Where do we actually see?

[dslc1000]

This post is a furthering of the ideas I discussed in an earlier post - http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2700. After thinking some more, and reading up on an ‘inverting goggles ’ experiment* which Sayonara referred me to (my acknowledgements to him), I’m confident enough to make explicit ideas which were merely implied in that post.

In the 1st experiment (outlined in my previous post - looking at an object underwater), one sees the object upright . In the 2nd experiment (using inverting goggles, but not underwater), one sees the object inverted. In both cases, however, the image on the retina is upright**. So, why is what we see different in each case? As I see it, this is directly related to where the act of seeing actually takes place .

Let’s consider the possibilities. It is common knowledge that it does not take place at the retina, as, in normal circumstances, the image formed there is upside-down, while we actually see things the right way up. This led people to conclude that the act of seeing always takes place somewhere inside the brain, after the brain has somehow reinverted the image. And it is this that is the prevailing theory. I, however, assert that it is incorrect, for the simple fact that, if it were correct, the results of the above-mentioned experiments would be the same. But they aren’t the same; in as much as the results of an experiment possibly can differ, these results do. In one experiment the observer sees the visual field upside-down ; in the other experiment the observer sees the visual-field upright . While in both cases the image formed on the retina is the same. The logical thing to do is to look where the images actually still differ.

And where is this? Well, by the time the images reach the retina, and from that stage onwards, they are the same - i.e. upright. So we have to look to the stage(s) before the light rays of the image reach the retina. It is logical to conclude that this is where the act of seeing actually takes place.

Now, hold your horses! I want to make clear at this point what I am asserting, and what I am not asserting. What I am asserting is that the act of seeing (with, it seems, the exception of lucid dreaming and possibly other visual phenomena) does not take place in the brain. I am by no means asserting, however, that transmission of the visual information from the retina to striate cortex and beyond is not necessary for the act of seeing to take place. I am merely dealing with where the act takes place; I am not dealing with what is necessary for it to take place.

In fact, I think the acknowledgement that ‘registration of the visual information in the striate cortex and beyond is necessary’ is a very important one. Let me explain. Let’s go back to my assertion that the act of seeing takes place at some stage before the light rays from an image reach the retina. What use is this information? Well, it drops a huge hint as to what we might actually be seeing, i.e. photons . Yes, I am suggesting that what we see might actually be photons, the quanta of light. Even if you find it hard to swallow the notion that we actually see photons, you will agree that it is photons that at least (indirectly) elicit the phenomenon of ‘seeing’. But let’s go a step further and hypothesize that it is photons we actually see . Ok. So, what are photons? Well, they are quantum entities. And, being quantum entities, they will exist in a superposition of quantum states until their superpostiton is collapsed during an observation/measurement***. Basically, a photon, like any other quantum entity, doesn’t become real until it is measured. What I would like to alert people to (along with my earlier assertion) is the possibility that the collapse of the superposition is intrinsically linked with the phenomenon of vision (the measurement necessary for the collapse in this case being the registration of the visual information in striate cortex and beyond-i.e. V2,V3 etc.).

So, my theory consists of two components:

(i) The act of seeing in normal circumstances (excluding phenomena such as dreaming) does not take place in the brain. It takes place at some stage before light from an image reaches the retina.

(ii) The phenomenon of ‘seeing’ occurs when the superposition of states of the quantum entities being observed - in this case photons - collapses. And the cause of this collapse is the measurement/registration of the visual information in striate cortex (i.e. visual cortex) and beyond (i.e. V2, V3, V4 etc.).

I would also consider these (if correct, which I think they are – the first one at least) to be a solid basis for investigating whether or not the same principles apply to the other senses, viz. hearing, gustation, olfaction and the tactile senses; with the semblance that the act of perception occurs in the mind being accounted for by the fact that, while perception can actually take place outside the brain, registration by the brain of information from sensory receptors is needed for it to take place. I’m only suggesting that it might account for some aspects, not all. Phantom pain, dreaming, synesthesia – and I’m sure no shortage of other phenomena – seem to demand that this qualification be made.

 

Feedback welcome, and wanted actually - positive or negative. As long as its not derisive. If you think I’m crazy, please just skip on to another thread, or else limit your criticism to a revealing of flaws/deficincies in my logic, or possible errors/oversights. I just don’t see how one can possibly account for the difference in the results of the two experiments other than by accepting my first assertion. If they can account for it, I’ll reconsider my views.

----------

*In 1897, George Stratton, a Californian psychologist, carried out an often-cited ‘inverting goggles’ experiment. His experiment, and others since, have indeed confirmed that people do ‘see’ upside-down when wearing the special goggles, at least in the first few days of wearing them.

**I don’t expect you to take my word for it. Go carry out the experiment yourself if you feel like it (absurd and bizarre though it may sound). It’s very simple!

***Some feel that only observation by a conscious mind qualifies as a measurement.

----------

(The theory shared in this post is the author's own)

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

So are you saying that we see before the photons hit the retina? That is CONFUSING!! Perhaps you should clarify that.

[Pinch Paxton]

Hmm shame that you started a new thread, I was just getting interested in the other thread. I have just noticed that when I turn my head on its side quickly, and then try to bend so that the image is upside down, there is a very noticable time delay before the image is corrected.

