h a l f b a k e r yNot from concentrate.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Brain imagery recorder with brain to retina ATP activity mapping
IR raman spectroscopy can measure ATP usage at individual neurons, there are also peer reviewed published feedforward pathways from the brain to the retina, thinking can actually effect light sensing cytes, so with nonvisible gentle IR shining on the retina as well as biofeedback practice perhaps it is possible to think spatial patterns of energy usage difference at your visual field, then have a computerized rman spectroscopy system accurately portray the shape you send your retina | |
I read that raman spectroscopy can measure ATP usage at individual neurons (link) I also read that there is a feedforward pathway from the brain to the retina, that thinking can actually effect light sensing cytes, so with biofeedback practice perhaps it is possible to Think an energy usage difference
at your visual field, then have a computerized raman spectroscopy system accurately portray the shape you send your retina.
During the 20th century AD it could be 2 or 3 months of effort when children learned letter shapes, so even if it took 72 hours to make n move shapes composed of actual different ATP usage at the retina that would be plausible rather than a bother
Practice.
With the fluency of the literate you could basically get to the point where you could will the images in your mind to be retina measurable spatial patterns of ATP use that the raman spectroscopy computer could draw. Then mathematicians could actually See what each other ideas mean.
first, I really think this ought to work, because Im writing about math whereas I think images would be way better. Its like Did you know thatif you make overlapping venn diagrams out of polygons that the basic relations of angles of the sides of the set boundaries cause new operators, some of which are more parsimonious than addition or subtraction on a numberline, also entire areas like a (thing times a thing) are redifined to have different outgrowing math meanings, some of which could be better. Also actual observable universe, that is to say physics, apparently supports among many things, among them that physics equations could be replaced with different notational systems which are cognitively richer thus leading to new technologies more rapidly
(?) raman spectroscopy Neuron ATP
raman spectroscopy neuron ATP
Rather than just one article this lists a number of articles about measuring neurochemistry with raman spectroscopy. The one I read was about ATP use at a neuron, so I just figured you could do spectroscopy through the transparent lens to the retina to view human control over a wide surface area [beanangel, May 09 2013]
people writing about brain sending data to retina possibly with the Centrifugal Visual System. there are better references this just suggests scientists have looked as well as found brain to retina effects
http://www.bio.net/...January/056777.html
It is suggested that the projection from the nucleus oculomotorius to the retina constitutes a link in the multisynaptic efferent pathway from the visual cortex to the eye, by which the visual cortex can influencethe functioning of the retina." a rat study by Hoogland et al., Neurosci Lett. 1985 May 23; 56(3): 323-8 [beanangel, May 09 2013]
[link]
|
| |
I dunno, [bigs]. The retina is basically a bit of the
brain stuck out on a stalk, so there's a fair chance
that some of the traffic is two-way. The rest of the
idea may or may not be bollocks - I haven't managed
to wade in more than hip-deep yet. |
|
| |
//Redundancy yes, but not extras.// I don't know
enough about retinal processing, but I do know
that a lot of low-level processing happens in the
retina. It may be that this processing requires
input from the brain (for example, feedback from
the visual cortex or above). But this is well-
studied, and there is an answer out there
somewhere. |
|
| |
//resolution of the human visual cortex is only 0.5
- 1.7 million neurons// By the time you're into
the cortex, it doesn't really make sense to talk
about pixelwise resolution. What you "see" is not
the image that falls on your retina; what you see
is your brain's model of the world based partly on
what comes from the retina. |
|
| |
If you could recover the raw image from the optic
nerve (actually it's already partly processed by
that stage, so it's not an image as such), you
would be truly appalled at the low quality - much
much worse than an 800x800 pixel camera image.
The amount of processing which your brain does,
in order to make you think you're seeing clearly, is
phenomenal. |
|
| |
Exactly. The whole visual system is a triumph of
software over engineering. Also, the "pixels" only
work intermittently, are wildly non-uniform in
their sensitivity, and have to work with a poorly-
focussed image reaching them through an
overlying layer of blood vessels. |
|
| |
<aside> A lot of the apparent acuity of vision
comes not only from 'imagining' parts of the image
that are missing, but also from messing around
with time. Your brain fills in missing bits of an
image from bits which are seen up to a few tenths
of a second before _or_ after; it then tweaks the
timing so you think it's all happening in realtime. |
|
| |
<deeper aside> Interesting experiment. Face a
mirror, and look from the left to the right eye of
your reflection. You will never see your eyes
moving, but someone else will. During the actual
eye movement,
your visual system shuts down; then it fixes things
up timewise so that you don't notice the missing
moment.
<\deeper aside>
<aside> |
|
| |
Ways of crossing scale is important when you want to stitch together independent methodologies. |
|
| |