Mysteries of Visual Experience
Jerome Feldman
DRAFT 3/14/18
‘The most beautiful and profound experience is the feeling of mystery. It underlies religion as
well as all deeper aspirations in art and science.’ Einstein

Introduction
Science is a crowning glory of the human spirit and its applications remain our best hope for
social progress. However, there are limitations to existing science and perhaps to any science.
The general mind-body problem is known to be currently intractable and mysterious (8). This is
one of many deep problems that are generally agreed to be beyond the present purview of
Science, including many quantum phenomena, etc. However, all of these famous unsolved
problems are either remote from everyday experience (entanglement, dark matter) or are hard
to even define sharply (phenomenology, consciousness, etc.).
In this note, we will consider some computational problems in vision that arise every time that
we open our eyes and yet are demonstrably inconsistent with current theories of neural
computation. The focus will be on two famous related phenomena, known as the neural
binding problem and the experience of a detailed stable visual world. I, among many others,
have struggled with these issues for more than fifty years (1, 2, 3). Somewhat paradoxically,
the continuing progress in scientific methods and knowledge reveals that these are both
unsolvable within existing neuroscience. By considering some basic facts about how the brain
processes image input, we will show that, under the standard theory, there are not nearly
enough brain neurons to compute what we experience as vision. Inconsistencies like the ones
shown here have had a profound effect on paradigm change in the sciences. More directly, the
discussions below suggest possible new theories and experiments.
Demonstrations
The visual system can only capture fine detail in a small ( ~1 degree) part of the visual field;
this is about the size of your thumbnail at arm’s length. “The experience of a detailed full-field
stable visual world” refers to our subjective perception of a large high-resolution scene. First,
consider Figure 1. Your vision is best in the center of gaze and the small letters in the center of
the figure are easy to read when you look directly at them, but not when you look to the side.
The letters further from the center are progressively larger and this describes how much
coarser your vision becomes with eccentricity.

Figure 1. Size for Equal Visibility with Eccentricity

You can experience this directly using the line of text in Figure 2. Cover or close one eye and
focus on the + in the center from a distance of about 12 inches. While holding focus, try to
name the letters to the left. You should be able to do much better with the progressively larger
letters to the right of the +. In ordinary viewing, there is no problem because we change our
gaze several times a second.

U

Q

C

G

O + C

O

U

QG

Figure 2. Demonstration of Visibility with Eccentricity

More generally, representing more information requires more hardware, which is why new
phones are marketed as having cameras with more megapixels. This is also true for the
neurons in the brain and this fact will play a major role in the discussion. There is a great deal
known about how the brain processes visual information, largely because other mammals,
particularly primates, have quite similar visual systems. We will focus on primary visual cortex
or V1. Looking ahead, Figure 4B shows a flattened and projected view of the human brain with
V1 on the far left.
Unsurprisingly, the brain realizes its high central resolution using many, densely packed,
neurons. The central portion of the retina in the eye is the fovea and the downstream target of
these foveal neurons in V1 of the brain is called the foveal projection.
Figure 3. Tootell, et al. Experiment (4)

An important aspect of this architecture can be seen in Figure 3. The upper part of the figure
depicts an oscillating radial stimulus, also with more detail in the center, which was presented
to a primate subject. The lower half of the figure shows the parts of visual cortex that
responded strongly to the input. As you can see, by far the most activity is the foveal projection
on the far left, corresponding to the detailed image in the center of the input stimulus (red
arrow). So, vision is most accurate in a small central area of the visual field and this is
achieved by densely packed neurons in the corresponding areas of the brain (4).
However, our visual experience is not at all like this. We experience the world as fully detailed
and there is currently no scientific explanation of this. There is more - we normally move
(saccade) our gaze to new places in the scene about 3 or 4 times per second. These
saccades help us see and act effectively and are not random. Again, our experience does not
normally include any awareness of the saccades or the radically different visual inputs that
they entail. Taken together these unknown links between brain and experience are known as

“the experience of a detailed stable visual world” and this is generally accepted, if not
understood.
There is extensive continuing research on various aspects of visual stability (6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11).
None of this work attempts to provide a complete solution and it is usually explicit that deep
mysteries remain. Reference 9 is an excellent survey of behavioral findings and reference 11
has current neuroscience results.
We are attempting here to establish a much stronger statement. These stable world
phenomena and a number of others are inconsistent with standard theories of neural
processing (20). The demonstrations below involve combining findings from several distinct
areas of investigation, as an instance of Unified Cognitive Science (12). Before digging in to
the computational details, we consider some consequences of establishing that there is
presently no scientific explanation of such visual experiences.
Why Inconsistency is important
It may seem surprising that we can exhibit such strong results without directly considering the
relation between subjective (1st person) and objective (3rd person) experience, which is one
of the core mysteries of the mind. For at least the cases presented, there is NO theory of
the 1st person experience that is consistent with the known theory, structure, and behavior
of the brain. This also challenges several proposed mind/brain relations as
epiphenomenalism or the notion that the 1st/3rd person link is a brute fact of nature that
cannot be further analyzed. These would not yield inconsistency.
In addition, throughout the history of science, crucial instances of inconsistency have led to
profound reconsiderations and discoveries. One of the best-known cases is the fact that
Rutherford’s planetary model of the atom entailed that electrons rotating around the atomic
nucleus would radiate energy and eventually crash into it. This was one of a number of deep
inconsistencies leading to the development of quantum theory.
A recent important inconsistency in Cognitive Science is the “Word Superiority Effect” (34). A
wide range of experiments established that people were faster and more accurate in
recognizing the letter A in context, e.g., CAT, than the same letter alone. These results conflict
with the naïve assumption that more input should require more processing. This was one of
the inconsistencies resulting in the paradigm shift to massively parallel (connectionist) models
of brain function.

If there really are fundamental inconsistencies between visual experience (the mind) and the
neural theory of the brain, this is a major challenge to the (currently dominant) theories that the
mind is constituted entirely from the activity of the brain. As usual, Dennett is unequivocal: “Our
minds are just what our brains non-miraculously do “(30, Preface). Not only philosophers are
so dogmatic. Stanislas Dehaene, a leading experimentalist, says: “If you had any lingering
doubts that your mental life arises entirely from the activity of the brain, these examples should
lift them” (37, p.153). No one has suggested how this postulated mind/brain interaction would
work, and we will show here that the examples above cannot be explained within existing

theories. There is always the possibility of a conceptual breakthrough, but it would entail
abandoning some of our core beliefs about (at least) neural computation.
There is a plausible functional story for the stable world experience and the related binding
problem to be discussed below. First of all, we do have an integrated (top-down) sense of the
space around us that we cannot currently see, based on memory and other sense data –
primarily hearing and smell. In addition, since we are heavily visual, it is adaptive to use vision
as broadly as possible. In fact, it would be extremely difficult to act in the world using only the
bulls-eye images from Figure 1 and separated information on size, color, etc. The mind
(somehow) encodes a more accurate version of the world than can be directly captured by our
limited neural hardware.
We should not be surprised that our subjective experience sometimes deviates from the
information captured and processed by the visual system. Our senses and the nervous system
in general evolved to help our bodies function effectively in a physical and social world that we
cannot directly observe (36). Given that such mental experiences are evolutionarily
fundamental, what can we know about their physical realization? There is an impressive body
of work suggesting how aspects of subjective experience, closely related to the discussion
here, seem to be needed for animals to deal with external space and to combine various
sensory inputs and goals. At least some aspects of these experiences may well be found in
cephalopods (38) and insects (36).
This ecological requirement also reveals a deep problem in the use of the term “illusion”. The
word is sometimes used to describe a perception that is inconsistent with external reality and
sometimes to describe an experience that is inconsistent with the neural representation even
when the subjective experience is more like external reality. To further confuse the issue,
“illusion” is also used metaphorically, as in the postulated “illusion of Free Will” (31). Everyone
agrees that we all act as if we had Free Will, even determinists who deny that they have this
power. There does seem to be an agreed definition of “illusion” that supports its use in a
serious discussion of the mind.
Computational Limitations
We will now prove that some everyday visual experiences cannot be explained within existing
neuroscience. The basic form of the argument will be computational. There is no way that
brain neurons, as we know them, could represent or compute the substrate of our visual
experience. The constraint of explaining visual experience also rules out many proposed and
speculative theories of neural computation in the human brain, as discussed below. To explore
the details, we turn next to Figure 4 A, B.
Figure 4 Flat map projection of the Human brain (5)

Figure 4A is a standard flattened projection of one hemisphere of the human brain with the
various areas colored. The numbers refer to the traditional Brodmann classification of brain
regions from their anatomical details. Modern methods (27, 35) have further refined this picture
and elaborated the basic functions computed in these different areas. Figure 4B provides more
detail on this functional separation in the visual system, which is at the core of the neural
binding problem, one of our mysteries.
The visual area V1, our main concern for the stable world experience and the subject of Figure
3, is shown as the yellow area on the left of Figure 4A (as area 17) and as the magenta area in
Figure 4B. Notice that V1 is the largest of the visual areas; this will be important for our
discussion.
There are two additional lessons to be gleaned from Figure 4 above. First, 4A shows that the
functionality of the cerebral cortex is basically known (5, 27, 35) – there is no large available
space for neural computation of currently mysterious phenomena. In addition, various aspects
of our visual experience are primarily computed in distinct and often distant interacting circuits.
For example, in Figure 4B color calculation is based in the bright green area V4v and motion
calculation involves several areas: V3, V3A, MT, etc. In spite of this extreme separation of
function, we experience the world as an integrated image with objects that combine all visual
properties and even associate these with other senses like sound when appropriate. The
mystery of how this happens is called the “hard binding problem” (3).
There are two immediate challenges to address in “the experience of the stable visual world”:
apparent stability over saccades and the detailed perception of the full visual field. One popular
idea is to suppose that the perceived full field is pieced together as a mosaic of “bull’s-eye”
views (Figure 3) from many saccades. There are two serious flaws in this story, one temporal
and one spatial, as an explanation of the experience. We only make about 3~4 saccades per
second – this is too slow for stable vision (movies are ~ 20 frames per second). In addition, 3
or 4 such images would not yield nearly enough detailed information to build a detailed full field
view.

In addition, it would require a huge area of visual neurons to encode the detailed full field view
that we subjectively perceive. We can give a quantitative estimate of what is involved. There
are a number of alternative calculations, but they all confirm the basic point that fine resolution
over a large visual field would require brain area several times larger than V1 (Figure 4).
Stan Klein, who has looked extensively at this issue, suggests the following analysis focusing
on the retinal ganglion cells –RGC. The key equations from (14) are:
Thr(Ecc) = Thr(fovea)*(1 + Ecc/E2) or
Sep(Ecc) = Sep(fovea)*(1 + Ecc/E2)
where Thr (or Sep) is threshold (or separation) in minutes.
and Ecc is eccentricity in deg
and E2 is the eccentricity at which Thr or Sep double.
E2 is the number of degrees of eccentricity at which the spacing of V1 neurons or
ganglion cells double. Levi et al. (14) found E2=0.7 deg for cortical cells and is about 1.0
deg for ganglion cells. That is, for ganglion cells the spacing would be s = 0.5 (Ecc + 1)
min so at Ecc=0 the spacing is about 0.5 min and at 20 deg it is about 10 min, 20 times
as much. This calculation suggests that it might require 20 times as much V1 area to
capture the precision of the fovea out to 20 deg of visual angle.
From a slightly different perspective, the cortical magnification factor says that the resolution at
20 degrees eccentricity is 20 times worse than at the foveal projection. This is because of
retinal under-sampling in the periphery; the detailed information is only captured at the fovea of
the retina (13). Also, the dense neural circuits in the V1 foveal projection has about 200,000
cells per square mm, while at 20 degrees out it is more like 4,000 cells per square mm (15).
This is a factor of 50:1 denser in the V1 foveal projection than in the periphery. The V1 foveal
projection occupies about a quarter of region on the left in Figure 4. For the brain to encode
our detailed perception out to 20 degrees would require an area roughly 12 times the size of
V1. There is no way that an area nearly this large could fit into Figure 4. The remarkable recent
advances (27, 35) describing a much more detailed parcellation of human cerebral cortex
provides even stronger evidence against unknown visual areas.
We can also consider the evidence from the hundreds of full-brain scanning experiments that
are exploring which brain locations are active for various vision tasks (16, 17, 18, 35). This
precludes the possibility that a network large enough to capture a detailed image could remain
undetected.
In summary, as long as we believe that more detail requires more neurons, there is no place
in the brain that could encode a basis for the detailed large field image that we experience.
This analysis disproves more than the idea of unknown brain circuitry that underlies our stable
world experience. It also refutes any plausible substrate for other proposals such as complete
“remapping” which suggest that all of the information from one saccade is (somehow) mapped
to the input coming from the next saccade (7, p.557).
The binding problem (3, 41) is a closely related mystery of vision that we can consider, also
based on Figure 4. Although the full computational story is more complex, it is the case that

different visual features are largely computed in separate brain areas. However, we experience
the world as coherent entities combining various properties such as size, shape, color, texture,
motion, etc. (39). Again, there is no place in the brain that could encode a detailed substrate
for what we effortlessly perceive. This also suggests that our subjective perception (somehow)
integrates activity from different brain circuits. Various forms of the binding problem are also
the subject of ongoing research (3, 19)

A Touchstone for alternative brain theories
The discussion above is based on the standard theory (20) that information processing in the
brain is based on complex networks of neurons that communicate over long distances mainly
by electrical spikes and learn mainly through changes in the connections (synapses) between
neurons. This theory also includes a wide range of other chemical and developmental factors,
but none that would affect the basic results above.
However, there are a number of alternative proposals that deny the centrality of standard
neural computation and several of these are being actively discussed (21, 22, 23); two good
sources for a wide range of alternative models are the Journal of Consciousness Studies and
http://consciousness.arizona.edu. One reason for this interest in alternative theories is that
everyone agrees that the current standard theory does not support a reductionist explanation
of historic mind-brain problems like subjective experience and consciousness. The standard
theory continues to yield scientific and clinical progress, so any new proposal should be
consistent with it.
Alternative ideas on the basis for brain information processing include quantum effects (28)
and central roles for the glia, for the neuropil, or for microtubules. All of the suggestions for
some sub-neural substrate for perception suffer from the same problem – the only known
mechanism for the requisite fast long-distance communication in the brain is neural spikes.
More general architectural suggestions include global workspace model (40) and the Tononi
information model (21). Many proposals suggest some unspecified mass action of neural
assemblies, following a long tradition (23). Cohen et al. (26) show how known results on
summary statistics and peripheral vision explain some of people’s ability to get the “gist” of a
scene without capturing all of the detail of subjective perception. After extensive analysis and
modeling of peripheral vision and what she calls "the awareness puzzle", Rosenholtz (42)
concludes that "Perception is inherently something of an illusion".
Edwards (25) suggests another approach – unified perception (and consciousness) is based
on wave patterns in the membranes of individual cells. All of these ideas presuppose that
there is some substrate (NCC) for subjective experience in the brain, but there are also more
radical theories like that of Alva Noe (22). He claims to explain how "we enjoy an experience of
worldly detail that is not present in our brains". Starting from a standard argument that utilities
are the basis for perception, Hoffman (33) suggests that: “Your apple and my apple are
distinct, just as your headache is distinct from my headache. Something in the objective world
triggers us both to perceive an apple, but whatever that thing might be in the objective world, it
is almost certainly nonspatial, nontemporal, and in no way resembles an apple”

Since the deep mind-brain phenomena of most common interest are not well defined, it has
not been straightforward to evaluate any of these suggested alternatives to the standard model
of neural computation. The findings described above could yield concrete touchstone
problems for proposed theories of representation, computation, and communication in the
brain. Both the binding problem and the experience of a detailed stable visual scene are
ubiquitous in daily life, are functionally necessary, and have clear informational requirements.
We could ask proponents of speculative brain models how their theory could account for these
two concrete phenomena. That is, assume your theory is true and show how it helps explain
these (or other) touchstone problems. I have done this informally with several leading
proponents of alternative models and have never heard even a vague claim of adequacy.
The general acceptance of some such touchstone tasks could sharpen the discussion of
information processing in the brain. Of course, the deep mind-brain problem remains a
mystery, but we should expect proposed models of neural computation to address some of the
concrete touchstone problems, like those discussed here.

Experiments
We have shown that existing neuroscience cannot address all the basic questions of
subjective experience. Of course, very productive communities are working on many aspects
of cognitive and perceptual neuroscience. There is a wide range of motivations for these
efforts, but these do not usually include trying to elucidate remaining mysteries, such as the
ones discussed here. There are risks involved in attacking difficult problems and relatively few
such efforts in the current stressful research environment.
Nevertheless, there is some research that is making progress on demystifying some of the
mysteries of subjective experience. In the Fall of 2017, a UC Berkeley interdisciplinary
seminar course explored “Science and Subjectivity “ http://rctn.org/wiki/VS298:_Subjectivity .
This web site for the course contains references and video lecture recordings for a wide range
of research that pushes on the boundary between routine science and remaining mysteries.
Week 3 contains lecture and discussion on the material in this article. The web site also
includes presentations and discussion by Michael Cohen, Jerry Feldman, Rich Ivry, Stan Klein,
Bob Knight, Christof Koch, Ken Nakayama, Brian Odegaard, Bruno Olshausen, Terry Regier,
Shin Shimojo, and Peter Tse. If there is a scientific explanation of these mysteries, it will need
to be an evolutionary story, so it should be fruitful to focus on a wide range of animals (36, 38)
Conclusions
There is general agreement that there are mysteries about the world and our place in it that
are not yet understood. Even radical materialists will concede that there are questions (e.g.
free will) that might never have scientific solutions. Nevertheless, it is not widely understood
that, every time we open our eyes, we experience phenomena that cannot be explained with
existing neuroscience and possibly not with any science.

As thinkers, we have no choice but to acknowledge that we do not know and may never know
the answers to many deep questions about the world and ourselves (24). There are two basic
ways to learn about the physical and social world: investigation and stories. Science is a
uniquely powerful tool of investigation, but is limited in scope at least at present. Of course,
there remains a vast amount that can and should be explored and exploited scientifically.
Stories can provide insights that are not directly testable, and this is certainly also important in
science. The stories in art, mythology, religion, etc. have been and will remain powerful
sources of guidance about how to live.
Initial attempts to convey the ideas in this note have not been very successful. I find that
scientists have a strong negative reaction to my simple demonstrations. On the other hand,
philosophers and humanists welcome any attack on reductionism. However, it seems like both
responses are mainly territorial. It does not appear to be too much of a stretch to view the
(Eastern or Western) religious practitioners as another special interest group. It is certainly true
that all these groups have emotional/spiritual as well as financial/power stakes in the big
questions, but there does not seem to be much support for the agnostic mysterian position "we
simply don't know".
Everyone is entitled to his or her own (religious or other) beliefs, but there is nothing in our
current ignorance that privileges one faith over all others. Belief in the inevitability of complete
scientific answers (8, 21, 30) is one such faith. There are beliefs (e.g. about the age of the
Earth) that contradict established scientific knowledge and cannot be taken seriously.
Somewhat surprisingly, there seems to be little support in cognitive and neuro science for "we
simply don't know". This is despite the fact "we simply don't know and may never know" is the
accepted response in physics for some fundamental questions. What has been most surprising
is how many people prefer believing there must be an (inscrutable) reductionist answer rather
than accepting the agnostic stance. Even philosophers, who consider the mind/brain problem
as a possible feature of nature, try to prove their contention rather than leave it as one
possibility (8). This all might be related to recent findings suggesting an innate human drive to
find answers for unanswerable questions (32).
Nevertheless, in the face of all that is unknown, we (following the physicists) would do well to
appreciate both what is scientifically known and also the mysteries that remain. Ideally, results
like those above will encourage theory and experiment on questions at the boundaries
between the known and unknown.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported in part by the Office of Naval Research under Grant N000141110416
and by a grant from Google.
References
1. Four frames suffice: A provisional model of vision and space. Jerome A. Feldman
THE BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (1985) Volume 8 / Issue 02 / July 1985, pp 265- 289
2. Integration of form across saccadic eye movements. Hayhoe, M.; Lachter, J.; Feldman, J. Perception,
Vol. 20, No. 3, 01.12.1991, p. 393-402.

3. The neural binding problem(s), Jerome Feldman Cognitive Neurodynamics. February 2013, Volume
7, Issue 1, pp 1-11
4. Functional anatomy of macaque striate cortex. Tootell RB, Silverman MS, Hamilton SL, Switkes E,
De Valois RL., Spatial frequency. J Neurosci. 1988 May; 8(5):1610-24.
5. A Population-Average, Landmark- and Surface-based (PALS) atlas of human cerebral cortex. Van
Essen DC1. Neuroimage 2005 Nov 15;28(3):635-62.
6. “Visual Stability” Proc. Trans Royal Society B February 2011, David Melcher (ed.)
Volume: 366 Issue: 1564 DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0277
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1564/468
7. Computational models of spatial updating in perisaccadic perception. Hamker F. H., Zirnsak M.,
Ziesche A, Lappe M. 2011. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 366, 554–571. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0229
(doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0229)
8. The Hard Problem of Consciousness. Weisberg, J. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/hard-con/
9. Transsaccadic processing: stability, integration, and the potential role of remapping. Higgins E,
Rayner K., Atten Percept Psychophys (2015) 77:3–27
10. Brain circuits underlying visual stability across eye movements-converging evidence for a
neuro-computational model of area LIP. Ziesche A, Hamker FH. (2014) Front Comput Neurosci
8:25.
11. Saccadic Corollary Discharge Underlies Stable Visual Perception. James Cavanaugh,
Rebecca A. Berman, Wilsaan M. Joiner, Robert H. Wurtz. Journal of Neuroscience, 6 January
2016, 36(1): 31-42; doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2054-15.2016
12. Cognitive Science should be unified: comment on Griffiths et al. and McClelland et al Feldman
JA. Trends Cogn Sci. 2010 Aug;14(8):341. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.008. Epub 2010 Jun 17.
13. Cortical magnification within human primary visual cortex correlates with acuity thresholds.
Duncan RO1, Boynton GM. Neuron. 2003 May 22;38(4):659-71.
14. Vernier acuity, crowding and cortical magnification. Levi DM, Klein SA, Aitsebaomo AP
(1985) Vision Res. 25(7):963-77.
15. Modeling magnification and anisotropy in the primate foveal confluence. Schira MM1, Tyler
CW, Spehar B, Breakspear, M.PLoS Comput Biol. 2010 Jan 29;6(1):e1000651. doi:
10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000651.

16. Borders of multiple visual areas in humans revealed by functional magnetic resonance
imaging. Sereno MI, Dale AM, Reppas JB, Kwong KK, Belliveau JW, Brady TJ, Rosen BR,
Tootell RB. Science. 1995 May 12;268(5212):889-93.
17. The global landscape of cognition: hierarchical aggregation as an organizational principle of
human cortical networks and functions. Taylor P1,2, Hobbs JN1, Burroni J1 SiegelmannHT1,2.2015
Dec 16;5:18112. doi: 10.1038/srep18112.
18. The economy of brain network organization. Bullmore E1, Sporns O. Nat Rev Neurosci 2012 Apr
13;13(5):336-49. doi: 10.1038/nrn3214.
19. Feature- and Face-Exchange illusions: new insights and applications for the study of the
binding problem. Arthur G. Shapiro1, Gideon P. Caplovitz2 and Erica L. Dixon1. Front. Hum.
Neurosci., 16 October 2014 | http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00804
20. Sense and the single neuron: Probing the physiology of perception.
Parker, AJ and Newsome, WT (1998). Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 21: 227-77.
21. Consciousness: Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist, C. Koch. The MIT Press, (2012),
ISBN 978-0-262-01749-7
22. Out of Our Heads: Why You Are Not Your Brain, and Other Lessons from the Biology of
Consciousness , Alva Noë Hill and Wang 2009
ISBN-13: 978-0809016488
23. From the Neuron Doctrine to Neural Networks. Rafael Yuste, Nature Reviews Neuroscience .
v16, August 2015, pp487-496.
24. Science and the Indian Tradition: When Einstein Met Tagore (India in the Modern World).
David L. Gosling. Routledge; (2007) ISBN-13: 978-0415481342
25. Is Consciousness Only A Property Of Individual Cells? Jonathan CW Edwards
Journal of Consciousness Studies, Volume 12, No.4-5, pp60-76
26. What is the bandwidth of perceptual experience? Cohen et al. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2016.03.006
27. . A Multi-modal Parcellation of Human Cerebral Cortex. Glasser, M.F. et al Nature DOI:
10.1038/nature18933
28. Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory Hameroff,S., Penrose, R.
Physics of Life Reviews, Volume 11, Issue 1, March 2014, Pages 39-78
29. No-Report Paradigms: Extracting the True Neural Correlates of Consciousness. Tsuchiya,
Naotsugu et al. , Trends in Cognitive Sciences , Volume 19 , Issue 12 , 757 – 770. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.002

30. Freedom Evolves, Dennett, D.C., Viking Press 2003 ISBN 0-670-03186-0
31. WHO 'S IN CHARGE? Free Will and the Science of the Brain. Michael S.
Gazzaniga. HarperCollins, 2011 ISBN: 978-0-06-190610-7
32. Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought, Pascal Boyer
Basic Books, 2002, ISBN 0-465-00696-5.
33. Public Objects and Private Qualia, Donald Hoffman, in Handbook of Experimental
Phenomenology, L. Albertazzi (Ed) , 2013, Wiley, ISBN 978-1-119-95468.
34. Word Superiority Effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_superiority_effect
35. The ventral visual pathway: an expanded neural framework for the processing of object
quality. Kravitz DJ1, Saleem KS, Baker CI, Ungerleider LG, Mishkin M.
Trends Cogn Sci. 2013 Jan; 17(1):26-49. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2012.10.011.
36. What insects can tell us about the origins of consciousness
Andrew B. Barrona and Colin Kleinb
4900–4908 | PNAS | May 3, 2016 | vol. 113 | no. 18
37. Consciousness and the Brain, Dehaene, S. Viking, 2014.
38. Other Minds : The Octopus, the Sea, and the Deep Origins of Consciousness, Godfrey-Smith,
P., 2016, Farrar, Straus, and Giroux
39. Visual stability based on remapping of attention pointers, Cavanagh, P., A. R. Hunt, A. Afraz
and M. Rolfs. Trends in Cognitive Sciences Vol.14 No.4, 147-153
40. Global Workspace Theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_workspace_theory
41. The Binding Problem, Roskies, A. Neuron, ISSN: 0896-6273, Vol: 24, Issue: 1, Page: 7-9
1999
42. What modern vision science reveals about the awareness puzzle: Summary-statistic encoding
plus decision limits underlie the richness of visual perception and its quirky failures Rosenholtz,
R. 2017 arXiv:1706.02764

