- 10,866
- 12,234
- Thread starter
- #41
I already explained that that is getting what you have to prove backwards.DT we’ve gone over this.
I already explained why this isn’t a big assumption. The tests isolates the V1 neurons specialized for changes in light in general. The information from the V1 neurons are then used in processing movement. If the V1 neurons can’t detect any changes then there is no processing of movements.
That is evidence that movement below 2ms is invisible.
That is not evidence that movement above 2ms is not invisible as well. However, that is what you need to proof. That your end is a low end. That lower speeds / timeframes won't produce the same effect.
It's like you can also move so fast that the photoreceptors in the eye don't see it, but that doesn't mean that moving that fast is the true low end, as the V1 might not pick up on it even if the photoreceptors do.
Edit: And your V1 sources also seem kinda disconnected from the FFT in general and the 2ms figure in particular. What you link appears to deal more with flicker induced motion, which is its own cup of tea.
Last edited: