 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Do you feel that it would be pertinent to talk about some of the unifying theories of vision such as Marr's computational theory, Gibsons ecological theory and the more integrated Bayesian approach when trying to answer the question "What do we see?"....or am I trying to hard....should I just stick to a biological perspective...and by that I mean give evidence for what we see by discussing neuroanatomical evidence for how we see things like colour, motion, outlines of objects and depth? That seems far more on topic....
I feel brain raped at the moment as I have a tendency to go OCD on subject's that I enjoy....and well....I saw the term "Bayesian" and went nuts reading the literature.
Not sure what you're on about. But learn how to draw and paint accurately from life. Makes you see things very differently. You have to make a mental leap from the way you think about the way you look/see and learn how to break it all down into abstract shape, relative tone, spacial construct etc. Got obsessed with negative space for a while and just kept sizing up the empty shapes around everything!
This question is purposely vague to make you think about the topic Kevevs but it's in the context of a neuroscience question. So it's not really from an artistic perspective.
Thanks for the help though! 🙂 If you enjoy thinking about imagery I would excitedly like to suggest that you read up on the biological nature of visual processing, it's really really incredibly interesting. Maybe it will give you a more profound understanding of art...perhaps....I'm not really a visual arts kind of person though. 😀
This question is purposely vague to make you think about the topic
Sounds like an exam you failed recently 😉
No it's an essay but I'm feeling myself getting a bit obsessive and anxious about which direction I should take it in as it's so open ended in terms of all the topics that the literature throws up. This get's worse when I'm really excited by the subject. I go bonkers and get racing thoughts.
I think I'm just going to stick to more basic biological evidence for what we see as opposed to going into high brow unified theories on human visual perception.
The Gestalt theory of perception often comes up in the computer vision literature. For example if you're writing a computer program that can automatically pick out objects from an image without knowing what those objects are you'd use basic things like continuity of colour, or automatically joining lines together even if there's a gap.
Gestalt was kind of left by the wayside though wasn't it, as it's more of a descriptive theory as opposed to one that provides a how or explanatory framework to visual perception. I mean it wasn't wrong from what I gather it just didn't go into enough detail.
I have the feeling that these kinds of questions will one day have me jumping off the deep end John Nash style. 😕 ....*Deeep breath* this threads helping me filter my thoughts already.
I think I'm just going to stick to more basic biological evidence for what we see as opposed to going into high brow unified theories on human visual perception.
Balls to that try and shoehorn enough top end stuff you can, if you can make the person assessing it feel inferior then you should get a better mark. 😀
How did the last Bwaarp vs Lecturer go?
I couldn't be bothered to wind the lecturer up, to much work. Been a hermit for the past few weeks.
For now I'm going to stick to the biological approach in answering the question, until I've given it more thought. Some of the theories I've mentioned make me uneasy in that they seem to be social sciencey/philosophical = eughhhhh
sounds interesting Bwaarp. I read a few things when I was younger about left/right brain processing and all that, can't remember. but
[i]biological nature of visual processing....I'm not really a visual arts kind of person though. [/i]
I reckon there is a crossover there. who do you think are the experts in visual processing? to see what you see, and break it down into very specific shapes, forms, tones, colours, and to understand the way paint mixes into those specifics and to construct a similar visual "reality" on a flat surface to represent that visual input, like a Rembrandt self portrait or something MUST take a remarkable neurologial process?
What is the actual course you are doing?
Sometimes over thinking the question is bad.
Probably people who are more artsy than me 😛 Doesn't mean to say I can't enjoy it though.
What is the actual course you are doing?
I took a toally unrelated module in neuroscience for the hell of it. But med stats having done a BmedSci.
I'm kind of meandering/blindly stumbling my way towards a career by choosing to do whatever vaguely excites me at the time and seeing where it takes me...
tell you what bwaarp, get serious and find out what that neurological process I explained above is and get back! cos I'd be curious to know! get some properly skilled representational life drawing artists in and strap them to brain machines and figure out how and why that shit works for certain people. That visual comprehension.. There's your PHD bud..
Kevevs.... go to your local library....there are three chapters in "Principles of Neural Science"....5th ed....by Eric Kandel et al....have them get the book in for you.
If you're interested in visual perception I really would recommend it.
There's your PHD bud..
Maybe, I need to get my organizational and timekeeping skills down pat and develop a sense of continual motivation. So far during my life I've bumbled my way through everything, flitting from one topic to the next...doing everything last minute....and managing to get away with it.
I'm going to spend 5-10 years working and then come back and do a PhD when I feel I've matured enough.
My GCSE Science teachers year 10 report was really quite prophetic...."Show's sparks of brilliance but is let down by laziness, disorganization and a willful disregard for authority"
y'know. I think I will Bwaarp, it sounds proper interesting. I bet it's full of sciency stuff I cant get my head around 😀 I really like that though. But if you are going to dismiss "artsy types" and the way their brains work in relation to this interest, then you are done already imo.
Motivation is the key to getting your head around this Kevevs. That's all.
yep, sounds good 🙂 but stick to the "simple" answers until you get to the phd...
So far during my life I've bumbled my way through everything, flitting from one topic to the next...doing everything last minute....and managing to get away with it.
If you stick on topic then you can get shot of the pesky uni work and read up on the other mad stuff going on. As with your other thread, one of the key things to get from uni is learning how to learn and how to give the right answer, sometimes you have to leave the exciting stuff outside and do the dull bit.
Motivation is the key to getting your head around this Bwaarp. That's all.
😉
Did a bit on visual processing when working on Camouflage, Concealment and Deception for MoD years ago. Amazing what you can convinve teh brain of through visual cues.
used to work with people who worked with [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemispatial_neglect ]neglect patients[/url]. They had some severely weird "symptoms".
IMO most questions like this have so much mileage in them because the terms in which they are framed aren't well defined.
The word 'see' doesn't really have a strict definition, does it? Do you see what I'm saying? 😉
I've just submitted my thesis to the printers. It contains a chapter on Bayesian modelling of 3D perception.
I quite like the Bayesian approach.
Oh, and Marr's work was truly revolutionary.