The Second Apocalypse
Miscellaneous Chatter => Philosophy & Science => Topic started by: Cüréthañ on April 06, 2014, 10:01:28 am
-
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/you-might-be-seeing-this-on-a-15second-delay-study-20140406-zqrfp.html (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/you-might-be-seeing-this-on-a-15second-delay-study-20140406-zqrfp.html)
-
??? That was fascinating stuff
-
Yeah, good stuff.
Makes me think of Donald Hoffman's Interface Theory of Perception.
-
I've seen other basic experiments done that agree with this, though I think it found a lower minimum value. Pretty interesting though to try and think about never being able to see "now". When you die, the last 15seconds worth of visual stimuli will be lost to you :P
-
I think this study focuses more on holistic perception. Clearly focusing on specific perceptual features results in more immediate processing... otherwise one could not play tennis, for example.
Reaction time illustrates the minimum perception lag, this is more like looking at the upper bounds.
-
The brain's main job is to predict the future, in this context. Its really good at making snap judgement/predictions based on limited input.... Still though, a batter only has .41 seconds until a 100mph fastball crosses home plate, and this is apparently enough time to see the pitch predict where it will go and how fast, and still leaves enough time for the body to react.
-
Exactly. The study examines how we process background information rather than the singular point of reactive attention. The batter you mention is focused on the ball and probably isn't processing the background data at all. Ask him what the pitcher's hair colour is after the fact. ;)
-
There are too many good threads I can't justify the time participating in right now. After exams... always after exams >:(... And if I die, I'll have wasted my time pursuing social mobility.
Lol. On topic.
The batter is actually the example I was going bring up.
Now this perspective might be later overturned as ignoring some critical aspect of functioning but currently, according to the knowledge I'm exposed to, baseball players (the other most commonly used example is tennis players) cannot react fast enough to "decide to hit the ball" - in terms of see pitcher throwing, see ball released, initiate purposeful and responsive motor action (and somewhere in this third time frame, the ball would be across the plate). There just isn't time for the purposeful reaction part.
This is why baseball is a statistician's game because biology (as we understand it) forces players to adopt a habitual swing, which falls in their personal sweet spot (whether they know this or not)... and then they hit whatever percentage of balls that enter that area.
-
I have a hard time believing that.... or at least believing its all luck. Sounds like cop-out for someone who can't understand it. See: bumblebee's flying, or: moving faster than the speed of sound, or: the double slit experiment. These things "were impossible", until science caught up.
Maybe a person cannot react that fast, but that doesn't mean its suddenly straight up luck. There wouldn't be such a spread of talent at the upper echelon of sports if that were the case. There wouldn't ever be records to break, since everyone should hit some kind of physical ceiling. I know that humans are innately very good at pattern recognition. Perhaps minute changes in a person's posture tip off those who know what to look for, even at a subconscious level, allowing them to predict where/when to swing.
I don't have a study to cite or anything, but falling onto an explanation based on an absence of understanding is unacceptable to me. If something "can't happen" even though we have observed it over and over again, then its more likely the science is wrong, rather than the physical phenomenon.
-
Baseball fan?
forces players to adopt a habitual swing, which falls in their personal sweet spot (whether they know this or not)... and then they hit whatever percentage of balls that enter that area.
This should have had a number of clarifying statements attached, I guess.
But take note: "habitual swing" is not luck.
- We're only talking about cases where balls are thrown over a certain mileage (around 100, which from my understanding, limits these observations to small percentage of fastballs - which accounts for only a portion of all thrown pitches, others of which do not exceed the threshold in this chronometric study).
- Players can do, many, many things to develop and cultivate their "habitual swing" for those certain percentage of cases where they react, again, whether they know this or not.
There wouldn't be such a spread of talent at the upper echelon of sports if that were the case. There wouldn't ever be records to break, since everyone should hit some kind of physical ceiling.
All players don't train like all other players? All players aren't borne with the natural predispositions for "baseball schema?"
I know that humans are innately very good at pattern recognition. Perhaps minute changes in a person's posture tip off those who know what to look for, even at a subconscious level, allowing them to predict where/when to swing.
Possibly a thing. It would interesting to modify those studies and see.
-
I don't even like baseball :P its just a very simple example since the swing area is so small and both players are standing still (I also know less about tennis than I do baseball, so I guess I accidentally ruled out the classical example by default). I have no personal investment here.
There wouldn't be such a spread of talent at the upper echelon of sports if that were the case. There wouldn't ever be records to break, since everyone should hit some kind of physical ceiling.
All players don't train like all other players? All players aren't borne with the natural predispositions for "baseball schema?"
Point being that there should be a hard limit with small spread. Natural predisposition should be the only distinguishable factors, another hard-line cap of that might give one person the hereditary genetic edge over another once the benefits of training is maxed out. *shrug*
-
I don't even like baseball :P its just a very simple example since the swing area is so small and both players are standing still (I also know less about tennis than I do baseball, so I guess I accidentally ruled out the classical example by default). I have no personal investment here.
The tennis is the other classic example. You're two for two.
Point being that there should be a hard limit with small spread. Natural predisposition should be the only distinguishable factors, another hard-line cap of that might give one person the hereditary genetic edge over another once the benefits of training is maxed out. *shrug*
I think more research may need to be done.
-
Every time I read the title of this topic. Skip to 40 seconds.
Spaceballs lol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeZ9HhHU86o