If the human eye doesn't see in frames as opposed to cameras, then what does it see in? What is this shit called?

If the human eye doesn't see in frames as opposed to cameras, then what does it see in? What is this shit called?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_inhibition
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

what's that coon sippin on?

it sees in photons

kool aid

neural impulse functions

Who writes down and memorizes the function?

I guess interlacing would be an appropriate term. That's a technique used for older TV signals where the entire image required two refreshes of the screen because each one contains only even or odd lines. Something like that; but a much more complex algorithm.

Optical nerve and visual cortex

Who tells the optical nerve to send information to ther cortex, and who tells the cortex to store or overwrite it?

Rods/Cones and the Prefrontal Cortex.

Photo receptors and cones receives input and sends electrical messages to ganglion cells and other neurons which then transmits electrical impulse to the optic nerve then to the various layers of the visual cortex where the information is filtered to what you see. There is no storing or overwriting

I fell asleep reading that
fuck biology
I'm going back to shitposting about flat earth and climate change

BEPIS

synapses

>he has no interest in how his brain creates the world around him

quintessential Veeky Forums

Can you imagine if humans had a short term buffer storage for their eyes.

Is there a very tiny unit of time such that the receptors, cones, ganglions etc. can't take in the photons reaching them because they're still dealing with the previous photons? Like, I know 24 fps is enough to convince your brain you're seeing a constant image, but more rapid images do still register. I'm guessing there is some maximum rate.
But then I guess different cells in the eye won't necessarily start sending at the EXACT same instant, so you're probably constantly getting some image, uninterrupted, even down to nano/pico-seconds.

I don't know the specifics, took an undergraduate class on brain transmission last semester, don't feel like looking it up, but there isn't a "delay" unless the receptors are damage. It is very technical but a subset of neurons will inhibit other neurons so certain stimuli isn't processed, there are specific neurons that only fire in response to specific geometric orientations, colors, shades, movement, direction of movement, etc. It is complicated and their are areas that researchers have no idea what their function is. The signals are sent to multiple areas of the brain including the visual cortex and visual cortex in the occipital lobe (back of the brain). These signals don't travel a linear path, they range from concurrent signals to different areas of the brain to back and forth signalling between multiple areas until you see what is in front of you

*premotor cortex and visual cortex

...

There is no synchronization between visual neurons. They just fire whenever. So the "framerate" would be incredibly high.

Imagine a computer monitor where all of the pixels refreshed asynchronously.

...

>If the human eye doesn't see in frames
What do you mean by "if", retard?
It's no mystery (except perhaps to you) that
the human eye does not see in "frames".

You didn't really answer any of the questions, buddy, you just agreed with the premise upon which they were based.

premises only exist in formal logic

That wasn't a real sentence, but thanks!

>the eye can't pick up details if it's far away or really small.

wow, who would have thought. Thank GOD for SCIENCE

after like 3 minutes the black lines got more intense and the square I wasn't focusing on got all trippy. Now the white spaces between the horizontal lines are slightly pink. I guess the same should have happend with the vertical ones and green. Pretty cool

the why is the interesting part you mong

It's called a stream

You can imagine your brain basically has a "vision buffer", and each pixel within this buffer is independently updates as information is gained, rather than the entire buffer updating at once, like a screen.

That used to be my biggest passion as a kid, but around the age of 9 i realized it's much harder than i thought. Physics it was. Ended up as a cynical mathematician with no passion in discovering our world when the world of math is so perfect.

(Click to subscribe)

it sees in the speed of light via electrical signals your brain processes you fucking idiot. our eyes aren't a fucking video camera.

Eagle's eye genetic modification when?

the nerves between retina and brain probably fire in a noise pattern

Lean

So this is what I got after marking all the "rezeptors" that are touched by the E in the pic.
Did I do that right and the resolution is still too small to see it as an E?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_inhibition

They do, otherwise you'd be blind every time you blink and if you closed one eye you'd have a permanent blind spot. Your brain edits it out.

Math is objectively harder than natural sciences, the brain is complex because of how it's wired, not because the concepts that it operates on are complicated.

But comprehending complex systems is incredibly hard. It's part of the reason i gave up on physics too- i couldn't comprehend strings because i didn't have the tools to. When i started learning the math for string theory, i discovered how different the world of math is. Incredibly beautiful. As a bonus, when you can't figure something out, it's always your fault. Unlike in natural sciences where you can blame the tools or lack thereof.

Huh, I'd assume if you have the math down you can easily comprehend what its describing, kinda like Neo in the Matrix.

I had a shitty third world math education so I was never explained the connection between coordinate systems and functions. When I saw it it gave me great respect for how math (and such amazingly pleb tier math at that) can give you more insight than anything you just memorize.

speed it takes for photons to reach your eyes and the speed it takes to conjure an image based on them and for you to consciously notice it. Your brain is flawed so it might be perceptionally slower or shut off at times.

It's something entirely different. In complex systems, you have to keep track of too many things, it eventually brings you to a halt. Further complicated is this effort by the noise present in all natural sciences. When you're working with math, you don't have any noise, you're working with pure, clearly defined structures. It's also entirely different knowing math and understanding its applications. It's part of the reason there are no cases where mathematicians discovered important physical concepts, but physicists discover new math quite often.

