seeing – Harmonia Philosophica

Drawing. Seeing.

Drawing an object and naming it engages the brain in similar ways, according to research recently published in JNeurosci. The finding demonstrates the importance of the visual processing system for producing drawings of an object.

In a study by Fan et al., healthy adults performed two tasks while the researchers recorded brain activity using functional magnetic resonance imaging: they identified pieces of furniture in pictures and produced drawings of those pieces of furniture. The researchers used machine learning to discover similar patterns of brain activity across both tasks within the occipital cortex, an area of the brain important for visual processing. This means people recruit the same neural representation of an object whether they are drawing it or seeing it. (1)

We think what we see.

We speak what we think.

Draw a line.

Contain the cosmos on a paper.

And you will remain speechless.

Do you see?

We think what we speak.

We see what we think…

But who drew the first line? Who thought of that first thought? Who spoke the first words?

In the midst of silence, can you listen to yourself?

Stop looking.

In the void of everything, can you see anything?

Not seeing the tree…

Researchers have shown how it is possible that objects stand out less when they are surrounded by similar objects. This surroundings-suppressing effect is caused by feedback from higher visual brain areas. The results of this research are important for a better understanding of the way in which the brain transforms incoming light into a cohesive image. (1)

Wasn’t it obvious?

That what we do not see is obvious?

Being part of a vast ocean.

Isn’t it logical that you cannot see individual drops?

Living in a universe being.

Isn’t is reasonable that we cannot see consciousness?

In the forest of obvious.

Isn’t it obvious…

That anything obvious is not?

Watch out for what you do not see.

It is the only thing you do!

Blurry images…

The ghost imaging technique forms an image by correlating a beam that interacts with the object and a reference beam that does not. Individually, the beams don’t carry any meaningful information about the object. The imaging technique works with visible light, x-rays and other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum and, when the structured light beams are generated computationally with spatial light modulators, can be performed with a low-cost single-pixel detector instead of a complex, expensive camera.

To apply ghost imaging to moving objects, the new method uses a small number of light patterns to capture the position and trajectory of the object. The researchers developed an algorithm to cross correlate this positional information with blurred images captured at different positions, allowing a clear image to be gradually formed. (1)

Looking at a blurry image.

Making it clearer with time.

The more you know, the more clear it gets.

But no matter how much we clear the initially blurry picture.

The fact will remain that when you first looked at it…

The picture WAS blurry…

And what is important is not that you saw it at the end.

But that you wanted to anyway see through it even though you saw nothing…

Do you get it now?

It is you who painted the picture.

Seeing what cannot be seen…

Identifying geological features in a densely vegetated, steep, and rough terrain can be almost impossible. Imagery like LiDAR can help researchers see through the tree cover, but subtle landforms can often be missed by the human eye.

A team of scientists has tapped into the power of machine learning to identify hidden geologic features. Specifically, the scientists identified previously unidentified cave entrances that were difficult to see in imagery, and hard to access on the ground. (1)

What you cannot see is still there.

Not because someone sees it. But just because it is.

And yet, we need to see it to be able to know it.

Is that an insignificant detail we should discard?

Or an important artifact that could change the world?

Is it something denoting the importance of senses?

Or something perhaps emphasizing their insignificance?

“But the cave is there!” one might say. And it could be true. But can you convince me about that? And if not, what does that mean for the cave itself? Is it still “there”? Was it there in the first place? If the cave is there only when we see it, then this is a truly scary possibility. It would mean that we rule the cosmos and that our perception shapes the shape of existence. But if the cave is there anyway, no matter what, that would mean something even scarier. That our consciousness and existence matters not. That the cave is there and that we are already inside that cave. That we never left that cave. That we are still entangled in its darkness. And exactly because of that, we are conscious!

Are we children of light?

Or are we the daughters of darkness?

Look at the Sun.

Don’t you long the Moon?

Stare at the Moon.

Do you feel the Sun burning?

Could we be asking the wrong questions from the beginning?

Search inside you.

The inability to answer questions could only mean one thing.

Neither the Sun.

Nor the Moon.

We are not the bearers of questions.

We are the answers!

Seeing better. And better. And better. Until we see nothing at all…

A few years ago, a team of scientists at EPFL’s Laboratory of Nanoscale Biology, headed by Aleksandra Radenovic in the School of Engineering, developed an algorithm that can estimate a microscope’s resolution in just a few seconds based on a single image. The algorithm’s result indicates how closely a microscope is operating to its full potential. This could be particularly useful for the automated microscopes that have started appearing in research labs. The team’s findings have just been published in Nature Methods.

The scientists used Fourier’s transform as the basis for their algorithm, but they modified it so as to extract as much information as possible from a single image.

The results indicates how closely a microscope is operating to its full potential. The algorithm performs the calculation in just a few seconds and generates a single number. “Researchers can compare this number with the microscope’s maximum possible resolution to see whether the instrument can work even better or modify the experimental conditions and observe how the resolution evolves” says Adrien Descloux, the study’s lead author. (1)

We want to see better. We want to see everything.

So we magnify.

Until we see all the details.

And more.

And more!

Pushing it to the limit! To see everything!

Until we can distinguish nothing anymore!

Isn’t it funny? The more we analyze the cosmos the more we reach absolute zero. At the end, the point is a circle with zero radius. (source) At the end, in the midst of our greatest triumph, we will see nothing.

Ghosts casting shadows…

In a cosmos without any light…

Except the light we bring on our own…