The Vision Thing

[To bully myself into actually writing the lecture on visual perception I’m due to deliver in January, I’ve decided to try drafting the wretched thing as a series of blog posts. This is probably a very bad idea. It’s a two hour lecture, so there could potentially be quite a few of these posts, but also the chance of bailing is pretty high. Whatevs. Here goes nothin’.]

1. Preamble

To start with the bloomin’ obvious: vision is the process — the collection of processes — by which we gather information about the external world through the medium of light. To be precise, like Thomson and Thompson, that’s the medium of visible light — a relatively narrow band of electromagnetic radiation of wavelengths roughly 400 to 700 nm.

Light is a pretty great medium for gathering information — almost the definitive one. It propagates really fast over long distances, even through a vacuum. It travels, at least to a reasonable approximation, in straight lines. It interacts with matter and participates in chemical reactions, making it possible for biology to come up with mechanisms for detecting it. And it’s plentiful. There’s a lot of it about, at least during the day, thanks to an enormous nuclear furnace burning in the sky.

Vision is so useful that it has evolved numerous times over the history of life on Earth, with a fair bit of variation in the implementation details. There are a bunch of different structures and configurations of optical sense organs — the eyes of a fly or a flatworm or a scallop are quite different from our own — although some of the underlying biochemical components are pretty well conserved. We’ll touch on those in a little while.

Vision is also so useful that it’s a bit overpowering. It’s the dominant sense for most humans, one on which we rely heavily, one that radically shapes our understanding of the world, both literally and metaphorically.

The vocabulary of vision pervades our language, encompassing much more than mere optical detection: we say “oh, I see” meaning “I understand“, or “let’s see” meaning “we want to find out” or “we’ll see about that” meaning “I will act to prevent it.” The word vision doesn’t just refer to the sense of sight, but extends to intellectual brilliance, to clarity and drive, to divine revelation. We describe a great creator as a visionary, someone who predicts the future as a seer, or a clairvoyant — literally one who sees clearly.

Much of human culture revolves around the visual — painting and drawing, photography and movies, games. Practical necessities like food and clothing are wrapped up in visual aesthetics. The written word is primarily mediated — read — through our eyes. We have all manner of advanced technology dedicated to the enhancement of vision — microscopes and cameras and telescopes — and to the production of visual stimuli — from paper and pencils to printing and screens to HUDs and holograms and VR headsets. It is one of the major ways we interact with computers and software, often the main component of a user interface.

At the same time, vision is complex and fragile and lots of things can go wrong with it. Visual impairments are extremely common. People may have difficulty with focus or resolution close up or far away or — especially when you get to be ancient like me — both. People — particularly men — may be unable to distinguish some or all variations in colour. People may be unable to see in dim or bright conditions. They may lose parts or all of their visual field to obstructions in the eyes or degeneration of the sensory tissues or loss or damage to perceptual pathways. Some of these problems can be readily mitigated with technology — very many of us wear glasses or contact lenses, whether all the time or for specific tasks — other problems not so much.

So, given both vision’s centrality to human endeavours and its frequent failings, it is important to understand how it works and how it goes wrong, and try to find ways we can make the most of it while also maximising accessibility.

Qu’est-ce que c’est?

Occasionally is right. Yeesh.

Predictably—and indeed predicted—this happened, though currently in a pretty nascent state. Most of the notebook for Lab 2 is now there. Lab 1 is mostly done but not yet saved to GitHub. Lab 3 is also not on GH, and exists only in a very sketchy form, but contains stuff like this:

This sort of nonsense probably wouldn’t surprise anyone who has Nebulized.

Killer

That word apace in my previous post might have been a bit of an exaggeration. A snail’s pace, perhaps. There is progress, but not as much or as fast as I’d like. Things are creeping along.

The psychophysics and perception lab stuff now has a home on GitHub. I seem to be becoming a collector of GitHub organisations named after UCL module codes. An obscure hobby, admittedly, but mine own. I suspect there will be more to come—probably at least comp0161, though to date Colab alone has sufficed for that. My generative music sketch from the summer has decomposed into two parts (lab1 & lab2, both still very much works in progress), with a third chapter on synthesis and effects currently just a twinkle in its father’s eye. These labs are a bit short (one UCL hour) and their schedule a bit random, so the narrative arc might not really hang together. The arc for comp0160 ought to be more solid—weekly two hour practicals for a month, with a high value season finale (40% of the marks)—but I’m still shaky on many of the details. Especially how it all comes together at the end. I hope I won’t have to bring in a man with a gun.

All this has been somewhat overshadowed by sudden parental death. Not my own parent, but the next best thing. We’re at an age where such things should perhaps not come as a surprising—the mother of some of Ian’s friends from the same village died just a couple of days later—but of course they always are surprising, it always comes as a shock.

So, yes, we are all shocked.

I am back in London for the moment, but will be up to Wales again for the funeral (strictly, the memorial) next week. It’s sure to be a rib-tickler. In the meantime: students and coursework and panic and perhaps even—very, very occasionally—blogging.

Psycho

Development of teaching materials for the new academic year proceeds apace. Currently at the top of the agenda for no very good reason: lab exercises for COMP0160 Perception & Interfaces. Here, have a prototype.

This is intended to be just one small part of one session, but it’s a starting point. Also a moving target—next week it will probably have changed.

Piecemeal

Apropos nothing (a lie, of course—it almost always is), I am once again noticing how incoherent and ad hoc my areas of knowledge and expertise seem to be. I can’t help getting the sense when approaching a topic such as linear algebra—which I use a lot and have been in various ways for literally decades—that everything I know about it is sort of cobbled together, accreted erratically—perhaps organically would be more charitable—jury-rigged from disparate, disreputable sources on a strictly need to know basis. Whereas every other user has—surely—learned the subject in a nice clean, well-structured and elegant fashion, built up piece by precision-engineered piece from rock solid foundations to flying buttresses, assembled into an unassailable edifice of logic and proof.

Or so I imagine.

Where is your beautiful theory?

This is just an example, of course. The same applies to everything from finance to pharmacology, modelling to music, arsehole to breakfast time. I know, or at least have known, a lot of things, a lot of fragments and random bits of stuff, but it doesn’t feel like it all adds up to anything very systematic or lucid, anything that could be persuasively interpreted as understanding.

Or it’s just routine imposter syndrome rearing its head again, as the new term looms with its complement of new tasks. I’m basically gaslighting myself at this point. I should probably stop.