 

Anyhow back to the goggles. You think that we see photons in some sort of a measurement of their existence. This existence happens before they hit your retina. What I believe you are doing there is taking the definition of photons as a proven fact, and the defintion of sight as a myth. Well you may as well throw away the definition of photons too for that matter. If you want to take a joyride with science, dispose of everything, and start afresh. I don't really want to confuse matters too much, but the observer perhaps sends out his own signal, which transmits along a string. The Photon travels along the same string. They head off in different directions, this merely creates a path to the retina but fractionally back in time because the combined speed of the observer, and the photon is faster than light. Then you can recieve the image on the retina at the right moment. Ok so no vision before the retina is hit........so we are back to the goggles..

 

 

Turning your head on its side changes the relative positions of your eyeballs to the world. Your brain has had to balance you for many years, it knows about rotation. It can rotate images in relation to the world by comparing the position of the world, to the position of your eyeballs. The goggles however, do not rotate your eyeballs, so the brain is given a new situation that it has never faced before. Now it takes three days to adjust this new situation.

 

Pincho.

[dslc1000]

Caps'n'Refsmatt:

Yes, that is what I'm asserting. But that is only one aspect of what I've written. That merely deals with where the act of seeing takes place. The other aspect of what I've written deals with what is necessary for the act of seeing to take place. This is of course the registration of the visual information collected by the retinal photoreceptors in V1, V2 etc.. And I think that this registration might qualify as the measurement necessary to collapse the superposition of states of what we are actually seeing, i.e. photons.

Pinch Paxton:

I'm glad you've expressed an interest in what I've said, but I can by no means agree with you if you were implying (maybe you weren't - but I just want to clarify in case) that I am taking a 'joyride with science' and 'disposing of everything'. What I am doing is challenging an existing theory, but my approach is perfectly logical and rational (as far as I can see). In relation to your ideas on how we actually see, maybe you're right in proposing that the observer sends out his own signal. But you're wrong in your suggestion that the photon could be 'faster than light', as they are the same thing, i.e. photons are light! But, again, thanks for expressing an interest!

[Pinch Paxton]

I said that the combined speed of the observer wave, and the light wave is faster than light...but..Ok faster than time then! If you say that time is not relative to the observer wave then you have found another problem with science then. It's easy to say why we can't observe speeds faster than light speed. Like I said, I don't want to confuse everything...so let's stick to the goggle theory.

 

Pincho.

[dslc1000]

Yes, what I've asserted does have strange implications, but I stand by it nonetheless. I don't see any other explanation for the different results of the experiments. At the moment, I'm looking into whether double-vision can be explained by my theory. One of the reasons I thought it was a good idea to share my ideas here was so anyone could point out flaws in my theory, before I continue to develop it further - so I can be more sure I'm not wasting my time. If you think what I'm saying is logical, great!

 

Anyone else, feel free to offer your opinions. Please just don't be derisive!

[Neurocomp2003]

"the act of seeing" as you call it to me occurs at teh parietal lobe/occipital lobe blend. Because Spatial imagery supposedly occurs there. And one of the main aspects of why I say this is

the image rotation tasks which allows us to attempt to manipulate how we see the image. This also comes frmo a developmental standpoint.

 

Also perhaps seeing upright is a multisense effect meaning that

how you move also takes into effect.

[aman]

I had a dream last night, The visual record in my brain had nothing to do with my retina, nor my hearing with my ears, or my physical senses with my body. I would say that these senses can be remotely stimulated from something else at this level. I would say it was self generated input to stay scientifically correct.

I'm trying to understand if you mean input is registered somehow "bioelectromagnetically?" at points in space by the brain before reaching the actual sensors.

Just aman

[dslc1000]

Aman:

First of all, hands up! I acknowledge (and acknowledged from the beginning) that the phenomenon of dreaming can't be explained by what I've said. I also acknowledge that, although I've suggested that its photons we actually see in non-dreaming situations, that the inside of the brain - where dreaming seemingly occurs - receives little or no light. I'm just trying to interpret things as I see them. Perhaps the two phenomena use different mechanisms.

But to try and answer your question (in a roundabout way):

There is an experiment known as the 'double-slit' experiment used to highlight the strange behaviour of photons and other quantum entities. It illustrates how photons actually exist in a superposition of different states at the same time. This superposition doesn't collapse - i.e. the photon doesn't become a single, real photon - until a measurement is carried out on the photon. What actually qualifies as a measurement is a topic of debate. Some people feel that only observation by a conscious mind actually qualifies as a measurement.

Anyway, you might know this already. I mention it because, what I have suggested is that the observation/measurement necessary to collapse the superposition of quantum states in such experiments is the same observation/measurement that takes place when we open our eyes and look at a photon! If this is correct, well, how the brain actually does it is another matter.

[dslc1000]

According to some, the ‘adaptation’ which follows the initial disorientation after a few days in the inverting goggles experiment might be no more than an adaptation of their brains ability to make decisions based on the visual information it receives (e.g. visuo-motor adaptation). In other words, it seems that they continue to see their world upside-down.

I personally find the notion that ‘what they actually see’ could re-invert itself implausible for two reasons. Firstly, if the re-inversion was sudden, i.e. occurred in an instant, surely it would be perfectly manifest to those actually wearing the goggles. On the other hand, if the re-inversion was gradual, there would have to be a stage when the visual field was neither upright nor upside-down. This, which sounds very bizarre, I think also ought to perfectly manifest to the observers, no matter what it actually looked like. So, along with a certain number of others (http://faculty.smu.edu/bthompso/spatialcontent.html - paragraphs 4-7 under section ‘Experiments with Inverting Goggles’) , I think the adaptation referred to is merely an adaptation in the brains ability to make decisions based on what the observer sees.