Anyway there's low resolution, possibly unconfirmed, evidence that when we
visualize images, we generate a cell activation pattern within the visual
cortex that has an activation boundary approximating in shape the object
being visualized. (This doesn't say anything about how the information is
stored.)
Or, in other words, the brain uses a three-dimensional *spatial* model of
the object in question -- and certainly not a two-dimensional image.
This goes back to the previous visual vs. spatial argument with the built-in
human bias towards our primary sense. Heck, look at the word visualize. Do
dolphins visualize or sonarize? In either case, what the brain is doing is
creating a three-dimensional model of perceived reality -- and trivializing
it by calling it an image is a really bad idea.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles D Hixson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <agi@v2.listbox.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Human memory and number of synapses.. P.S.
FWIW:
A few years (decades?) ago some researchers took PET scans of people who
were imagining a rectangle rotating (in 3-space, as I remember). They
naturally didn't get much detail, but what they got was consistent with
people applying a rotation algorithm within the visual cortex. This
matches my internal reporting of what happens.
Parallel processors optimize things differently than serial processors,
and this wasn't a stored image. But it was consistent with an array of
cells laid out in a rectangle activating, and having that activation
precess as the image was visualized to rotate.
Well, the detail wasn't great, and I never heard that it went anywhere
after the initial results. (Somebody probably got a doctorate...and
possibly left to work elsewhere.) But it was briefly written up in the
popular science media (New Scientist? Brain-Mind Bulletin?)
Anyway there's low resolution, possibly unconfirmed, evidence that when we
visualize images, we generate a cell activation pattern within the visual
cortex that has an activation boundary approximating in shape the object
being visualized. (This doesn't say anything about how the information is
stored.)
Mark Waser wrote:
Another way of putting my question/ point is that a picture (or map) of
your face is surely a more efficient, informational way to store your
face than any set of symbols - especially if a doctor wants to do
plastic surgery on it, or someone wants to use it for any design purpose
whatsoever?
No, actually, most plastic surgery planning programs map your face as a
limited set of three dimensional points, not an image. This allows for
rotation and all sorts of useful things. And guess where they store this
data . . . . a relational database -- just like any other CAD program.
Images are *not* an efficient way to store data. Unless they are
three-dimensional images, they lack data. Normally, they include a lot
of unnecessary or redundant data. It is very, very rare that a computer
stores any but the smallest image without compressing it. And remember,
an image can be stored as symbols in a relational database very easily as
a set of x-coords, y-coords, and colors.
You're stuck on a crackpot idea with no proof and plenty of
counter-examples.
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=55854109-5699c6
