Searching \ for '[OT] Personal Optical Resolution' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=personal+optical
Search entire site for: 'Personal Optical Resolution'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Personal Optical Resolution'
2000\03\29@041449 by Russell McMahon

picon face
I have not previously considered that the human eye has a different
resolving power in the horizontal and vertical directions.

I have a friend who maintains that he can achieve about 3 times the
resolution on a line of pins running vertically (North - South) compared to
a line running horizontally (East - West). eg when soldering a quad flat
pack package manually he maintains it is visually easier to solder the pins
or inspect them if they are in the vertical direction.

I do not SEEM to have the same variation but my visual system is a little
unusual.

Question:

1.    Do other people consider that they have differing horizontal and
vertical resolving powers?
2.    Does anyone have any formal information on this?

My friend MAY have astigmatism but that's only an uneducated guess.



     Russell McMahon
_____________________________

- http://www.easttimor.com
      Updated regularly:
      100,000 refugees STILL in  West Timor face starvation!

- http://www.sudan.com
   And you think Kosovo and Chechnya are bad!

What can one man* do?
Help the hungry at no cost to yourself!
at  http://www.thehungersite.com/

(* - or woman, child or internet enabled intelligent entity :-))

2000\03\29@054956 by Rob

flavicon
face
I have worked within a eye disease research institute. One of the Ph.D.
students gave a talk on the distribution & types of receptors within the
back of the eye. Apparently "preying" animals like tigers have a wider
spread of sensors in the horizontal axis - for surveying the horizon for
prey. Best of all - elephants supposedly have a distribution in the
shape of a + sign or vertical cross - the theory is that horizontal is
for horizon viewing with vertical looking after the trunk! We found it
amusing but were assured it was true.
rob


I have not previously considered that the human eye has a different
resolving power in the horizontal and vertical directions.

I have a friend who maintains that he can achieve about 3 times the
resolution on a line of pins running vertically (North - South) compared
to
a line running horizontally (East - West). eg when soldering a quad flat

pack package manually he maintains it is visually easier to solder the
pins
or inspect them if they are in the vertical direction.

I do not SEEM to have the same variation but my visual system is a
little
unusual.

Question:

1.    Do other people consider that they have differing horizontal and
vertical resolving powers?
2.    Does anyone have any formal information on this?

My friend MAY have astigmatism but that's only an uneducated guess.



     Russell McMahon
_____________________________

- http://www.easttimor.com
      Updated regularly:
      100,000 refugees STILL in  West Timor face starvation!

- http://www.sudan.com
   And you think Kosovo and Chechnya are bad!

What can one man* do?
Help the hungry at no cost to yourself!
at  http://www.thehungersite.com/

(* - or woman, child or internet enabled intelligent entity :-))

2000\03\29@060959 by Michael Rigby-Jones

flavicon
face
part 0 5003 bytes
<P><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">It's almost certainly astigmatism, it is a very common eyesight fault.&nbsp; AFAIK the rods and cones in the eye are not arranged in a manner that give increased vertical resolution.&nbsp; I wonder what the typical eyeball resolution is?&nbsp; I would think the brain probably performs some kind of resolution enhancement.&nbsp; Dr Webster?</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Mike</FONT>
</P>
<UL>
<P><FONT SIZE=1 FACE="Arial">{Original Message removed}

2000\03\29@062031 by Terry

flavicon
face
What about the fact that your eyes are mounted on the horizontal plane and
focusing on each vertically aligned pin is much easier and less distracting
then a single pin out of a horizontal row of 20 identical looking pins?

Terry


At 09:01 PM 3/29/00 +1200, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2000\03\29@072206 by paulb

flavicon
face
Michael Rigby-Jones wrote:

> It's almost certainly astigmatism, it is a very common eyesight
> fault.  AFAIK the rods and cones in the eye are not arranged in a
> manner that give increased vertical resolution.  I wonder what the
> typical eyeball resolution is?  I would think the brain probably
> performs some kind of resolution enhancement.  Dr Webster?

 I agree on all points.  Astigmatism means horizontal and vertical
elements focus in different planes, eyes probably do prefer to pull in
focus in one plane or the other, or one focus may be nearer to the
resting focus and that would certainly explain the observation.

 Cones register detail and colour in the macula (central area), but are
less sensitive and slower, rods register movement and lower light levels
outside the macula.  I know of no evidence suggesting different scale
factors, but I would take the fact that we are good at determining
roundness of objects to suggest that horizontal and vertical scaling are
equal.  (I was tempted to speak of a liking for nicely rounded objects!)

 I'd have to go measure my eye chart at work to tell you the standard
resolution, but it's a four metre chart and the 6/6 type is about 4mm
resolution (IIRC) which is therefore about a milliarcradian.

 The brain performs *superb* resolution enhancement, even to finding
detail that isn't there at all.  Some are better than others at this,
and find employment as politicians etc...

 Actually, the main thing appears to be that the physiological (i.e.,
normal functioning) jitter of the eye muscles "sweeps" the image across
the cones, so interpolating the resolution inherent to the receptor
spacing (remember enhancing ADC resolution by adding noise and
averaging?) and also stimulating the "phasic" (high-pass) response of
receptors.
--
 Cheers,
       Paul B.

2000\03\29@074406 by Jinx

face picon face
The picture on a TV or monitor with your head turned 90
degrees doesn't appear as clear as it normally does. Is this
the eye, the way the screen lines are scanned or a bit of
both ? An example of the IC pin effect ?

2000\03\29@074746 by hgraf

picon face
> 1.    Do other people consider that they have differing horizontal and
> vertical resolving powers?

       Yes.

> 2.    Does anyone have any formal information on this?
>
> My friend MAY have astigmatism but that's only an uneducated guess.

    If the difference is that large then yes, he/she most likely has
astigmatism. TTYL

2000\03\29@095149 by James R. Cunningham

flavicon
face
Michael Rigby-Jones wrote:

>   I wonder what the typical eyeball resolution is?

Dredged from my imperfect memory, diffraction limiting is about 4.56
arcseconds per inch of diameter.  The aperture of the pupil is about 5mm
(7mm for a young person in low light levels), so for perfect eyes,
resolution would be about 23 arcseconds at 5mm aperture and 16.5
arcseconds at 7mm aperture.  When I was young and Venus was up in the
evening sky and at its brightest, I could not detect the crescent disc
with the bare eye, but could easily do so with a pair of 7x50
binoculars.  I'd guess the practical limit for the average eye lies
somewhere near the bottom of that range (about 30-40 arcseconds to an
arcminute)

>  I would think the brain probably performs some kind of resolution
> enhancement.

Edge enhancement and motion detection among others.

Jim

2000\03\29@102303 by David VanHorn

flavicon
face
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Great Idea for an SF plot:

Creatures that we can't see, because our brain has been "wired" that way.
They are there, but the brain keeps masking them out.

Sleep tight :)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBOOJJmIFlGDz1l6VWEQIm2QCfdw3Hxld4Yg+SYUOwJdgQTST87lEAnRj7
o4xzSUuhg+4soh3z6E9FWtDc
=6EPn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2000\03\29@110208 by Michael Rigby-Jones

flavicon
face
part 0 2581 bytes
<P><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Paul Webster wrote:</FONT>
</P>
<UL>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&nbsp; The brain performs *superb* resolution enhancement, even to finding</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">detail that isn't there at all.&nbsp; Some are better than others at this,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">and find employment as politicians etc...</FONT>
</P>
</UL>
<P><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">I wish you hadn't written that, I ROFL'd so loudly people were giving me some very odd stares.&nbsp; Come to think of it, they do that anyway.</FONT></P>
<UL>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&nbsp; Actually, the main thing appears to be that the physiological (i.e.,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">normal functioning) jitter of the eye muscles &quot;sweeps&quot; the image across</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">the cones, so interpolating the resolution inherent to the receptor</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">spacing (remember enhancing ADC resolution by adding noise and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">averaging?) and also stimulating the &quot;phasic&quot; (high-pass) response of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">receptors.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">--</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&nbsp; Cheers,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Paul B.</FONT>
</P>
</UL>
<P><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">I'd forgotten that.&nbsp; I believe all muscles have a certain low frequency 'jitter'.&nbsp; I've always wondered why it's impossible to sweep ones eyes left to right smoothly unless you conciously defocus them.&nbsp; They always seem to move in steps.&nbsp; Or is it just me? </FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Cheers</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Mike</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>
</x-html>

2000\03\29@110825 by jamesnewton

face picon face
What about a future in which people wear LCD contact lenses that augment
reality (directions to destination, vmail, video cell phone display, time,
etc...) as often as people today wear wrist watches... Think about that for
a minute to convince yourself that it probably will happen, then... somebody
creates a virus that causes these systems to display creatures that don't
exist, block out objects (like on-coming vehicles) that do exist, etc...

In other words, we are re-wiring the world to change what we perceive.
Walkmans, cell phones, active noise suppression systems are the order of
this day. (Has an ad agency created a virus for the new digital media
players that whispers product names under the music). Shoes, tools, and
optics changed the past. (how many people with vision problems have
reproduced when they would have had a hard time feeding themselves without
glasses?). As the frequency spectra of our technology sweeps upwards, people
will walk down the street with there eyes completely off their surroundings,
using Radar range finders that transmit distance to obstacle as pressure on
their chest, back and sides. Crazy? It's already been done. See:
http://wearcam.org/
http://wearcam.org/wearpubs.html
http://n1nlf-1.eecg.toronto.edu/isea_abstract.html

and other items at
http://techref.massmind.org/wearable
http://techref.massmind.org/io/sensors

Its a brave new world. Catch up.

