Reply to comment

I found our discussion of the experience of the picture in the head to be pretty interesting. I was especially intrigued by the cues that artists utilize to create a sense of depth for their audience. Artists seem to achieve a greater sense of depth through these cues, while photographers, in directly copying a 3-dimensional world, create 2-dimensional images. Somehow, the human nervous system can be momentarily fooled by a painting in thinking that its images extend out into our world, while a photograph appears merely as a 2D representation of something. What is going on in the brain that causes this discrepancy of interpretation?

Images of sidewalk artists’ uses of perspective cues: One, Two, Three

Despite this, the NS still perceives an element of depth in photographs, and the intensity of this perception is dependent on how the photograph was taken. Photographers often use perspective visual cues, much like painters do (large objects are closer to the individual taking the picture, parallel lines converge toward a point, etc.). These cues allow a viewer of an image to “see” the object in question as if it were actually in front of them. This use of perspective can also be used to “fool” the nervous system into interpreting an image differently than they would with a slightly different perspective (as in the case of our leopard photo). The following images are examples of this: Four, Five, Six, Seven

Our ability to “see” how we perceive and interpret visual inputs allows photographers and painters to manipulate these cues to make their audience see what they want them to see. Despite our “i-function” knowledge that our initial interpretation of these images cannot possibly be real, our NS still believes the story until given further input. This seems to suggest that the NS’s interpretation of visual, auditory, and other sensory inputs override any such knowledge the “i-function” has about what is being sensed. How involved is the “i-function” in seeing these images? Is the “i-function” only involved in the experience of a sensation or is this mystery more complex?