically accurate and truthful?


    The reason this bothersme is that I have always been a very artistic and creative person.But I'm afraid that, due to the pixel like nature of all our fivesenses, there is inherently a finite number of different things wecan perceive. And thus, practically speaking, a finite number ofdifferent things that an artist can create. A vast number but afinite number nonetheless.


    That may be trivial tosome but it's devastating to me..


    Also, I am aware thereis a theory that says matter can only be arranged a finite number ofways and a finite space. That is what started me down this path. ButI have exhaustively discussed this in other places, in this case Iwant to focus only on sensory perception.


    Thank you for yourattention.
    In European music there are only 12 semitones to an octave. That does not seem to have limited the variety of music noticeably.
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Tailspin View Post
    What I'm asking is, within our type of vision, is there or is there not an infinite number of images that we can perceive?
    Is it continuous or quantised?
    I believe our vision could be said to be quantized. In that things can happen too fast for us to see it. One example are ordinary lights, they flash on and off about 60 times a second but to us it looks like they are continually lit. It is not possible for us to process a picture that is one frame from a high speed video is another example.

    That's reality, sorry that is a concern for you, cause there is nothing you can do about it.

    I wish we could travel faster than c, but we can't, on well.
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    22
    By quantised I mean the signals that may be arranged in a pixel, display like arrangements in our heads as thaey are processed.
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Tailspin View Post
    By quantised I mean the signals that may be arranged in a pixel, display like arrangements in our heads as thaey are processed.
    Got it. Yes, we essentially see in pixels, as your diagram showed. Sorry...
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    22
    How do you know that?
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Tailspin View Post
    How do you know that?
    Same way you got your diagram, I researched it.
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    22
    Yes but how do you knowthe research is accurate? I put the diagram appear to find out if itwas accurate from people who know. I've done research before but I'veoften turned up with unsatisfactory answers.


    The main reason Iposted on this website was so I could directly ask people who haveinsider scientific knowledge. I can only assume you are a scientistor have at least extensively studied the subject.


    Do we see in pixels?How do we know this? Have we done experiments that have proved thisfor certain?
    And by we I mean thehuman race.

    Please, and with alldue respect, I would really prefer in-depth and fair-minded answerswith evidence to back them up.
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    22
    What was the source of yoyr research?
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Tailspin View Post
    Yes but how do you knowthe research is accurate? I put the diagram appear to find out if itwas accurate from people who know. I've done research before but I'veoften turned up with unsatisfactory answers.


    The main reason Iposted on this website was so I could directly ask people who haveinsider scientific knowledge. I can only assume you are a scientistor have at least extensively studied the subject.


    Do we see in pixels?How do we know this? Have we done experiments that have proved thisfor certain?
    And by we I mean thehuman race.

    Please, and with alldue respect, I would really prefer in-depth and fair-minded answers with evidence to back them up.
    There are only a fixed number of photoreceptor in the eye (rods and cones). In that aspect our eyes are like digital cameras. If a photon hits any part of the photoreceptor it will be detected was a 'hit'. So, all the way to the left side of the receptor or all the way to the right side of the receptor will both be seen as the same. That shows you that our eyes do not treat photons as continuous along our retinas it treats them as digital.
    If we had twice the number of receptors in our eyes we would twice as clearly, assuming no other physical limitations, like our lenses.
     

  14. #13  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,288
    Quote Originally Posted by Tailspin View Post
    Yes but how do you knowthe research is accurate? I put the diagram appear to find out if itwas accurate from people who know. I've done research before but I'veoften turned up with unsatisfactory answers.


    The main reason Iposted on this website was so I could directly ask people who haveinsider scientific knowledge. I can only assume you are a scientistor have at least extensively studied the subject.


    Do we see in pixels?How do we know this? Have we done experiments that have proved thisfor certain?
    And by we I mean thehuman race.

