We receive speech coming from a source and parse it using a grammar. One could imagine it being a similar process for the perceiving images captured by the retina.
For output, when a human paints an image they are panting from an imaged visualized inside of their mental canvas, just like we realize thoughts produced within our minds as speech.
> when a human paints an image they are panting from an imaged visualized inside of their mental canvas
Yes, but images produced by humans are a tiny fraction of images processed by the eye. But every written or spoken sentence was ultimately created by a human brain.
That's why it seems like a big stretch to claim there is a 'universal grammar' involved in visual processing, if you believe that grammar is primarily a way for brains to encode information for communication purposes...
> Yes, but images produced by humans are a tiny fraction of images processed by the eye.
Processed by the eye, yes, but that rises to 100% for images processed by the brain. The brain appropriates images by imparting its processing on the lower level visual cortex. Perception is an active process.
This is true. I did not mean to say that just because I think it is wrong, that it is. However, the claim seemed to be that the images experienced by the brain are fully synthesized by the brain. Which seemed off.
Again, just because it seems off to be does not mean it is wrong. Not my field, and whatnot. I can even see something to be said for visual processing going in stages such that the stage that you are cognizant of is effectively on images constructed by you. That seems to be a different claim, though.
The claim was "Processed by the eye, yes, but that rises to 100% for images processed by the brain." That is, that the images processed by the brain were 100% constructed by the brain.
The implication I got was that the images you perceive are entirely of your own devising. This seems off to me. Certainly anyone that is blind but still able to visualize a room is using constructed visualizations. But, that is a different thing than someone that is able to see.
This is different from written words. Which are 100% devised by another being. Maybe assembled by a machine, but the words and the meanings of them are learned and come from taught meanings. Not from raw processed experiences.
I'm not entirely following what you mean, but that's OK. My hunch is our differences lie this concept of "taught meaning". I don't think meanings are taught, in any traditional sense. I think they are absorbed, acquired, and synthesized by the incredible pattern matching of the brain, operating off of direct, perceptual experience. Of course, these experiences includes things like reflection, reading a textbook, having a conversation, watching a movie, daydreaming etc.
When one reads a piece of text, it's being interpreted through the complex mental models of the world and layers of meaning that have been built up in the individual's brain over the years.
We receive speech coming from a source and parse it using a grammar. One could imagine it being a similar process for the perceiving images captured by the retina.
For output, when a human paints an image they are panting from an imaged visualized inside of their mental canvas, just like we realize thoughts produced within our minds as speech.