I can see a kind of a framework. If I imagine a wooden cottage in a mountain scenery, what I see is just metadata.
I “see” the following:
The concept of a mountain scenery
The concept of wooden cottage exists within the said mountain scenery (its location is not defined, though).
Then I can take a look at the mountain scenery. I “see”:
The concept of there being a valley
The concept of a river flowing in the valley
Next, let’s take a look at the valley. I “see” for example:
There is a concept of another mountain beyond the valley.
There is a forest growing on the slopes of the valley
If I “look” at the forest, I “see”, among others:
Many individual coniferous trees
Etc.
But, when I’m “looking” at the trees, I never see the actual tree, only a knowledge of “here’s a tree”. And while “looking” at the forest, I do not see the rest of the scenery, only the tree. I can of course go back to seeing the whole scenery with the cottage in it, but now I only “see” the information “there is a mountain scenery with a valley, and a cottage exists within the scenery”. Okay, the valley has appeared in a more stable fashion now that I’ve taken a look at the image.
So, shortly put, I do get very precise instructions for how to draw the image, but I do not see the image. The only way I can actually see it is to take physical pencils or an image editing program and actually draw a picture according to the instructions.
This is also how my memories work. Everything is just metadata. A very thorough metadata that can be used for drawing a very precise replica of what I have seen, but no real visual information.
I can even “paint” the abovementioned scenery more precisely:
Mountain scenery
Valley with river
River: Water is streaming relatively fast
White “foam” visible on top of waves
Basically this is something between a river rapid and a wide mountain creek
River: Slightly bending here and there
River: Has waves
River: Going from near the lower right corner, meeting the horizon maybe 30 % from the left side of the image.
River: Direction of flow not clearly defined
Valley: A slope exists on the other side of the valley
Forest on the slope
Consists of coniferous trees
Spruces, maybe 70 % of trees
About as tall as a four-floor building
The shape is uniform, beautiful
Branches have needles on them
Branches have subbranches
The branches’ structure seems to be recursive
Needles are dark green
Individual needles are visible
For some reason, there is one squirrel among the spruces.
The squirrel is brown.
Its tail is fluffy
Reaches a bit over the top of its head
Undefined coniferous trees, remaining 30-ish %.
Cannot be further observed
Sky
Covers a bit over a quarter of the upper part of the image
The sun is setting or rising
Yellowish or orangeish colour
Seagulls or similar
Far away, not visible very clearly
Gliding, not flapping their wings
Cottage
Wooden
Made of horizontal planks, possibly logs
The logs/planks have lines visible in them, as wood does.
Lines are somewhat winding, calmly
Has a door
Wooden
No window
Planks on door are vertical
I am apparently unable to see a handle in the door
Has a window
Made of four panes
Pane is transparent
A sofa visible through the pane.
A flower vase is standing behind the window
It is on a windowsill
The flowers are roses
Red
Petals
Petals are more tall than wide
Overlapping each other
Leaves
Two
Chimney
Smoke rising from the chimney
A person is sitting inside the cottage (okay, apparently I can “see” through the walls; hadn’t really noticed this earlier that this makes very little sense)
Male
Old
In a rocking chair
(Et cetera. I could “zoom” into different things in this “image” forever, and yet I cannot see it or anything it. Every time I zoom, I just get more information on what’s visible – more “instructions for what to draw” if I ever wanted to make the image visible by bringing it physically to existence. I could also probably make the river flow to some specific direction or have the “undefined coniferous trees” defined more precisely, but those are not “visible” in the original image I got when I chose “a wooden cottage in a mountain scenery” as the image I’ll be observing, so it means I’m kind of “painting over” the original image if I define them.)
I can see a kind of a framework. If I imagine a wooden cottage in a mountain scenery, what I see is just metadata. I “see” the following:
Then I can take a look at the mountain scenery. I “see”:
Next, let’s take a look at the valley. I “see” for example:
If I “look” at the forest, I “see”, among others:
Etc.
But, when I’m “looking” at the trees, I never see the actual tree, only a knowledge of “here’s a tree”. And while “looking” at the forest, I do not see the rest of the scenery, only the tree. I can of course go back to seeing the whole scenery with the cottage in it, but now I only “see” the information “there is a mountain scenery with a valley, and a cottage exists within the scenery”. Okay, the valley has appeared in a more stable fashion now that I’ve taken a look at the image.
So, shortly put, I do get very precise instructions for how to draw the image, but I do not see the image. The only way I can actually see it is to take physical pencils or an image editing program and actually draw a picture according to the instructions. This is also how my memories work. Everything is just metadata. A very thorough metadata that can be used for drawing a very precise replica of what I have seen, but no real visual information.
I can even “paint” the abovementioned scenery more precisely:
(Et cetera. I could “zoom” into different things in this “image” forever, and yet I cannot see it or anything it. Every time I zoom, I just get more information on what’s visible – more “instructions for what to draw” if I ever wanted to make the image visible by bringing it physically to existence. I could also probably make the river flow to some specific direction or have the “undefined coniferous trees” defined more precisely, but those are not “visible” in the original image I got when I chose “a wooden cottage in a mountain scenery” as the image I’ll be observing, so it means I’m kind of “painting over” the original image if I define them.)