What resolution do people see? - Page 6 - Science and Technology - HWzone Forums
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?


Recommended Posts

1. After consultation with a physician - this can be said in both forms. The more common form is really "nests". Sorry for the deception.

2. The sentence you wrote in the 2 section is exactly what I claim. You say that it happens because the pupil expands and absorbs more light, and I say that due to the expansion of the pupil, the nest cells are exposed to the light and the night vision. Same.

You do not say the same thing. You're more right. Beyond the expansion of the pupil, even after it is extended to the maximum, you are still right. If you look at a bone directly, it will immediately be covered with opal, however if you look away, you will see it well. This can be quite frustrating at times, and this is due solely to the fact that in the center of the eye there are cells that absorb color mainly.

A few more interesting facts:

A. At night, substances that help to absorb light are sent to the eye, so it is necessary for the eye to "get used to" the dark. If you leave after a long period of time in the dark in the light of a strong day, you can go blind. There were quite a few stories about people on a dark road blinded by the sudden high light of a vehicle across the street.

B. The first transplantation of cameras has been successfully tested, if I am not mistaken at MIT. And in this context, the eye is For everything.

third. A newborn baby sees the opposite picture, as in a "dark box" in physics experiments who remembers. The rays of light come diagonally through the pupil, the upper beam reaches the lower "screen", and the lower one is lower, thus creating the opposite image. Only after about 3 months does the brain start to turn each image automatically. That's why you should not approach the baby in the back, because that's how he sees you aligned, and it will take him longer to reverse.

D. The focus of the eye is much faster than that of , But there is still a very short time when there is no ficus. Yet we do not see a blur at this time. The brain "saves" the last picture we saw until there is no ficus does not show us the new picture. Scientists have developed a device that detects the movement of the lens of the eye. They let us read a long line of numbers, for example 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... and when the eye changed the lens, the instrument changed the column. Take out a line like the one I mentioned above. People called - 1 2 3 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 .....

God. For the brain as a processor - if the brain could be compared to a processor, it would be compared to a quantum processor. No ordinary processor can match the brain's abilities. To date there is no computer that can detect objects, and probably will not. A very famous biologist recently claimed that in our brains, despite all the electrical disturbances around us, there is activity that is mostly quantum activity, and to those who understand that I can process information without causing the collapse of external interference - all this is still a hypothesis.

And for the eye as a camera - the eye is For everything. It has a focus, aperture, a screen lens, etc. It operates according to the usual principles of optics . The only difference is the information processing. Common to the camera and lens - skin rays pass through the focus and create a figure on a screen sensitive to light. Can be a photocantric screen, photo board, or retina. I do not understand what the argument is about.

Link to content
Share on other sites

  • תגובות 121
  • Opens on
  • Last comment

Prominent participants in the discussion

Prominent participants in the discussion

Someone has asked about reaction time, so response time is defined as switching from two shades of gray, processing the image in the brain a bit more complex when there are physical parts that are responsible for geometric shapes, others on other colors on motion, etc. ... I suppose that each situation separately can be set response times ... but the term will be a bit more complex ... and you have receptors in the eye that transmit discrete electrical signals, then in a sense one can say that the eye also sends the information to the brain in packets rather than continuously. My physics teacher was until a year ago a researcher at Weizmann who worked on neural computation, and on models of perception and vision, so he always brought us graphs and such, if it's really interesting, I'm pretty sure you can find everything in Bennett : xyxthumbs:

Link to content
Share on other sites

If a person in his life has not seen a mosquito insect and you give him a picture of the insect's head, will that person recognize the leg of the insect?

My point is that even people can not recognize things they do not know ... Maybe we're completing more missing information from a computer but they can do it too, just not that good because computing power is still limiting!

Link to content
Share on other sites

You have much more to learn about image processing ...

I see where you're going, but there's also a rotation and rotation of an image. As I said above, a person will quickly recognize a bone that he has never seen, a computer, and there is no matter of algorithms at all !!!

Try writing software for example. (Even if you will have a computer on and units Unlimited)

The computer is limited by the fact that it is wired - a step is taken after a step - Clock Clock after Clock Clock. It is now believed that the way the brain works is parallel, and today I doubt (even if it is still faith) whether there is any hardware that is reminiscent of how the brain works.

Link to content
Share on other sites

A person does not know millions of insects. However, he will recognize that it is an insect as soon as he sees it, a computer does not.

A person recognizes that this is an insect because his brain contains general information about "what characterizes insects externally". The processor can do exactly the same thing.

For that matter, even a person who has never seen an insect can not identify that it is a "insect," because it does not have the "general information" about insects.

Link to content
Share on other sites

If you give the computer a picture of her life from the side, and the computer only knows the animal from the front, then it will not be able to recognize it.

Is there interference? ::)

Try writing software for example. (Even if you will have a computer on and units Unlimited)

There are even such great ones

Know how to identify the tastes of the Bible and the handwriting

And they really do not work with people Unlimited

Link to content
Share on other sites

He is told that a computer can not develop itself to learn new things and make decisions independently without having a certain route ... for example you write a program you know that in two days it will do so and so on the other hand person develops all the system alone Take a sample researcher Insects Oki sees an insect gives it a name Investigating it and knowing details On the other hand, a computer will have to insert the data on the existing bugs and if there are new ones you will need to make it UPDATE as an anti virus Sample programmers see a new virus was added to the existing software If the programmers were not the computer Able to recognize that it is a new virus that does not have a database

Link to content
Share on other sites


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

  • Latest news

  • Buzz-Zone: Everything hot on the net

  • Popular now

  • Create new ...

At the top of the news:

new on the site