Menu
‘Photo-realism’ is not a word sandwich suggestive of paradox. It’s a deliberate conceit that we have welcomed, a platform of assumed stability in place of outstanding and necessary introspection. Like space-time, it sets out a comfortable but illusory orientation for us to operate within and live through. It’s useful up to a point, but a con-job none-the-less. The measurement paradigm and reductionism are related approach methodologies with similar presumptive inherent limitations. Reality is not located at the end of neuron just as mechanical records are not observations. Despite their usefulness, these approach methodologies mask the nature of reality as they involve a sleight of hand that for the most part we accept for the sake of expediency. We want to believe despite the conceit and go to considerable lengths to maintain it.
Visual artists don’t engage in the above because we are richer for exposure to experiential reality. This interface permits experiential investigation which is not bounded by assumptions that ultimately direct, deflect and precondition.
What we objectivise as ‘conscious’ self, șelf-organises from the onset of light. We are not abstracted from the physics of quantum reality as ‘observers’, we are fully concentric with it.
“Science manipulates things and gives up living in them. It makes its own limited models of things; operating upon these indices or variables to effect whatever transformations are permitted by their definition, it comes face to face with the real world only at rare intervals.” Merleau-Ponty. The Primacy of Perception – eye and mind
“All knowledge has its origins in perception” Leonardo da Vinci
“If we can’t plot our way out of our heads we are not doing physics” John Jupe
The Vision-Space experience suggests that in the end scientists do not want and have no time for, solutions to the questions they are so earnestly and exhaustively searching for and trying to confront. The path to such engagement lies not with the scrutiny of records made by our existing array of instrumentation. What is missing is not going to manifest within a frame of reference. It does however, manifest within us facilitating perception. This proposition is outlawed, ridiculed, and regularly dismissed with a self-serving set of assumptions that deny the physics of subjectivity, the role the receiver plays in the realisation of information. Exclusive reliance on the measurement paradigm will by default, reveal deficit and enshrine paradox. Within the prevailing approach methodology lies the ‘filter’ that suppresses our links with perception as we conceptualise about the nature of reality. The prevailing situation is clearly untenable.
Research and development agenda:
Teasing out the observable/perceivable structures and processes of information exchange underlying the phenomenon of vision on an experiential basis, leads to the formation of a new form of illusionary space. A situation where we are required to face up to the possibility of there being two distinct data-potentials incident upon the retina that decohere and the abandonment of an existing paradigm under which we currently operate.
With the realisation of emergent datasets within the phenomenon and their characterisations of implicit ‘where,’ and explicit ‘what,’ it is simple enough to associate these with the two visual pathways. These pathways both initiate within the retina.
The Lion Tamers 2020 John Jupe. Explicit data formation, fixation, is located centrally on the Dog’s muzzle. Surrounding this is implicit spatial awareness – context. A radial field in three dimensions increasing with distance from fixation.
The Lion Tamers 2020 John Jupe. Explicit data formation, fixation, is located centrally on the Dog’s mussel. Surrounding this is implicit spatial awareness – context. A radial field in three dimensions increasing with distance from fixation.
Left hemisphere: “dependent on denotative language and abstraction, yields clarity and power to manipulate things that are known, fixed, static, isolated, decontextualised, explicit, disembodied, general in nature, but ultimately lifeless.”
The right hemisphere: “yields a world of individual, changing, evolving, interconnected, implicit, incarnate, living beings within the context of the lived world, but in the nature of things never fully graspable, always imperfectly known.” McGilchrist (Master and his Emissary)
We should remember that rods in the outer retina are effectively saturated at photopic levels so make no viable contribution to perception during daylight hours. Rods take over from a mysterious daylight function through a mesopic phase and scotopic conditions. So, we are required to consider an alternative ecology for data realisation outside central vision in daylight conditions. A function that accords with the experientially deduced expressions recorded by visual artists.
Left, “Blur” is technically a convolution with a non-negative, localised kernel (like defocusing a camera or projector). In the limit of infinite blur you end up with the average over the image, a uniform field.
Right, “Disorder” implies spatial shuffling. It destroys spatial resolution but leaves the histogram invariant. In the limit of infinite disorder you obtain a texture with the same histogram as the image. Prof. Jan Koenderink
Experiential 3D, expressing through a radial field is populated with implicit proximity cues. A situation that is analogous to increasing texture and increasing in size of brush mark. Within the phenomenon of vision, the data structure is termed ‘disorder’ which is difficult to convert to brush marks. Artists develop their own idiosyncratic systems to rendered this essential aspect to visual encounter.
The main issues for science are:
A) The formation of ‘implicit’ visual process remains essentially a ‘covert’ aspect to our understanding of the phenomenon. Our current instrumentation was not designed to interface with this data-potential beyond the ‘detection’ of unwanted ‘noise.’ While the related physics in the form of coherence/phase is ‘supposed,’ it has yet to be encountered on a meaningful or substantive physical basis by science due mainly to the adopted approach methodology. Eigenstate, supposition, and probability infill for the deficit without recourse to a firm underlying conceptual viability. The study of visual awareness establishes the missing, covert emergent dataset associated with the onset of environmentally conditioned light following decoherence at the retina. The study of visual awareness establishes the covert emergent dataset associated with the onset of environmentally conditioned light following decoherence at the retina. This dataset is reliant upon disorder, akin to texture, expressing proximity cues within a field structure. There is a data-potential associated with the ‘noise.’ The ‘frame of reference’ cannot be deployed as an approach methodology with respect to this situation.