    Please, and with alldue respect, I would really prefer in-depth and fair-minded answerswith evidence to back them up.
    I don't think you are going to get a reply from an expert on visual perception in a forum like this, so if that's what you want you will need to contact researchers in that field of study. The best you are likely to get here is comments from people with some science training, who can read and understand related scientific articles.

    It is a fact that human vision depends on light stimulating individual rod and cone cells in the retina. So the basic input data to the brain is pixellated at the level of the number of these cells per unit area of retina.

    However, it is also clear, from studies of perception that have been made over the years, that the brain and in fact the optic nerve itself, does a lot of processing of this signal, drawing on experience, which enables it to take a lot of short cuts and to join the dots very rapidly to assemble a perception that is a lot more than just the basic pattern of cell stimulation. Things such as recognition of faces, how motion is handled etc.

    At the end of all this is it is quite hard to say whether visual perception, as perceived by the conscious mind, is digital or not. It seems to me in fact the question may not really have much meaning, since conscious perception is so many processing steps removed from a simple electrochemical signal.
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    72
    If my explanation in conjunction with your own research is not enough to convince you, I suggest you give up the quest.

    Additionally, I give you permission to believe whatever brings you comfort.
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tailspin View Post
    Yes but how do you knowthe research is accurate? I put the diagram appear to find out if itwas accurate from people who know. I've done research before but I'veoften turned up with unsatisfactory answers.


    The main reason Iposted on this website was so I could directly ask people who haveinsider scientific knowledge. I can only assume you are a scientistor have at least extensively studied the subject.


    Do we see in pixels?How do we know this? Have we done experiments that have proved thisfor certain?
    And by we I mean thehuman race.

    Please, and with alldue respect, I would really prefer in-depth and fair-minded answerswith evidence to back them up.
    I don't think you are going to get a reply from an expert on visual perception in a forum like this, so if that's what you want you will need to contact researchers in that field of study. The best you are likely to get here is comments from people with some science training, who can read and understand related scientific articles.

    It is a fact that human vision depends on light stimulating individual rod and cone cells in the retina. So the basic input data to the brain is pixellated at the level of the number of these cells per unit area of retina.

    However, it is also clear, from studies of perception that have been made over the years, that the brain and in fact the optic nerve itself, does a lot of processing of this signal, drawing on experience, which enables it to take a lot of short cuts and to join the dots very rapidly to assemble a perception that is a lot more than just the basic pattern of cell stimulation. Things such as recognition of faces, how motion is handled etc.

    At the end of all this is it is quite hard to say whether visual perception, as perceived by the conscious mind, is digital or not. It seems to me in fact the question may not really have much meaning, since conscious perception is so many processing steps removed from a simple electrochemical signal.
    I agree.
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    22
    So I take it that youyourself are not a particular expert?


    I get the brainprocesses the image that it stands to reason that you can only workwith what it's given. So in perceiving the real world, the softwareof brain can't do more than the hardware of the eyes, is thatcorrect?


    As someone who may notbe a scientist but someone who I assume keeps up with science, canyou tell me if the scientists out there know for certain howperception works? Have they done experiments and proven thingsconclusively?
     

  18. #17  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,288
    Quote Originally Posted by Tailspin View Post
    So I take it that youyourself are not a particular expert?


    I get the brainprocesses the image that it stands to reason that you can only workwith what it's given. So in perceiving the real world, the softwareof brain can't do more than the hardware of the eyes, is thatcorrect?


    As someone who may notbe a scientist but someone who I assume keeps up with science, canyou tell me if the scientists out there know for certain howperception works? Have they done experiments and proven thingsconclusively?
    I am an example of what I described. I have a scientific education (in chemistry, surprise, surprise) and a wider interest in science more generally, but indeed no, I am not an expert in visual perception.

    No theory in science is ever proved. That's the first thing. Science makes models of aspects of nature to account for what we observe and to predict what we can expect from it, but these models are alway open to change in the light of new information. So "proof" does not come into it.

