Would this observations be enough to develop artificial sight/interpretation?

Question

Sight and interpretation is a matter of efficiency. We (or our brains) must understand what we are seeing as fast as possible...

1. When you pay attention to something, the observed object looks clear, and any surrounding object looks kind of blurry.

2. We store memories of how things look, so when we look at something we don't waste time analyzing it, but rather unsusual details jump to our attention.

Any other?

Answer 1

We see things as objects and not sense-data mediated by our sensation or cognition.

The way something appears is often in conjunction with what we can do with it, how we are oriented to it in virtue of our tactile repertoire, or an instrument of thought interceding on a tapestry of possible locutions.

The visual representation matters for us because of its possible use. We are atterntionally involved in that which we grasp with our sight. A perception of pain may be necessary.

Differntiation based on light and the reflection of light.

A background is necessary. But there may be indeterminacy between background and forground (focus is helpful but is not necessary in the determination).

Light comes in hue, shade, color; but surfaces are also glossy, flat, textured (several of a list which do not inhere in the color itself) which also confer information about the quality and position of an object.

Self-awareness or subjecthood.

If "vision" is meant in the weak sense that a mechanism can produce behaviors based on visual stimuli, then we are talking about physical effects without interpretation. The TV remote sends an infrared signal to the receiver which performs physical operations fixed by design. An elaborate robot has to map possible objects in a coordinate field, but it does not 'see' those objects it interacts with-- it follows algorithms embedded in its local physics.