Hypothesis regarding perception {duck hunt}

[OptimisticCynic]

You are invited to shoot this duck (hypothesis) down. perception noun (AWARENESS)

› [U] an ​awareness of things through the ​physical senses , esp. ​sight

thing noun (OBJECT)

A1 [C] used to refer in an ​approximate way to an ​object or to ​avoid ​naming it:

object noun [C] (THING)

› a thing that can be ​seen, ​held, or ​touched, usually not a ​living thing:Distant objects ​look ​blurry to me.

--from the Cambridge Dictionaries Online--

Perception, as I use it here, is: the differentiation of sets or arrangements of stimuli as objects.

 

One can be said to be aware of something when a sensory stimulus is received from that something. To perceive some thing is to differentiate that thing from everything outside of it.

 

Hypothesis-- The differentiation of sets or arrangements of stimuli as objects in a (human?) mind occurs when: multiple stimuli, received from slightly varying viewpoints, combine within the structure of the nervous system to form "ringing artifacts" (a term from signal processing). Those artifacts are differentiated as objects.

 

Ringing artifacts occur naturally when multiple exposures are combined. I expect that most, if not all, of the information necessary to distinguish an object from its background is available within those artifacts. This information is highly compressed compared to the raw inputs. This compression reduces the load for further processing (thinking).

 

The creation of a ringing artifact occurs very rapidly. Only a very few exposures, or views, are required to differentiate most objects. Additional views produce more accurate and precise differentiation of objects.

 

Request-- Will somebody please help me translate this into Mathematics? I do not know enough math to do the job.

 

I realize this hypothesis is probably wrong as stated. The purpose of a duck hunt is to have fun while identifying what is wrong with an idea so that many false paths can be eliminated. Sometimes it is, "Back to the drawing board!" when a duck is shot down and enough is left of it to cook up a better idea. At other times the best response is, "Next!" when a duck is completely shot to pieces.

If you cannot shoot the duck, you can salt its tail. Improvements or evidence supporting the idea count as salt and seasoning.

Enjoy.

[Strange]

What evidence, e.g. from neuroscience, do you have to support this idea?

 

What mathematics do you think is needed?

[imatfaal]

How could we envisage an experiment which might shed light on to this idea? Perhaps think along the lines of the work of Vilayanur Rama Ramachandran and consider naturally occurring brain lesions and how these pathway breakdowns would affect perception functions iff your hypothesis is correct.

[swansont]

 

Request-- Will somebody please help me translate this into Mathematics?

 

!

Moderator Note

 

That's the hard part.

 

As imatfaal has suggested, perhaps a better path for you is to discuss predictions and experiments, so that you are within our guidelines for discussion.

 

 

[Strange]

It might also be possible to use neuroimaging: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_neuroimaging

[OptimisticCynic]

Predictions: Three dimensional objects are easier to distinguish than two dimensional objects. This is because the edges of three dimensional objects change more with very slight changes in viewpoint. The changes in viewpoint are generally the result of the body and eyes being in motion.

 

A string of neurons responding to two input pulses will, at some point(s) along the string, show a response indicative of the two input pulses interfering additively or subtractively.

 

 

What evidence, e.g. from neuroscience, do you have to support this idea?

 

What mathematics do you think is needed?

At present I have no evidence from neuroscience. There are practices in image processing which correlate to the concept of iterative interferometric processing. Today, upon using different search terms, I came across a "Compressed sensing" article in Wikipedia. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_sensing) This article includes math which, if I understand it correctly, does nearly the opposite of what I am suggesting happens in the brain. It takes a sparse signal and, with iteration, reconstructs the full signal. I am talking about taking a complex signal and, with iteration of the inputs, extracting the important information and compressing it for ease of further processing. I did not include in my original post any of my thinking on how further processing, also iterative, develops worldviews and thoughts. If this part is disproved, my whole construct collapses. So far, I have been unable to find any evidence against it.

Experiment: Observer in dark room with objects all same color as background of room. One eye. Head stabilized to maintain steady viewpoint. Strobe of less than 1/60 second duration. Strobes separated by longer intervals, perhaps two seconds. Place strobe light directly in line with observers viewpoint. How many flashes does it take for observer to identify objects? Next, introduce slight changes of viewpoint by shifting head stabilizer between flashes, perhaps 0.5-1 millimeter shifts. How many flashes does it take for observer to identify objects? Prediction is that shifting viewpoint will reduce number of flashes required. A variation uses images painted on a flat surface in similar shades of a color.

 

This is similar to the tool astronomers use that switches their view back and forth between two photos taken at different times. Any differences between the photos appear to blink.

[Strange]

One thing you might want to look into (apart form the fascinating work of V Ramachandran that imatfaal mentioned) is the fact there are distinct groups of neurons in the visual system that respond to things like vertical lines, horizontal lines, movement, and so on. I have no idea whether this is pro or con your idea, though.