Re: models, sensory perception

[Dan Fiscus <***>]

John Kineman wrote:
snippage

> But the products can be made to perform like simple
> mechanisms if the context favors it.  This would be analogous to eyes,
> ears, etc. - complex in nature and origin but employed to present simple
> models to the response system and/or psyche.
>
> What do you think?
John,

I think most sensory perception is complex in apparatus,
function and information provided, but that via habits like
filtering/focusing, narrowing, and reliance on beliefs like
predicate logic, yes/no, true/false thinking we tend to
interpret and utilize these complex systems in simplistic
ways. Also I think sometimes the complexity is dealt with
so elegantly and seamlessly that we tend to take it for
granted. Binocular vision is a great example, in that the
two eyes, set apart, provide two different views of any
object or scene that in effect represent a contradiction
(or we could say plurality, multiple models of the world).
An object or scene that we know to be unitary appears
in two different images, each with different shading,
apparent location, etc. The visual function that is spread
over eyes, nerves, brain, etc. does not seek to present
a single, unambiguous image of reality - instead it seems
to want, use or harness or capitalize on the ambiguity,
and works to continually resolve contradictions and in
the process provides an emergent third dimension of
depth - this dimension is "added" or constructed by the
resolved differences provided by the offset of the eyes.
Rather than embody a sense that presents a single
largest model of visual field, binocular parallax uses
two models in coupled complementarity that affirm and
anticipate the complexity, multiple perspectives and
ambiguity of everything in our environment.

I think we take all this for granted and the process
becomes autonomic, which is also good in that we don't
have to consciously deal with or create the third
dimension all day, every day. It is almost automated,
which may be one kind of link to algorithmic or
mechanistic concepts. The down side to it being
automated or unconscious is that we can forget that
everything we see has been dealt with via a complex
visual modeling system, and worse, we can start to
believe the world we see is simple and capable of
being represented in a single image or model.

Dan