Visual Logic: From collapse to meaning

The Architecture of seeing as an act of construction

Cross-disciplanary thesis on perception, imagination and neuroarchitecture.

FORGOTTEN CONNECTION

What does it mean to see?

Camera does not know it is looking, a neural network, no matter how deep, does not flinch at beauty or get distracted in chaos. Yet, in the age of machine learning we keep saying it:

"The AI sees"

Today´s artificial systems can receive light thru lenses.

They can extract data from pixels, detect edges and identify objects often faster and more precisely than we can.

But does that mean they see?

To ask this question seriously, we must first return to a deeper understanding of what seeing truly is.

Not from a standpoint of sensors or computational process, but from the lived reality of perception itself.

When a human being sees, we do not simply gather visual data.

We collapse a field of ambiguity into something meaningful.

We predict and interpret. Much like a boxer slipping a punch, or when something falls from the table suddenly, and in a blink of an eye you manage to grab it.

Even though you weren´t prepared for it.

Or were you?

Our perception is not passive input. It is a generative act.

It gathers and turns scattered photons into form, memory and experience.

This article is an inquiry of that action.

It explores how we, as biological observers construct visual meaning into reality.

Along the way, we will confront some difficult truths:

That form is not fixed, that reality shifts depending on who observes it, and that perception itself is

conditional, layered and creative.

At the heart of this investigation, is a framework that i call Visual Logic .

Practice that helps reveal how we build our sense of reality.

It isn´t merely a tool for artists. It´s a tool for anyone who want´s to understand what truly happens in the moment we say, "I see".

And so we begin: - not with a machine, but with a question:

"If seeing is the act of collapsing reality into a meaning,

 then what does it take to see at all ?"

RECONNECTING ART AND SCIENCE

Optics unified physics and art thru perspective and light.

As a proof of this cross-disciplanary system, I present my timelapse article -

Whatcha Looking At?

From Newtons prism, thru the foundational research of human role as the observer by Weber-Fechner. From Young`s trichromacy straight to Maxwells electromagnetic theory, and into modern technology and development.

Visual Logic proposes that this shared origin can be rebuilt, specially now that AI and rendering technologies are forcing that reconvergeance.

If Visual Logic can be taught to children and simultaneously inspire academic research or tool development, it is not theoretical - it´s functional and foundational.

" What are the underlying constraints that both, computational systems and humans, must obey to produce belivable visual outputs ?"

WE ARE THE BRIDGE - THE HUMAN ACT OF SEEING

We tend to belive that seeing is passive, a camera-like process that simply records what is already there.

But this belief is not only false - it blinds us to what seeing truly is.

To see, is not to receive.

To see is to collapse from possibilities into a meaning of what we call "visual reality".

It is an active resolution, shaped by our biology, memory and cognitive status.

The deep architecture of the mind.

Every moment you open your eyes, your brain performs a miracle synthesis, dynamic computation.

Let´s take a look at it.

BIOLOGICAL TRUTH - The Feedforward/Feedback loop

Visual information travels from retina to the primary visual cortex (V1) in under 60 milliseconds.

It sweeps thru the ventral visual stream (V2-V4-IT Cortex) where object identity and meaning are determined.

Then almost immediately feedback loops return to early visual areas to refine the initial suggestion.

Biologically our act of seeing begins before we are even aware of it.

Retinal ganglion cells do not simply forward light signals to the brain.

They actively compress, predict and select which signals pass forward.

This feedforward mechanism represents a structural "collapse" of the infinite possible visual fields into a single plausible percept.

By the time the signal reaches higher cortical areas, System2 can only witness and interpret what has already been chosen.

Yes, System2 .

This is not philosophical suggestion but a biological necessity:

Our perception is not passive recording - it is an active, continuous act of collapse that is orchestrated by our nervous system before conscious thought begins.

DUAL SYSTEM

Retina contains 20-40 subtypes of ganglion cells, each extracting distinct visual features at different speeds.

They forward these thru pathways that are part of two independent streams known as dorsal and ventral streams.

This dual system creates a possibility to bypass crucial information to be processed, collapsed faster.

