Log In | Register
The other day I used my cell phone to take a picture of my dog. In doing so, I discovered that it is not so easy. You see, there is a time delay between the instant you press the button, and when the camera actually captures the image.
Needless to say, it took several attempts to get the dog to understand that she had to stand still for almost a second before she could move from her pose. (That’s after I taught her to pose.) The whole experience got me thinking. The first time, my dog was actually not in the picture because she had ‘left the scene’ before the camera could capture her image.
I had recently read a discussion of Walter Freedman’s research is neurodynamics. http://wiredminds.blogspot.com/2011/09/walter-j-freemans-meurodynamics-and.html In the discussion, written by John D. Giffiths. I went back and read it again.
I found out that there is actually a time delay (all but brief) between seeing an object and making a cognitive picture. I will try to describe it.
When I look at a flower in a vase, I am actually seeing into the past. This is why:
1) Light reflecting off the flower and vase must travel to the retina in my eye. Light travels very fast, but it still takes time.
2) The retina, made up of thousands of single cells, receives the image and converts it to a signal to send down a neural pathway called the optic nerve. At this point the image is divided into pixels. Pixels are microscopic portions of the image. Each portion is part of a matrix (puzzle) that, when combined properly will be an inverted image of the flower in its vase. There are retinal cells that can differentiate only in black and white. Then there are others that can pick up variations in the light spectra (color). The conversion to a signal the optic nerve can convey takes more time.
3) The visual data is then sent to the cerebellum where it is combined with olfactory data (sense of smell), tactile data (touch) and auditory data (sound). There, the data goes though a complicated process of forming meaning. More time has lapsed.
4) Memories are then matched to the sensory data. This data finally makes it possible for the mind to assemble an image. Even more time has passed.
5) The image then passes through memory filters again to associate past experiences to what is being seen. Now, there is finally meaning attached to what is being seen. It is only at this time that the conscious mind gets to ‘see’ the final product of the process.
My point is that by the time my mind had seen, identified and categorized what I was looking at, the flower in the image appearing in my mind was now old news. The flower had aged, the sun was in a slightly different place, the shadows would have moved…. In short, it didn’t exist anymore. At least, it didn’t exist the way I was ‘seeing’ it. Even the constant updates my mind was giving me were still not the present.
Dr. Freedman describes all this in his 'How brains make up their minds.’ He summarizes “...In colloquial terms, the ingredients received by brains from their sensory cortices with which to make meanings are produce by the cortices. They are not direct transcriptions or impressions from the environment inside or outside the body. All that brains can know has been synthesized within themselves, in the form of hypotheses about the world and the outcomes of their own tests of the hypotheses..."(pgs. 91-93)
What do we see?
In other words, people perceive a picture that does not exist in reality. 1) By the time observe and event, what they ‘see’ has already happened. 2) The ‘picture’ of the event has been altered to correlate with memories stored from past experiences.
Therefore, it can be concluded from Dr Freedman’s findings, and subsequent research, that humans cannot actually experience the present. What is interpreted as the present is actually a projection of what may be happening. Good athletes must be the best at making fairly accurate projections so that their reactions can be pertinent to the rules of the game, and a successful outcome.
What we perceive then is a ‘mental’ summary of the data received from our senses and a correlation of related memories. Upon reflection of this information and the frustration of getting a good picture of my dog made me wonder how easy it is for us to make inaccurate extrapolations of our experiences. One can conclude by this that there is really no such thing as objectivity. Humans only see abstractions of reality.
Science tries to get around these subjective abstractions by verifying perceived phenomena (events) by comparing experiences with others. They then try to find a statistical summary of different observations and then reduce those that match. But, what is really happening is a repeat of what has already happened in the brain of each observer, only with a wider memory bank, and different perspectives. The perspectives are different only because each individual brings a different set of memories (experiences) to the perception process. People use words to express common experiences.
If we only see abstractions of what actually happens, then how does one really know what is real. The answer is – we don’t. What we perceive IS. It IS because we have perceived it.
If humans only see abstractions of the ‘real,’ how do we know there is any reality. The answer is – we don’t. We can deduce that something IS when more than one person verifies it, and gives a fairly consistent description. Thing is, once it has been given a consistent description, it IS. We cannot prove its reality, we can only prove that the observation is somewhat consistent to what others have observed.
In other words – we ponder the past, and project from it the present and future.