    The second thing is that it looks to me from a brief reading of things such as this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_system, that we do not have a complete model for how perception works in detail, though a lot of elements of the process have been teased out by experiment. In the end with things like this, one always comes up against the problem that what is perceived is asking about what is apprehended by the conscious mind - and there is no model yet for the conscious mind, so far as I know.
     

  19. #18  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Tailspin View Post
    I get the brainprocesses the image that it stands to reason that you can only workwith what it's given. So in perceiving the real world, the softwareof brain can't do more than the hardware of the eyes, is thatcorrect?
    No that is not correct. Most of what you see is created by the brain. For example, you think you can see everything in front of you in detail and full colour, but the eye is only able to focus clearly on a small area at any one time. And peripheral vision is largely in monochrome. But the eye are constantly moving and the brain synthesises a complete image from a series of "snapshots". It fills in the gaps in the information it receives based on past experience and hard-wired functions.

    The brain contains a lot of functions for pattern recognition, so often you will recognise things when there isn't really enough information to create an image of it. Which is also why we experience pareidolia, optical illusions, etc.

    The same is true of the auditory system (so we also experience auditory illusions, apophenia and hallucinations).

    As someone who may notbe a scientist but someone who I assume keeps up with science, canyou tell me if the scientists out there know for certain howperception works? Have they done experiments and proven thingsconclusively?
    There is a huge amount that is not known. Partly because the brain is very complex but also because it is very difficult to study.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    22
    I am aware that thebrain itself can generate images and does in fact manipulate what wesee. And that what we see is necessarily reality.


    But as an artist, I canonly create something within the physical world. My chief concernhere is as to whether or not I and other artists can continuallycreate new works in the physical world and have them each recognisedas individual and different by fellow humans.
     

  21. #20  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,288
    Quote Originally Posted by Tailspin View Post
    I am aware that thebrain itself can generate images and does in fact manipulate what wesee. And that what we see is necessarily reality.


    But as an artist, I canonly create something within the physical world. My chief concernhere is as to whether or not I and other artists can continuallycreate new works in the physical world and have them each recognisedas individual and different by fellow humans.
    You've now got the best answer you are likely to get from this forum, so now it is up to you to use your common sense to resolve your issue.

    But, to give you a clue, I repeat my observation that there are only 12 semitones in the European musical scale, and yet we do not hear any talk of running out of the possible permutations to make original music.
     

  22. #21  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Tailspin View Post
    But as an artist, I canonly create something within the physical world. My chief concernhere is as to whether or not I and other artists can continuallycreate new works in the physical world and have them each recognisedas individual and different by fellow humans.
    The extraordinary things is that not only can artists create an unlimited number of new and unique works, but also we can often identify the artist from the style.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  23. #22  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    3
    Hey tailspin - I don't think it is quite like that. I recently completed a neuroscience course and posted the lectures on youtube - there were 3 really good perception lectures - vision, other senses, and multisensory integration. They are pretty detailed/technical but even if you don't have a lot of experience with this, you might get some of the overarching concepts.

    A big point is that vision is not like a movie - perception is constructed. Your brain takes in data and uses it to reverse engineer the outside world - effectively making a model. Additionally, the data is only one contributer to the model - knowledge, expectations, and other things also contribute.

    If you search neuro guy you should find the lectures.
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    22
    Yes I have heardsomething like that but frankly it doesn't bring me any comfort.


    My concern is thatthere is a finite number of different artworks that can exist becausehuman senses can only perceive a finite number of different images.


    My old therapist usedto try to get me over this by telling me about personal perception,how each human being perceives the world differently due to a numberof factors. This plus the emotional response each human has to apiece of art makes for the infinite possibilities I desire.


    This only insulted andinfuriated me and I do not accept it as a solution to my problem andI never will. Because even if human beings have different perceptionand responses, and even if as you say human vision is not a directrepresentation to what we see, it still doesn't mean that humanbeings are capable of perceiving any of an infinite number of images.