System1 being the quick and dirty channel of Magnocellular pathway- part of the dorsal stream that invokes our spatial awareness.

This allows M-cell and DSGG input in rapid speed, to have ability to bypass primary visual cortex into superior colliculus that is responsible for unconscious vision.

It forms fast suggestions of meaning based on “where something is”.

For example:

Cup falls from table and you manage to grab it before it hits the floor.

Before a thought emerged, you reacted physically.

System2 is slow paced Parvocellular pathway, delivering higher resolution with fine details of color and texture.

Part of Ventral stream responsible for object recognition.

It carries visual information from P- and K-cells that leads into resolution of " what is ".

It fullfills the initial suggestions of Magnocellular system1.

For example:

You walk in a forest and see a snake on the ground.

Subconscious stream of information thru amygdala makes you react fast and jump back.

You look at the snake again, and now you recognise it is just a stick.

But you didn´t see the snake first.

There were multiple options in your sight to see.

Which to look at ?

In milliseconds, your brain chooses the most plausible interpretation- not based on the image alone,

but on what you expect, fear or assume.

It finds a meaning.

The chosen possibility becomes "what you see".

In this act of choosing, your brain does not simply see - it decides what you see.

This would suggest that the brain isnt´t waiting to "see".

It is running predictions, and recognizing when the incoming data matches an internal model.

This is not just speed, it`s evidence of layered cognition.

Brain uses visual input like a key to unlock prior patterns.

That´s a form of predictive coding- and it means that vision is a form of thinking ahead.

Not about capturing the world, it`s about resolving the most likely structure from incomplete fragments.

I hate to repeat myself, but

VISION IS NOT A RECORDING, IT´S A COMMITMENT.

Donald Hoffman`s interface theory of perception suggests that our senses evolved to present adaptive, useful "interfaces" , rather than true representations of objective reality.

Imaging studies showing task-dependent visual cortex activation, contextual "filling in", and dynamic percept switches support this view, hihglighting that perception is fundamentally a guided construction.

Visual Logic extends this principle:

Perception is not merely an interface but an active collapse into meaning.

We don´t see what is - we see what survives the collapse, chosen by our system to be coherent and

actionable.

In RSVP (Rapid Serial Visual Presentation) experiments, participants are shown images as fast as 13ms per frame.

Mary Potter´s RSVP experiments show that humans can extract the gist of an image already in that time,suggesting an ultra-fast, pre-conscious processing stage.

fMRI studies confirm early cortical activation (V1-V3,LOC) during these rapid presentations,

supporting a feedforward sweep that builds a preliminary, global meaning before detailed analysis.

This fits directly with Visual Logic´s dual-system collapse model : initial fast magnocellular-driven "collapse" to suggestion, followed by slow Parvocellular "verification" that solidifies conscious object recognition.

RSVP thus provides both behavioral and neural evidence for the staged, active construction of visual reality and memory.

Experiments with ambigious images - like the famous "duck/rabbit illusion"-people switch between two perceptions.

The image itself never changes, but what is seen collapses differently depending on observers attention or mood.

This is not a failure of vision,it is the nature of it:

to select one interpretation from many.

What you perceive isn`t simply what hits your retina - its what makes semantic sense with your layered cognitive filters.

In street scene studies, people are shown blurry, low resolution images.

They are still able to identify objects like stop signs, faces or vehicles.

But only if they are in context.

Remove the context and recognition plummets.

RSVP and ambigious image studies reveal that rapid visual recognition only occurs when the stimulus holds immediate, meaningfull significance to the observer ( such as faces or threat-related scenes).

In context-free or degraded images, perception fails to resolve without supporting meaning.

Demonstrating that the act of seeing is not simply a fast feature scan, but an active meaning-driven collapse.

We do not build a complete image and then recognize it.

We recognize, and the image is built on that anchor.

This evidence strongly supports Visual Logic:

Without meaning, there is no collapse -

and without collapse, there is no perceptual reality.

At least not a conscious one.

This staged commitment forms the basis of Visual Logic´s "collapse - verify" model, where rapid initial collapse offers a usable hypothesis, and slower verification confirms or refines it into

conscious reality.

COLLAPSE MODEL

Despite the philosophical nature of my question: What is the act of seeing, it is highly mechanical system-like operation.

And my proposal here holds more water than you suddenly might think.

David Marr´s seminal computation theory of vision proposed that perception unfolds in hierarchial stages:

First, a rapid edge-based representation, followed by a "2.5D sketch".

Describing Surface orientation and depth relative to the observer, and finally a full object centered

3D model.

Recent fMRI studies confirm this architecture at the neural level.

Early visual areas (V1,V2) detect edges and local contrasts, while dorsal stream regions (such as V3A and MT+) process surface geometry and depth matching Marr´s 2.5D sketch stage.

Higher ventral areas (LOC and inferotemporal cortex) resolve detailed object identity, completing the final percept.

Additionally, feedback signals from object recognition regions to early visual cortex ( as shown in Muckli et al 2015), support an active, iterative process rather than a purely feedforward pipeline.

This biological evidence aligns directly with Visual Logic´s collapse - verify model :

Fast, spatial "collapse" to initial Surface suggestions.

Followed by a slower, detailed "verification" of object meaning.

Seeing thus emerges not as a passive reception of images, but as an active construction of reality.

We can think of this model as a continuous collapse - not a single event, but rapid, ongoing series unfolding with each micro-movement of the eyes.

Every time we see, uncounscious actions begin in rapid motion.

Extraction of data, as you shift your sight thru all the possibilities that appear, recognition happens constantly,until one is selected. Commitment, followed immediately by suggestion thru the pipeline to be either endorsed or discarded.

The action is almost like refreshing frame -BOOM- here comes another image suggestion.

This is how you are able to spot familiar face in a crowd. Or how to find your keys from a messy table.

But it isn´t simply about creating an visual image,it is about forming counscious reality itself.

Magnocellular pathway is not merely choosing random stuff to propose, It selects things to create spatial awareness.

Conditions of existence.

COLLAPSE - VERIFY

Sys1 (collapse) = Magnocellular pathway that is Fast and Dirty

What it gets:

M-cell input ( 30 - 50ms) Motion,shadows,contrast,flicker

DSGG input ( 20 - 40ms) Local directional movement

Collapse

Rapid thalamic bypass --> amygdala and dorsal stream

- Guesses meaning from sparse data

- Explains rapid attentional capture such as noticing movement before details.

Sys2 (verify) = Parvocellular pathway that is Slow, High Fidelity

What it gets:

P-cell input ( 50-100ms) Color,detail,high res.textures

K-cell input ( 40-80ms) Blue/yellow contrast, mood, attention

Verifies

- Receives sys1 collapsed output and delayed data to fill in the gaps.

- Either endorses - yes,it´s a face or challenges - wait, that`s a mask.

INTERNAL OBSERVER

The act of seeing is not limited to external input.

Human beings are capable to reconstruct vision thru internal output, reconstructing vision this way is what we refer as:

-Dreaming

-imagination

-Hallucination

To the brain, it is still very much the same act of seeing.

Our visual system is activated mechanically similar way, than it is with our eyes open.

M-path and P-path actions are which separates and determines what the reconstruction is described as.

While there are no spesific researches made for Magnocellular activity in Dreaming- existing evidence suggests to that direction.

During REM sleep, the primary visual cortex (V1) is less active, but higher visual areas (MT/V5,parietal cortex)- which rely on M-input-remain engaged.

The thalamus(LGN) gates sensory input during sleep, and M-cells may be more resistant to suppression than P-cells.

Since P-path is mostly silent, our dreams involve more movement but with lesser details.

You have Felt the collapse - when you start waking up from a dream, there is a brief moment when you are confused what is real.

Until the verification kicks in.

During imagination at wake state, we are able to create reconstructed visuals with high detail, indicating that verification is involved in the process.

Pearson et al.(2015) research suggests that high-detail visual imagery activates P-pathway-linked regions.

Kosslyn et al.(2006) found that imagining moving objects activates M-Pathway-linked areas (MT/V5), suggesting that motion imagination relies more on M-like processing.

And further, recent fMRI studies by neurologist Adam Zeman and colleagues provide a striking support for this.

