Even more severely, I think this is pseudoscience -- though a genuinely borderline case "with real value". All theyre doing is feeding in pixel patterns and ob

Even more severely, I think this is pseudoscience -- though a genuinely borderline case "with real value". All theyre doing is feeding in pixel patterns and object information for specific scenes, and then calling the models ability to detect general correlations in those scenes "solidity", "inertia", and the like. Any time where patterns in correlations are taken as an explantory model, we have pseudoscience. Yes, inertia/solidity/etc. is the right answer for why physical objects show those visual correlations. But pixel patterns in some images are NOT models of inertia, solidity, etc. Just as correlations in pixel patterns in the sky is not a model of gravity. The right model, eg., is F=GMm/r^2 which are variables not even present in the data. So no correlative model of a night sky will ever be a model of gravity.