3 ms·
If you assume the cones and rods in the eye are still the same size, but the eye is bigger, if the portion of the eye covered in receptors remains a constant ra
by qdog 14y ago
If you assume the cones and rods in the eye are still the same size, but the eye is bigger, if the portion of the eye covered in receptors remains a constant ratio, a relatively small increase in eyeball size would probably make a large difference. I'm too lazy to go look up the surface area of a sphere and don't recall it of the top of my head, but if I'm not mistaken the surface area grows much faster than the diameter.
I assume that only letting in more light would be a bigger pupil, not a bigger eyeball, hence the bigger eyeball has a lot more data to process.
- Retric 14y agoOnly r^2 the r^3 is volume. That said your optic nerve does most of the resolution dependent processing well before you reach the brain so I don't think resolution increases would be vary demanding.
- taproot 14y agoI'm inclined to agree there is likely a substantial increase in input, but I'm not sold on the idea we lack the bandwidth or capacity. In fact I'm kind of on the fence, we humans tend to approximate a lot of information not under our direct focus with memory and perception tricks? I guess you call them. I'm not sure whether this means we are maxing capacity as it is and have to approximate in order to handle the information, or if its simply more efficient energy wise. Anyway, my point is, while there may be more information coming in, it doesn't necessarily mean they used it all, or cost them anything in the way of processing power elsewhere. I'm still holding onto the idea we were simply better looking and got all the chicks. (interspecies breeding)
- qdog 14y agoActually the article seems like a lot of conjecture. I should have prefaced my comment by saying that if they are right, perhaps there is a higher resolution and this might be why. Whether they are right I don't think we have enough evidence either way, really.