GENIUS FORUMS

Why are our eyes so much more powerful than our imagination?

Do you ever lie in bed trying to form a perfect picture. I do. I try this almost every night. I can never get a very good image. Barely beyond blackness really. Maybe a blurry, grey face at best. But it is understood that our brain creates pictures, and creates dreams very well. It just will not allow us to use this ability unless we take certain drugs.

I can see that it might be slightly dangerous for us to visualise things clearly, but surely we could just turn this ability on, and off. Evolution should allow this ability, as it is useful. I don't really see how evolution could kill off this ability.

But I am a good artist. I have worked as a graphic artist in the past. My ability to see things must be quite good compared to some people. If I can only get a vague, blurry, grey face then what can other people see?

My dreams are great. Very realistic. Full colour. 3 Dimensional.

I just think that the ability to actually see things clearly would advance mankind quite a lot.

Pincho,

When I was younger I had the ability to recall from memory a host of lucid images while in the delta state (prior to sleep). Now before bed, my brain is able to bring to mind images that sync with various interpretative thoughts which intuitively enables a forecasting of the following day's events. Pretty cool stuff. While awake, my third eye will often call up actual cartoon like images which will highlight important thoughts. Another interesting feature of my mind has been the recent development of key phrases being altered from their original meaning - literally popping out of books and my computer screen in an altered format.

You should look up "Neuromancer" by William Gibson. A Sci-Fi classic which involves the ability for hackers to access the net via the mind. Excellent novel, in my opinion.

Brain doesn't create pictures. Brain creates semantic descriptions. This is why, for example, our memory is so easy to fool, why we can do a mirror-flip on the remembered image and not even notice it, or change the color, etc. When we imagine, it's not like drawing a picture with fixed visual characteristics, it's more like writing a verbal description of something -- the brain works with concepts rather than pictures per se.

vicdan wrote:Brain doesn't create pictures. Brain creates semantic descriptions. This is why, for example, our memory is so easy to fool, why we can do a mirror-flip on the remembered image and not even notice it, or change the color, etc. When we imagine, it's not like drawing a picture with fixed visual characteristics, it's more like writing a verbal description of something -- the brain works with concepts rather than pictures per se.

That seems to fit with what neurologist Ramachandran has been saying about pattern recognition algorithms in the occipital lobes. What Steven and Pincho see are not bitmapped images, but sets of algorithms, like digital compression that combines vectors with geometric relationships such as the diagonal of a square to the length of a side.

Going all the way back in hominid evolution to life on the grasslands, horizontal lines have tended to be ignored (the horizon line is always the same) while verticals, which may indicate the presence of prey or predators, have evolved with many subroutines to recognize variations. Thus: http://www.prehistory.it/fase2/sitovo.htm inscribed on a cave wall in Bulgaria 6500 years ago, once had great meaning.

I think this is related to why little kids draw the human figure, not in outline, but as a circle with the crossed and forked stick figure below it. I wish I could find the link, but I know of a one room schoolhouse in Russia that burned down, and there in the ashes, preserved by the alkalinity, is a copy of some 6 year old copying his ABCs, and decorated with egzactly the same stick figures I made. Only his was made in the 13th century on birchbark. That image is written in our brains.

And everything we see later on is modified to be simpler in memory by these algorithms.

The brain working with concepts, or the brain translating energy into concepts.. whatever. Why can't we create the concepts whenever we want to? We can do it if we take LSD, we can do it when we have just woken up, and are half in a dream state.

So why is the ability not available to us all of the time? Some people can see pictures when they hear music for example, and this gives them better memories than most other people. Artists, and inventors would benefit greatly from this ability.

Pincho Paxton,

The brain working with concepts, or the brain translating energy into concepts.. whatever. Why can't we create the concepts whenever we want to? We can do it if we take LSD, we can do it when we have just woken up, and are half in a dream state.

So why is the ability not available to us all of the time? Some people can see pictures when they hear music for example, and this gives them better memories than most other people. Artists, and inventors would benefit greatly from this ability.

If you’re really passionate about it, write a letter to ‘natural selection’ to complain…; )

Seriously though, while on GF, sometimes we use pictures and videos from google to illustrate our points, so eventually, I can envision that the internet will probably be available anywhere at any time, and we will probably be able to use hologram technology to aid our descriptions while speaking with other people.

For instance: suppose you are trying to explain something, but I can’t quite see what you’re pointing to, then you might be able to create a quick animation off the internet using short video clips, photos, and text by quickly assembling them intelligently to prove your point. it would be sort of like a power point presentation, only quicker, and more effortless. So basically, technology can be used in conjunction with the human mind to enhance the mind’s explanatory power…

Personally, I think there should be a website set up like You tube, but strictly containing only scientific animation videos. I think sites like You tube need to start specializing into more intelligent divisions to make it more user friendly for people.

However, if this happened globally and became quite popular, then the role of universities and the public school system would be undermined, and the entire method of education would fundamentally change.... actually, it sounds like a good idea to me...because who wants to spend $65 000- $75 000 to get a masters degree....The future of education should be free and effortless.

