tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956904987508681406.post6824513456883011920..comments2024-02-19T22:58:12.523-06:00Comments on Tom Talks Too Much: GPGPU in our EyesTomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15808034942220416445noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956904987508681406.post-72890609841318758472009-04-20T11:31:00.000-05:002009-04-20T11:31:00.000-05:00Side note again, that's also why I hinted at touch...Side note again, that's also why I hinted at touch. I can't even tell which dots are raised in a Braille letter, because I'm so untrained and unpracticed at that. But I imagine that touch could be an effective array input device for people who did practice that sort of thing. And I imagine the data could be fed through the same brain machinery just as easily as visual data.<br /><br />Again, I'm Mr. Ignorant speaking.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15808034942220416445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956904987508681406.post-87548419938321820202009-04-20T11:27:00.000-05:002009-04-20T11:27:00.000-05:00I'm no expert on computer vision, but as a human, ...I'm no expert on computer vision, but as a human, I can do more with a detailed map than if someone tried to describe the scene to me. Unless only certain key features mattered.<br /><br />Perhaps simple descriptions vs. detailed visuals relates vaguely to vector vs. raster graphics.<br /><br />A picture's worth a thousand words, but a sentence can be worth many pictures, depending on the issue.<br /><br />Also, I think that the most important parallel processing goes on the brain (no neuroscience expert here, so I won't try to be more detailed than that), not in the eyes. The eyes are more of an input device. My title was misleading in that sense (and doesn't even fit my original text that well). It was just the easier thing to say.<br /><br />But I think you are also right that we do a lot of selective elimination of data. We know what to focus on. But even knowing what to focus on requires a lot of parallel (or super fast) processing. Again, I really meant to focus on eyes as an array input device to the machinery in the brain.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15808034942220416445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956904987508681406.post-40344344827113145342009-04-20T10:55:00.000-05:002009-04-20T10:55:00.000-05:00Our eyes may be able to accept 5-dimensional data,...Our eyes may be able to accept 5-dimensional data, but the very idea that you can usefully describe a scene in a few words, I think, means that the information density is pretty low. I also think that the fact that a blind person can successfully navigate the world without that input, means that visual information density is probably pretty low. Any idea how visual-information dense a scene could be before a sighted individual couldn't process it? Something about psychadelics, maybe?Rickyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10535218652972286785noreply@blogger.com