---
James Newton spam_OUTjamesnewtonTakeThisOuTspamgeocities.com 1-619-652-0593
http://techref.massmind.org NEW! FINALLY A REAL NAME!
Members can add private/public comments/pages ($0 TANSTAAFL web hosting)


{Original Message removed}

2000\03\29@120406 by Dan Michaels
flavicon
face
At 01:37 PM 3/29/00 +0100, you wrote:
>>
>I'd forgotten that.  I believe all muscles have a certain low frequency
>'jitter'.  I've always wondered why it's impossible to sweep ones eyes left
>to right smoothly unless you conciously defocus them.  They always seem to
>move in steps.  Or is it just me?
>
>Cheers
>
>Mike
>

They are called "saccadic eye movements".

2000\03\29@131652 by Michael Rigby-Jones

flavicon
face
part 0 2803 bytes
<P><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Sounds like &quot;Death&quot; from the Terry Pratchet DiskWorld series :o)</FONT>
</P>
<UL>
<P><FONT SIZE=1 FACE="Arial">{Original Message removed}

2000\03\29@162235 by Russell McMahon

picon face
>The picture on a TV or monitor with your head turned 90
>degrees doesn't appear as clear as it normally does. Is this
>the eye, the way the screen lines are scanned or a bit of
>both ? An example of the IC pin effect ?


Try looking at a TV (or any picture) upside down.
I at least find that picture information is greatly reduced when the brain's
pattern matching mechanism is thus confused.
I suspect (B,IMBW) that the TV affect you mention is due to this.

RM

PS - thanks for the superb optical illusion (1st of the 2)
I've never seen anything so good.

2000\03\29@173137 by Tony Nixon

flavicon
picon face
> Michael Rigby-Jones wrote:

> I'd forgotten that.  I believe all muscles have a certain low
> frequency 'jitter'.  I've always wondered why it's impossible to sweep
> ones eyes left to right smoothly unless you conciously defocus them.
> They always seem to move in steps.  Or is it just me?

It's amazing then that you can fix your eyes on a point and move your
head sideways, and your eyes have a perfect smooth motion.


--
Best regards

Tony

http://www.picnpoke.com
.....salesKILLspamspam@spam@picnpoke.com

2000\03\29@174843 by paulb

flavicon
face
Tony Nixon wrote:

>> I've always wondered why it's impossible to sweep ones eyes left to
>> right smoothly unless you conciously defocus them.
>> They always seem to move in steps.  Or is it just me?
> It's amazing then that you can fix your eyes on a point and move your
> head sideways, and your eyes have a perfect smooth motion.

 No, I think that both effects mentioned are one and the same.  Our
eyes are not *programmed* to make a smooth pan and thus refuse to do so.
They keep "catching" and locking onto every object in the path!
--
 Cheers,
       Paul B.

2000\03\29@175917 by Dale Botkin

flavicon
face
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, David VanHorn wrote:

> Great Idea for an SF plot:
>
> Creatures that we can't see, because our brain has been "wired" that way.
> They are there, but the brain keeps masking them out.

You mean, like intelligent bosses?

---
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..."
               -- Isaac Asimov

2000\03\29@181154 by l.allen

picon face
Tony Wrote..

> It's amazing then that you can fix your eyes on a point and move your
> head sideways, and your eyes have a perfect smooth motion.
>

The thing I think is really amazing is being able to create
a usable image through a rain spotted windscreen if you
move your head around.
A kind of time/perspective integrated image.

Warning... sounding like an incomprehensible geek.
Where did I put that pocket pen protector and checked
trousers?
_____________________________

Lance Allen
Technical Officer
Uni of Auckland
Psych Dept
New Zealand

http://www.psych.auckland.ac.nz

_____________________________

2000\03\29@182444 by David VanHorn

flavicon
face
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


>> Creatures that we can't see, because our brain has been "wired" that way.
>> They are there, but the brain keeps masking them out.
>
>You mean, like intelligent bosses?

Actually, I've got one. (but then again I have other vision problems)
I work at home, he calls me about once every 2 weeks on the average, takes
my reccomendations seriously, and otherwise treats me nice.

The only minus is the occasional commute, about 600 miles one way, but
actually, I enjoy them, even when made in a blizzard, as time to my self.

Actually, I was thinking more like the beasts that steal socks from the
laundry, with teeth.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBOOK6XIFlGDz1l6VWEQKg2wCdEKzA0cxExhGHiIEm/e37miMEu8kAniPR
LuKbxZfmtErI699luUFT33Hl
=mYaU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2000\03\29@183519 by Plunkett, Dennis

flavicon
face
This only works if you see in 3 dimensions. Those whom only see in 2 can not
do this. Even the fixing stuff. Try covering one eye and repeat the same
test, scary isn't it :)

Dennis




> {Original Message removed}

2000\03\29@190222 by Grif\ w. keith griffith

flavicon
face
<x-flowed>Need an Oracle DBA Sun SA?  Been almost 15 years since I was in that
position,, and I miss it.


>Actually, I've got one. (but then again I have other vision problems)
>I work at home, he calls me about once every 2 weeks on the average, takes
>my reccomendations seriously, and otherwise treats me nice.


'Grif'   N7IVS

</x-flowed>

2000\03\29@192843 by Russell McMahon

picon face
>This only works if you see in 3 dimensions. Those whom only see in 2 can
not
>do this. Even the fixing stuff. Try covering one eye and repeat the same
>test, scary isn't it :)
>
>Dennis


I can do it with 1 eye.
But then, for practical purposes I only use one eye as the other is very
"lazy".
I have superb peripheral vision in the "bad" eye but the central image is
little used.
I see in 3D of course :-) coz my brain has been seeing a 2D image of a 3D
world all its life and interepting it. It's just that the cues it uses are
different than if you have binocular vision. If YOU think you can see a 3D
image on a 2D PC screen (not a true 3D display) then why shouldn't I ? :-)

>
>> {Original Message removed}

2000\03\29@193302 by David VanHorn

flavicon
face
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

At 04:07 PM 3/29/00 -0800, \"Grif\" w. keith griffith wrote:
>Need an Oracle DBA Sun SA?  Been almost 15 years since I was in that
>position,, and I miss it.

We're pretty small at this point, but it's been steady for three years
running, and the products are starting to take wing.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBOOLKZIFlGDz1l6VWEQKztQCgpJOgRK+8kwTRYo8g9yFfWo5ZfPEAnRv4
0c2f5iZCAJF3xI70YX7euxpG
=/o/5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2000\03\29@201310 by Tony Nixon

flavicon
picon face
"Plunkett, Dennis" wrote:
>
> This only works if you see in 3 dimensions. Those whom only see in 2 can not
> do this. Even the fixing stuff. Try covering one eye and repeat the same
> test, scary isn't it :)

Try tilting your head sideways when driving. That's scary ;-)

--
Best regards

Tony

http://www.picnpoke.com
salesspamKILLspampicnpoke.com

2000\03\29@201723 by David VanHorn

flavicon
face
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


>Try tilting your head sideways when driving. That's scary ;-)

Safer, but same effect, turn your mouse 90 degrees, then insist to yourself
that your consious will can overcome years of training..

:)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBOOLUjoFlGDz1l6VWEQIXEQCfRo3v/cxd5DaPjWAx3qMhDLCZFmkAnjC+
gWV41/BZxA5Lx6T0BayhY49A
=lAHn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2000\03\29@202520 by Brandon, Tom

flavicon
picon face
The amazing thing to me is how fast our consciousness actually can readjust.
The classic test is to give someone a pair of glasses that make them see
everything upside down (we already see  things upside down so this actually
means images are coming in the right way). Can't remeber the exact figures
but it's at most a matter of a day before full redjustment occurs. And, at
this point it's the same ammount of time to go back even if there's only a
short period of readjustment.

Very few things throw our brain off for any amount of time. Given that our
eyes see things  as two images, upside down with a big hole in the middle
through a tinted screen that changes colour\opacity throughout life I think
the brain is pretty well equipped to embrace change.

Tom.

{Original Message removed}

2000\03\29@203402 by David VanHorn

flavicon
face
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


>Very few things throw our brain off for any amount of time. Given that our
>eyes see things  as two images, upside down with a big hole in the middle
>through a tinted screen that changes colour\opacity throughout life I think
>the brain is pretty well equipped to embrace change.


That's why I brought up the mouse thing though. It's totally learned
behaviour.
You aren't born knowing how to relate hand movements to the motion of a
disconnected dot on the screen.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBOOLX+4FlGDz1l6VWEQL2BACfepS1dbrUSyYVi7zESsF5QoZ3gU0Ani9Y
/+QB1IwPiLK5mmezIYM0kQgw
=Edld
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2000\03\29@215959 by Tony Nixon

flavicon
picon face
"Brandon, Tom" wrote:

> Very few things throw our brain off for any amount of time. Given that our
> eyes see things  as two images, upside down with a big hole in the middle
> through a tinted screen that changes colour\opacity throughout life I think
> the brain is pretty well equipped to embrace change.

I hope so.

My PIC driven virtual car is going to be a fun item :-)

Should be testing later this week.

--
Best regards

Tony

http://www.picnpoke.com
.....salesKILLspamspam.....picnpoke.com

2000\03\29@221130 by Sean Breheny

face picon face
Tony,

You should put a web-cam on the car and another watching the overall
environment it is in and allow control via the web <VBEG> Nothing like some
sudden wall damage (SWD, a robotics technical term) with >100 HP!!

Sean

At 11:45 AM 3/30/00 +1000, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

| Sean Breheny
| Amateur Radio Callsign: KA3YXM
| Electrical Engineering Student
\--------------=----------------
Save lives, please look at http://www.all.org
Personal page: http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/shb7
shb7spamspam_OUTcornell.edu ICQ #: 3329174

2000\03\29@225552 by Tony Nixon

flavicon
picon face
Sean Breheny wrote:
>
> Tony,
>
> You should put a web-cam on the car and another watching the overall
> environment it is in and allow control via the web <VBEG> Nothing like some
> sudden wall damage (SWD, a robotics technical term) with >100 HP!!
>
> Sean

That may come in the future - who knows.

