3 ms·

Brains that allow for 3D vision do trigonometry to a very high precision. With respective image matching too. Sadly that does not let you master math tests abou

Brains that allow for 3D vision do trigonometry to a very high precision. With respective image matching too. Sadly that does not let you master math tests about the topic or lets you develop an efficient algorithm for stereoscopic view. For a while there was a discussion about how evolution couldn't have constructed something sophisticated like an eye itself. Today we know the steps from a light sensitive spot to an eye, so I would assume this to be a similar case.

bediger4000 5y ago
> Brains that allow for 3D vision do trigonometry to a very high precision. Those brains also can be pleasantly fooled by paintings or drawings that suggest perspective, and can there are adversarial examples we laughingly call "optical illusions". A designer wouldn't allow for optical illusions if he, she, it or them could help it. Optical illusions kill, at least sometimes.
- johntdaly 5y ago
  Is that something that a fundamentalist can’t explain away with some “Gods will” handwavium?
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  I wouldn't call it foolish at all. It has error correction and some compromises, but overall it works pretty well. Yes, you can construct an optical illusion pretty easily, but often there is a mechanism behind it that is overall beneficial. Modern opticians do eye tests with polarized glasses with different polarization for each eye. People that have a very dominant eye get into trouble here because of error correction that happens in the brain. To test if both your glasses are correctly aligned, an image is displayed where the left side can only be seen by the left eye and vice versa for the right. To test alignment the image must fit together. The other eye only sees the background, which you can test if you close one eye. But if you have one very dominant eye, chances are that your brain deletes the image of your lesser eye after a few seconds because it must be wrong since you better eye cannot see it. You can reset this mechanism by closing your dominant eye for a while. Sure the information you see is wrong in this case, but there probably is a strong error correction running in the background. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Optical.greysquares.arp-animated.gif https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Optical.... Here the squares A and B have the same gray value. But would the "correct" information be that they have the same color? Not in the greater context. But if perception would be that they are the same color, the brain would be quite foolish, would it not?
johntdaly 5y ago
When it came to the eye it helped to look at aquatic animals. The eye was more or less fully evolved when life crawled out of the ocean. It was interesting to see how the eye evolved when it was explained to me. My biggest problem with the fundamentalist that argue along the lines irreducible complexity is that they often think they have hard evidence when all they have is a lack of understanding and an unwillingness to look into the problem. The reasoning is annoying too: “I don’t know” -> “God exists” -> “Prove me wrong” Putting the burden of proof on the other person in the hopes that they can’t and then convert is also rather naive. There are two types of people. 1) people who can look into this and aren’t swayed by the argument 2) people that just don’t care. And honestly, most are going to be in the second camp and just “trust in science”. I would be interested in knowing if the irreducible complexity people actually found anything that science hasn't looked into before hand? I mean stuff like this is probably worth a research paper for somebody if they actually found something that wasn’t explained scientifically instead of stuff that the average person on the street can’t explain.

bediger4000 5y ago

> Brains that allow for 3D vision do trigonometry to a very high precision. Those brains also can be pleasantly fooled by paintings or drawings that suggest perspective, and can there are adversarial examples we laughingly call "optical illusions". A designer wouldn't allow for optical illusions if he, she, it or them could help it. Optical illusions kill, at least sometimes.

johntdaly 5y ago
Is that something that a fundamentalist can’t explain away with some “Gods will” handwavium?
raxxorrax 5y ago
I wouldn't call it foolish at all. It has error correction and some compromises, but overall it works pretty well. Yes, you can construct an optical illusion pretty easily, but often there is a mechanism behind it that is overall beneficial. Modern opticians do eye tests with polarized glasses with different polarization for each eye. People that have a very dominant eye get into trouble here because of error correction that happens in the brain. To test if both your glasses are correctly aligned, an image is displayed where the left side can only be seen by the left eye and vice versa for the right. To test alignment the image must fit together. The other eye only sees the background, which you can test if you close one eye. But if you have one very dominant eye, chances are that your brain deletes the image of your lesser eye after a few seconds because it must be wrong since you better eye cannot see it. You can reset this mechanism by closing your dominant eye for a while. Sure the information you see is wrong in this case, but there probably is a strong error correction running in the background. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Optical.greysquares.arp-animated.gif https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Optical.... Here the squares A and B have the same gray value. But would the "correct" information be that they have the same color? Not in the greater context. But if perception would be that they are the same color, the brain would be quite foolish, would it not?

johntdaly 5y ago

When it came to the eye it helped to look at aquatic animals. The eye was more or less fully evolved when life crawled out of the ocean. It was interesting to see how the eye evolved when it was explained to me. My biggest problem with the fundamentalist that argue along the lines irreducible complexity is that they often think they have hard evidence when all they have is a lack of understanding and an unwillingness to look into the problem. The reasoning is annoying too: “I don’t know” -> “God exists” -> “Prove me wrong” Putting the burden of proof on the other person in the hopes that they can’t and then convert is also rather naive. There are two types of people. 1) people who can look into this and aren’t swayed by the argument 2) people that just don’t care. And honestly, most are going to be in the second camp and just “trust in science”. I would be interested in knowing if the irreducible complexity people actually found anything that science hasn't looked into before hand? I mean stuff like this is probably worth a research paper for somebody if they actually found something that wasn’t explained scientifically instead of stuff that the average person on the street can’t explain.