Pincho Paxton wrote:Why are our eyes so much more powerful than our imagination?

Imagination doesn't pay the bills, so there is no reason to use it.

Ibanez wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:Why are our eyes so much more powerful than our imagination?

Imagination doesn't pay the bills, so there is no reason to use it.

Edit: WOW! This must be the dumbest thing I have read on this forum! Are you being sarcastic? Where did you get such idea? :-S

Imagination is what makes all that you see around you... It does not pay the bills for you, because you don't have it.

Pincho: Imagination can be trained. Just keep at it.

http://www.memoryschool.com/mnemonics.htm

<Personally, I think there should be a website set up like You tube, but strictly containing only scientific animation videos. I think sites like You tube need to start specializing into more intelligent divisions to make it more user friendly for people.>
Yes I remember animation being used to explain calculus. Vastly more effective than chaulk in the hand of some professor. But then, the professor dont get to stand in front of a class and get the ego feed. And we cant have that, can we?

But now, if you offered young people a business plan instead of an academic program, where they'd end up with a partnership position rather than a degree, those with the most imagination would take you up on it. The odds are that any venture with that much imagination would be profitable.

Daybrown wrote:

But now, if you offered young people a business plan instead of an academic program, where they'd end up with a partnership position rather than a degree, those with the most imagination would take you up on it. The odds are that any venture with that much imagination would be profitable.

What do you think would be the best application to produce high quality scientific animation videos? Day brown or anyone else for that matter?

how could it be set up as a business? my idea was perhaps paying the programmers/designers, and charging an annual membership fee to users.... I wonder if that would suffice to keep it afloat? do you have any other ideas for business models?

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Daybrown wrote:

But now, if you offered young people a business plan instead of an academic program, where they'd end up with a partnership position rather than a degree, those with the most imagination would take you up on it. The odds are that any venture with that much imagination would be profitable.

What do you think would be the best application to produce high quality scientific animation videos? Day brown or anyone else for that matter?

how could it be set up as a business? my idea was perhaps paying the programmers/designers, and charging an annual membership fee to users.... I wonder if that would suffice to keep it afloat? do you have any other ideas for business models?

There's already a surprisingly large data base of science animations:

Science Animations - Movies and Interactive Tutorial Links

<do you have any other ideas for business models?>
Well first of all, we have previous examples. Like Hewlett & Packard starting out in a garage. Or when Gates bought DOS from a programmer who didnt realize what he had, and build the world's greatest monopoly ever out of greed, hypocrisy, corruption, and deception. Which I guess requires imagination more than any other resource.

But as I've mentioned in other posts. Are we not past Hubbard's peak, and so wont oil prices keep on rising? So- we can expect shipping prices will rise, and local resources, which have not formerly been able to compete, will be developed.

Cory wrote:

There's already a surprisingly large data base of science animations:

yeah, that seems to offer quite a wide range of animations, and that is the type of idea I had, but something a little different. I noticed that most of the animations are done using a 2D animating software such as Flash, which is probably due to the fact that to create 2D models is less time consuming, and requires less work. Moreover, I would imagine creating a scientific model using a 3D modeling program such as 3DMAX would take much longer, and require much more work...

And I'm still trying to debate whether a 2D model is inferior to a 3D model as far as quality as concerned, because it seems that the 2D works fine...

vicdan wrote:Brain doesn't create pictures. Brain creates semantic descriptions. This is why, for example, our memory is so easy to fool, why we can do a mirror-flip on the remembered image and not even notice it, or change the color, etc. When we imagine, it's not like drawing a picture with fixed visual characteristics, it's more like writing a verbal description of something -- the brain works with concepts rather than pictures per se.

That is the rationalist, scientific dogma's interpretation of thought. How does an artist create any images? If we only think in words, then how can Picasso paint in 4 dimensions?

Artists have to train long and hard to see things, as opposed to describing things mentally. Even then, they simply learn to apply a new, much more detailed, set of descriptions -- where most people see 'a face with XYZ facial features', artists learn to see geometric shapes which would allow them to actually re-create a face on canvas, a feat quite beyond most people who see faces conceptually rather than visually.

vicdan wrote:Artists have to train long and hard to see things, as opposed to describing things mentally. Even then, they simply learn to apply a new, much more detailed, set of descriptions -- where most people see 'a face with XYZ facial features', artists learn to see geometric shapes which would allow them to actually re-create a face on canvas, a feat quite beyond most people who see faces conceptually rather than visually.

How about conceptual images?...

vicdan wrote:Artists have to train long and hard to see things, as opposed to describing things mentally. Even then, they simply learn to apply a new, much more detailed, set of descriptions -- where most people see 'a face with XYZ facial features', artists learn to see geometric shapes which would allow them to actually re-create a face on canvas, a feat quite beyond most people who see faces conceptually rather than visually.

