Reply to comment

I have slowly come to terms with the fact that the images that we take for granted as being a part of the exterior world are in fact constructions of our brains. However, like others, my problem with this system is that there apparently is no use of the I-function. I find it inconceivable that the images that we create within our brains are completely exempt from all influence of the I-function. Part of my problem comes from knowledge of what scientists call ‘top-down processing’. Whereas bottom-up processing suggests that information is received first from, say, the retina, then ‘scanned in’ and processed through the hierarchy of the visual system (according to this model, when one is reading, one perceives every letter, organizes the perceived letters into words, and then organizes the words into phrases, clauses and sentences.), the theory of ‘top-down processing’ posits a non-linear view of the process in which we comprehend what we see. According to these theories, readers do not read every word, but sample the text, make hypotheses about the next word to be encountered, etc. In my opinion, this theory seems to be very accurate and makes a lot of sense. Think about it; the astounding quantity of incoming information makes it impossible for the visual system to process all of it. It only makes sense that the higher level cognitive processes (those which deal with constructing meaning) would regulate this information. In order to do so, however, the incoming information must be sampled on the basis of our expectations, previous knowledge, and what has already been processed. What role does the I-function play in our previous knowledge and expectations? If it does play a role, could it be said that the I-function IS a functional element of what we perceive? Perhaps it is first important to discern the exact ways in which top-down processing influences bottom-up processing, and vice versa.