(December 30, 2015 at 6:57 pm)Rhythm Wrote: The system -doesn't- specify the form of perception....which might explain, in part, why so many forms of perception exist. If it did specify, there might be fewer forms.
I have to say, I'm less certain now of what it is you're trying to express than I was before. Any other way to communicate it?
No, I don't think it does either, that was my point... or at least it was supposed to be
Clearly I'm not very good at this - perhaps it's never a good idea to start a thread with a TL;DR
Any other way to communicate it? Hmm. Drunk perhaps?
I don't know really. Okay I'll try this. Why is the visual field 2D? You would not be able to detect the right patterns in the pixel information if it was organised in a 1D array... would not be able to detect pixels that were next to each other or diagonal to each other. So it has to be a 2D array and that's how it's physically organised in the brain with this topographical map received from the retina. And from the brain's perspective it presumably needs to be structured like that so that it can be interconnected correctly retaining that topographical information. So the system is forced to represent the array in a 2D manner because of the constraints of how it will be accessed further down the line... eg for detecting lines etc in needs to know where one pixel sits in relation to another. So all these constraints force it into a specific configuration functionally and structurally. I just wonder if roughly the same thing happens phenomenally, and that therefore colour is the only way to represent/label the 'pixels' in a perception that already looks like it has been forced into being a 2D visual field (well 3D but 2D in terms of how it is in your head), given all the other constraints.