--
Best regards

Tony

http://www.picnpoke.com
@spam@salesKILLspamspampicnpoke.com

2000\03\30@024623 by Russell McMahon

picon face
>Safer, but same effect, turn your mouse 90 degrees, then insist to yourself
>that your consious will can overcome years of training..

OK -

DON'T DO THIS ON ANYTHING EXCEPT A BICYCLE AT LOW SPEED ON A SOFT SOFT
SURFACE :-)

Cycle slowly
Place left hand on right handlebar (this is doable)
Now, carefully -
Place left hand on right handlebar
(hands are now swapped)

Don't fall over

Craaaaaaaash!

I said ODN'T FALL OVER.


   do not do on road
do not do with motorbike
Do (only) do this at home :-)






     Russell McMahon
_____________________________

- http://www.easttimor.com
      Updated regularly:
      100,000 refugees STILL in  West Timor face starvation!

- http://www.sudan.com
   And you think Kosovo and Chechnya are bad!

What can one man* do?
Help the hungry at no cost to yourself!
at  http://www.thehungersite.com/

(* - or woman, child or internet enabled intelligent entity :-))


{Original Message removed}

2000\03\30@053758 by John

flavicon
face
Hello PIC.ers,

This is getting seriously OT, but all this eyeball talk has reminded me of
something
I've wanted to do for a long time  :))

The eyes are not mechanically or muscularly linked together, so..
why is it so impossible for us to direct our eyes independently?
Could it be conditioned or learnt?

I've never met anyone who can do this, nor can I think of any reason
for wanting to do it - other than a brilliant party-trick!

I promise my next posting *will* be pic  oriented,,,,

best regards,   John


e-mail from the desk of John Sanderson, JS Controls.
Snailmail:          PO Box 1887, Boksburg 1460, Rep. of South Africa.
Tel/fax:            Johannesburg  893 4154
Cellphone no:   082 469 0446
email:                KILLspamjsandKILLspamspampixie.co.za
Manufacturer & purveyor of laboratory force testing apparatus, and related
products and services.

2000\03\30@073351 by Andrew Kunz

flavicon
face
It's not that they steal the socks from the laundry, it's that the socks elope.
They leave (but never tell anybody) and the next thing you know, there's lint
(baby socks) everywhere.

Andy










David VanHorn <RemoveMEdvanhornTakeThisOuTspamCEDAR.NET> on 03/29/2000 09:22:20 PM

Please respond to pic microcontroller discussion list <spamBeGonePICLISTspamBeGonespamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>








To:      TakeThisOuTPICLISTEraseMEspamspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU

cc:      (bcc: Andrew Kunz/TDI_NOTES)



Subject: Re: [OT] Personal Optical Resolution








-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


>> Creatures that we can't see, because our brain has been "wired" that way.
>> They are there, but the brain keeps masking them out.
>
>You mean, like intelligent bosses?

Actually, I've got one. (but then again I have other vision problems)
I work at home, he calls me about once every 2 weeks on the average, takes
my reccomendations seriously, and otherwise treats me nice.

The only minus is the occasional commute, about 600 miles one way, but
actually, I enjoy them, even when made in a blizzard, as time to my self.

Actually, I was thinking more like the beasts that steal socks from the
laundry, with teeth.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBOOK6XIFlGDz1l6VWEQKg2wCdEKzA0cxExhGHiIEm/e37miMEu8kAniPR
LuKbxZfmtErI699luUFT33Hl
=mYaU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2000\03\30@073353 by Andrew Kunz

flavicon
face
My cousin lost an eye as a teen (20+ years ago) and has no problem with depth
perception, and driving with splashes on the windscreen.  I think this is a
"learned" thing.  The brain self-modifies its code.

Just last week I saw an interesting video from Moody Science (made in the 60's
or so) in which a test subject wore inverting lenses during all waking moments,
and was able after a few days to be operating normally.  His brain (it took a
while) flipped everything back right-side-up and he had no problems.

Andy











"Plunkett, Dennis" <RemoveMEdplunkettspamTakeThisOuTAIRINTER.COM.AU> on 03/29/2000 06:31:50 PM

Please respond to pic microcontroller discussion list <PICLISTEraseMEspam.....MITVMA.MIT.EDU>








To:      EraseMEPICLISTspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU

cc:      (bcc: Andrew Kunz/TDI_NOTES)



Subject: Re: [OT] Personal Optical Resolution








This only works if you see in 3 dimensions. Those whom only see in 2 can not
do this. Even the fixing stuff. Try covering one eye and repeat the same
test, scary isn't it :)

Dennis




> {Original Message removed}

2000\03\30@074627 by paulb

flavicon
face
David VanHorn wrote:

> You aren't born knowing how to relate hand movements to the motion of
> a disconnected dot on the screen.

 I'm not at all sure about that one.  (I won't be surprised if those
psychology guys have a go at me on this one either!)  You *probably*
aren't born with this particular linkage, though many animals obviously
*are* born with similar behaviours hard-coded as they can for example
get up and run to follow their mothers.

 What is true is that you learn it within a few months of birth and I
would suspect it is pretty hard-coded afterward.  I haven't read the
full disclosure of the inversion spectacles experiments, but whilst you
should be able to navigate reasonably well in a day or so, I might
wonder just how close your reaction times would get to the normal ones
or whether there would always be an extra delay involved in the "wedge"
performing the spatial transform.

 I would be greatly concerned about the safety aspects should anything
sudden happen requiring automatic (cerebellar) behaviours which might
not have been trained to match.

 This skill is actually part of my job, by the way, guiding a camera
held in one hand and to a greater or lesser extent, an instrument in the
other, according to the image from the camera.

 I figure I can cope with up to 90¡ rotation either way fairly easily
(though some of the people I assist have more or less tolerance on
this), more than that and up to 180¡ is much more painstaking.
Inversion is often easier by reversing grip.  It's a bit like steering a
car holding the bottom of the wheel.  That is fairly easy for the brain
to re-conceptualise and "switch" the style to match.
--
 Cheers,
       Paul B.

2000\03\30@075059 by paulb

flavicon
face
John wrote:

> The eyes are not mechanically or muscularly linked together, so..
> why is it so impossible for us to direct our eyes independently?

 Because they definitely *are* hard-wired in the brain.  If the eyes
are not close to convergence at birth, it's actually too hard for even a
baby to pull the images together, it relies on the accuracy of the
wiring!

> Could it be conditioned or learnt?

 Difficult.  Deliberate convergence can be learned as a trick, but
deliberate divergence is nigh-impossible.  You are fighting the brain's
programming to pull the images together.   A person with a congenital
squint who is sufficiently lucky (or managed carefully enough) to retain
good vision in both eyes, though never developing stereoscopic fusion,
would be far better placed to learn chameleon vision.

 Even so, the visual cortex is specially wired (in humans and most
mammals) with the intent to superpose images from both eyes, so it
really is *not* designed (or designed not) to see separate images.

> I've never met anyone who can do this, nor can I think of any reason
> for wanting to do it - other than a brilliant party-trick!

 I need not mention Marty Feldman, need I?
--
 Cheers,
       Paul B.

2000\03\30@083236 by Russell McMahon

picon face
1.    "Cross eyed" condition involves decoupling two eyes but, as Paul
notes, both move inwards from normal.

2.    "Lazy eye" conditionm has one eye focussing on target and the other
doing essentially what it wants to AFAIK.
I have such a condition although usually bnoth eyes track OK.
If I sit pondering things and don't concentrate on what I'm looking at my
daiughter tells me that I may go into this condition. She can tell when I am
"lost in thought" by this :-).

3.    I have no problems with rain drops on windscreens etc.
I have no problems (that I am aware of) with depth perception BUT my brain
must use different mechanisms than stereoscopy to achieve this.

I spent many years on amotorcycle and survived due to * good peripheral
vision. When the image sizes are highly disparate or too hard to pull
together the brain shuts down the "signal" from the centre of one eye
leavung the less sharp peripheral vision in place.

   * - I'm sure that a modicum of luck and an appropriate amount
        of input from God also featured :-)

4.    Maybe someone can come up with a PIC driven optical correction system
for those with disparate vertical and horizontal resolutions :-)

. .


     Russell McMahon
_____________________________

- http://www.easttimor.com
      Updated regularly:
      100,000 refugees STILL in  West Timor face starvation!

- http://www.sudan.com
   And you think Kosovo and Chechnya are bad!

What can one man* do?
Help the hungry at no cost to yourself!
at  http://www.thehungersite.com/

(* - or woman, child or internet enabled intelligent entity :-))


{Original Message removed}

2000\03\30@084107 by Russell McMahon

picon face
I have an article somewhere on the theory of Quantum laundry.
It explains why socks vanish from one machine and turn up an indeterminate
time later in another machine and where lint comes from and how trying  to
determine (ie measure) where your sock has got to will change the outcome.
Don't recall any cats being featured (or PICs).

Article probably available on web by searching as above for those who need a
good technical discussion of this subject.



     Russell McMahon
_____________________________

- http://www.easttimor.com
      Updated regularly:
      100,000 refugees STILL in  West Timor face starvation!

- http://www.sudan.com
   And you think Kosovo and Chechnya are bad!

What can one man* do?
Help the hungry at no cost to yourself!
at  http://www.thehungersite.com/

(* - or woman, child or internet enabled intelligent entity :-))


{Original Message removed}

2000\03\30@085751 by Andrew Kunz

flavicon
face
www.jagat.com/joel/socks.html









Russell McMahon <RemoveMEapptechEraseMEspamEraseMECLEAR.NET.NZ> on 03/30/2000 08:02:29 AM

Please respond to pic microcontroller discussion list <RemoveMEPICLISTspam_OUTspamKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>








To:      RemoveMEPICLISTTakeThisOuTspamspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU

cc:      (bcc: Andrew Kunz/TDI_NOTES)



Subject: Re: [OT] Personal Optical Resolution








I have an article somewhere on the theory of Quantum laundry.
It explains why socks vanish from one machine and turn up an indeterminate
time later in another machine and where lint comes from and how trying  to
determine (ie measure) where your sock has got to will change the outcome.
Don't recall any cats being featured (or PICs).

