On Jan 31, 12:45 pm, acw <a...@lavabit.com> wrote: > > A digital or analog camera would get similar amounts of noise as the > eye, actually probably less than the eye.
Why do you say that? Have you ever taken a photo with the lens cap on? I just looked at my digital camera in my phone and blocked the lens with my hand and there is no noise or snow whatsoever. If I unplug the monitor from my computer but leave it powered on - no snow. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-eye_hallucinationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_snow > > > Closed-eye hallucinations and closed-eye visualizations (CEV) are a > distinct class of hallucination. These types of hallucinations generally > only occur when one's eyes are closed or when one is in a darkened room. > They are a form of phosphene. Phosphene is nothing more than a name. Calling them hallucinations is a loaded term. They are visual qualia, to me pretty obviously related to the physical neurology of the optical system and not to any computational interpretation software. You all can disagree, but I know that what I see seems like analog 'respiration', not digital representation. > .. > > The noise probably originates from thermal noise exciting the > photoreceptor cells in the retina That should be easy enough to test. The point though, is that it has no business leaking into our visual software. No computer has comparable thermal noise that leaks into the software, does it? You can get RF interference, sure, but why would a program tuned precisely to represent some things and not others include unfiltered noise in it's representation? I know it's not evidence that contradicts comp, but it's not supportive of it at all. > > Why don't we see clean images instead of a noisy convoluted mess during > our daily lives? Because we actually "see" patterns which also happen to > "correct" the input data (look at the hierarchical structure of the > cortex or read "On Intelligence" for some examples. I could also link > some PLoS articles about this, but I don't have them handy right now.) - > we don't usually see raw unfiltered inputs. We shouldn't ever see raw unfiltered inputs, that's why the phosphene doesn't make sense as a filtered process. > > Static and noise can occur just as well within COMP - they are > incredibly common within the UD at various levels. Set up a system with > some random rules and you have a good chance of observing noise. Noise > is so damn easy to make... However, if considered from the COMP > perspective, even incompressible noise (Kolmogorov random) is very > common due to 1p indeterminacy. I think you must have the wrong > conception about what COMP really is. Noise should either be unavoidable or absent, not present if we pay attention to the front of our visual field and absent if we visualize darkness. The fact that there is a difference for human vision behind closed eyes and within the mind's eye would need to be explained. I don't know what people think I don't understand about COMP is. It makes perfect sense to me, it just happens to be exactly wrong in the real world. In a theoretical world, COMP is the way to go, definitely. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