They discovered that when people vividly imagine an object, early visual corticies(V1,V2) activate almost as if they were actually seeing it.

This suggests that imagination is not simply a passive replay or symbolic thought - it is an active perceptual construction, internally performed by the same pathways we use to process real visual reality.

In individuals without mental imagery (aphantasia), this activation is absent, confirming the necessity of this internal collapse mechanism.

Zeman et al.(2020) reported that some aphantasics retain spatial navigation skills ( M-Pathway function), despite lackin visual imagery. Interview with aphantasiac tattoo artist, confirms this in fascinating way.

fMRI showed reduced activation in ventral visual stream (P-pathway) but intact dorsal stream (M-pathway).

Keough & Pearson (2018) found that aphantasics perform poorly on high-detail imagery tasks (P-Pathway-dependent), but preserve spatial/coarse imagery (M-Pathway-linked) and Jacobs et al.(2023) suggests that some aphantasics use spatial/movement- based strategies (M-Pathway-like) to compensate for lack of imagery.

And Bainbridge et al.(2021) further supports the idea that P-pathway imagery generation is impaired, while perception remains intact.

Aphantasics could recognise objects (P-pathway task) but not reconstruct them mentally.

Hallucinations are strongly connected to these pathways, and indicate an impairment and dysfunction.

Schizophrenia patients who have M-pathway deficits report disorganized,less vivid dreams.Revonsuo et al.(2015)

This suggests intact M-pathway is needed for coherent dream spatial narratives.

Hub et al. (2004) Patients with M-pathway deficits (common in schizophrenia) show poor spatial imagination, but intesified and disorganized mental imaginery.

Carhart-Harris et al.(2014) LSD and visual processing- reported that LSD suppresses P-pathway

filtering, leading to M-dominant hallucinations. (swirling colors, motion trails)

Similar to dream visuals, supporting M-pathway dominance in altered states.

Charles Bonnet syndrome, that is a condition where visually impaired persons experience complex visual hallucinations due to loss of sensory input, researches are pointing towards M and P pathways.

fMRI studies show hyperactivity in cortical color-processing areas.

ffytche et al (1998) fMRI study showed distinct activation patterns correlating with the type of hallucination.

Ozer et al.(2020) found hyperactivity between (LGN),P-pathway and Superior colliculus, M-pathway.

This supports the proposal of dual system dysfuntions.

The M-driven Sys1 is fundamentally, not a passive receiver, but and active force of collapse.

Constantly seeking to condense sensory possibilities into a usable percept.

When collapse is delayed, incomplete or impossible (as in certain forms of blindness,scotomas or dysfunctions), Sys1 enters a state of desperation.

It continues to guess and collapse even when it is missing input.

This could explain phantom percepts.

Sys1 insistence on collapsing possibilities into coherent reality, underscores that perception is not just mapping,

it is biologically driven act towards resolution.

In the rare Riddoch syndrome, where (V1) is partially injured,patients can detect motion,(M-pathway)

but they cannot perceive static forms,indicating intact collapse but disabled verification.

When collapse(M) fails, initial perception is lost.

When verification fails (P), the system sees forms without knowing what they are.

In blindness, (V1) is known to be reassigned partially to process information from hearing and touch.

The only two senses after visuals, that are able to be used to create a sense of spatial awareness.

It seems to be, that our visuals are not simply there to construct an image of "what" lies ahead, but fundamentally to understand "where" we are in relation to the "what".

Without this drive, our coherent world experience would vanish into noise.

IT`S A RIGGED RACE WHERE TIMING BEATS CALCULATION

Perception is not a passive code running in the dark or simple hierarchy - it`s a rigged race who gets to place their pieces of the puzzle first.

Sys1 wins by default,and the slower Sys2 will verify or veto.

But what if Sys2 gets there first?

Or at the same time, interfering Sys1?

“When timing breaks down, so does reality as we know it.”

Thalamus(LGN) acts as the gatekeeper, allowing M-pathways to bypass for uncounsious attentional capture, while P-pathway requires full conscious processing before meaning is resolved.

For example:

We can Imagine that this is like going for a trip, you arrive at the airport and now you need to

go thru the security inspection.

