• bstix@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I don’t think it’s the brain but rather our consciousness that is limited. Our sensory inputs are always on and processed by the brain, but our consciousness is very picky and also slow.

    People can sometimes recall true memories that they weren’t aware of, or react to things they didn’t think of and such.

    Consciousness is also somehow lagging behind the actual decision making, but always presents itself as the cause of action.

    Sort of like Windows telling you that you removed a USB stick 2 seconds after you did it and was well aware of it happening. Consciousness is like that, except it takes responsibility for it too…

    When it encounters something that it didn’t predict, it’ll tell you that “yeah this happened and this is why you did that”. Quite often the explanation for doing something is made up after it happened.

    This is a good thing mostly, because it allows you to react faster than having to consider your options consciousnessly. You do not need to or have time to make a conscious decision to dodge a dodgeball, but you’ll still think you did.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      NAILED IT! Yeah, our subconscious is driving and only sends an executive summary up top. And we think, “I did this!” Nah. You didn’t. You are just along for the ride.

      People hate this notion because it negates free will. Well, yeah, it kinda does.

      • RustyEarthfire@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        That assumes “you” are just the conscious part. If you accept the rest of your brain (and body) as part of “you”, then it’s a less dramatic divide.

  • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Basically, yes. Our eyes capture the light that goes into them at 24 frames per second (please correct me if I goofed on that) and the image is upside down.

    Our brains turn those images upright, and it also fills in the blanks. The brain basically guesses what’s going on between the frames. It’s highly adapt at pattern recognition and estimation.

    My favorite example of this is our nose. Look at you nose. You can look down and see it a little, and you can close one eye and see more of it. It’s right there in the bottom center of our view, but you don’t see it at all everyday.

    That’s because it’s always there, and your brain filters it out. The pattern of our nose being there doesn’t change, so your brain just ignores it unless you want to intentionally see it. You can extrapolate that to everything else. Most things the brain expects to see, and does see through our eyes, is kind of ignored. It’s there, but it’s not as important as say, anything that’s moving.

    Also, and this is fun to think about, we don’t even see everything. The color spectrum is far wider than what our eyes can recognize. There are animals, sea life and insects that can see much much more than we can.

    But to answer more directly, you are right, the brain does crazy heavy lifting for all of our senses, not just sight. Our reality is confined to what our bodies can decifer from the world through our five senses.

    • calabast@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      We definitely are seeing things faster than 24 Hz, or we wouldn’t be able to tell a difference in refresh rates above that.

      Edit: I don’t think we have a digital, on-off refresh rate of our vision, so fps doesn’t exactly apply. Our brain does turn the ongoing stream of sensory data from our eyes into our vision “video”, but compared to digital screen refresh rates, we can definitely tell a difference between 24 and say 60 fps.

      • Caveman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I would believe it if someone told me that an individual rod or cone in the eye was 24fps but they’re most likely not synched up

        • SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          It’s noticeable, it’s just not massive. My phone screen runs at 120hz but I don’t notice a difference unless I’m scrolling rapidly. Gaming culture (driven by corporations) really overemphasizes its importance. Gamers as a group seem to be easily duped by impressive sounding numbers, just like the rest of the population.

          Also keep in mind there likely isn’t a lot of selective pressure on biological vision refresh rate, so I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a fair amount of variability in the ability to discern a difference amongst individuals.