Ed Cryer wrote:
>
> "Johannes Patruus" <invalid@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:693mbuF2s3s40U1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Johannes Patruus wrote:
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/4wgpxr
>>
>> But would we really need a billion-pixels version of that? -
>> http://tinyurl.com/3tefrg
>>
>> Patruus
>>
> A hundred and fifty years ago the German scientist Hermann von Helmholtz
> studied the human eye and declared how inefficient it was. He said that
> a good camera of the time was better.
> Ah, so now we have this up-and-coming super-high-definition thingamabob
> which will make the eye even more passé. Take pictures with it, look at
> them and ask "Where the devil did that bit there come from? I didn't see
> that".
"The eye is often described as like a camera, but it is the quite
uncamera-like features of perception which are most interesting. How is
information from the eyes coded in neural terms, into the language of the
brain, and reconstituted into experience of surrounding objects? . . .
There
is a temptation, which must be avoided, to say that the eyes produce
pictures in the brain. A picture in the brain suggests the need of some
kind
of internal eye to see it - but this would need a further eye to see *its*
picture . . . and so on in an endless regress of eyes and pictures."
(R L Gregory, "Eye and Brain", London, 1966)
Patruus
|
