The image that comes to us, that we see everyday, isn't fixed.

To explain this, imagine that you read a book. The letters in the book when first seen, is all scrambled up and makes no sense.

Then each letter is put where it belongs (where it is comprehended to be).

You see, it's not like a photograph, it's more like a puzzle that is solved by the brain.

I've read about those that don't have the ability to read, and the letters are all scrambled up and "jumps around" and no comprehension can be made. Why would this be so, if the image came to us "as is"?

This could also mean, that we actually read the whole page by just looking at it. We have recognised the words and so on, it's the understanding of what we read that takes time.

Surely you have seen and recognised all the words in this post by just looking at it?

Neat idea. One problem what happens when you hand write letters?

Neat idea. One problem what happens when you hand write letters?Well, I guess that you then solve your own puzzle :)

Ever heard that talking to people about your problems is good for you?

Well, talking to the right people.

Another thing that suggest that my idea is true, is that we see 3D.

If objects were fixed to each image of the eye, then we wouldn't see 3D. objects has to be treated individually.

We also have a "sense" of what is behind objects allthough we don't see it. All of this might have something to do with different pieces being put together to form the complete picture. Where the pieces are objects (or letters).

Can you ever know what something you have is unless you can experience not having it? For most of us, sight is so ingrained that we dont' know how we see, we just do it.
Sometimes, I've been able to look at things without recognition, without matching what I see with a word, but it's hard. Good artists do this in order to see the line and shape of an object.
Having two eyes lets you fool your sight and see holes in your hand, or floating fingers. It shows that our sight can be messed with.

This could also mean, that we actually read the whole page by just looking at it.

Looking at it word by word, yes. But gazing into one spot won't do it; letters become a fuzz, except for the spot right in front of the eye.

Sometimes, I've been able to look at things without recognition, without matching what I see with a word,

Welcome into my bubble. This is how I see at least half of the time. Well, I keep quiet, too.

Can you ever know what something you have is unless you can experience not having it? For most of us, sight is so ingrained that we dont' know how we see, we just do it.
Sometimes, I've been able to look at things without recognition, without matching what I see with a word, but it's hard. Good artists do this in order to see the line and shape of an object.
Having two eyes lets you fool your sight and see holes in your hand, or floating fingers. It shows that our sight can be messed with.I know what you mean! Let your eyes relax...:) sometimes you just don't have the energy to understand what you are looking at :). But I'm a introvert person so it happens sometimes for me, also it has happened when people talk to me, that I just don't have the energy to understand what they are saying, so I go within myself, where I hear mumblings outside. Later I can go back to the top, remember what they said, and give a comprehensible answer (allthough I didn't hear what they said in realtime, I can bring back the memory of what they said in order to give a answer). Or of course, sometimes I just don't find what they say interesting, that's the really hard part. I don't want to say that it isn't interesting to me, cause I don't want to make them feel like their ideas are useless allthough I don't really think that they are useless, but I don't want to make them feel that way. So I stick tight and try to listen (and I really try!) but certainly I'm slowly getting less and less focused to what they say and more and more focused on my inner-thought (which seems to be particularly interesting in these situations :) ).

Looking at it word by word, yes. But gazing into one spot won't do it; letters become a fuzz, except for the spot right in front of the eye.



Welcome into my bubble. This is how I see at least half of the time. Well, I keep quiet, too.It is a little different for me, first when I look at something, I recognise everything that is on that I am looking at.

Then I focus on the spot that I'm focusing on, and the rest becomes a blur, therefor, having the eye alternate between two nearby points can "hold" the recognition of the whole picture.

Ever had that experiance when you thought you saw something weird and have to move your eyes a bit just to go back to the spot where you saw something weird? That is what I'm talking about.

Can you ever know what something you have is unless you can experience not having it?I've read that some people have lost the ability of sight. When someone say something regarding sight or visual, then they just get confused. It's scary for me to think about.

This could also mean, that we actually read the whole page by just looking at it. We have recognised the words and so on, it's the understanding of what we read that takes time.

Surely you have seen and recognised all the words in this post by just looking at it?

It definitely does not mean this.

For example I have placed a word at the bottom of this post which u cannot understand

Now if ur mind read the whole page, then it would have realised this at the first sentence right?

I am sure u are realizing it now that ur attention has been drawn to it and that we're further down the page

But the fact is, we read chunks of text at a time, not the whole page.

See u later grzwn guys! :D

It definitely does not mean this.

For example I have placed a word at the bottom of this post which u cannot understand

Now if ur mind read the whole page, then it would have realised this at the first sentence right?

I am sure u are realizing it now that ur attention has been drawn to it and that we're further down the page

But the fact is, we read chunks of text at a time, not the whole page.

See u later grzwn guys! :DRealising is a totally different thing.

From what I understand, each part is looking at his part of the whole. Thus some part of you deep down, might have seen "grzwn" and might even have reported it's absurdity, but it might not have reached your attention until you realise it yourself.

We can read and understand in a higher level, chunks of texts, in a chunk of text you might not have understand it all, but maybe the sentence you are reading, but you might even so realise the absurdity of the word in your sight even though you are not currently reading it.

Realising is a totally different thing.

From what I understand, each part is looking at his part of the whole. Thus some part of you deep down, might have seen "grzwn" and might even have reported it's absurdity, but it might not have reached your attention until you realise it yourself.

We can read and understand in a higher level, chunks of texts, in a chunk of text you might not have understand it all, but maybe the sentence you are reading, but you might even so realise the absurdity of the word in your sight even though you are not currently reading it.

Again, it's a possibility but has this ever been proven? Do u have any references or anything?

Again, it's a possibility but has this ever been proven? Do u have any references or anything?Mostly this is my view on how it works, but I've got my view from alot of things that each (to my view) relates to eachother.

Ever heard of "the blind men and the elephant"? Where each one feel one part of the elephant, and come to completly different conclusions allthough they are all right on their part.

I think that is a good description of how the brain works. Each part has it's "job" and knows everything about it, and is right, but no part see the whole picture.

I don't have any references as for now, but I'm sure that there exists some out there in the web, are there a specific part that you want reference to? It would make it easier for me.