250 of 1000 so far!
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
It seems to me you are simply substituting the word "decoding" with the word "association".
I am not exactly sure if I know what you mean. "different format"?
Well clearly you don't think the image one is viewing is simply projected onto the brain through a little whole in your eye do you???? :think:Originally posted by Greywolf
As you can see, I'm not the most lingually talented person around. I'm having trouble putting the idea in words.
When you've been using the word "decode" in this thread, did you mean that the information sent from the eyes is somehow changed or manipulated?
Sorta like a mini drive in shown upon the ol' grey matter.
And since I am guessing your smart enough to understand it works differently than that.... you have to agree that the image that comes into the eye must be processed in some way..... like a stream of data and then the brain reads or "decodes" that data into our mental image of what we see.
Do we agree so far?
If not... where do you disagree?
Furthermore, I recall one of my high school teachers telling the class that experiments have been done where people wore special glasses that inverted everything, but after a day or two the people once again saw everything right side up. If this isn't urban legend, then this definitely proves image processing of some sort is happening in the brain.
Greywolf
New member
Originally posted by Knight
Well clearly you don't think the image one is viewing is simply projected onto the brain through a little whole in your eye do you???? :think:
Sorta like a mini drive in shown upon the ol' grey matter.
If only it were that simple.
I agree that the image that comes into the eye has to be translated into electrochemical signals. Is this what you mean by "processed"?
I also agree that the brain recieves these electrochemical signals.
But I do disagree that the brain the brain then decodes the data into an image. Going back to the computer analogy...
When you type in an "A" into the computer, the keyboard (eye) tranlates that "A" into binary code (electrochemical signal). But when that binary code reaches the computer (brain), it doesn't translate that binary code (electrochemical signals) back into an "A". It recognizes that certain pattern of binary code (electochemical signals) as an "A".
And you have just described "decoding".
The brain or computer decoding, translating or "associating" data back into useable understandable form.
I really don't see why your arguing the point.
OK, I understand better what you're saying now, Grey. Thanks for being patient. However, I really think you're overlooking an important step. For example:
Suppose you detached the optic nerve from the brain and touch the end to the back of your hand. Let's also say that you were able to feel the electrochemical signals being transmitted from the eyes. Would the information you feel be of any value to you but gibberish? How about if you attached some type of thin, sensitive membrane to it so that it made an audible sound. Would that be any use to you? Likely not because our eyes are sending signals that are intended to be interpreted as light. Therefore, the optic nerve must be attached to something able to interpret these cryptic signals properly: the occipital lobe (thanks Zak, that part of the physiology slipped my mind). Here are a couple more relevant exerpts from the first site you referenced for me:
Do you understand now?
Last edited:
- Status