Perception in neuroscience.
by, 29th June 2012 at 02:15 PM (930 Views)
It is asked how the brain interprets the senses when they tell the brain what is going on. This should be done by pixels, like a computer for vision, but then again the way the brain works would mean that the object might not be seen as an aboject, as how does the eyes see the pixels in the right places? It is no secret that we do not see the thing we see, but rather the reflection off of it in the light, so we see light. It is not a question of our eyes going out to see it - it comes into out eyes, so they are not pro active.
If the eye only catches light shone into it, then it would be easy to see that the brain might see the object in reverse! This would mean that we would see the object as if it were back to front, yes? If you were to look into a mirror, you will see what i mean. But, as mind bending as that might be, we see things coherently.
Now, how does the brain decipher all these things coming in from different sources? I mean, if you were to cover the eye, you will see less of what is out there. If you were to have a closing in diameter ring where all your light is sent to, maybe even intertwined, then it would 'light up' a section of your mind, so that you would have a picture of the things you see. Then there would be a intertwined meeting place, and light would meet organs where the light is shone onto, or, the electrical impulses would electrify the brain in the right way. Then you would have a picture of what you see.
These impulses would activate an area of the brain - as long as you are looking - and present what you see to your body. so, don't think of a television, but rather a 'lump of gunk' that interprets what we see the only way we know how. But how is this coherent? Well, if we were to look at jelly fish, the purely reactive creatures on this planet, they also see and react to the things as they see them. They are simpler, but see the same, or feel the same at least, and then would 'see' by feeling the thing and reporting it back to the tentacles, and back to the brain, and so forth. Then they would be simply reporting back in relays, so maybe that is what seeing is more like? If it is that at a base, then it is at leaqst based on that.
So, if we see something, then we would need to report back to the eye what it is, if it is sunlight it is hurtful and harmful - hey hold on a second - if it hurts... yes! It is just like the jellyfish tentacles, sensing pain or sensation from the thing. So, it reports back pain would be shone in here or there, and then paint a picture for it. But this is seeing the third dimension - seeing the fourth dimension would require better developed eyes, and so forth. Actually we only see in two dimensions, if you ask me, and those are height and width, as we do not see depth. This means we see these pixels imposed onto our glob of grey and then they inform the body of what is where, based on the pain felt in those directions, due to sensitivity.
Now, if you were to 'see' the sensations on the 'brain' - whichever segment that is - then you will see the pixels as laid out by the eye. But, now say there are no pixels, and picture instead a reflection on the water... if you were to imagine a reflection on the water, then you would see that it all melds into one - without pixels, as there would not be enough little points in the eye to see everything. So, look for a mirror and imagine that is your eyeball. Then imagine that this wonky image is placed onto your grey glob through electrical impulses, and then imagine that you get this globcontinuing the relay so that you actually do see, back and forth.0 Thanks, 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
Total Trackbacks 0