    As an artist, I createresponses in the mind but I can only actively create in the physicalworld. Any responses in the mind are tied to their perception of it.It doesn't matter what I create, if humans can't perceive it then itmay as well not exist.


    I appreciate yourresponse by way don't see why it should make me feel any different.
     

  25. #24  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Tailspin View Post
    My concern is thatthere is a finite number of different artworks that can exist becausehuman senses can only perceive a finite number of different images.
    Even if that were true, the number of potentially different artworks is so huge that it might as well be infinite.


    I appreciate yourresponse by way don't see why it should make me feel any different.
    I can't understand why you think it is a problem.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    22
    Most people I tellabout this problem don't understand it.


    And "might as wellbe infinite" doesn't help me in the slightest.


    As an artist, or atleast someone who was always been very creative, part of the joy ofart was the fact that it was infinite, that people could createanything they could imagine, every piece of art was completely uniqueto its creator and there were endless more to come. It was almostgodlike, bringing something from nothing.


    Then, years ago my dadtold me about a theory that said within any finite space, there is afinite number of ways matter can be arranged and thus a finite numberof possibilities of things that can be created or happen. He didn'tactually say it was a theory, the way he talked you would think thishad been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt years ago I was now asimple fact.


    It devastated me,because everything I had ever created or would ever create was onsome sort of list of predetermined possibilities, and I was justticking them off. And the same is true for everyone everywhere. Andthe list is finite, limited, has an end.


    To me it was absolutelycrushing and I've been obsessing over it for years. But even if thistheory about matter isn't true I still fear that our ability toperceive the physical world is finite and limited so the theory mightas well be true.


    These last few yearshave been very difficult for me to say the least. So, with all duerespect, if you are going to tell me that the theory is true but Ican live with it, please do not.
     

  27. #26  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,241
    You need help we are unable to supply...
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    22
    I know, but I started this theread becuase I wanted to know, is the stuff in the original post known to be true or just theory?
    I don't know what the scientisits of the world have proven ture and what they haven't.
    Is this pixelated vision in the image true? was it proven by scientists? did they stamp this TRUE and is it a simple, well known fact?
    Or is the workings of the eye and it's photo receptors still a mystery?
     

  29. #28  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,241
    Your questions have been answered with about the best answers you will get on a forum by Bufofrog, exchemist and Strange. The fact you don't like those answers is on you. Repeating your questions will only irritate the membership here...
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    22
    Ok but let me just ask, is perception somthing humanity has all figured out or isn't it?
     

  31. #30  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,241
    How the brain works and processes signals is a work in progress, how the eye works is pretty well understood. Visual perception is a combination of the two...
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    22
    So we, as a species, know. absolutly know, that the human eye is definanatly capable of only being able to detect things in a pixel-like and thus finite numbe of possible images, is that so?
    I know the brain must interprate and in doing so manipulate the input but i am only concerned with the output of the human eye.
    The eye is almost entirely understood, is that so?
     

  33. #32  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,241
    You are now getting boring and repetitive... READ the answers you have been given, maybe get someone to explain them to you...
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    22
    I did read them and they were clear to me.
    I don't see what the problem is.
    Do we know the eye can only detect a finite number of possible images, yes or no?
    That is a perfectly clear queston.
     

  35. #34  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Tailspin View Post
    And "might as wellbe infinite" doesn't help me in the slightest.
    Shrug.


    As an artist, or atleast someone who was always been very creative, part of the joy ofart was the fact that it was infinite, that people could createanything they could imagine, every piece of art was completely uniqueto its creator and there were endless more to come. It was almostgodlike, bringing something from nothing.
    That is still true. (Although quite a few artists seem to produce the same thing over and over again, they are all different.)

    Then, years ago my dadtold me about a theory that said within any finite space, there is afinite number of ways matter can be arranged and thus a finite numberof possibilities of things that can be created or happen. He didn'tactually say it was a theory, the way he talked you would think thishad been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt years ago I was now asimple fact.
    With a finite number of objects, that can be arranged in a finite number of ways, this is true. However, the universe is continuous; in other words there are not a finite number of positions, for example, that an object can have. The universe may also be infinite, in which case there are infinite possibilities.


    It devastated me,because everything I had ever created or would ever create was onsome sort of list of predetermined possibilities
    That is just nonsense. There is no pre-existing"list" of all the artworks that could be created.

    These last few yearshave been very difficult for me to say the least. So, with all duerespect, if you are going to tell me that the theory is true but Ican live with it, please do not.
    I assume this issue with the finiteness (or otherwise) of creativity is a symptom of something else. So I would recommend you seek professional help with that.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  36. #35  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Tailspin View Post
    So we, as a species, know. absolutly know, that the human eye is definanatly capable of only being able to detect things in a pixel-like and thus finite numbe of possible images, is that so?
    I don't think that is true. The eye is not like a digital camera. It doesn't generate discrete "pixels" and it does not produce quantised values.

    And the brain is not like a screen that reproduces what the eye sees.

    The eye is almost entirely understood, is that so?
    The eye is the least significant part of the visual system.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  37. #36  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Tailspin View Post
    Do we know the eye can only detect a finite number of possible images, yes or no?
    The eye does not create images. And the eye is an analogue not digital system.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    22
    I know, the eyetransmits signals and various speeds but they still come through in asingle spot on the brain's metaphorical pixelated screen is that notright?


    The eye is what givesthe brain all the data it converts into a visual image, how is it theleast important part of the visual system?


    And I'll ask again, dowe know the human eye is capable of only seeing a finite number ofimages, yes or no?
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Tailspin View Post
    And I'll ask again, do we know the human eye is capable of only seeing a finite number of images, yes or no?
    Yes.

    So if you are an artist, you best find another profession
     

  40. #39  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Tailspin View Post
    I know, the eyetransmits signals and various speeds but they still come through in asingle spot on the brain's metaphorical pixelated screen is that notright?
    I think you will find it is more complicated than that.

    As well as the advice to give up on art (as you are obviously not cut out for it) I would add: see a doctor.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Bufofrog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tailspin View Post
    And I'll ask again, do we know the human eye is capable of only seeing a finite number of images, yes or no?
    Yes.

    So if you are an artist, you best find another profession
    How do you know this?
     

  42. #41  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Tailspin View Post
    How do you know this?
    Because:

    It devastated me, because everything I had ever created or would ever create was on some sort of list of predetermined possibilities, and I was justticking them off.
    ...
    To me it was absolutely crushing
    So it looks like you are not really suited to be an artist. (Until you resolve the underlying problem. So get some professional help, and then maybe you can get back to your art.)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    22
    No not that.

    How do you know the human eye is ony capable of seeing a finite number of different images.
    And for yor information I have been seeing therapists for years about this.
     

  44. #43  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,241
    You've been seeing a therapist for years and you expect to find a solution for you on a forum! Daft... I recommend this thread be locked for your own good as I've had mental health issues myself and know obsessively going round in circles on a forum will not be good for you.
     

  45. #44  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,288
    Quote Originally Posted by Tailspin View Post
    No not that.

    How do you know the human eye is ony capable of seeing a finite number of different images.
    And for yor information I have been seeing therapists for years about this.
    Iím not surprised in the least. From the repetitive nature of your questions, which seem to ignore what you have been told, it is plain that you are unbalanced in some way. This is not going to get any further now. I suggest you stop, before we all get pissed off.
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    22
    Ok I'll go, this might have been a bad idea.

    But one thing first.

    Strange said he knew the human eye could only see a finite number of possible images. How does he know?
    Does he know somthing that was published in a journal or proven by some scientist? Does he have access to some knowlege I do not?
    Is he speeking fact or opinion?
     

  47. #46  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Tailspin View Post

    Strange said he knew the human eye could only see a finite number of possible images.
    No I didn’t
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Bufofrog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tailspin View Post
    And I'll ask again, do we know the human eye is capable of only seeing a finite number of images, yes or no?
    Yes.