It's not quite like this. I am an artist, a sucessful graphic artist, have worked on some number 1 computer games. I can make 3D models of humans..

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pinchopaxton

But I don't truly see images. I see vague, ghostlike images that are hardly there at all.

Actually I can visualize things vividly, the trouble comes in when I want to bring that into reality, say in the form of a painting or a story.

ZenMuadDib wrote:Actually I can visualize things vividly, the trouble comes in when I want to bring that into reality, say in the form of a painting or a story.

Exactly. You 'visualize' them conceptually -- but conceptual understanding of an image doesn't translate well into geometric shapes. That's because you think you see, but you don't -- you describe. You are simply so used to it that you don't even recognize the description as anything but seeing.

This occurs even at the lowest levels of visual processing. While the retina detects phosphenes (the areas of light and dark), just about the first thing the brain does with this information is detect higher-level features -- first edges (lines of contrast between light and dark), then blobs, etc. -- all the way up to faces. By the time you are aware of the image, it's a bunch of high-level descriptions.

Actually seeing images is simply too inefficient a use of cognitive processing power. Compact, chunked high-level descriptions are much better. In evolutionary context, there was never a need for seeing the whole picture unprocessed, as a mass of color blobs. You wouldn't have the neural bandwidth for it anyway.

For a vivid demonstration, watch this video. Notice what it is you don't see. Not bad for 'rationalist, scientific dogma', eh?.. Science trumps aprioristic bullshit every time.

vicdan wrote:

ZenMuadDib wrote:Actually I can visualize things vividly, the trouble comes in when I want to bring that into reality, say in the form of a painting or a story.

Exactly. You 'visualize' them conceptually -- but conceptual understanding of an image doesn't translate well into geometric shapes. That's because you think you see, but you don't -- you describe. You are simply so used to it that you don't even recognize the description as anything but seeing.

This occurs even at the lowest levels of visual processing. While the retina detects phosphenes (the areas of light and dark), just about the first thing the brain does with this information is detect higher-level features -- first edges (lines of contrast between light and dark), then blobs, etc. -- all the way up to faces. By the time you are aware of the image, it's a bunch of high-level descriptions.

Actually seeing images is simply too inefficient a use of cognitive processing power. Compact, chunked high-level descriptions are much better. In evolutionary context, there was never a need for seeing the whole picture unprocessed, as a mass of color blobs. You wouldn't have the neural bandwidth for it anyway.

For a vivid demonstration, watch this video. Notice what it is you don't see.

Sure I can see conceptually constructed images and ideas. I can visualize certain events in history and how they flow through time. I can write about that, I think. Einstein thought in images and constructed them rigorously in order to construct of the most revolutionary ideas of all time. I don't care for efficiency, I care for truth and good,

Pincho wrote: It's not quite like this. I am an artist, a sucessful graphic artist, have worked on some number 1 computer games. I can make 3D models of humans..

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pinchopaxton

But I don't truly see images. I see vague, ghostlike images that are hardly there at all.

Pincho like I wrote before, it takes practice to see clear images. When I used when try to visualize, about 8 years agoI had vague ghost like images, but now I can see images in colour, clear and vivid when I close my eyes.

Not as real, tangible and sharp as the ones Tesla or Leonardo was describing as having, but hey.. I am happy with what I got :-)

The best way to start off is to, when you are reading a book and there is some sort of imagery there, to stop and close your eyes and try to see the image.. concentrate on the small details <- just make up the stuff to fill in the detail.

Become familiar with the object, scene etc.

Ps.Nice work pincho,on the horse caridge.

Edit:Adding links and some info for you.

----------------------------------------

Where do I start?
To be effective, like any skill, imagery needs to be developed and practiced regularly. There are four elements to mental imagery - Relaxation, Realism, Regularity and Reinforcement (the 4Rs)

Relaxation
Having a relaxed mind and body so you can become involved in the imagery exercises, feel your body moving and experience any emotions generated. It may help to use a relaxation technique prior to imagery training.

Realism
Create imagery so realistic you believe you are actually executing the skill. In order to obtain the most realistic imagery possible, you must incorporate clarity, vividness, emotion, control and a positive outcome into your imagery:

Clarity - Make the images as vivid as possible, include colour.
Vividness - Incorporate as many of your senses as possible into your imagery so the scene is as clear and realistic as real life itself.
Emotion - Try to include emotional feelings in your images. Refresh your memory constantly by emphasising specific sensory awareness (e.g. smells, the wind) during training.
Control- Break down the image into small components and visualise those components. (Sprinting - consider the action of the arms, legs, trunk, head, feet, hands, breathing etc.)
Positive outcome - This is essential, "you only achieve what you believe".
Regularity
Spending between 3 and 5 minutes on imagery seems to be most effective. It should be included in training and time outside of training should be spent on imagery. (10-15 minutes a day)

Reinforcement
The writing of imagery scripts will help you plan the content and timing of your imagery training.
---------------------------
Theory behind it.--> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-imagery/

Also see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mnemonics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditation