array9

Basically it takes a long time to fill in the moving picture of vision.  The band width and distances are bound to be restrictions of some sort.  So the brain has a problem to cope with dangerous situations.  But it has a lot of past history, and may have a knowledge of past events, which it already has available from a sepate channels.  These can be seen as additional channels to help speed  defense mechanisms.

I think the person is described as hallucinating for seeing things that cannot have come from the eye.  Depending on the scene, a huge amount of what he normally sees might be hallucinations.  Did the eye just see a chunk of grey colour moving through the trees?  But the person might say he saw a wood pigeon, and claim to see the wing bars.  I note elsewhere my view that bird experts falsely claim to see far more diagnostic features, than the average person.

The other example I would use is the sports person, who manages to do incredible shots, when the information about its current position has had no chance of reaching the brain yet.  I claim his vision includes a huge amount of hallucinations, representing previously gained knowledge.  Now you could claim other channels were used, but I think that is stupid, because hallucinations are a perfectly good existing channel integrated into the eyesight.

So the speed of reaction benefits from the compactness of the necessary elements.

Now I do not want to claim that batsmen will play the same stroke as he would have if he had perfect information, but I do claim he will not play the same shot as if he had no additional info.

This does tend to lead the good fives player to attempt a slightly less ambitious shot.

So overall I should not be surprised when I hallucinate.  It will depend on the extent and nature which determines if the is on the good or bad side.

Hope you enjoyed my break-through, having had quite a bit of experience. 

Martin