Our Visual Imagination Is Severely Limited

Magic Leap is relying on our visual imagination, https://www.rollingstone.com/glixel/features/lightwear-intro...

"The current thinking is that about 40 percent of your neurological power is being used for visual processing ... the visual cortex functions a lot like a graphics processor in a computer. It takes the information fed to it by the eyes and renders a world for the person to perceive. And that it only really needs to be fed a very sparse amount of data to do that. “Maybe we all have genetically passed on versions of the world and all we do is intake sparse change data to update that model, but we have a persistent model ... Everything you think is outside of you is completely rendered internally by you, co-created by you plus the analog light field signal ... The world you are living in, you are creating constantly"

Very nice article. It is so refreshing when someone who really knows what they are talking about writes in the popular science writing style. As a post-doc in a related field of cog neuroscience, I give the article my thumbs up.

Kinda tangential, but after living alone for a few years I've updated my selection criteria for furniture to prioritize cleaning difficulty and comfort over visual style. Given its nature, industrial-style furniture is usually easier to clean and it's made from tough material capable of handling a wider range of cleaning chemicals.

I wonder what the outcome would be for a person with autism. I remember watching a video of a psychologist explaining that normal people are better at abstracting visual concepts, and used a drawing of a house as an example. Most people would likely draw the traditional pentagon house with chimney, but a person with autism would need to draw a specific house.

Don't we improve on this by leveraging tools? e.g. paper and pen, computers, etc. I don't have to imagine a large number of visualizations all at once, I can just draw a mockup and reference it when needed. That lets you group everything up into a conceptual black box, instead of tracking it all in your head.

In the case of treating phobias, can't we leverage photos and video? From an uneducated perspective, it would seem like a reasonable middle ground.

Last year at CoreOS Fest I spoke to a gentleman from Google who said they think limiting Tensorflow nodes processing power and/or trimming out some nodes entirely appears to cause the entire model to become more robust and perform better by spreading certain attributes (like edge detection) across multiple nodes. A type of holistic training, if you will. I see correlation with a limitation on visualizations.

Regarding this particular article, members of this research group at New South Wales and related studies have been making a variety of claims regarding visualization over the past few years, including what appear to be loaded comments about Aphantasia.

These comments include:

“It’s a lack of the mind’s eye. My hunch is that there is something a bit different about their brains and that there may be a genetic component.” — Adam Zeman, University of Exeter

“If there’s too much activity and noise, it’s like sketching on a dirty piece of paper: it’s hard to see the drawing.” — Joel Pearson, University of New South Wales

“It could also alter moral judgement.” — Alice Klein, reporter for New Scientist while relating comments by Joel Pearson.

I would present a counter argument that our visual imaginations are not something to be considered "severely limited". Instead, our imaginations are something that may be limited, either by intent (see Zen) or by circumstances (non-visualizer). If someone happens to be a great visualizer, then good for them, but don't tell me I'm limited. ;)

Judging it to be something we lack and thus need more of is questionable. Perhaps the desired outcome is to have less of it, rather than more.

> The will of action is always dualistic. Is it possible to go beyond this will which is separative and discover a state in which this dualistic action is not? That can only be found when we directly experience the state in which the thinker is the thought. We now think the thought is separate from the thinker; but is that so? We would like to think it is, because then the thinker can explain matters through his thought. The effort of the thinker is to become more or become less; and therefore, in that struggle, in that action of the will, in 'becoming', there is always the deteriorating factor; we are pursuing a false process and not a true process.

> Is there a division between the thinker and the thought? So long as they are separate, divided, our effort is wasted; we are pursuing a false process which is destructive and which is the deteriorating factor. We think the thinker is separate from his thought. When I find that I am greedy, possessive, brutal, I think I should not be all this. The thinker then tries to alter his thoughts and therefore effort is made to 'become; in that process of effort he pursues the false illusion that there are two separate processes, whereas there is only one process. I think therein lies the fundamental factor of deterioration.

> Is it possible to experience that state when there is only one entity and not two separate processes, the experiencer and the experience? Then perhaps we shall find out what it is to be creative, and what the state is in which there is no deterioration at any time, in whatever relationship man may be.

—Jiddu Krishnamurti, The First and Last Freedom, Chapter 15, The Thinker and The Thought

Several of these recent studies read like the brain has specs, like a fancy GPU.

Scary thought but I guess at some level it had to be true.