Article probably available on web by searching as above for those who need a
good technical discussion of this subject.



     Russell McMahon
_____________________________

- http://www.easttimor.com
      Updated regularly:
      100,000 refugees STILL in  West Timor face starvation!

- http://www.sudan.com
   And you think Kosovo and Chechnya are bad!

What can one man* do?
Help the hungry at no cost to yourself!
at  http://www.thehungersite.com/

(* - or woman, child or internet enabled intelligent entity :-))


{Original Message removed}

2000\03\30@100132 by jamesnewton

face picon face
Now I know I don't want to share the road with you... The remote control car
is bad enough but tilted head drivers?

All seriousness aside, I just saw on the web that automotive crashes are
responsible for 90 percent of all travel related fatalities. We actually
kill almost as many people on the freeways every year as we killed in 'Nam.
No protests about road safety for some strange reason.

---
James Newton EraseMEjamesnewtonspamspamspamBeGonegeocities.com 1-619-652-0593
http://techref.massmind.org NEW! FINALLY A REAL NAME!
Members can add private/public comments/pages ($0 TANSTAAFL web hosting)


{Original Message removed}

2000\03\30@101955 by Mike Miller

flavicon
face
If it's called friendly fire when we kill our own people in war, is it
friendly driving when we kill them on the road?

Just a thought.

Mike.

James Newton wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> {Original Message removed}

2000\03\30@111200 by Jim Hartmann

flavicon
face
Ok, here is an experiment that will freak you out showing we're less in
control of perception than we think:

Hold a mirror at a 45 degree angle with one edge against your nose so that
you see a blank wall in the mirror with one eye.  With the other eye look
at something interesting -- like a cat. ( this was called the cheshire cat
effect in the Scientific American ).  While looking at the interesting
thing wave your hand so it would come in view of the other eye through the
mirror.  The interesting thing will disappear partially or wholly.

:-Jim

2000\03\30@111746 by Jim Hartmann

flavicon
face
I can do it -- look...
I really can.  First cross eyes.  Then go directly to looking left or
right.  See?

:-Jim




John <jsandSTOPspamspamspam_OUTPIXIE.CO.ZA>STOPspamspamspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU> on 03/30/2000 04:22:30 AM

Please respond to pic microcontroller discussion list
     <spamBeGonePICLISTSTOPspamspamEraseMEMITVMA.MIT.EDU>

Sent by:  pic microcontroller discussion list <KILLspamPICLISTspamBeGonespamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>


To:   EraseMEPICLISTspamEraseMEMITVMA.MIT.EDU
cc:
Subject:  [OT] Personal Optical Resolution


Hello PIC.ers,

This is getting seriously OT, but all this eyeball talk has reminded me of
something
I've wanted to do for a long time  :))

The eyes are not mechanically or muscularly linked together, so..
why is it so impossible for us to direct our eyes independently?
Could it be conditioned or learnt?

I've never met anyone who can do this, nor can I think of any reason
for wanting to do it - other than a brilliant party-trick!

I promise my next posting *will* be pic  oriented,,,,

best regards,   John


e-mail from the desk of John Sanderson, JS Controls.
Snailmail:          PO Box 1887, Boksburg 1460, Rep. of South Africa.
Tel/fax:            Johannesburg  893 4154
Cellphone no:   082 469 0446
email:                @spam@jsand@spam@spamspam_OUTpixie.co.za
Manufacturer & purveyor of laboratory force testing apparatus, and related
products and services.

2000\03\30@121558 by Grif\ w. keith griffith

flavicon
face
<x-flowed>Not an eyeball thing,,, but try riding your motorcycle by crossing your
arms and grabbing the left handlebar with the right hand and the right side
with the left hand.  Doesn't work the way you think it does at all!!!



> >Try tilting your head sideways when driving. That's scary ;-)
>
>Safer, but same effect, turn your mouse 90 degrees, then insist to yourself
>that your consious will can overcome years of training..
>
>:)


'Grif'   N7IVS

</x-flowed>

2000\03\30@122431 by Grif\ w. keith griffith

flavicon
face
<x-flowed>You learned this the same way I did?,,, on a gravel road with an old beat
up 350 honda.   Really hurt.


>Cycle slowly
>Place left hand on right handlebar (this is doable)
>Now, carefully -
>
>I said ODN'T FALL OVER.


'Grif'   N7IVS

</x-flowed>

2000\03\30@131256 by jamesnewton

face picon face
I was amazed during my first motorcycle safety course (after riding for
years) that:
A) they handle one way at low speeds and another way at high speeds
B) at speed, you turn right by pushing the right handle AWAY i.e. turning
left. No kidding!

I think a lot of riders learn this subconsciously (or don't learn it before
the first big bang!) and only turn the wrong way if they think about what
they are doing.

The thing I failed to learn in that course and that later resulted in some
nice road rash and a permanent knee disability for my girlfriend at the time
who later became my wife (see, isn't she patient? <GRIN>) is that you will
automatically go where you look so you need to look and point the damn thing
at where there isn't something rather than fixing your attention on the
object that suddenly showed up where you weren't expecting it.

Which brings us back to Personal Optical Resolution. Just how much control
do we have over what we look at? As Jim Hartmann s parlor trick shows, the
eyes WILL respond to moving objects over still objects, and can't help but
flick over to an apparent on-coming object, and can't (normally) separate
tracking. Do we control them, or do they control us?

Music alters my mood. Even when I don't want it do. I find it very hard to
think about one thing while looking at another. If I want mind control, do I
give people free virtual reality goggles? ...or just a TV? ...or a free
internet PC? Hummm....

The TV is not interactive except for channel changes so it can't regain your
attention if you move on. The PC (especially the "free" TANSTAAFL! ones) can
constantly adjust their distractions to your interests. The vr goggles will
be able to track what you are looking at and use the information to
compensate for your thinking to redirect you to.... well, what ever its
programmed to direct you to. If you control the programming, it will be the
greatest thing next to sex, I'll be able to program in what I want to think
about and it will make sure I concentrate on it. If you don't control the
programming...

---
James Newton spamBeGonejamesnewtonspamKILLspamgeocities.com 1-619-652-0593
http://techref.massmind.org NEW! FINALLY A REAL NAME!
Members can add private/public comments/pages ($0 TANSTAAFL web hosting)


{Original Message removed}

2000\03\30@140006 by Dan Michaels

flavicon
face
Jim Newton wrote:
>I was amazed during my first motorcycle safety course (after riding for
>years) that:
>A) they handle one way at low speeds and another way at high speeds
>B) at speed, you turn right by pushing the right handle AWAY i.e. turning
>left. No kidding!
>

Just don't push too hard with that right hand, or it will become
immediately apparent why you can initiate a turn this way.
===============

>
>Which brings us back to Personal Optical Resolution. Just how much control
>do we have over what we look at? As Jim Hartmann s parlor trick shows, the
>eyes WILL respond to moving objects over still objects, and can't help but
>flick over to an apparent on-coming object, and can't (normally) separate
>tracking. Do we control them, or do they control us?
>

No, they save us. Early in evolution, the flick over to in-coming
was laid down as a way for small animals to detect the presence of,
and avoid being eaten by, larger predators. Also, as a way to detect
smaller moving objects (ie, bugs), when they felt like being predators
themselves. Ever see a frog catch a fly. Involves mainly peripheral
rods in the retina, and reflexes deep in the brain (ie, colliculus).

Later animals evolved foveated retinas with a central concentration
of cones, along with higher brain centers (ie, cortex), for detailed
examination of visual objects. Humans still have both mechanisms,
although some of the lower reflexes may be subsumed by higher
mechanisms now. [just looked it up at eEncyclopedia.com].

2000\03\30@141011 by Andrew Kunz

flavicon
face
But you have to take the great leap of faith, of course, that evolution is true,
despite the evidence to the contrary.

Andy









Dan Michaels <.....oricomspam_OUTspamLYNX.SNI.NET> on 03/30/2000 01:58:40 PM

Please respond to pic microcontroller discussion list <TakeThisOuTPICLIST.....spamTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU>








To:      TakeThisOuTPICLISTKILLspamspamspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU

cc:      (bcc: Andrew Kunz/TDI_NOTES)



Subject: Re: [OT] Personal Optical Resolution








Jim Newton wrote:
>I was amazed during my first motorcycle safety course (after riding for
>years) that:
>A) they handle one way at low speeds and another way at high speeds
>B) at speed, you turn right by pushing the right handle AWAY i.e. turning
>left. No kidding!
>

Just don't push too hard with that right hand, or it will become
immediately apparent why you can initiate a turn this way.
===============

>
>Which brings us back to Personal Optical Resolution. Just how much control
>do we have over what we look at? As Jim Hartmann s parlor trick shows, the
>eyes WILL respond to moving objects over still objects, and can't help but
>flick over to an apparent on-coming object, and can't (normally) separate
>tracking. Do we control them, or do they control us?
>

No, they save us. Early in evolution, the flick over to in-coming
was laid down as a way for small animals to detect the presence of,
and avoid being eaten by, larger predators. Also, as a way to detect
smaller moving objects (ie, bugs), when they felt like being predators
themselves. Ever see a frog catch a fly. Involves mainly peripheral
rods in the retina, and reflexes deep in the brain (ie, colliculus).

Later animals evolved foveated retinas with a central concentration
of cones, along with higher brain centers (ie, cortex), for detailed
examination of visual objects. Humans still have both mechanisms,
although some of the lower reflexes may be subsumed by higher
mechanisms now. [just looked it up at eEncyclopedia.com].

2000\03\30@142427 by Robert Rolf

picon face
> This is getting seriously OT, but all this eyeball talk has reminded me of
> something
> I've wanted to do for a long time  :))
>
> The eyes are not mechanically or muscularly linked together, so..
> why is it so impossible for us to direct our eyes independently?

You do move your eyes somewhat independently as you change convergence
from far to near.

> Could it be conditioned or learnt?
>
> I've never met anyone who can do this, nor can I think of any reason

Mary Tyler Moore could do it, and it looked bizarre.

> for wanting to do it - other than a brilliant party-trick!

You can do it too. Look to the far right, then track an imaginary
object that lands on your nose, then track the object as it
moves off to the far left.

To an outside observer it will look like you rolled your right
eye to your nose, then the left eye rolled away. With practice
you can freak a few people out by getting the motion perfect.

--
Robert.Rolf-AT-UAlberta.ca

2000\03\30@144857 by Daniel Hart

flavicon
face
(Fact)
A recommended method to avoid repetitive stress syndrome and thus carpal tunnel syndrome is to
alternate the mouse between the right and left hands. Micro soft recommends (I think it was MS) that
you reverse the buttons when you do this (You MAC users will not understand ) so that the index
finger performs the same function in both cases. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't, my mouse finds
its destination unless I'm working 80 hour weeks and am too tired to see the screen with my head
turned sideways. I've also shaved with the opposite hand, written backwards, written with the
opposite hand, and spent hours staring at 3D stereograms.
(Opinion)
I believe that you can learn to disassociate virtually any body function with enough study and
practice, and you will benefit from the experience through greater self control and new coding
pathways. But learning to do something which is potentially dangerous, like teaching your eyes to
disassociate or teaching your heart to stop, should be surrounded by a large number of conditional
circumstances to help control the occurrences. Conditioned behavior can be deconditioned. People
have forced themselves to starve.

Have a great day,
Dan

"Paul B. Webster VK2BZC" wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--

Daniel Hart
Embedded System Design Engineer
NBS Technologies, Inc. (Card Technology Corp.)
70 Eisenhower Drive, Paramus, NJ 07652, USA
+1 201 845 7373 x183    .....dhartspamRemoveMEnbstech.com

2000\03\30@150326 by Dan Michaels

flavicon
face
At 02:08 PM 3/30/00 -0500, you wrote:
>But you have to take the great leap of faith, of course, that evolution is
true,
>despite the evidence to the contrary.
>
>Andy
>

Oh, no, it happened again. Possibly, the correct word is
"geneology". The way animals are listed on the tree of
life, from low to high. The brains have changed, but
the quest for survival remains the same. Whatever.

2000\03\30@221933 by Wagner Lipnharski

flavicon
face
Exactly, the movement feedback is not based on muscle or nerves
reaction, but purely in image. This is common in almost all animals, it
was a natural evolution for hunting, the ability to lock on the target
was one of the most important elements for the species survival, along
with the fantastic peripheral vision, high sensible for movements (image
change).  Also, our great capacity to change faster software than
hardware, makes our brain a fantastic image refinary.

Your optical muscles are able to adjust your ocular globe position in
mils of an inch if necessary. Try to focus your vision on some little
detail at your finger, and move your finger very, very slowly up, down,
left and right, you will be able to still seen the detail all the time,
even if you move your finger just a tenth of a millimeter, doesn't
matter if you move your head or not. Here the fantastic part is that you
CAN move your head fast at any direction, bounce your head, your focus
and target will stay at your finger precisely without image deformation
or blur. This will not happens if your target moves out of your visual
sync, blur will happens, even that apparently the ocular globe movement
would be exactly the same... interesting.

It explains the hunting ability to chase a pray in a jumping and running
motion, without losing track of the target.  Most of the attack
computers at jet fighters use the same principle.

About the vertical or horizontal resolution... some oriental people use
to read and write in vertical mode, it would explain something?

Without any research, I would say that our best resolution is
horizontal, since our evolution needed to pay much more attention to
enemies moving at the horizontal field instead of up and down, so it is
possible that our horizontal perception is better.  One point to agree
with my theory is that our stereo vision is horizontal.  No species in a
(relative) flat surface on this planet has vertical stereo vision, one
eye above another...

I would not be surprised if a space alien (somebody that develop
millions of generations in micro gravity at space) would have a
tri-vision system (3 eyes in a triangle distribution), able to perceive
objects much more clearly at any angle and position, or rotation.

Wagner.


Paul B. wrote:

>> I've always wondered why it's impossible to sweep ones eyes left to
>> right smoothly unless you conciously defocus them.
>> They always seem to move in steps.  Or is it just me?
> It's amazing then that you can fix your eyes on a point and move your
> head sideways, and your eyes have a perfect smooth motion.

 No, I think that both effects mentioned are one and the same.  Our
eyes are not *programmed* to make a smooth pan and thus refuse to do so.
They keep "catching" and locking onto every object in the path!
--
 Cheers,
       Paul B.

2000\03\30@224504 by David VanHorn

flavicon
face
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

At 10:18 PM 3/30/00 -0500, Wagner Lipnharski wrote:
>Exactly, the movement feedback is not based on muscle or nerves
>reaction, but purely in image. This is common in almost all animals, it
>was a natural evolution for hunting, the ability to lock on the target
>was one of the most important elements for the species survival, along
>with the fantastic peripheral vision, high sensible for movements (image
>change).  Also, our great capacity to change faster software than
>hardware, makes our brain a fantastic image refinary.


I've often wondered if UFOs and ghosts aren't "processing artifacts" from
the brain's pattern-matching gone just a bit too far.. Kind of like seeing
animals in clouds, but different.  You saw something, and the brain maps it
to the closest thing it can, rather than letting you have the raw data.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBOORHyYFlGDz1l6VWEQLCRQCfWh8UYzIPJi3bPWE46d8PRtgcATAAn3q/
fcw4neUH4SHODcmWwCMf3YKC
=79vO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2000\03\31@024938 by Alan B Pearce

face picon face
>To an outside observer it will look like you rolled your right
>eye to your nose, then the left eye rolled away. With practice
>you can freak a few people out by getting the motion perfect.

Somebody reckoned the way to freak people out when you are looking at them is to
look at an object immediately behind their ear. They then get the feeling you
are looking right through them, because the convergence of your eyes is not
correct for you to be looking right at them.

2000\03\31@030540 by Dr. Imre Bartfai

flavicon
face
Hi,
excuse for trying to connect to this interessant topic, I'd have a
question:

there are a lot of so-called "magic images" - I even saw a book filled
with them - which are actually grey spots. It is said that looking this
pictures with somehow relaxed eyes true images occur. I did never manage
to see such hidden image. How does it work? Does it require some personal
skill or training (or maybe inborn gifts)?

Thank you in advance.

Regards,
Imre

2000\03\31@034532 by Michael Rigby-Jones

flavicon
face
part 0 1931 bytes
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Hi,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">excuse for trying to connect to this interessant topic, I'd have a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">question:</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">there are a lot of so-called &quot;magic images&quot; - I even saw a book filled</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">with them - which are actually grey spots. It is said that looking this</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">pictures with somehow relaxed eyes true images occur. I did never manage</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">to see such hidden image. How does it work? Does it require some personal</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">skill or training (or maybe inborn gifts)?</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Thank you in advance.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Regards,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Imre</FONT>
</P>
</UL>
<P><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">A lot of people just can't see these pictures.&nbsp; They are called SIRDs (something like Single Image Random Dot stereogram).&nbsp; Usualy the best way to visualise them is to force your eyes to focus on a plane behind the picture, so effectively you are looking through the picture, not at it.&nbsp; After a while you should see an image start to form, however if you move your eyes too quickly it will dissapear.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Mike Rigby-Jones</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
</x-html>

2000\03\31@055857 by Russell McMahon

picon face
I ride a Jawa !!!!!!!!!!!! (or did :-))

(and a Triumph, and a Suzuki or 2, and a Yamaha or 2)


RM



From: "Grif" w. keith griffith <RemoveMEkgriffitspamspamBeGoneWOLFENET.COM>
To: spamBeGonePICLIST@spam@spamspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU <TakeThisOuTPICLISTspamspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Date: Friday, 31 March 2000 05:24
Subject: Re: [OT] Personal Optical Resolution


{Quote hidden}

2000\03\31@073030 by paulb

flavicon
face
Michael Rigby-Jones wrote:

> A lot of people just can't see these pictures.  They are called SIRDs
> (something like Single Image Random Dot stereogram).  Usualy the best
> way to visualise them is to force your eyes to focus on a plane behind
> the picture, so effectively you are looking through the picture, not
> at it.  After a while you should see an image start to form, however
> if you move your eyes too quickly it will dissapear.

 They would appear to be a variant of the "star-E-O-grams"; your
viewing instructions are the same.
--
 Cheers,
       Paul B.

2000\03\31@082949 by hmiller

picon face
"Dr. Imre Bartfai" wrote:
>
> Hi,
> excuse for trying to connect to this interessant topic, I'd have a
> question:
>
> there are a lot of so-called "magic images" - I even saw a book filled
> with them - which are actually grey spots. It is said that looking this
> pictures with somehow relaxed eyes true images occur. I did never manage
> to see such hidden image. How does it work? Does it require some personal
> skill or training (or maybe inborn gifts)?
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> Regards,
> Imre
==========================

Imre

I think everyone can do it, it does take a little practice. There are as
many descriptions as there are people describing the trick. I would
describe it as defocussing the eyes, same as your term 'relaxing the
eyes'.

Try putting a page of text in front of your face, touching your nose. It
is impossible to focus the eyes at this close distance. Now move the
page slowly away, keeping the eyes defocussed, or 'relaxed'. Each eye
will see its own image and the two images will be somewhat seperated, or
overlapping. When you can do this easily, try it with the special image.
Be patient, it takes some practice to overcome the tendency to try to
focus. Its like using binoculars where you bring the two eyepieces
together to make one image or move them apart to make two overlapping
images.

