Continuous experience from a discrete process

[bahman]

We know that a film is made of frames. This means that our visual sensory system receives a discrete package of information. Our experience is however continuous. I was wondering how such a thing is possible considering the fact that there is no map between a discrete forms of information and continuous experience.

[Impenitent]

discrete forms don't create as lasting materials as concrete forms...

-Imp

[bahman]

discrete forms don't create as lasting materials as concrete forms...

-Imp

Could you please elaborate?

[Impenitent]

dis-crete, con-crete... the island...

-Imp

[Dimebag]

In theory our conscious experience could have a much higher “refresh rate” than it does, the lower limit would depend on the difference of the smallest units our sensory organs could detect. But, our conscious experience IS limited by the refresh rate of our brains and sensory organs. Because action potentials within the brain are thought to be the main signalling mechanism for transmission of information, there is a limit to the speed at which sensory transducers can detect and pass on signals about sensory information.

Furthermore, nature would have come to some optimal tuning balance between speed and precision, it seems humans can detect refresh rate differences even in the hundreds of hertz (cycles/second), however this may be because we are detecting differences in the ratios of the frequency of screens refresh rate compared to the refresh rate of our perceptual system.

But at any rate, our brains might “upscale” our perceptual refresh rate by inserting frames in between the most discrete ones similar to the way graphics cards combine two frames together to improve the refresh rate of a video scene.

Truth be told though, neuroscience still doesn’t have a great understanding of how conscious experience is produced in the brain, so if it were discovered tomorrow that those action potentials aren’t the actual way the brain communicates information, and there was a more continuous transmission of say, analogue signal strength, then this could all be flipped on its head.

[bahman]

In theory our conscious experience could have a much higher “refresh rate” than it does, the lower limit would depend on the difference of the smallest units our sensory organs could detect. But, our conscious experience IS limited by the refresh rate of our brains and sensory organs. Because action potentials within the brain are thought to be the main signalling mechanism for transmission of information, there is a limit to the speed at which sensory transducers can detect and pass on signals about sensory information.

Furthermore, nature would have come to some optimal tuning balance between speed and precision, it seems humans can detect refresh rate differences even in the hundreds of hertz (cycles/second), however this may be because we are detecting differences in the ratios of the frequency of screens refresh rate compared to the refresh rate of our perceptual system.

But at any rate, our brains might “upscale” our perceptual refresh rate by inserting frames in between the most discrete ones similar to the way graphics cards combine two frames together to improve the refresh rate of a video scene.

Truth be told though, neuroscience still doesn’t have a great understanding of how conscious experience is produced in the brain, so if it were discovered tomorrow that those action potentials aren’t the actual way the brain communicates information, and there was a more continuous transmission of say, analogue signal strength, then this could all be flipped on its head.

I see. So you are saying that the brain interpolates between discrete frames.

[bahman]

In theory our conscious experience could have a much higher “refresh rate” than it does, the lower limit would depend on the difference of the smallest units our sensory organs could detect. But, our conscious experience IS limited by the refresh rate of our brains and sensory organs. Because action potentials within the brain are thought to be the main signalling mechanism for transmission of information, there is a limit to the speed at which sensory transducers can detect and pass on signals about sensory information.

Furthermore, nature would have come to some optimal tuning balance between speed and precision, it seems humans can detect refresh rate differences even in the hundreds of hertz (cycles/second), however this may be because we are detecting differences in the ratios of the frequency of screens refresh rate compared to the refresh rate of our perceptual system.

But at any rate, our brains might “upscale” our perceptual refresh rate by inserting frames in between the most discrete ones similar to the way graphics cards combine two frames together to improve the refresh rate of a video scene.

Truth be told though, neuroscience still doesn’t have a great understanding of how conscious experience is produced in the brain, so if it were discovered tomorrow that those action potentials aren’t the actual way the brain communicates information, and there was a more continuous transmission of say, analogue signal strength, then this could all be flipped on its head.

I see. So you are saying that the brain interpolates between discrete frames.

But a discrete to continuous map does not exist.

[Skepdick]

But a discrete to continuous map does not exist.

It does. So long as you don't violate the Shannon limit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E ... ng_theorem

[bahman]

But a discrete to continuous map does not exist.

It does. So long as you don't violate the Shannon limit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E ... ng_theorem

Interesting manuscript. Our experience however doesn't repeat so you need all band of frequency.

[Skepdick]

Interesting manuscript. Our experience however doesn't repeat so you need all band of frequency.

Sure, your brain has finite processing power. The delta between the available vs acquired information is your "attention" or your "focus" if you so will.

A bit like a radio - you can only "tune in" into one band. If there ever was a good reason to embrace division of labour - this is it.

The business of "understanding reality" requires more brainpower.