http://inperc.com/blog2/2007/10/12/%e2%80%9cbrain-inspired%e2%80%9d-and-%e2%80%9cnature-inspired%e2%80%9d-a-rant/ Computer vision, image analysis, and related mathematics Thu, 17 Feb 2011 13:25:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 http://inperc.com/blog2/2007/10/12/%e2%80%9cbrain-inspired%e2%80%9d-and-%e2%80%9cnature-inspired%e2%80%9d-a-rant/comment-page-1/#comment-252 Peter Tue, 20 May 2008 22:13:34 +0000 http://inperc.com/blog2/2007/10/12/%e2%80%9cbrain-inspired%e2%80%9d-and-%e2%80%9cnature-inspired%e2%80%9d-a-rant/#comment-252 David>> Computer vision is a science. Just like any science it tries to understand the world around us. What is suggested is that we should instead try to understand -- how we understand the world. It’s a roundabout, at best. David>> Computer vision is a science. Just like any science it tries to understand the world around us. What is suggested is that we should instead try to understand — how we understand the world. It’s a roundabout, at best.

]]> http://inperc.com/blog2/2007/10/12/%e2%80%9cbrain-inspired%e2%80%9d-and-%e2%80%9cnature-inspired%e2%80%9d-a-rant/comment-page-1/#comment-251 David Marr is turning in his grave Tue, 20 May 2008 15:20:50 +0000 http://inperc.com/blog2/2007/10/12/%e2%80%9cbrain-inspired%e2%80%9d-and-%e2%80%9cnature-inspired%e2%80%9d-a-rant/#comment-251 First of all, just because computers and brains operate differently on the implementation (hardware vs. bioware) level doesn't mean that the algorithms and representations used by our brains won't be useful for developing better computer vision systems. Secondly, we do indeed already know a fair amount about how vision works in the brain, and we're learning more all the time. So while we'd probably never want to build a computer vision system that mimics the brain at the synaptic level, we should be ready to take advantage of our expanding knowledge of biological vision rather than saying brains are too different or too complicated and sticking our heads into the sand. First of all, just because computers and brains operate differently on the implementation (hardware vs. bioware) level doesn’t mean that the algorithms and representations used by our brains won’t be useful for developing better computer vision systems. Secondly, we do indeed already know a fair amount about how vision works in the brain, and we’re learning more all the time. So while we’d probably never want to build a computer vision system that mimics the brain at the synaptic level, we should be ready to take advantage of our expanding knowledge of biological vision rather than saying brains are too different or too complicated and sticking our heads into the sand.

]]> http://inperc.com/blog2/2007/10/12/%e2%80%9cbrain-inspired%e2%80%9d-and-%e2%80%9cnature-inspired%e2%80%9d-a-rant/comment-page-1/#comment-97 Computer Vision for Dummies » Computers can’t imitate brains Sun, 23 Mar 2008 18:00:14 +0000 http://inperc.com/blog2/2007/10/12/%e2%80%9cbrain-inspired%e2%80%9d-and-%e2%80%9cnature-inspired%e2%80%9d-a-rant/#comment-97 [...] I liked this recent blog post 10 Important Differences Between Brains and Computers. The reason is that it gives plentiful evidence in favor of my contention that in designing computer vision systems one shouldn’t try to imitate the human. There are two main reasons. Firstly, computers and brains are very different. Secondly and more importantly, we don’t really know how brains operate! [...] [...] I liked this recent blog post 10 Important Differences Between Brains and Computers. The reason is that it gives plentiful evidence in favor of my contention that in designing computer vision systems one shouldn’t try to imitate the human. There are two main reasons. Firstly, computers and brains are very different. Secondly and more importantly, we don’t really know how brains operate! [...]

]]> http://inperc.com/blog2/2007/10/12/%e2%80%9cbrain-inspired%e2%80%9d-and-%e2%80%9cnature-inspired%e2%80%9d-a-rant/comment-page-1/#comment-75 Peter Sun, 17 Feb 2008 23:38:17 +0000 http://inperc.com/blog2/2007/10/12/%e2%80%9cbrain-inspired%e2%80%9d-and-%e2%80%9cnature-inspired%e2%80%9d-a-rant/#comment-75 Another follow-up. Apparently, some researchers developing artificial heart stopped trying to imitate human heart (ventricles etc) and go with more familiar engineering designs. Another follow-up. Apparently, some researchers developing artificial heart stopped trying to imitate human heart (ventricles etc) and go with more familiar engineering designs.

]]> http://inperc.com/blog2/2007/10/12/%e2%80%9cbrain-inspired%e2%80%9d-and-%e2%80%9cnature-inspired%e2%80%9d-a-rant/comment-page-1/#comment-17 Computer Vision for Dummies » Compujter with common sense? Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:32:55 +0000 http://inperc.com/blog2/2007/10/12/%e2%80%9cbrain-inspired%e2%80%9d-and-%e2%80%9cnature-inspired%e2%80%9d-a-rant/#comment-17 [...] Another point was about training and machine learning. I have big doubts about the whole thing. It is very much like trying to imitate the brain (or something else we observe in nature). Imagine you have a task the people do easily but you don’t understand how they do it. Now you solve the problem in these three easy steps. [...] [...] Another point was about training and machine learning. I have big doubts about the whole thing. It is very much like trying to imitate the brain (or something else we observe in nature). Imagine you have a task the people do easily but you don’t understand how they do it. Now you solve the problem in these three easy steps. [...]

]]> http://inperc.com/blog2/2007/10/12/%e2%80%9cbrain-inspired%e2%80%9d-and-%e2%80%9cnature-inspired%e2%80%9d-a-rant/comment-page-1/#comment-15 Administrator Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:26:57 +0000 http://inperc.com/blog2/2007/10/12/%e2%80%9cbrain-inspired%e2%80%9d-and-%e2%80%9cnature-inspired%e2%80%9d-a-rant/#comment-15 A follow-up. One example when an AI problem was solved by NOT following the way people think was Deep Blue. The program beat Kasparov by relying, essintially, on brute force computation. A follow-up. One example when an AI problem was solved by NOT following the way people think was Deep Blue. The program beat Kasparov by relying, essintially, on brute force computation.

]]>