Re: models, sensory perception

[John M <***>]

Dan.
we tend to 'understand' everything at the ongoing epistemic level of the
ever evolving cognitive inventory we can rely on, besides, with a
(metaphoric?) simplification for universal understanding.
Vision was explakined when optics was developed as 'optical'.
We had 4 (later 5) senses. Last time I read about it (~10 years ago) they
spoke about 64 senses - and counting. How many to come?
Then again today vision is 'in the brain' not 'in the eyes', we have
hallucinations (in the broader sense), observation broadens as the theories.
The "hard problem" cannot eliminate the ominous word "somehow".
I allow a more involved image for perception, not only may we have senses
(and sensors?) we don't even think of today, but the processes may go way
above the primitive level we pursue by present physical measurements. An
example is the smell-controversy. Discounting the molecular shape fitting
theory (it failed in some tests), the alternative, the 'vibrations' that may
get from smelly molecules into nerves are still considered EM or other
physically registered phenomena. Why?
We have a rudimentary image of the world, still full of - if not
mysterious - 'random' occurrences and 'givens'.
We have a lot to learn before I would draw conclusions.

John M


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Fiscus" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: models, sensory perception


> 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