3 ms·

Then why did we evolve to only be able to see visual spectrum?

by rlt 4y ago

vlovich123 4y ago
Really? A) our visual system is several orders of magnitude better than the best CV systems (both in terms of optical sensor + the wetware that does object recognition, focus, etc etc). That doesn’t mean that artificial systems we build can get away with just one B) our visual system works on coarse approximations with high latency. Radio vision systems operate with far more accuracy / precision and lower latency C) our visual system fails in inclement conditions (heavy rain, fog, night). Radio vision systems complement by filling that gap D) sensor fusion done well should strictly outperform any single sensor E) we evolved for the visual spectrum because of our history of reproductive selection as a species. This in no way says anything about the optimal artificial system design F) our visual system fails ALL the friggin time. Remember “check your blind spot”? Our visual system has major blood vessels going in front of the lens which is unnecessary but there’s no evolutionary pressure on us to fix that because our brain compensated for that defect. G) the goal for self driving systems is to be not just at par with humans, but several orders of magnitude safer with 24/7 uptime and driving. We have no evidence to suggest that’s possible with just vision.
steve_adams_86 4y ago
Because it works well enough. Our vision system is full of weird illusions and nonsense though. If you burn part of your retina, you won’t even know unless it’s severe enough. Your brain will “fill in the gap” as long as it can. Is that what you want driving your car?
- me_me_me 4y ago
  This is most banal and boring answer, that is also most likely to correct answer. Just simple example of good enough design are our eyes; they evolved inside out (we have nerves in front of instead behind the eye) and our brain just fills the gaps, but its good enough to see lions in the bushes. And so we are stuck with it. If black and white was good enough for survival we would have black and white vision.
  - steve_adams_86 4y ago
    In defense of camera based vision systems, they can be more objective and consistent than humans. They won’t go partially blind without realizing it, for example. There are examples of them catching things humans sometimes missed, so — it isn’t a total bust. At the same time though, no idea how you get bast the issues of blowouts obscuring the rest of the visual field, debris blocking the light, instances where depth is imperceptible, etc.
    - me_me_me 4y ago
      I dont think you can jump over that hurdle without actual software intelligence. If driver gets flashed by light, or something unexpected they rely on their past experiences, projection of near future to extrapolate how to drive despite lack of visual information. If you close your eyes you'd be able to drive for few seconds etc. If you seen a car disappear behind a building, you still know that it will come to the intersection and you will act like you can 'see' it. In my opinion the biggest problem is mimicking human driving. We are based on incomplete information with non-precise actions, and we balance it out by being highly adaptive. We extrapolate information from environment and based on past experience we predict future outcomes - seamlessly (though not always correctly). Everything computers are bad at doing currently.
CydeWeys 4y ago
Because we're people, not cars?
chatterhead 4y ago
Maybe because we don't need to see the other spectrums; perhaps we have a system for interpreting waves inside our brain that we haven't realized is their yet. Waves are waves and we would have adapted to them naturally regardless of procreation evolution; as chemical and signal evolution are real, too.
- senectus1 4y ago
  not only that but we DO "see" using other spectrums... feeling, hearing etc. but yeah we're not evolved multi ton machines hurtling around at immense speeds building scary amounts of kinetic energy. we're soft fleshy slow creatures.
delta_p_delta_x 4y ago
Real answer: the Sun emits most of its light in the visual region. By Wien's displacement law[0], the wavelength emitted with the most intensity given the Sun's 5778 K surface temperature is 501 nm, which is bang-smack in the middle of the visual spectrum, and is a light greenish-blue. Our eyes are more adapted to around 530-550 nm (which is more precisely green), because of two reasons: we evolved from fish, which lived in the ocean, where blue light is scattered (and thus green-red sensitivity is more important), and secondly, the atmosphere also scatters blue light, thus making sunlight more red. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law

Then why did we evolve to only be able to see visual spectrum?

by rlt 4y ago

Then why did we evolve to only be able to see visual spectrum?

Really? A) our visual system is several orders of magnitude better than the best CV systems (both in terms of optical sensor + the wetware that does object recognition, focus, etc etc). That doesn’t mean that artificial systems we build can get away with just one B) our visual system works on coarse approximations with high latency. Radio vision systems operate with far more accuracy / precision and lower latency C) our visual system fails in inclement conditions (heavy rain, fog, night). Radio vision systems complement by filling that gap D) sensor fusion done well should strictly outperform any single sensor E) we evolved for the visual spectrum because of our history of reproductive selection as a species. This in no way says anything about the optimal artificial system design F) our visual system fails ALL the friggin time. Remember “check your blind spot”? Our visual system has major blood vessels going in front of the lens which is unnecessary but there’s no evolutionary pressure on us to fix that because our brain compensated for that defect. G) the goal for self driving systems is to be not just at par with humans, but several orders of magnitude safer with 24/7 uptime and driving. We have no evidence to suggest that’s possible with just vision.

steve_adams_86 4y ago

Because it works well enough. Our vision system is full of weird illusions and nonsense though. If you burn part of your retina, you won’t even know unless it’s severe enough. Your brain will “fill in the gap” as long as it can. Is that what you want driving your car?

me_me_me 4y ago
This is most banal and boring answer, that is also most likely to correct answer. Just simple example of good enough design are our eyes; they evolved inside out (we have nerves in front of instead behind the eye) and our brain just fills the gaps, but its good enough to see lions in the bushes. And so we are stuck with it. If black and white was good enough for survival we would have black and white vision.
- steve_adams_86 4y ago
  In defense of camera based vision systems, they can be more objective and consistent than humans. They won’t go partially blind without realizing it, for example. There are examples of them catching things humans sometimes missed, so — it isn’t a total bust. At the same time though, no idea how you get bast the issues of blowouts obscuring the rest of the visual field, debris blocking the light, instances where depth is imperceptible, etc.
  - me_me_me 4y ago
    I dont think you can jump over that hurdle without actual software intelligence. If driver gets flashed by light, or something unexpected they rely on their past experiences, projection of near future to extrapolate how to drive despite lack of visual information. If you close your eyes you'd be able to drive for few seconds etc. If you seen a car disappear behind a building, you still know that it will come to the intersection and you will act like you can 'see' it. In my opinion the biggest problem is mimicking human driving. We are based on incomplete information with non-precise actions, and we balance it out by being highly adaptive. We extrapolate information from environment and based on past experience we predict future outcomes - seamlessly (though not always correctly). Everything computers are bad at doing currently.

CydeWeys 4y ago

Because we're people, not cars?

chatterhead 4y ago

Maybe because we don't need to see the other spectrums; perhaps we have a system for interpreting waves inside our brain that we haven't realized is their yet. Waves are waves and we would have adapted to them naturally regardless of procreation evolution; as chemical and signal evolution are real, too.

senectus1 4y ago
not only that but we DO "see" using other spectrums... feeling, hearing etc. but yeah we're not evolved multi ton machines hurtling around at immense speeds building scary amounts of kinetic energy. we're soft fleshy slow creatures.

delta_p_delta_x 4y ago

Real answer: the Sun emits most of its light in the visual region. By Wien's displacement law[0], the wavelength emitted with the most intensity given the Sun's 5778 K surface temperature is 501 nm, which is bang-smack in the middle of the visual spectrum, and is a light greenish-blue. Our eyes are more adapted to around 530-550 nm (which is more precisely green), because of two reasons: we evolved from fish, which lived in the ocean, where blue light is scattered (and thus green-red sensitivity is more important), and secondly, the atmosphere also scatters blue light, thus making sunlight more red. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law