You want to know something about how bullshit insane our brains are? (2018)
twitter.com
twitter.com
If you're saccading to update an approximate posterior model of the visual scene, you don't need to "pause" or "blank out" the blur of the saccade. Each fixation is a sampling of the environment under generative assumptions, so yeah, your previous posterior becomes your new prior, and as long as the saccades don't take too long, your new prior is accurate enough to make decent predictions! Since what we consciously experience is the predictions themselves, we don't notice any gaps until the bottom-up prediction error signals become huge.
Doesn't seem like the best tweet to die on to make your point. The results surely answer all of your questions.
It's a weird format, but I encourage you to at least try and appreciate it instead of dismissing it. I'll try: It's kind of like what a blog post might look when annotated on genius.com: each point can spawn its own discussion and people can engage the author on any subtopic right there alongside the content.
Another benefit of the anti-narrative format is that it has an immediate quickstart. One second you're reading the opening tweet about how "bullshit our brains are", and the next you've learned something interesting. You might not have even clicked into a longer-form format about how the eyes work, there's just no commitment.
It’s really about finding the eyeballs where they live, because there might be no other way to get in front of them.
Some platforms really can claim a monopoly on a cross section of eyeballs that only use their site. Some people only use Twitter. Some people only use Facebook.
Much in the same way some people absolutely refuse all name brand social media. How do you barge in and get in front of them? Well, that’s the trick, isn’t it? Most people engage in this sort of isolation, because they don’t want advertisers barging in, and prying into their maxed-out attention span.