Interesting Links for 13-07-2016
Theresa May revealed as Margaret Thatcher’s final Horcrux
(tags: margaretthatcher harrypotter politics uk funny )
'Zeno effect' verified-atoms won't move while you watch
(tags: physics quantum )
What to Make of Finnegans Wake? (Fascinating, in-depth piece by Michael Chabon)
(tags: writing language sleep )
British prime ministerial statistics
(
( Read more... )
It sounds like, if you blink while an A is on the screen, you perceive its duration as shorter. But if you blink while it appears or disappears, you don't. Like you back-fill your experience but only to halfway through the blink??
I'm confused about the title though. It seems more like, the brain defaults to perceiving everything as continuous whether it is or not. And there's a million little hacks to patch over different parts of the missing information. And we're not sure what the hacks are in this case.
But I'm not sure, is it an accurate summary to say "one part of visual processing fills in the blanks, and then another examines the resultant vision for important changes to flag for higher-level attention"? Because that's how you might imagine and what the article title seems to imlpy.
But is that actually true? I would have assumed it was more like, "blinking suppresses the 'oh my god everything's gone black'" alert directly, and various subsystems like "how long has that tiger been there" fill in the details... somehow, guaranteed to produce SOME sort of answer, but one fine-tuned to approximate what happened in the blink when it matters and not when it doesn't.
Does anyone know which of those reflect how vision actually works?
Reply
Leave a comment