8 ms·
Not sure what your point is. Humans can see. So can most animals. We have plenty of evidence of that. We have absolutely no evidence that inanimate objects
by lottin 8y ago
Not sure what your point is. Humans can see. So can most animals. We have plenty of evidence of that. We have absolutely no evidence that inanimate objects can see. If they could, it is reasonable to expect that we would have some evidence of it by now. The fact that we haven't got any, leads us to conclude pretty solidly that they can't.
- gok 8y agoWhat vision processing task can most animals do that no computer can?
- lottin 8y agoSince seeing means perceiving things in space, for starters it requires having a notion of 'thing' and of 'space'. Do computers have such notions? Again, based on the evidence that we have, or lack thereof, regarding the cognitive capabilities of inanimate objects, I say the answer is a resounding no. Inanimate objects do not think and therefore cannot have concepts. They cannot do anything, strictly speaking, since they lack agency. We use them to perform certain things, which is different.
- gok 8y agoI mean to answer your first question: yes, modern computer vision algorithms do have a concept of spatial and object tracking. But if your definition of “seeing” requires metacognition and agency... I suppose no algorithm I know of does that. Although that rules out most animal visual systems from “seeing” too.