I haven't had a chance to finish watching the video yet, I'm only a half hour in, but even at that stage it seems to make predictions that match my personal experience.
He talks about a model where belief models get fed up the hierarchy, and shows an example of a square constructed out of short dashes, when you look close enough. One level of the hierarchy says those little dashs might be horizontal, or diagonal, or vertical, and lets the next level resolve the issue. (picture an ascii square, with lines formed from \ characters).
To me this suggests that congition would work even when low levels details are fuzzed out.
Some recent, separate, posts I've read suggests 10x10 (or even 6x6) pixel faces are recognisable.
Also, I find some images are more recognisable when I unfocus my eyes a bit.
I don't know if he is completely right, but these are 2 examples of a prediction being made and verified.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't had a chance to finish watching the video yet, I'm only a half hour in, but even at that stage it seems to make predictions that match my personal experience. He talks about a model where belief models get fed up the hierarchy, and shows an example of a square constructed out of short dashes, when you look close enough. One level of the hierarchy says those little dashs might be horizontal, or diagonal, or vertical, and lets the next level resolve the issue. (picture an ascii square, with lines formed from \ characters). To me this suggests that congition would work even when low levels details are fuzzed out. Some recent, separate, posts I've read suggests 10x10 (or even 6x6) pixel faces are recognisable. Also, I find some images are more recognisable when I unfocus my eyes a bit. I don't know if he is completely right, but these are 2 examples of a prediction being made and verified.