What ticket you are holding in your hand matters a lot.

If you have Business class - guess what- you propably have priority lane on

every stop, allowing you to bypass normal que and reach the gate much sooner.

But if you hold economy class, you will go thru every inspection waiting in a que.

But even if you have priority, if you are late arrival, it might just happen that everyone

else has already boarded the plane before you….

.. and sometimes, the flight might have already left without you completely.

ADHD

Multiple neurobiological studies on ADHD directly support the collapse-verify framework.

DelGiudice et al (2010) found significantly reduced contrast sensitivity in children with ADHD.

That would implicate M-pathway dysfunction and delayed collapse.

Hale et al (2014) demonstrated rightward-lateralized visual cortex activation and reduced DMN

suppression.

That would refere to a reliance on bottom-up input and failure of top-down verification.

Additionally, Misra & Gandhi (2023) reported elevated temporal variability in parietal-visual attention

networks with ADHD.

Reflecting instability in the proposed feedback-loop of collapse and verify.

These functional and connectivity disruptions align precisly with a model in which impaired magnocellular input weakens rapid meaning collapse,and deficient parvocellular feedback compromises coherent perception.

AUTISM

In autism, parallel timing misalignment between M-and P-pathways results in system overshootimg and undershooting.

High detail-focused Performance on spesific tasks, and yet underperformance when fast global integration of spatial and social meaning is required.

Simultaneous, unsequenced actions toward resolution lead to strong local abilities but difficulties with global,semantic or social contexts.

What it means in the context of visual logic, instead of clear sequential architecture(collapse-verify), there is simultaneous or mistimed processing,leading to perceptual and cognitive challenges.

Soulieres et al.(2009) found superior local processing (P), but global (M) deficits in autistic individuals

during imagery tasks.

Milne et al. (2002,vision research) Children with ASD showed reduced contrast sensitivity for low spatial frequencies.

Koldewyn et al. (2013,Brain) reported with fMRI that ASD participants had weaker MT/V5 (motion area)activation when viewing moving stimuli and Robertson et al. (2014,Neuron) showed atypical M-pathway development leading to hypersensitivity to flickering and flashing lights.

Bertone et al. (2005,neuropsychologia), Mottron et al.(2006),Frey et al.(2003) all showed enhanced P-pathway.

EEG/MEG findings from Boeschoten et al. (2007) discovered dealyed M-pathway responses (~100ms post stimulus) but faster P-pathway processing.

The evidence from autism research strongly supports the collapse-verify architecture.

M-pathway connectivity reduces global scene simulation (collapse), while enhanced P-pathway processing produces hyper-detailed but fragmented imagery (verify without scaffold).

These findings extend the model beyond typical perception, into neurodiverse cognitive architecture.

Autism does not appear to be just a "social" or "behavioural" difference in the light of this.

But more an alternative perceptual collapse-verify dynamic.

DYSLEXIA

Developmental dyslexia is consistently associated with M-pathway dysfunction, evidenced by reduced motor sensitivity, lowered constrast detection and impaired structural connectivity between (LGN) and (MT/V5) along with relative parvocellular compensation.

(DelGiudice et al.2020,Stein et al.1997,Muller-Axt et al2017) and recent case control studies 2025)

Interventions targeting magnocellular functioning have demonstrated significant and lasting improvements in both visual processing and reading ability.

What it means is that the recent evidence are showing the trainability of the M-pathway in dyslexia.

In context of Visual Locic:

Sys1 collapse is a modifiable, plastic mechanism rather than a fixed reflex.

It is a race, but evidence suggests that we can in some extent manipulate the rules.

Several studies have explored whether training the M-pathway improves motion processing and global perception in individuals with ASD, while results are mixed, some promising findings suggest that M-pathway interventions may help stabilize perception and reduce hypersensitivity.

Wang et al. (2021,scientific reports) Robertsson et al. (2016,current biology)

The early evidence does point towards that M-pathway training can help stabilize perception in ASD, specially for motion processing and sensory filtering.

However, more controlled and large-scale trials are needed.

CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE

If we now turn our attention to the final piece of the puzzle, and what could explain the “timing paradox” still existing in modern theories of perception.

Like mentioned before, where and what, are composed from information thru the m-and p-pathways, and here is where it gets interesting.

To consciously exist, where and what are not enough.

Where, What and When - determines whether you share the same space with others. When = verified and validated / timestamps this experience into memory.

How does that happen.

Once both (M/P) path delivered information to PFC, it will be validated, and then sent back thru ventral stream to hippocampus, to be encoded and archieved to STM (short term memory) and LTM (long term memory).

Existing evidence of sleep walking and sleep fmri, show that during such period, ventral stream is shut down. And furthermore, prior we went thru how in sleep phases P-path is supressed. It very much seems that, active p-path is required for functioning ventral stream, and this could indicate possibly why we do not have effective memory of our dreams.

For experience to be archieved as lived experience, ventral stream is required. But if then P activity is required for the activation, nothing really gets thru into LTM.

This explains some parts of why people who suffered brainstrokes, and lost the ability to "archieve” recent memories = They live in the past, while still showing the normal personality (recognises family, behaves “normal”, but with with slight confusion and disorientation.

Did we eat already? what day it is?

“What” you see does not match ”When” - M and P can recognize everything, but this verification without timestamp is critical part to hold us in “shared reality”.

This points out to the direction, that not all memory disorders have to be in primary areas malfunctioning, it could well be deficiency of p-path activation in returning the timestamp to archieves.

Two stream hypothesis is not new, such function was already described by David Milner and Melvyn A. Goodale in 1992. They organized array of anatomical, neuropsychological, electrophysiological and behavioural evidence for their model. They replaced the dorsal- where, with how - stream.

Norman J.(2002) proposed a similar dual-process model of vision. He predicted 8 main differences between the two systems that were consistent with other dual models as shown here:

M- and P- paths are seemingly not simply a data wire mechanic. But play far more extended role of what becomes lived reality itself.

CREATIVITY AS NATURAL PLAY INSIDE THE TIMING

Creativity has been “hot” area of discussion in behavioural psychology since George Land expanded his creativity test from Nasa to wider public range. Kahneman connected creativity with intuition and proposed the dual system architecture in cognitive science. Fast and slow.

In relation to Visual Logic, the biological structure shown here so far indicates that M/P control far more than just data transfer.

Earlier, we went thru research regarding Dyslexia and clinical evidence showing the plasticity of M-pathway = treatments targeted to stabilize M-path defencies . And other studies indicating that P-path can possibly be affected as well to create non-invasive supporting treatment protocols to stabilize hyperactivity and deficiencies more effectively. So if we accept the collapse - verify -stamp model, we can start looking once again to wider fields and connections this impacts.

Kounious & Beeman (2014) - the Aha! moment - found that sudden creative insights correlate with alpha-band suppression in visual cortex. That is linked to M-pathway processing. fMri revealed increased activity in right anterior superior temporal gyrus during insights that are fed by rapid M-path inputs.(sys1)

Jung et al. (2010) discovered that high-creativity individuals show greater P-path(sys2) integrity for detail-focused tasks such as realistic drawings. fMRI showed (V4) and LOC activation during detailed visual imagination, which indicates that creative persons could possible have “trained” their ability how and when they adapt to it.

Study by Ellamil et al. (2012) saw that early-stage sketching activates dorsal stream (sys1) for spatial layouts and when entering refinement ventral stream activates. fMRI showed MT / V4 shift during creative process, Implicating that it is a systematic function based on what is required.

Biologically - Development happens similar way, we have intact M-path developing way before we even are born. Huttenlocher (2009), Braddick et al (2016) pointed out that M-path is intact in the retina at week 20-28. fMRI images show that infants 30+ weeks exhibit dorsal stream activation (MT/V5) to moving stimuli. That is also why the baby turns towards voice. P- pathway develops way later, the cells exist but lack fuctional thrichromacy that develops 4-12 months after birth , and reach to adult level function closer to 5 years.

In a way, Vision does not begin with light extraction, but with motion experience.

You might wonder did we get sidetracked, and no, just keep reading. This will all make sense very soon.