- 4,416
- 327
Evo said:
I've just heard about the binding problem and been thinking about it, specifically with respect to how it makes the conscious part of vision a very abstract representation of the real world (highly efficient, dude to it's weighing of importance. By conscious part of vision, I mean that which we interpret which we see. This is opposed to the unconscious part of vision (which can be somewhat isolated in patients with "blind sight"). The patient is aware of kinematic changes in his vision (actually... is he actively aware or does he have to recall it from short-term memory if he chooses to think about it?) but doesn't interpret them "visually" by the standard definition of visual.
So I think the binding problem goes beyond just the binding of senses, but also the binding of some kind of symbolic memory. For instance, you're in a room with a metal worker and a bunch of junk all over, but you're not really paying attention to the junk because you're talking to the metal-worker. It's all formless, even as it's in your field of vision. But as you begin to look at things, you identify the individual pieces of the junk, you know what they are from experience, and as you analyze each piece and identify it, your also relying on your memory to construct the details you can't directly sense. You can imagine how it would smell or feel or taste or sound based on experience.
Langauge itself seems to be a kind of way to reinforce symbolic memory, if it's not in some way directly responsible for it.