There is no Homunculus, yet researchers keep searching for him/her (also, isn't this language sex segregation stupid - in e.g. Finnish it's simply 'hän')
Imaging data suggest that conscious perception has little to do with the primary visual cortex
Masataka Watanabe (University of Tokyo): The ability to consciously perceive a visual target proved surprisingly unimportant, and shifts in target awareness had no clear or consistent effect on the activity of this subset of neurons (V1). "I was quite surprised that there was zero modulation of awareness in V1. Even in monkey studies where the [animals] showed only 10% of their neurons being modulated, [those researchers] were nevertheless observing modulation. By comparison, no such awareness effect was observed in the human subjects. Many researchers favor a model in which functions pertaining consciousness are widely spread among the whole visual system, including V1. The classical model, which assumes that the neural mechanism of consciousness is integrated into a narrow subset of brain structures, referred to as a homunculus, or 'little human', is almost defunct. However, a modern version of this model is under debate. It proposes that the neural mechanism of consciousness is a privileged set of cortical areas, a subpopulation of neurons, or certain neural dynamics (e.g. oscillations); while there are also visual systems that have nothing to do with conscious vision.
Klevius comment: The main problem here is that people don't read EMAH. The findings show that awareness ('observation' in EMAH terminology) is not a factor in visual perception. There's a confusion in the use of the word "awareness" because of the stupid dividion in observation/understanding. We can't see anything we don't understand! Read EMAH, dude!