/int/ – No shittings during wörktime
„There is no place like home“

File (max. 4)
Return to
(optional)
  • Allowed file extensions (max. size 25 MB or specified)
    Images:  BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG, PSD   Videos:  FLV, MP4, WEBM  
    Archives:  7Z, RAR, ZIP   Audio:  FLAC, MP3, OGG, OPUS  
    Documents:  DJVU (50 MB), EPUB, MOBI, PDF (50 MB)  
  • Please read the Rules before posting.
  • Make sure you are familiar with the Guide to Anonymous Posting.

No. 16146
29 kB, 657 × 527
How are we able to actually see sizes of groups up to a certain threshold?

For example, when you would have to count bottles in crates, I bet that you will use groups of 3. You don't have to count that the groups are allways 3 items but know it pretty much apriori, even if we would use another model where you had to count randomly oriented spheres in a rather high packing fraction. Your only problem would be to get confused by the blurry boundary of your chosen group.

This got to be some kind of algorithm. With a group smaller than n where n is determined by your talent 'seeing' groups we are certainly able to kind of track sizes of item-groups, but when n gets bigger, we have a buffer overflow and have to start to count manually again.

How brain works???
>>
No. 16147
The divine form of the object is being beamed into your pineal gland, at which point you analyze it.

If you see on front of you a chair with 4 legs, how do you know that it has four legs? It's just a blob of particles, and nothing about its physical shape itself indicates that it has for legs, or even where or what "legs" even are.
The idea of "fourness" and "legness" precedes the chair.

Or you could read some Maurice Merleau-Ponty, he tackled the subject of perception.
>Each object is a "mirror of all others." Our perception of the object through all perspectives is not that of a propositional, or clearly delineated, perception; rather, it is an ambiguous perception founded upon the body's primordial involvement and understanding of the world and of the meanings that constitute the landscape's perceptual gestalt. Only after we have been integrated within the environment so as to perceive objects as such can we turn our attention toward particular objects within the landscape so as to define them more clearly. This attention, however, does not operate by clarifying what is already seen, but by constructing a new Gestalt oriented toward a particular object. Because our bodily involvement with things is always provisional and indeterminate, we encounter meaningful things in a unified though ever open-ended world.
>>
No. 16153
>>16147
This a good response, albeit more like a meta-physical approach, no?

Feel free to elaborate further, but I'd also like to know about any neurological approaches since it's a phenomenom which means pretty much "counting but faster" like good programs can do.
>>
No. 16156 Kontra
that dumb apu forced meme shit is right when KC started taking the worst nosedive and the people who keep using it are usually shitposters or inviting shitposters
>>
No. 16157
>>16153
Oh. Well.

I don't know shit about neurology, but I know something about pattern matching. Determining amount without counting is probably pure pattern matching.
You see a continuous blob in your vision, and there's a learned neural pathway somewhere that signals "blob -> object". Similarly, when you see several blobs, there's probably a pathway from your eyeballs that connects the neural structure in your mind that represents a number. So you see four blobs, and your mind immediately evokes "4" without thinking.

And I imagine you could extrapolate that to counting rows and columns as well. Unconscious multiplication, simply because seeing certain visual patterns immediately sends a signal to a part of your brain that holds certain numbers.

t. bullshit expert
At least, those are my observations from lifetime of playing video games, learning the game to the point where some blurry pixels in the corner of my vision activate a complex sequence of responses that would be impossible to do consciously that quickly. ("blurry group of pixels - flick hand towards it -> click -> headshot").

So, no conscious thought involved, pure pavlovian learned reflexes.
>>
No. 16166
265 kB, 1048 × 854
>>16156
No it is not, my friend. It's just a really great meme. Never had any more laughs than about this soulfoul frog.

>>16157
Thank you, I'll check on it tomorrow.
>>
No. 16169
95 kB, 732 × 872
>>16166
It was always a soulless shitty forced meme, like the plastic knockoff garbage made in China of memes, and was deliberately spammed by a few idiots who were so pathetically desperate in their lives that they recognized even their own e-culture was dead so they tried to force absolute senseless garbage. It came about at the exact moment KC was finally terminal. Somehow a bunch of the utter fuckwit cattle that came to inhabit the site kept using it. It survived for another 2-3 years purely on it's own inertia before admins finally put the site out of its misery. I actually personally use that as a warning sign that this person is an idiot or shitposter, nearly on the level of anyone saying "cuck" of being an idiot. To me personally, it is the perfect embodiment of the anti-EC: unoriginality, herd instinct, superficiality, embrace of stupidity. I have never saved that image.
>>
No. 16177 Kontra
>>16169
It's also the among the first widely used mene on EC/int/, along with other 'cancer' like big smile emotes and shitty acronyms.