Thursday, January 24, 2013

Sight vs Seeing

           Last Saturday evening I popped in my “Matrix” DVD for a bit of diversion.  Of course, viewing “The Matrix” as pure diversion is futile because of the obvious questions it raises about reality, how our brains work, the purpose of life, which life has the purpose (the one within the Matrix or the one pushing to emerge), and what one will do in order to dwell in reality rather than a dream.

Among the issues that kept me awake that night (as a result of this “diversion”) were:  (1) what is it that we see with our eyes; (2) why do we see what we see; and (3) why does our brain automatically accept what it sees as what is really there.

Vision itself is a complicated process requiring numerous components of the eye and brain to work together.  Light reflects off objects around us, enters the eye through the cornea, passes through the pupil, and is imaged onto the retina by the lens.  The retina has light-sensitive cells called rods and cones, and is responsible for detecting light from images and sending the resulting impulses to the brain via the optic nerve.  Specifically, rods identify shapes and work best in dim light; cones identify color and work best in bright light.  When those light rays pass through the pupil, the iris (colored ring) makes the size of the pupil change depending on the amount of light available.  The brain decodes these images into information that we know as vision.

A fascinating piece of information discovered along the way:  Rene Descartes, who is more known as a philosopher than anything else, was also a physicist who made many advances regarding the understanding of sight in the Seventeenth Century.  Descartes surgically removed an eye from an ox and scraped the back of the eye to make it transparent.  He then placed the eye on a window ledge as if the ox were looking out the window.  He looked through the back of the eye and saw an inverted image of the scenery outside.  Descartes postulated that the image was inverted as a result of being focused onto the retina by the eye's lens.  Kind of makes you appreciate Descartes even more.

            There is also a field called the “psychology of sight” in which a study by Canadian researchers seemed to provide the first direct evidence that our mood affects the way we see things by modulating the activity of the visual cortex.  Putting on the proverbial rose-tinted glasses of a good mood is not so much about color, but about the broadness of the view.  Positive moods are associated with a tendency to perceive global components, and negative moods with the local components.  The neural mechanisms of these phenomena are unclear.  One possibility is that mood has a “top-down” effect on vision, such that higher order cognitive processes impinge on the visual areas of the brain.

          A negative mood, such as fear or sadness, causes one’s attention to be focused on specific details, at the expense of information in the periphery.  An example of this is that a person who witnesses a crime involving a weapon normally has an impaired memory for the appearance of the perpetrator because attention shifted to the weapon.  The negative emotional content of the event enhances the visual processes by which the specific details (the weapon) are perceived and later remembered.  This occurs at the expense of irrelevant peripheral information, which is suppressed, or filtered out.  Such mechanisms would serve to increase one’s vigilance in a possibly life-threatening situation.

On the other hand, positive emotions broaden the scope of the visual field, leading to increased breadth of attention.  Positive moods do so by directly modulating the visual system so that we can gain access to more information.  In psychology, the broaden-and-build theory holds that positive emotions enhance one’s awareness, and that this global perspective encourages novel thoughts and actions.  This broadened behavioral repertoire in turn leads to increased creativity and inventiveness.

Remember though that our eyes do not send images to our brains.  Images are constructed in our brains based on very simple signals sent from our eyes.  The nerve signals from our eyes mostly represent edges, shapes and motion; no images.  The images our brain forms are based on pattern recognition, which develops from infancy as we learn about the world around us.  I repeat: we do not see images; our eyes see line and motion, which our brains work to interpret and cause us to perceive whatever that object might be.

So what came first:  the properties of the object we see (the thing itself), or the perception of that object put together by lines and lights?

Now that we know about “patterning,” which develops from infancy, and that such patterning does not reflect what we are actually looking at, we now know also that we are not actually “seeing” anything we think we are seeing.  Since what we see is as a result of this patterning, what is it that we actually see?  Are we seeing what is really out there or merely a shared reality, a shared visioning?

And does it matter?

 

Until next time, LLAP!

 


References:
 

No comments:

Post a Comment