The light is in our eyes...

DaveC426913 said:
What? We don't have infinite resolution!

There is a minimum angle of resolution that we can see. Pixels are irrelevant.

Eagles have a resolving power 4 to times times greater than humans. It is estimated that an eagle can resolve a rabbit at 2 miles distance.
Click to expand...
true .. but you are talking about focus and sharpness.

I am referring to granulation of space, and substance...

Like the difference between celluloid film and digital recordings (infinite gradient and pixelized gradient)
 
QQ, what is your point or premise? That we can't actually see? There is no unanswered question here (except perhaps here in woo land).

Is the answer, possibly, that you just don't know what you are talking about and don't really care to?
 
One can only imagine what it would be like to have a noticeable time lag as one turned their line of sight and added light intensity and color adaptation to it..

Weird for sure....
 
Quantum Quack said:
true .. but you are talking about focus and sharpness.

I am referring to granulation of space, and substance...

Like the difference between celluloid film and digital recordings (infinite gradient and pixelized gradient)
Click to expand...
No, I am talking about the number of individual light receivers per unit area.
That is, literally, resolution.

What's confusing you is that pixels have well-defined boundaries with dead spaces between them and line up on a grid.
Our receptors are not on a grid, and they overlap.
It may look like you see infinite resolution, but it is not.
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
Double shite! I think you need to read your own links a bit more thoroughly.

The article you link to talks about the speed of info transfer being estimated at 30 times faster. It does not delve into the actual speed of processing that data. If we had to wait for a (variable) moment to reconstruct our visual field we would experience a lag.
Do you experience a lag in reconstructing your visual field as you move your line of sight left to right for example? ( I am not talking about comprehension but more about what it is you are attempting to comprehend)


It fails to address my point, except in support of it by default, which is the reconstruction of depth of field to an infinite resolution. ( do you see pixels in the real? - Nope!)

How long would it take a super computer to reconstruct our field of view to the infinite resolution observed? ( no pixels)

"A typical TEPS benchmark requires computers to simulate a graph and search through it. That’s not possible with the brain,"

given the phenomenal ability our brains are deemed to have, performing the above would be trivial. As stated the brain can't do it.. so go ahead... prove my point.

There are at least two points of contention mentioned in my previous post:

and all you can imply is that you are currently happy with the idea that we do indeed appear to have god like reconstructive abilities. Apart from being obviously and absurdly impossible it is also incredibly inefficient.
Click to expand...
So you think there is a perpetual log jam situation? Nope. Of course the human brain is poor at some tasks easily performed by even a modest PC - like performing maths calculations. But it is supremely efficient at what it needs to be - visual perception being prime example. The fact billions of humans all see essentially the same way just testifies to the reliability of the basic model. If you want to drill down to fine details, no two individuals would have precisely the same visual capacity - but such fine differences don't generally matter. Except for specialized fields where say a fighter pilot has to have exceptional capacity to take in a scene and quickly and accurately assess exactly what is going on and how to instantly react.
Just where you get the idea of 'infinite resolution' from I don't know, but seems it's based on that we don't 'see pixels' therefore 'pixel density' must be infinite! Err, no. How about simply a case of the brain employing interpolation and smoothing? Sounds reasonable? Hope so.
 
Quantum Quack said:
I suggest you reread your wiki link and ask yourself:
"What is missing?" (excuse the pun.... missing.. vacant space, void, emptiness :) )
Click to expand...
Well I don't know what your definition of 'missing' is QQ. What do you think is missing there - important and relevant info I mean.
 
Q-reeus said:
So you think there is a perpetual log jam situation? Nope. Of course the human brain is poor at some tasks easily performed by even a modest PC - like performing maths calculations. But it is supremely efficient at what it needs to be - visual perception being prime example. The fact billions of humans all see essentially the same way just testifies to the reliability of the basic model. If you want to drill down to fine details, no two individuals would have precisely the same visual capacity - but such fine differences don't generally matter. Except for specialized fields where say a fighter pilot has to have exceptional capacity to take in a scene and quickly and accurately assess exactly what is going on and how to instantly react.
Just where you get the idea of 'infinite resolution' from I don't know, but seems it's based on that we don't 'see pixels' therefore 'pixel density' must be infinite! Err, no. How about simply a case of the brain employing interpolation and smoothing? Sounds reasonable? Hope so.
Click to expand...
but do you experience a processing caused time lag ?
 
Q-reeus said:
Well I don't know what your definition of 'missing' is QQ. What do you think is missing there - important and relevant info I mean.
Click to expand...
time lag allowing for processing such an enormous amount of new data is missing for one...
 
Quantum Quack said:
Double shite! I think you need to read your own links a bit more thoroughly.

The article you link to talks about the speed of info transfer being estimated at 30 times faster. It does not delve into the actual speed of processing that data. If we had to wait for a (variable) moment to reconstruct our visual field we would experience a lag.
Do you experience a lag in reconstructing your visual field as you move your line of sight left to right for example? ( I am not talking about comprehension but more about what it is you are attempting to comprehend)


It fails to address my point, except in support of it by default, which is the reconstruction of depth of field to an infinite resolution. ( do you see pixels in the real? - Nope!)

How long would it take a super computer to reconstruct our field of view to the infinite resolution observed? ( no pixels)

"A typical TEPS benchmark requires computers to simulate a graph and search through it. That’s not possible with the brain,"

given the phenomenal ability our brains are deemed to have, performing the above would be trivial. As stated the brain can't do it.. so go ahead... prove my point.

There are at least two points of contention mentioned in my previous post:

and all you can imply is that you are currently happy with the idea that we do indeed appear to have god like reconstructive abilities. Apart from being obviously and absurdly impossible it is also incredibly inefficient.
Click to expand...

It is clearly possible because we know it happens. The question is how it happens which we do not yet completely understand. We are learning more & more. Most of what is stated in this thread is recent knowledge. Hopefully we will learn much more.
Is there something to it we would not suspect at this time? Maybe.
Stop saying it is impossible.
Are you trying to say it is evidence of gods or what?

<>
 
Quantum Quack said:
How is that relevant?
All you have done is suggest just another aspect that has to be processed further adding to any processing time lag, Which has not been proven to exist.
Click to expand...
Sigh. I think you need to have a mystery aspect to the subject QQ. Have a nice rest of the day.:biggrin:
 
Look.. it isn't that difficult...
rhetorical questions:

How long does it take for a camera to create a 2 dimensional image of the field it is exposed to? not long...
When panning a camera from left to right the data is recorded almost immediately with little delay.

But this is merely a recording of what is there not a reconstruction.

For the camera to reconstruct the field of exposure and then record it would take how long?
Obviously way too long to function in any way useful... IMO
 
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
It is clearly possible because we know it happens. The question is how it happens which we do not yet completely understand.
Click to expand...
If you mean processing and reconstructing so much data...no we don't know that it happens we only theorize that it happens. I am suggesting that it has not been evidenced that we have that god like capacity. That the light effect theories that drive the notion are themselves questionable for surely we see what we see...
 
Quantum Quack said:
If you mean processing and reconstructing so much data...no we don't know that it happens we only theorize that it happens. I am suggesting that it has not been evidenced that we have that god like capacity. That the light effect theories that drive the notion are themselves questionable for surely we see what we see...
Click to expand...

We do know it happens.
Why do you call it god like?

<>
 
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
We do know it happens.
Why do you call it god like?

<>
Click to expand...
Given the amount of time required to recreate what we later claim to see and the absence of such time lag being evidenced, tell you straight away that there is a problem not with our visual experience but with the theories that attempt to explain it.
It is impossible for us to process that amount of data continuously with out any significant time being experienced.. to do so would make us all God like. ( paranormal)
 
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
We do know it happens.
Click to expand...
Just to be specific and clarify:

What do you know happens?

It takes time to do the recreating and there is no evidence of that time being needed so...therefore there is no recreating needed.

We are just an organic 4 d motion recording device ( just like a camera) no creation needed.
 
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
Just to be specific and clarify :
Why do you call it god like?

<>
Click to expand...
Most persons reading this Physics and math fora are not inclined towards the reality or not of an existent unproven God.... to use the term God like in this context is to say to those readers that what science is proposing is tantamount to granting humans god like abilities ( impossible - non-existent)
It's a deliberate conflation on my part highlighting what I perceive as significant irony.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top