B) The perceived ‘reality’ of a situation brought to us by light is inferred from both implicit and explicit datasets. Light, it would appear, cannot bring us the reality of a situation, just two versions of it dependent upon two physical ecologies. Observation is, to some extent, intentioned and is linked to subjective evaluation and the structure of the receiver. There is missing physics associated with this ‘oversight’ that adversely affects our conceptual modelling; reliant as it is upon just one of the datasets, working from only intensity related projection optics – a record.
Atoning for the assumptions associated with the imposition of the measurement paradigm without considering vital context, will inevitably lead us to conceptualisations that require spacetime. Spacetime is however, another one of our inventions, useful up to a point but not a fundamental physical reality. It is high time we called time on ’t’ time. We are required to infer first, then designate experiential time ‘now’ by the physics associated with the onset of both data-potentials carried by incident light. The clock may chime twelve o’clock, but that designation must reach us via auditory and visual pathways that we have evolved to handle the onset. Installing another instrument to record the ‘moment in time’ that we then subsequently accept as veridical, masks an aspect necessary to observation and relevant to the formation of reality.
It is ‘obvious’ as we account for visual awareness that the sentient being ‘infers’ from two distinct ecologies. We need both to interface within the local environment in the way that we do. The interplay is essential to us ‘being objective,’ with the baseline condition directly related to the onset of light. We cannot, therefore, dismiss this implicit dataset or the inference process as entirely subjective in origin and therefor irrelevant. There is associated physics and maths involved in our contextualisation processes for which we are not accounting. With this recognition, subjectivity and the structure of the receiver become an essential facet of objectivity. The physical structure of the observer is resonant with the onset of a data-potential we have yet to come to terms with at a conceptual level.
Scientific objectivisation is therefore tempting, but a preoccupation that draws us away from the nature of reality as it presupposes and assumes the foundational state ‘observer.’ The physical bodily presence of observer is ‘real’, but mental ‘reality’ must be implied due to the way light occupies the universe. This distinction is not trivial, and neither is the associated realisation. Inference is embedded in the physical world, its not metaphysical.
Reductionism and the measurement paradigm seek to ratify the world based on the assumption inherent in objectivisation. The approach methodology misleads us with respect to the nature of reality, which is of course, not the same thing as saying that objectivisation cannot be useful. It is only at remote scales, using light as through it were a yardstick, that apparent physical weirdness will manifest in the records made by instrumentation designed to perform on the terms dictated by the oversight. Once this weirdness has been appreciated at the micro level, we will then seek to find evidence of the condition occurring in macro interactions. This is just the extension of the oversight.
Indeed, Vision-Space clearly indicates that currently and incorrectly, science is modelling and conceptualising without recourse to one of the datasets required to cover off the base requirement for ‘objectivity.’ We are embedded within that ecology and form an integral part of its formation so cannot be separated from our realisation of the associated data-potential. An ‘awareness’ of what’s omitted is required for experimentation and subsequent evaluation. Reality, which includes the way light occupies the universe, is, as the artist encounters it; a relationship we as complex biological systems form with the physically real. To the ecology that delivers the basis of implicit spatial awareness, we as sentient beings are not external to the situation under observation. We are embedded within that ecology, form an integral part of its formation and cannot be separated from our realisation of the associated data-potential.
The baseline theory drawing upon and leading with intuitive record, linked to computational vision science, has led to the formation of a new form of illusionary space termed Vision-Space. The underlying structure to Vision-Space is not based on the geometry of central perspective or the projection of optics but accords instead with the structures apparent within the phenomenon of vision. There are no frames of reference involved in the formation of the phenomenon and Vision-Space is a pictureless imaging system.
By modelling visual awareness, we establish the requirement for an initial mechanobiological pathway in the inner retina, facilitated by resonance and interfacing at synapses with neuronal activity and the data-potential associated with photoreception.
Cross section of the retina – Wiki coms.
The division of inner and outer retina has some associations with the skin’s epidermis and dermis. Although no direct linkage between functionality is obvious, glia in the epidermis (Merkel & Meissner) assist with awareness of fine touch. Are we missing the physics and associated contribution to our conceptual modelling relating to light’s light touch; photon spin. The suggested mechanobiological response would constitute the basis for the alternative ecology to intensity related photoreception in the outer retina. Audition is also fundamentally a mechanobiologically dependent sense. Does mechanobiological functionality provide the basis for our ability to effortlessly relate senses into what is termed, conscious awareness?
It is envisioned that the biological system associated with the formation of implicit spatial awareness would involve a pre-existing homeostatic condition (cell tension) resonating at a nano scale with an aspect of incident environmentally conditioned light. The implicit dataset would implicate the magnetic component of EMR, scattering/polarisation/spin/torque. This data-potential associated with resonance would involve the phasic expression by glial cells of ions (calcium, Ca2+ & potassium, K) into the extracellular membrane (ECM). This data-potential might interlope with neuronal afferents at synapses.
Within the phenomenon of vision, the dataset that provisions implicit spatial awareness, is experienced as a condensing radial field populated with proximity cues. Implicit spatial awareness, which cannot be be associated with fundamental optics, provides the context into which we ‘project’ the explicit high-resolution information associated with central vision.
Research Gate home page: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John-Jupe
Research gate research page: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John-Jupe/research
Youtube home: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_MY0SMr-sgXHG0Sj0hXXbg
videos: https://www.youtube.com/@johnjupe5234/videos
Siggraph Paper for PAC research : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259532837_Vision-Space_sap_0018
PAC contact info
JohnJupe@pacentre.org
©2024