    So if you are an artist, you best find another profession
    Then what does this mean?
     

  49. #48  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,707
    The OP has been answered, now we're just going round in circles.
    Locked.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  50. #49 Is there a finite number of different images the eye can percive? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    22
    As I understand it, theback of the eye is covered in photoreceptors. When struck by a photonthey send a jolt of electricity up to the brain. Since the brainknows where each nerve ending is connected to, it knows that signalcomes from a photoreceptor in the eye. I imagine it works just likehow a sensor is connected to a wire which illuminates a light bulb ona control panel.
    The brain then blendsall these signals together to generate the image we see.


    What I've beenwondering for some time is, does that mean the eye can only perceivea finite number of different images?


    If this is so thendoesn't this mean the eye works something like a digital camera andthe brain like a digital screen?
    It is a mathematicalcertainty that a digital screen can only perceive a finite albeithuge number of different images based on the principles it isconstructed on. Does this mean the same works with eyesight?


    I actually asked thisquestion somewhere before but the powers that be thought I was tooannoying and locked the thread, claiming they had answered theoriginal post when they not done it to my satisfaction.

    One of your fellow users, Strange, s
    aid yes it was true, Iasked him how he/she knew, he/she said they didn't say that. I wastrying to clear it up when I got locked out.

    Please help me clearthis up and please be very scientific in your answers.


    Thank you
     

  51. #50  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Tailspin View Post
    One of your fellow users, Strange, s[/FONT][/COLOR]aid yes it was true, Iasked him how he/she knew, he/she said they didn't say that. I wastrying to clear it up when I got locked out.
    You could clear it up by actually reading what was said and by whom.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  52. #51  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    As I understand it, theback of the eye is covered in photoreceptors. When struck by a photonthey send a jolt of electricity up to the brain. Since the brainknows where each nerve ending is connected to, it knows that signalcomes from a photoreceptor in the eye. I imagine it works just likehow a sensor is connected to a wire which illuminates a light bulb ona control panel.
    It is much more complicated than that. Comparing the eye to a digital camera is just stupid.

    This will give you some idea of the complexity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoreceptor_cell

    Read the whole thing carefully. (Because, clearly, you have problems with your reading and comprehension skills)
    Last edited by Strange; July 30th, 2019 at 04:00 PM.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  53. #52  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,241
    Your thread was locked for a reason (I.e. your questions had been answered and you obviously weren't reading or listening to anything you got in response). Reposting it is a) against the forum rules and b) makes you look like an obsessive nutcase.
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    22
    I was reading and listening, I don't see why you thought I wasn't.
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    22
    I know the eye is not like a digital camera but it does transmit only in electronic flashes does it not?

    Please, this is very important to me, I asked if the eye could only percive a finite toltal of possible images, I made it a yes/no question.

    You said yes.

    Then you said that's not what you said. If you wern't affirming the theory then what did you mean?
    Frankly I don't see what I possibly could have misunderstood, it was one word.
     

  56. #55  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,707
    Apart from the fact that the questions have been answered this is essentially a duplicate thread - which is not allowed (especially when the pre-existing one has been moderated).
    Therefore: locked and merged with the other thread.

    To the OP: if you have a problem with the idea that there's only a finite number of possibilities then that's your problem. It's not up to anyone on a forum to address your particular "psychosis".
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; July 30th, 2019 at 07:51 PM.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

Similar Threads

  1. Perception
    By Jim Colyer in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: June 8th, 2013, 06:14 PM
  2. The speed of perception and c
    By Joshua Stone in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 13th, 2011, 09:28 AM
  3. Perception of spice
    By asxz in forum Biology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: June 19th, 2009, 08:26 AM
  4. Synchronized perception
    By blue_space87 in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 27th, 2009, 05:25 PM
  5. Auditory perception.
    By Netrin in forum Biology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 23rd, 2007, 01:58 AM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •