What resolution do people see? - Page 7 - Science and Technology - HWzone Forums
adplus-dvertising
Skip to content
  • Create an account
  • About Us

    Hello Guest!

     
    Please note - in order to participate in our community, comment and open new discussions, you must join as a registered member.

    Our members enjoy many advantages, including the ability to participate in discussions, enjoy raffles and promotions for members of the site, and receive our weekly content directly by email.

    Do not like being harassed by email? You can register for the site but do not submit your registration to the weekly email updates.

What resolution do people see?


exXxTreAm

Recommended Posts

  • תגובות 121
  • Opens on
  • Last comment

Prominent participants in the discussion

Prominent participants in the discussion

You're wrong, and you know that.

Let's take it to other layers - how, with the help of an algorithm, Make your computer self-aware?

How will you teach him the difference between the sentence "I love hummus" and "I love Rina"? Does this mean that Rina also comes to me to wipe?

The Turing test also has no computer and no algorithm can pass. Even if he can decipher the text correctly, he will not be able to understand it, or its hidden meanings. A computer does not understand, it "tries" all options until it can find one that matches a particular pattern.

A computer today can not recognize a person's face after five years and with an increase in the cheek unless you program it.

I quote David Harel of the Weizmann Institute, who said: "An average person who is put into a television studio will recognize the place within five seconds, but the world's most powerful computer will not be able to come to a conclusion on the spot even after a month of searching. "

(http://www.notes.co.il/carmi/1218.asp)

In short, man is allowed from the computer, our brain is not a computer brain, and does not work in a similar way. point.

And I would be very happy to get a link to a program that competes well with the Turing test. I need one.

How do you think she will translate the sentence:

"THE GIRL PLAYS THE PIANO REAL NICE" to Hebrew?

Link to content
Share on other sites

Once a person does not notice the cuts in the film say it is the limit, and it is usually in the range of 25-30 frames per second. Will answer if you run to a person 45 Within a second

So technically either the eye or the brain will not work all 45 . And I did not understand someone here knows or not what is the rate of refreshment or say a rate at which the receivers are ready to receive light in a second?

And we're talking here because another site on the subject will not have an answer to exactly all the questions, and there will be no one to ask there because the information is already listed wherever it is, and until we find a site with an article where exactly the answer to the questions people here will take indefinitely.

The brain in simple superficial straight calculations (do not know how to define it) is much higher than a human brain. Our advantage comes in other types of calculations, as mentioned in the issue of identification.

Say when we recognize an object and the brain knows what that bone is, it's where it brings it to the surface and we know right now what we're looking at.

However a computer to detect an object will have to go through its entire image repository to match, no matter how fast the computer will take a long time, and the longer the computer the more knowledge.

When we search for a word in a dictionary (which is a simple calculation) it will take us longer. Although we use the same calculation method as the computer after the letter "a" comes "in" and after "in" "c". And when we say we search the computer for an indexed word just clicking on a particular letter it straight brings us to a line where all the words start with the same letter, much faster.

Which means the computer recognizes in parts. Would answer if they were programming the computer to identify animals say and he would not try in the database to look for a whole character of that life, these start from the mouth say find appropriate and then straight would disqualify other mouths of other animals, then move to the next cut "head" once again disqualifies all Inappropriate heads.

In such a situation the computer would detect animals faster than a human. Is that the process of matching on a computer becomes like searching for words in an index.

But everything has to be divided into groups, for each group we have to set for the computer the extreme difference between the objects within the group itself, and consider that the object can be the opposite of its natural state, that it is in the end full full full work, and no 1 will mess with it.

Which means we are not "smart" enough to create a more complex computer than us. So think how smart we must be the ones who created us, and technically it's as an axiom

It seems to me we should be much more limited in understanding than those who created us.

For the eyes - most cases where the lung is knocked out as a result of increased use of the eyes (seems to be my logic) and here they said it is related to the muscles that are contracted will be done after focusing,

Then practicing the finished muscles will finish them off even more. It's like walking more than the maximum where the knees are already starting to hurt so that the knees do not hurt.

Maybe it depends on every area of ​​the body, because when the monks strengthen their fists and knock for weeks on a phone book until they make a hole in it and then move on to the boards, it actually strengthens their bones.

How does a lost mirror, it center and focus an image on the center of the eye lens? And thus basically the image does not move in the distorted places where the muscles do not have enough strength to group will be lent to a suitable state on which we want to focus?

You can not ask such things as ophthalmologists, starting to philosophize with them is like a ceiling that fell on them for them. And they are pretty adherents who answer everything technically and in a limited way, and it does not help when programs already know.

About Whose name I know only a case I saw on channel 8, and there in general were in the state of sending signals that will be interpreted in the brain as lines and each line it numbers, will answer 2 lines equal to 2.

This single electric decoding I saw then discovered, in 1999 maybe I saw.

Ever since they have wired wires to nerves and sent the right electrical signals?

I started writing mine at 22: 20+ everything after that I did not read at the time of writing. Payment for the flies will be added to the Boston account    : Lol:

Link to content
Share on other sites

You're wrong, and you know that.

Let's take it to other layers - how, with the help of an algorithm, Make your computer self-aware?

How will you teach him the difference between the sentence "I love hummus" and "I love Rina"? Does this mean that Rina also comes to me to wipe?

The Turing test also has no computer and no algorithm can pass. Even if he can decipher the text correctly, he will not be able to understand it, or its hidden meanings. A computer does not understand, it "tries" all options until it can find one that matches a particular pattern.

A computer today can not recognize a person's face after five years and with an increase in the cheek unless you program it.

I quote David Harel of the Weizmann Institute, who said: "An average person who is put into a television studio will recognize the place within five seconds, but the world's most powerful computer will not be able to come to a conclusion on the spot even after a month of searching. "

(http://www.notes.co.il/carmi/1218.asp)

In short, man is allowed from the computer, our brain is not a computer brain, and does not work in a similar way. point.

And I would be very happy to get a link to a program that competes well with the Turing test. I need one.

How do you think she will translate the sentence:

"THE GIRL PLAYS THE PIANO REAL NICE" to Hebrew?

I love you

I do not have the strength to relate to everything you said that stems from a lack of basic understanding and it is understandable that you did not learn the subject

Just a small question

How old are you?

Link to content
Share on other sites

The brain is in simple straight-to-life calculations (do not know how to define it) much higher than a human brain. Our advantage lies in calculations of a different kind, as they mentioned the subject of identification.

Say when we recognize an object and the brain knows what that bone is, it's where it brings it to the surface and we know right now what we're looking at.

This computer is verified to identify the need for a product to go through its entire image repository until the match, and it does not matter how fast the computer will take a lot of time, and more time as the computer knows more.

When we look for a word in the dictionary (which is a simple calculation) it will take us more time. Even though we use the same calculation method as the computer after the letter "A" in "B" and after "B" "C". And when we say we search the computer for a word in the index just click on a particular letter is straight brings us to the line in which all the words begin with the same letter, much faster.

Remember in case of pressure you should have quickly found a solution to a particular problem. Did you notice, after that, that your mind thought at a terrifying speed much higher than when you think in words. It happened to me once, and then I analyzed how I got to a solution and the road was pretty long. By the way, I'm not talking about solving a problem in math, but for example finding an excuse for a teacher or giving a quick explanation to a question and formulating it as well as thinking about a solution to a problem like something is happening and you have to immediately respond and find a creative solution.

editing: I did

Link to content
Share on other sites

^^^

But why would you have to cite the rule for his long message?

Please edit your message so that it contains only the relevant quote.

To the eyes - most cases where the lung is knocked is as a result of increased use of the eyes (seems to be my logic)

why do you think so?

As I said, "increased use" can only cause fatigue of the eyes and a temporary problem. The myth is who sees Close-up or sitting too much in front of the computer is not (completely) true. These actions simply strain the eyes unnecessarily, and can cause temporary injury - but if the eye is restful, the situation will return to normal. Last time I was at the ophthalmologist's, she said if I stopped seeing And use my computer for a week, my number will be reduced a bit.

 And here they said it has to do with the muscles that are contracted will lend that focus on focus, so practicing the finished muscles will finish them off even more. It's like walking more than the maximum where the knees are already starting to hurt so that the knees do not hurt.

Some nonsense ...

The exercises are more of relaxation exercises and practice, not stress.

And a general comment - I would like to remain on the topic of the subject rather than surfing the subject of computer processing capabilities ...

Link to content
Share on other sites

As for the "erosion" of the eyes in "tired" actions, such as watching television or a computer closely or reading in the dark, it is true that what they know today is temporary.

Humans see video (Baruch Hashem), video gives you an interpolation of the situation and here is an example: see a video of someone talking. He does not seem to make strange faces at all, but if we stop for a moment we'll see him in strange situations. The strange thing is that it applies to the vast majority of the frames in the segment.

Another example of interpolation (not related to video) is images with fog. Those who have taken photographs know that in a picture of a mountain that began from a certain part, it is covered with fog, with a normal eye the situation will look much better than the picture of exactly the same situation.

But anyone who thinks technology is not approaching the human limit of vision is probably wrong. There is no HDTV in the country but there are examples on the site: http://www.wmvhd.com. Note that you have a strong enough computer and a screen with enough detail (1600 on 1200 will not suffice with some clips). Not really perfect, but a big step towards.

Another example of sound: CD sound very close to the boundary of diagnosis of the human ear in terms of sound fidelity and even passes it when it comes to detail in the wave of sound (in fact the maximum frequency that the ear can hear). The sound of vinyl discs was even a little better - and that was more than a year ago from 30! Records released on Are supposed to sound even better.

Who knows, maybe another year 30 (but my opinion before) will be So good that we will not have to improve the quality as it is visible (but other things)

Link to content
Share on other sites

I think you're missing out on one thing.

A man born, born with a huge amount of information, and this amount is used to develop his abilities in the future. It is not a blank page that learns from itself everything.

I have no doubt that if anyone finds the appropriate algorithms of self-study and heating, it will be possible to program / raise a computer that will be similar in behavior to a human / animal.

It's not the computer that is limited, it's the limited ones who do not understand ourselves enough to program a computer.

Link to content
Share on other sites

I think you're missing out on one thing.

A man born, born with a huge amount of information, and this amount is used to develop his abilities in the future. It is not a blank page that learns from itself everything.

I have no doubt that if anyone finds the appropriate algorithms of self-study and heating, it will be possible to program / raise a computer that will be similar in behavior to a human / animal.

It's not the computer that is limited, it's the limited ones who do not understand ourselves enough to program a computer.

??? : s05: : nono:

A person is born completely "empty" ... without any Or innate ability - can be seen as pure "hardware." He will learn everything he knows from the environment, while his "hardware" will also change according to the stimuli presented to him. According to scholars today, intelligence is determined by 70% of environmental stimuli, while 30 is a legacy.

Can you give me one piece of information and her "know" a newborn baby ??? He is completely automatic at this point in his life!

Link to content
Share on other sites

Can you give me one piece of information and her "know" a newborn baby ??? He is completely automatic at this point in his life!

He knows the diving reflex

He knows how to nurse

He can cry (seriously)

It is not true that a baby is born without any knowledge

Link to content
Share on other sites

You are a little contradictory in the trial -

Reflex is an involuntary act of involuntary contraction (involuntary contraction of the muscle, but enough involuntary action), and therefore certainly not thought. Can I say that I can kick while the doctor knocks me with a hammer?

All the other steps described are reflexes as well.

A baby does not move its legs or suckle out of knowing but out of a conditioned leg - which is a kind of reflex.

The baby does not know if he will serve the nipple in his mouth and suck - he will find milk. Not even after a number of lactations, but this is inherent in him just as the boss is burned on the computer.

On the contrary,

        Open a computer that can suck and see how far it will go! ;)

Link to content
Share on other sites

ארכיון

This discussion has been archived and new comments can not be added.


  • Latest news

  • Buzz-Zone: Everything hot on the net

×
  • Create new ...

At the top of the news:

new on the site