Harley L. Miller     hmillerEraseMEspamsound.net

2000\03\31@084413 by Alan B Pearce

face picon face
At one stage there was a program which ran on a PC to produce these pictures.
There was also an article in a Dr Dobbs journal about 5 years ago on the theory
behind them. It may have been that article that had a link to the program.

the pictures can also be in colour, and the article had a picture produced by
Sony to illustrate the effect.

> there are a lot of so-called "magic images" - I even saw a book filled
> with them - which are actually grey spots. It is said that looking this
> pictures with somehow relaxed eyes true images occur. I did never manage
> to see such hidden image. How does it work? Does it require some personal
> skill or training (or maybe inborn gifts)?

2000\03\31@085446 by Milan v.d. Swaluw

flavicon
face
part 0 452 bytes content-type:IMAGE/jpeg; name="blackdots.jpg"Count the black dots...

Milan.

***********************************
Milan v.d. Swaluw, RemoveMEpe1ryyEraseMEspamspam_OUTamsat.org
Phone: +31-6-29025090
***********************************

Content-Type: IMAGE/jpeg; name="blackdots.jpg"
Content-ID: <@spam@Pine.LNX.4.04.10003311552220.30984RemoveMEspamEraseMEkrat.vet.fnt.hvu.nl>> Content-Description:
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="blackdots.jpg"

Attachment converted: growth:blackdots.jpg (JPEG/JVWR) (00008E2B)

2000\03\31@104027 by Mark Peterson

flavicon
face
This is getting way off topic but I have to comment.

Take the simplest flash-an-LED PIC code you can come up with.  If just one
bit in just one simple ASCII character byte is flipped, the program will
not run.  We as on-lookers to the error would say "Of course it will not
work.  All of the code, characters, bytes, and bits must be just right for
the program, device, and circuit to work.  Someone must correct it.  It
will not fix itself."  Yet, a single retina cell and in its functional
relationship to the rest of the optical and nervous system, is many, many
times more complicated and interdependent than the most complex devices and
systems created by human beings.

Its unbelievable that analytical thinking people continue to believe and
state confidently that the cells of the human eye and the neural system of
the brain essentially willed themselves to change how they function based
on their recognition of a far removed apparent need of the body to more
clearly resolve predators in the horizontal plain, and then spent a few
million years making the cellular changes required to accomplish the goal.
Why are they so afraid to concede to the blatant evidence in their face
that evolution is a farce?

I'm sorry to drag this out, but the ignorance and denial that is so
prevalent in the pseudo science of evolution is really getting old.

2000\03\31@120623 by Dan Michaels

flavicon
face
Mark Peterson wrote:
>... the cells of the human eye and the neural system of
>the brain essentially willed themselves to change how they function based
>on their recognition of a far removed apparent need of the body to more
>clearly resolve predators in the horizontal plain, and then spent a few
>million years making the cellular changes required to accomplish the goal.
....
>

There is an orthogonal dimension to this argument, which has
been overlooked here.

Somewhere around 1983, Hubel and Wiesel from Harvard University
won the Nobel Prize for demonstrating that the central visual
systems (ie, cortical, not retinal) in immature mammalian brains
are able to **modify** their internal organization based upon early
visual experience. If you present horizontal bars only to them,
they have difficulty later seeing vertical. And vice versa. Etc/etc.

It only requires a few weeks of experience during the critical
period of early out-of-the-womb development to accomplish this,
and is related only to that "young brains are very maleable", and
to **NOTHING** more.

In relationship to the survival of the individual regardless of
the environment it is born into, this scheme is vastly superior
to any kind of hardwiring. [this also explains why it's so much
more fun to play with self-modifying code, as opposed to the
hard-wired kind].

2000\03\31@163643 by Daniel Hart

flavicon
face
Try the MAGIC EYE web site for a good explanation and some extraordinary tricks.
http://www.magiceye.com/
Enjoy,
Dan

"Dr. Imre Bartfai" wrote:

>> there are a lot of so-called "magic images" - I even saw a book filled.... How does it work?
>> Does it require some personal skill or training (or maybe inborn gifts)?
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> Regards,
> Imre

--
Daniel Hart
Embedded System Design Engineer
NBS Technologies, Inc. (Card Technology Corp.)
70 Eisenhower Drive, Paramus, NJ 07652, USA
+1 201 845 7373 x183    EraseMEdhartspam@spam@nbstech.com


'[OT] Personal Optical Resolution'
2000\04\01@142729 by Dan Michaels
flavicon
face
Imre wrote:
>On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Mark Peterson wrote:
......
>> Take the simplest flash-an-LED PIC code you can come up with.  If just one
>> bit in just one simple ASCII character byte is flipped, the program will
>> not run.  We as on-lookers to the error would say "Of course it will not
>> work.  All of the code, characters, bytes, and bits must be just right for
>> the program, device, and circuit to work.  Someone must correct it.  It
>> will not fix itself."  Yet, a single retina cell and in its functional
>> relationship to the rest of the optical and nervous system, is many, many
>> times more complicated and interdependent than the most complex devices and
>> systems created by human beings.
>
>1. Ashby has proven it is possible to build such a system.
>2. Imagine you use 1000 wires with 10x10x10 OR gates to detect whether
>there is ONE input, instead of a single one. That system would not mind if
>some of wires or some of gates drops out. This is a simplified way how
>human (and other biological) beings does work. Using this analogy, you
>will understand what happens if the last gate (the nervus opticus) is cut,
>contrary to a small locus on the retina.
>

As Imre correctly alludes to, there are entire areas of science
devoted to the study of neural organization - neurophysiology
Hubel & Wiesel, Lettvin, etc), neural net studies (Rumelhart,
etc), cybernetics (Ashby, etc). Models of the nervous system have
been built which incorporate extreme amounts of redundant circuitry,
in order that they will function correctly, even after many
connections are cut. These are based upon observations that, in
certain cases, the brain can compensate for severe nervous system
damage, by virtue of built-in redundancy.

The nervous system is more analogous a TV screen that is still
easily readable, even after 1000s of CRT phosphor points have
been burned, than to a single LED that lights or not. In fact,
you don't need "someone to correct it". It is to some extent built
to "fix itself", or at least to compensate.
-------------

To expand on what I wrote previously, regarding "modification of the
internal organization of the central visual system of mammals based
upon early visual experience",

a) Retinas are more or less hard-wired.

b) Cortical centers are probably more or less hard-wired in adult
  animals, but of course, are still able to learn new things
  throughout life, via some as yet not fully understood mechanism
  of learning/memory. Probably the growth/efficacy of synaptic
  contacts rather than structural reorganization.

c) However, during early development stages, cortical centers are
  "maleable", and can actually change their "internal organization".
  This is different from learning. The work begun by Hubel & Wiesel
  shows that young animals presented "biased" visual input are
  subsequently and irreversibly unable to ever perceive inputs of
  the opposite bias as well. Cells which would have become opposite
  bias cells instead develop as same bias cells, and can't go back.
  Instead of a 50-50 situation, you end up with 70-30 or 80-20, etc.

The basic idea is that, during a "critical" period of early development,
nascent cells can go either way, and the way they go is in large part
due to what they experience.

This all has potential ramification in terms of visual acuity,
astigmatism, perception of lions in the savanna or monkeys in the
trees, etc. Possibly also in the creation of society viewpoints in
a potential "Brave New World" environment.

Indeed, it almost looks as if there is a "plan" here. Lower animals
are more hardwired, and less able to learn. Intermediate animals have
some hard wiring, some ability for post-natal reorganization, and
some for learning. In higher animals, "reorganization" may be present
at a more abstract level, in terms of having a supreme ability for
learning.

[sorry if this isn't as much fun as running through stop lights
at high rates of speed wearing a Ronald Reagan mask and with a
James Bond revolving license plate].

2000\04\02@210722 by mike

flavicon
face
Sorry to take this even further OT.
Out of curiosity what are the current alternate theories ?

Regards,

Mike....

{Quote hidden}

2000\04\02@222055 by David VanHorn

flavicon
face
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


>>Its unbelievable that analytical thinking people continue to believe and
>>state confidently that the cells of the human eye and the neural system of
>>the brain essentially willed themselves to change how they function based
>>on their recognition of a far removed apparent need of the body to more
>>clearly resolve predators in the horizontal plain, and then spent a few
>>million years making the cellular changes required to accomplish the goal.
>>Why are they so afraid to concede to the blatant evidence in their face
>>that evolution is a farce?


Actually, that's not what the theory of evolution proposes at all.

The theory is that all organisms have slightly different charachteristics
at any given moment in time.  This part is borne out by observation of any
group of organisms. People are taller, shorter, faster, slower....  The
theory states that these variations will cause some to do better in life,
mostly by surviving and having more (or more successful) children. Those
children would then face the test again during there lives.

A case in point, (pardon me that I don't have the details at hand, I'm not
a biologist) A certain type of moth in england was known to be mostly
white, but after the industrial revolution began, it was observed that
these moths began turning black. (Not any individual moth, but as a group,
each successive generation had more black coloration) The presumption is
that the darker moths were better able to hide from their predators in the
sooty environment.

OTOH, I wonder why predatory birds do not have light blue undersides,
instead of dark colors.  Then again, I do not share the same visual system
as their prey, so I can't be sure that to the prey, the bird dosen't look
much like the sky.

There are examples, if you open your eyes to see them.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBOOgYsIFlGDz1l6VWEQJc4wCgteGaYx/nN0nnQSGo66dRY7d9sv4AoMNj
wmUQoV3lLXmsKOaY9d2kIGBv
=iBuM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2000\04\03@062233 by briang

flavicon
face
In-Reply-To: <@spam@862568B3.0055EFAD.00spam_OUTspam.....notesserver.cannontech.com>

> Its unbelievable that analytical thinking people continue to believe and
> state confidently that the cells of the human eye and the neural system of
> the brain essentially willed themselves to change how they function based
> on their recognition of a far removed apparent need of the body to more
> clearly resolve predators in the horizontal plain, and then spent a few
> million years making the cellular changes required to accomplish the goal.
> Why are they so afraid to concede to the blatant evidence in their face
> that evolution is a farce?

