On 16/02/2008, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > you respond to what I think is probably my most important assertion re > you - and that is : we don't actually see "shots" in any photo or any real > scene period - i.e. we don't see pure spatial arrangements of objects. We > see every shot as a "still" - i.e. a slice of a movie sequence. Movies > and not photos are actually the primary medium of conscious thought - and we > delight in photos precisely because they stop - and "capture" - parts of the > flow. If that's true, doesn't it have enormous consequences for Visual > Object Recognition - and which if any people are thinking along those lines? > (Remember Hawkins' insistence that we have to see an object in *motion* to > understand it - which may in some cases means that the motion comes from the > observer). >
What I think these pundits are hinting at is that in order to understand still images you need to have initially had embodied experience moving about in some environment. Embodied experience allows us to tune the probability distributions for certain types of visual feature, correlating them with 3D shape. Structure form motion allows us to estimate 3D shape, and this can be associated with the features we can see in 2D (such as lines or corners) so that we can later use constellations of these to do a quick lookup or a best guess. There are obvious evolutionary reasons for this kind of shape lookup, especially if you're being chased by a predator and need to make hasty decisions. ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=95818715-a78a9b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