Wtf do you see when you blink, because I see black

Blind =/= black
user
t. Someone who has "seen" some shit when the eye glitches up
If what I "saw" was what blind people "see" it makes total sense why color wouldn't make sense to them.

yeah that's pretty neat alright
now what do i have to stare at to make it go back to normal

You realize you blink much more often than you notice, right?

There are some really obvious constraints though, we can't really keep track of too much stuff, we can't even visualize it correctly, for example I don't see how anyone can adequately represent the probability that millions of neurotransmitters would interact in millions of synapses to get a simple reaction but I assume you can make a function for it and you could get a feel for it.

>When you're working with math, you don't have any noise, you're working with pure, clearly defined structures

Define a set

> electrical signals
>travelling at the speed of light

What happens when you stare at a bright light. You exhaust the cells ability to process input. When not exhausted, each receptor either gets light or it doesn't. The brain 'reads' the cells at some frequency. Ballpark figure 10 Hz. This is why 22fps aka 22 Hz looks like smooth motion to us. The processing of the 'data' is parallel so each 'pixel' get processed within the same window. We do not think in the visual world that is currently read. We have memory. We know what is on our sides and behind us. This data has been read _at_some_point_ into short term working memory and we operate in a visual world of these most current frames.
The human eye does not 'see' at all. The brain sees. And there is a limit to the possible refresh rate. Snapshots are triggered on demand to working memory, If you close your eyes you do not think you are surrounded by darkness. The older snapshots with more detailed information are kept.

I'm not a mathematician or a biologist, but i am a videographer. Cameras only ever recorded in a set number of frames because of technology. we now can select the number of "Frames" we record in quite liberally. High ones are used to create slow motion effects, but most film you have ever seen has been recorded at 24 frames per second, because it was what was determined to be the most comfortable cinematic experience at the time.

in conclusion, cameras don't record in frames, so much as they are divided into such in post production. Being used such, cameras were intended to shoot at certain FPS to match the measurement of the intended post product. Frame = a division of recorded imagery which composes a second in whichever amount relevant.

I was wondering if it's possible to calculate/estimate what the eye and brain process in terms of a bit rate, thinking that the large amount of cells in the eye and the speed at which the info is processed, to the point that you can somewhat perceive pretty fast changes in your view, would mean it'd be something like millions of bits every millisecond. I googled it and it turns out university researchers put the estimate at 10 million bits per second. So I was overestimating by a couple of orders of magnitude.

It does see in frames, inputs form state at a given point in time, which conscious awareness draws from in whatever way depending on the task and the rest of your state. In short, there is such a thing as a visual buffer. It has multiple subsystems, and they each process, store, and pass around information in various ways. An example being geometry extraction and complex object recognition in layer V cortical neurons. That information is used both in a fixed and context dependent way.

Look up from your computer. Take note of everything that exists in your awareness. That is a "frame". The rate at which a given cone or rod is exhausted, or generates and encodes a signal, the bandwidth of the optic nerve, how fast and minute state can be updated in response to change, is irrelevant to the question of frames. Yes, we do see in frames. And temporal awareness is variable as well, see "Alice in Wonderland Syndrome" and "Amanita Muscaria".

Cantor's definition is the common one, and is used every day by your computer.

That's the problem. You can only comprehend parts of it at a time or, alternatively the whole system but only as an approximation. You can study given subject in math and fully comprehend it much easier.

See: memory

>tfw no domesticated raccoon friend

To really be seeing in frames wouldn't all of the cells in your eyes have to be perfectly synchronised? Then every bit of 'transmission' from the eye to the brain would have to be 'firing' or whatever in a synchronised way, too. I imagine 'at any point in time' some cells are just starting their actions, while others are already busy.

Think about the computer inside of a camera: It is always reading the sensor. It finishes the last pixel and then goes back to the first.

The frames you are talking about wouldn't have to exist in a camera that doesn't have to write to a screen all at once.

If you scaled up an eye and made a graph by placing a dot where every color sensitive cell in your eye is, it would look like this picture.

Every cell would be polled by your brain randomly. All the imperfections in these cells would average out to create a clear image.

Basically, it's a Monte Carlo method and there is no frame because the data goes directly from the cell in your eye to the computation that needs it.

No. Think of the light receptors as a spy network. A spy reports in when he comes upon interesting information.

The retina is not a photographic plate. The image we see is not formed on the retina but inferred by the brain from the reports of many spies - I mean visual neurons.

Come on guys, your explanations are no good.

Think about a microphone connected to an amplifier. There are no audio frames, the sensor in the microphone sends an electric signal directly to the speaker cone. One could make a similarly analog light detection system. There are photoresistors, that change resistance depending on how much light hits them. Make a flash light that is powered by energy source in line with a photoresistor, and you have a light that is bright in proportion to the light that hits the photoresistor. You dont need a flash light on the other end, it could be some analog computer or whatever you want. The point is you have a continuous stream of light sensitivity that can be piped into another system.