You're from the USA right?
I bet you've been listening to one of those crackpot religious radio stations
that seem so popular in the USA.
It just goes to show the free speech can be taken way to far.

Brian Gregory.
spamBeGonebriangEraseMEspamcix.co.uk

2000\04\03@070708 by Jinx

face picon face
Can we nip this evolution v creation thing in the bud please ? Apart
from being light-years [OT] it's a pointless discussion with no chance
of a resolution and will just lead to unnecessary ill-feeling and/or flaming

2000\04\03@074204 by Andrew Kunz

flavicon
face
Your referenced item on the moths has been an admitted fraud, same as the
current "flying dinosaur" mentioned a few months ago in National Geographic.

Also, were it true, it would have only accounted for the population density of
existing characteristics, not vertical evolution.  Both black and white moths of
that type have the genes for both colors, and interbreed.  Not evolution
whatsoever.

Andy










David VanHorn <dvanhornspamBeGonespamCEDAR.NET> on 04/03/2000 12:06:08 AM

Please respond to pic microcontroller discussion list <RemoveMEPICLIST@spam@spamspamBeGoneMITVMA.MIT.EDU>








To:      .....PICLIST@spam@spamEraseMEMITVMA.MIT.EDU

cc:      (bcc: Andrew Kunz/TDI_NOTES)



Subject: Re: [OT] Personal Optical Resolution








-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


>>Its unbelievable that analytical thinking people continue to believe and
>>state confidently that the cells of the human eye and the neural system of
>>the brain essentially willed themselves to change how they function based
>>on their recognition of a far removed apparent need of the body to more
>>clearly resolve predators in the horizontal plain, and then spent a few
>>million years making the cellular changes required to accomplish the goal.
>>Why are they so afraid to concede to the blatant evidence in their face
>>that evolution is a farce?


Actually, that's not what the theory of evolution proposes at all.

The theory is that all organisms have slightly different charachteristics
at any given moment in time.  This part is borne out by observation of any
group of organisms. People are taller, shorter, faster, slower....  The
theory states that these variations will cause some to do better in life,
mostly by surviving and having more (or more successful) children. Those
children would then face the test again during there lives.

A case in point, (pardon me that I don't have the details at hand, I'm not
a biologist) A certain type of moth in england was known to be mostly
white, but after the industrial revolution began, it was observed that
these moths began turning black. (Not any individual moth, but as a group,
each successive generation had more black coloration) The presumption is
that the darker moths were better able to hide from their predators in the
sooty environment.

OTOH, I wonder why predatory birds do not have light blue undersides,
instead of dark colors.  Then again, I do not share the same visual system
as their prey, so I can't be sure that to the prey, the bird dosen't look
much like the sky.

There are examples, if you open your eyes to see them.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBOOgYsIFlGDz1l6VWEQJc4wCgteGaYx/nN0nnQSGo66dRY7d9sv4AoMNj
wmUQoV3lLXmsKOaY9d2kIGBv
=iBuM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2000\04\03@095749 by Mark Peterson

flavicon
face
From:    David VanHorn <.....dvanhornRemoveMEspamCEDAR.NET>
Subject: Re: [OT] Personal Optical Resolution



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


>>Its unbelievable that analytical thinking people continue to believe and
>>state confidently that the cells of the human eye and the neural system
of
>>the brain essentially willed themselves to change how they function based
>>on their recognition of a far removed apparent need of the body to more
>>clearly resolve predators in the horizontal plain, and then spent a few
>>million years making the cellular changes required to accomplish the
goal.
>>Why are they so afraid to concede to the blatant evidence in their face
>>that evolution is a farce?


Actually, that's not what the theory of evolution proposes at all.

The theory is that all organisms have slightly different charachteristics
at any given moment in time.  This part is borne out by observation of any
group of organisms. People are taller, shorter, faster, slower....  The
theory states that these variations will cause some to do better in life,
mostly by surviving and having more (or more successful) children. Those
children would then face the test again during there lives.

A case in point, (pardon me that I don't have the details at hand, I'm not
a biologist) A certain type of moth in england was known to be mostly
white, but after the industrial revolution began, it was observed that
these moths began turning black. (Not any individual moth, but as a group,
each successive generation had more black coloration) The presumption is
that the darker moths were better able to hide from their predators in the
sooty environment.

OTOH, I wonder why predatory birds do not have light blue undersides,
instead of dark colors.  Then again, I do not share the same visual system
as their prey, so I can't be sure that to the prey, the bird dosen't look
much like the sky.

There are examples, if you open your eyes to see them.



David,

It was the Pepper moth.  Why that situation is so often referenced as an
example of evolution is a mystery to me.  It may be an example of natural
selection, but it certainly has nothing to do with evolution.  Obviously,
those creatures better suited to a given environment will "do" better in
it.  At the end of the period described, there would not be a more
complicated genetic code or a more complex organism - i.e. no evolution.
All you have described here is basic genetics and survival of the fitist.
I guess you are partially correct, that's not what the theory of evolution
proposes at all.

My eyes are open.  Where are the examples?

Mark

2000\04\03@113035 by Dan Michaels

flavicon
face
Jinx wrote:
>Can we nip this evolution v creation thing in the bud please ? Apart
>from being light-years [OT] it's a pointless discussion with no chance
>of a resolution and will just lead to unnecessary ill-feeling and/or flaming
>

I agree.

I've been in this discussion, but after an initial faux-paux in word
use [which I apologized for], I've been concentrating on known facts
about visual optical mechanisms [in the individual], and not philosophical
Gordian Knots [how they got that way]. There are probably other forums
for such discussions.

The point I have been trying to illustrate is that, there are alternate
explanations for biological phenomena that have been overlooked, and
should be taken into account before final conclusions are drawn.
==============

>>Its unbelievable that ...
....
>>Why are they so afraid to ...
....
>>but the ignorance and denial ...
....

And could we desist in casting aspersions too. This is beginning to
sound like the american congress already.

2000\04\03@122049 by Grif\ w. keith griffith

flavicon
face
<x-flowed>Amen.

At 11:07 PM 4/3/00 +1200, you wrote:
>Can we nip this evolution v creation thing in the bud please ?  no chance
>of a resolution


'Grif'   N7IVS

</x-flowed>

2000\04\03@144805 by David E Arnold

picon face
People just can't resist this topic can they? Is this a joke or something?
You guys, pay attention to where you're replying to. Make sure you send
these directly to the person not to the PICLIST.  We want to keep the
group discussions focused on PIC related stuff.

thanks,
-Dave





Mike Cornelius <.....mikeSTOPspamspam@spam@bytethis.com.au> on 04/02/2000 06:04:44 PM

Please respond to mikeEraseMEspam@spam@bytethis.com.au

To:   RemoveMEPICLISTspamspamBeGoneMITVMA.MIT.EDU
cc:    (bcc: David E Arnold/SYBASE)
Subject:  [OT] Personal Optical Resolution




Sorry to take this even further OT.
Out of curiosity what are the current alternate theories ?

Regards,

Mike....

{Quote hidden}

2000\04\03@145423 by David VanHorn

flavicon
face
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

This is my last word on this in piclist, anything else can be done in email.
I didn't feel right just letting it hang.  The motivator for my initial
response was the statement that animals make some concious decision to
modify themselves. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

On the subject of moths, as I said, I'm not a biologist, but I will refer
you to one.

http://www.wm.edu/biology/melanism.pdf

Creationists are fond of pointing out all the mistakes that are made in
science, and apparently miss the point. Science is about forming an
understanding of how the world works. A theory is only useful if it makes
useful predictions.  When another theory comes up that makes more accurate
predictions, it is adopted. The process is not ideal, because as always,
human personalities come into play, but it is self-correcting over time.
The important point is that while some people present it incorrectly, ALL
of science is theory.  Science makes the distinction of "Law" on some
theories that have been rigorously tested by many many people, in many
ways, with no hint of failure, but even they are subject to revision if new
facts come in that demand it.  Religion gives us the absolute truth, in
god's own words, yet over time we see that many things claimed to be
absolute truth in this manner, are absolutely false. Of course this is
always blamed on incorrect interpretation, with reluctant and belated
apologies to those that we tortured to death for pointing it out earlier..

The central dichotomy seems to be that religion is about having faith in
things you cannot prove, and science is about not having faith, but
requiring proof. Therefore, the position of "God made it that way." is not
acceptable in science, unless you can prove the existence of god. (beyond
the usual tautologies)

The theory of evolution seems to be useful, in that it seems to predict
what is observed, and offers explanations for things that previously had
none. It remains a theory though, because all that we can directly observe
in the broadest sense, is essentially a snapshot in time.  There are recent
developments if fact that suggest (based on DNA analysis) that we did not
in fact evolve in a line through Neanderthal man.  New evidence, once
verified, require adjustments to the theories, or new theories.

Can creationism propose an explanation for the foot-like bone structure in
a dolphin's flippers? The human appendix?  The large lung capacity of
Andean Indians? (Other than "god did it for reasons we don't understand")

While this may be true, it is not useful in terms of understanding anything
about how the world works in a more general sense.

A common proposal in creationism is that you never find in the fossil
record, animals that are "half evolved". Actually, I think there are plenty
of examples including the ones I cited above.  I would relate the fossil
record to a family album. You take pictures at different intervals. I have
pictures of me as a baby, all through the present. None of these pictures
shows me inbetween the pictures, so let me play creationist for a moment,
using my "fossil record"..  What we see here is obviously completely
different beings, and I could not have simply grown larger over time.  At
one point, I had no hair. Then the record shows me with hair.  How could
you possibly propose that there were intermediate forms of me with only a
little hair?  WHERE'S YOUR PROOF?

