eye brain
- Thread starter Xmo1
- Start date
Zmo1:Just in case this isn't a troll..
There is no correlation between animal vision resolution and machine approximations, therefore...
Hawks might be the best-sighted of us all, but it's geared to motion detection, not resolution. Have you ever seen video of a cheetah chasing prey? Even through all the twists and turns, the cat's head doesn't move: He's a gunsight, and unless he slips or trips, he's going to have gazelle for a quick snack..
I have to beg off on the cetaceans without going to the goog or wiki. It's almost 4:30 here, so goodnight.
There is no correlation between animal vision resolution and machine approximations, therefore...
Hawks might be the best-sighted of us all, but it's geared to motion detection, not resolution. Have you ever seen video of a cheetah chasing prey? Even through all the twists and turns, the cat's head doesn't move: He's a gunsight, and unless he slips or trips, he's going to have gazelle for a quick snack..
I have to beg off on the cetaceans without going to the goog or wiki. It's almost 4:30 here, so goodnight.
Xmo1
Registered Senior Member
Maybe this is better: What kinds of life forms can see my 22" monitor? Would they be gecko's, spiders or butterflies? Dr. Toad's answer made me think about how 'focused' these things seem to be, and yet they are not always chasing meat. Sometimes (most of the time) they are just relaxing. I'm wondering that if they can see the images if they would react (respond) to them. I might want to offer a VR tomato to the caterpillars that ate my tomato plants, for example.
I believe that mammals can see 1920x1080 images. I am not as sure about reptiles & other creatures.
I am more sure that experts in the pertinent fields know the answer to this question. It seems easy to set up experiments to investigate this issue.
I am more sure that experts in the pertinent fields know the answer to this question. It seems easy to set up experiments to investigate this issue.
I think y'all are barking up the wrong tree here.
Of course they can "see" the image, but I have a couple of observations and one concomitant question that covers both of my points below:
At what flicker rate does the image makes any real-world sense to them? Maybe you call it refresh rate, but that's probably a quibble.
I know my dog doesn't like looking at an analog TV, but sometimes he'll hop up on my leg and watch videos with me on a 70fps LCD. (If there's an animal in it, that is. He doesn't care for human drama.
)
Most creatures that hunt using vision have a muscular-nervous system highly tuned for hunting, which might mean they won't pay any attention to a flat image, moving or not. It doesn't smell right, there's no sound or vibration,
many factors influence what they respond to.
Not to discourage scientific endeavor, but you ain't gonna get a grant for that without a much narrower scope and a much better return for science and the folks that gave the grant, of course.
Of course they can "see" the image, but I have a couple of observations and one concomitant question that covers both of my points below:
At what flicker rate does the image makes any real-world sense to them? Maybe you call it refresh rate, but that's probably a quibble.
I know my dog doesn't like looking at an analog TV, but sometimes he'll hop up on my leg and watch videos with me on a 70fps LCD. (If there's an animal in it, that is. He doesn't care for human drama.
)Most creatures that hunt using vision have a muscular-nervous system highly tuned for hunting, which might mean they won't pay any attention to a flat image, moving or not. It doesn't smell right, there's no sound or vibration,
many factors influence what they respond to.
Not to discourage scientific endeavor, but you ain't gonna get a grant for that without a much narrower scope and a much better return for science and the folks that gave the grant, of course.
There's nothing special about an image on a monitor or TV that is any different from any other kind of image. Any animal that can see the world around it can see a TV screen.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Do you mean simply see the image, or do you mean can comprehend its subject?
The same question could be asked of a paper poster.
The same question could be asked of a paper poster.
Like in old movies when TV screens had rolling horizontal bars because the film's frame rate wasn't synchronized with the TV's scan rate?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No.
Simple creatures such as caterpillars cannot recognize an image of a tomato. They forage mostly by touch, taste and smell.
Conceivably, they might have an instinct that draw them toward, say, large patches of bright red, but no more than that- and the other senses will quickly give the lie to that.
A bee - an insect that has a well-developed sense of sight (they visually locate their nest in relation to known nearby objects) - might be fooled by a flower, but not for long.
What you might consider doing is placing an actual tomato or two in the path of the caterpillars as a decoy.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
More complex creatures can see TV, but may still be dumber than a caterpillar.
https://i.imgur.com/iAMYpET.mp4
https://i.imgur.com/iAMYpET.mp4
gamelord
Registered Senior Member
The cat seems incapable of discerning depth perceptions. If the TV is percieved by the cat as a window, it seems unable to wholly piece together the environmental bits about the landscape in the TV, and the distance depth of where the other cat should be.
It's other flaw is that it seems unable to comprehend what the concept of a TV or moving picture is.
Keep in mind some animals may be mentally diverse within their own species. For instance my dog, does not ever confuse the TV for real life and does not try to chase dogs on TV ever. Therefore my dog understands the concept of moving pictures, and television.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No it means your does doesn't recognize the images at all. To your dog, the TV is just a box that flashes a lot and makes noise.
The cat was at least able to recognize a cat.
Part of the reason for this is that cats rely on their vision somewhat more than dogs do, while dogs rely on their sense of smell more.
gamelord
Registered Senior Member
That is an educated guess, but a guess nonethelesss.
I think my dog recognizes images on the TV, because when dogs are on tv, my dog watches the tv for 1-5 minutes, usually my dog just gets bored before a few seconds, except when there are dogs, which they seem to be cognizant of.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
It is entirely possible your dog is hearing dogs barking. That's a much more direct input than sight because it requires no context.
And I've never seen a dog on TV that did not bark.
gamelord
Registered Senior Member
If I recall one of these times it was a dog on TV talking in english as part of a kids show.
I dont think smell is that accurate of a sensor to use. It is more for long range tracking than anything else. If you want a direct picture of reality sight is your best bet.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Dogs can navigate in darkness by smell.
This thread is an extant example that that is not always a good bet. TV images are not reality, and yet it fools them. Unless they use their sense of smell.
gamelord
Registered Senior Member
Mainly because that cat in that video, did not have a highfunctioning human mind.
But in terms of clarity of picture, how could there be a "smell HD"? Smells fundamentally are not photons, they are more like clouds of vapor subject to fluid dynamics. They are fundamentally misty and foggy by nature. If there was a smell detector in 3d it could not possibly provide the same clarity of environment as photons do.