Discovery channel had a nice special on this weekend about lions and their
visual system.  By mapping the distribution of rod cells, they found that
lions have about 6X better night vision than we do, and that their vision
seems tailored for catching movement on a horizontal band, with somewhat
less resolution above and below center. Now one can say "God made it that
way."  Ok. But if you accept that, then that's all you can know about it.
You can't extend your observations to any other animals, because you can't
understand the mechanism.  OTOH, you might propose that the lions started
out with a more or less even distribution on average, but individual lions
had some variation. You might propose that some had variations that allowed
them to have a higher success rate during hunting, and therefore compete
more successfully in mating, and pass these charachteristics to the next
generation for further refinement..

This model then can be tested against different species, and over time, and
refined as we gain understanding of the more subtle effects, or totally
tossed out the window if we find some new model that does a better job.

Evolution requires these things to be true:
An organism's success in reproducing, on the average, is proportional to
it's ability to find food, defeat predators, and to mate.
In the reproduction process, charachteristics of the parents are passed to
the children, and help determine the success of the children, as defined
above, within their environment.

If you can disprove either of these propositions, then you have killed the
theory of evolution.

It's interesting that when we apply this theory to software (genetic
algorithms) that it seems to work. This does not prove that evolution is
the driving mechanism in animals, but it does say that evolution is
workable, in as far as the software in it's environment models an organism
in it's environment.  If genetic algorithms couldn't be made to work, that
would be a more interesting outcome.

The theory of evolution is a statistical approach. It does not attempt to
predict for any individual, only for large populations, and over long time
intervals in terms of generations.

If you look back through history, it is clear that while the current
scientific position on any particular issue may be in error, it is moving
twoard a more correct form. The religion-driven explanations are either
untestable, or disproven.

Does someone want to propose a "flat earth" model and explain how it always
looks spherical to astronauts, or how the GPS system works in such an
environment? Remember, this model of the earth was put forth by the
christian church (and other religions) as absolute truth, from the creator
himself.   Later, we have the theory that the heavens all revolve around
the earth, another absoute truth from above, which is now observed to be
false.

Science tells us, using the theory of evolution, that we have misused
antibiotics, and caused the evolution of resistant bacteria.  The
triggering observation was a noticible increase in cases where conventional
antibiotic treatment was much less successful than in the past. This fits
the theory of evolution. With the fast reproduction of bacteria, it is
possible to see more change in a shorter interval.  We have always known
that antibiotics aren't 100% effective. Some bacteria survive to reproduce,
and their offspring are more resistant. Exactly what the theory of
evolution predicts.

With this knowlege, we are modifying our use of antibiotics, so this will
hopefully be less of a problem.

Or, we can say "God did it, for reasons we can't understand", but it's not
clear to me how this is a more useful theory, in that it does not point out
anything that we can do to improve the situation.

In the end, science may discover that God did indeed make it this way.
But in that case, we will also understand some of the reasons, and by using
the tools he gave us, we will better appreciate his work.

(Or Her work, or.....)

So, you have my current thoughts on the matter.
If you have new evidence, please advise in email.
If all you want to do throw unprovable assertions at me, don't bother.
Nothing further on the piclist please.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBOOkCpoFlGDz1l6VWEQIMHACfYAFfAKo9Zifnzyu/2ncAWqGGAw0AoMwZ
U4ucDQ5Z4NO9U3p/rah7jw7T
=d/RL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2000\04\03@150044 by Jim Hartmann

flavicon
face
Yes, lets get back to discussing important and interesting things like
moving eyeballs independently.

:-Jim

2000\04\03@152850 by James Paul

flavicon
face
Dave,

VERY WELL PUT.  I started reading this, and couldn't put it
down.  And when I got to the end of it, I was wanting more.

Personally, I believe in GOD and I believe Science is a very
necessary and helpful dicipline because it does indeed let us
fathom the operations of the world around us in terms we can
understand and convey to others.   On the other hand, I don't
much hold with the theroy of evolution, and never have.  I do
believe GOD did it that way, and for reasons we don't
understand.  But there will come a time when we will understand
it.  Of course, we may not be able to put it into scientific
terms, or in fact, may not need to put it into scientific terms,
because everyone will understand as a matter of course.

At any rate, I do like what you said and the way you put it.

Here's to science.


                                       Regards,

                                         Jim






On Mon, 03 April 2000, David VanHorn wrote:

{Quote hidden}

spamBeGonejimKILLspamspam@spam@jpes.com

2000\04\03@152855 by James Paul

flavicon
face
  Dave,

VERY WELL PUT.  I started reading this, and couldn't put it
down.  And when I got to the end of it, I was wanting more.

Personally, I believe in GOD and I believe Science is a very
necessary and helpful dicipline because it does indeed let us
fathom the operations of the world around us in terms we can
understand and convey to others.   On the other hand, I don't
much hold with the theroy of evolution, and never have.  I do
believe GOD did it that way, and for reasons we don't
understand.  But there will come a time when we will understand
it.  Of course, we may not be able to put it into scientific
terms, or in fact, may not need to put it into scientific terms,
because everyone will understand as a matter of course.

At any rate, I do like what you said and the way you put it.

Here's to science.


                                       Regards,

                                         Jim






On Mon, 03 April 2000, David VanHorn wrote:

{Quote hidden}

jimspam_OUTspam@spam@jpes.com

2000\04\03@153037 by Daniel Hart

flavicon
face
Dan,
Perhaps you have the background to answer a question I've pondered for some time. Is there any
evidence that any species has migrated from or is migrating to a different species? As far as I can
tell, if you don't have the right number of chromosomes you are severely defective and can expect to
die, or not reproduce. I've not heard any mention of Gaussian distribution of numbers of chromosomes
within a species. If you are not the right person for the question, that's OK, I just didn't want to
miss an opportunity to learn.
Thanks, and have a great day,
Dan

Dan Michaels wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
Daniel Hart
NBS Technologies, Inc., Paramus, NJ 07652, USA

2000\04\03@165021 by David VanHorn

flavicon
face
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


> Indeed, it almost looks as if there is a "plan" here. Lower animals
> are more hardwired, and less able to learn. Intermediate animals have
> some hard wiring, some ability for post-natal reorganization, and
> some for learning. In higher animals, "reorganization" may be present
> at a more abstract level, in terms of having a supreme ability for
> learning.

Post hoc ergo Prompter hoc?
Maybe we are "higher" or "lower" because of our abilities, not the other
way around.

Dragging this back twoard topic: (Screeeeeeech)

Can we implement genetic algorithms in microcontrollers as an experiment?
I've done an interpreted language in the F84 and the AVR, reading from
EEPROM and executing commands.

The F84's EEPROM is pretty short, but I wouldn't rule it out.

Can we devise a simple language, and a system for altering it in an
evolutionary manner, and then a test problem to be solved?

The life of the EEPROM would limit us to something like 10k "generations"
and I'm not real sure how to model genetic rules or dominant/recessive
traits.

I think this would be a very interesting project though.
A small crawler-bot with a genetic algorithm for object avoidance, and a
few sensors, simply present as bits, without any "information" or structure
as to their meaning. This would be an interesting application, testing how
succesfully it avoids colisions. (easy to demonstrate and score too!)

We could define an area in ram as "sensor bits" and have conditions that
would move the bot in various directions dependent on the state of the
bits, with some and/or/xor functions.  You could start with randomized
movement rules, and let collision (detected by a ring bumper?) cause
randomized single-bit mutations.   This could take a long time to settle
out though.

It would be easier if it could all be done in software within the
processor, but I don't know how to construct a suitable problem that way.

I suppose reproduction could be done by pre-emptive multitasking.
Start with a number of "adult" tasks, each with randomized rules.
Each task gets equal execution time.
At some finite time, it's "orgy time"
Each task is ranked as to how successfully it completed the problem, and
pairs are mated from the most to the least successful (Might be fun to
randomize this slightly)
The mating applies a genetic rule and creates an offspring which replaces
one of the parents (least successful one? Randomized?)

(Does anyone here see an interesting resemblence to a yearly cycle with
"mating season"? I assure you it's purely accidental!)

The genetic rule might compare the bits,  1,1 = 1  0,0 = 0 but  1,0 or 0,1
would result  in another random bit choice. The resulting rule would then
run as a new "adult" task, until the next orgy.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBOOkd6IFlGDz1l6VWEQLXcACfbfCA/qIVPHUt7d5/hcFHMQZaGgcAoL0F
u/xMkYVmPp4zkYbnSiVj9zWT
=7in/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2000\04\05@003749 by Wagner Lipnharski

flavicon
face
Imre, just take a look at this easy to learn 3d view image:
http://www.ustr.net/pictures/learn3d.gif
Try to change your eyes point of view and see the 2 red squares as 3
squares, perfectly aligned, then move your eyes slowly down. You will
see all the black squares as usual, but the center black square has
moved deep into the screen.

After you learn how to do that, take a look at this one:
http://www.ustr.net/pictures/image3d.gif (640x480 image)
http://www.ustr.net/pictures/image3d8.gif (800x600 image)
Same technique, try to see the two "WAGNER"s as 3 words one aside the
other, then slowly move your eyes up and you will have a nice surprise.

Observing the black squares disposition at the first image, you will
understand how it is done. The most complex images just use any noisy
signal that repeats as vertical bars and part is shifted to give you the
distance perception.  It is not difficult to produce a program (even in
basic) that can convert *any* low detail image to 3d.  Different color
objects can generate different shifts, so colors at the original image
objects will end up in different distance to the viewer at the shifted
image. This is just a simple trick to the brain "distance meter".  As
much fine grain of the image noise, better resolution at the image, but
very fine grain turns to be a problem to the brain to do the matching of
stereo images, and it looses effect.

Wagner.

You wrote:
Hi,
excuse for trying to connect to this interessant topic, I'd have a
question:

there are a lot of so-called "magic images" - I even saw a book filled
with them - which are actually grey spots. It is said that looking this
pictures with somehow relaxed eyes true images occur. I did never manage
to see such hidden image. How does it work? Does it require some
personal
skill or training (or maybe inborn gifts)?

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2000 , 2001 only
- Today
- New search...