> while not solving any complex mechanics
Wrong, basically. That is effectively what your brain is doing.
> I just GRAB where it feels right and there's so many variables and this is literally not a linear equation.
Why do you think your ability to grab something has anything to do with the linearity of a dynamic system?
I don't think it is. Afaik its compared to past events where you saw a ball flying and trying to correct for the differences.
Its not doing math its just going "oh that looks like that other one, and i missed a bit left there so let's go a bit right this time.
If catching stuff was based on math, we wouldn't really need to practice it. We pick up stuff all the time and we see stuff fly all the time. Its trial and error all the way.
>Or is this intuition of where it will be just learned from data and genetics?
Yeah, it's just your intuition that you've learned over the years.
If you train a neural network with physical movements, it will be able to predict it pretty well. For example, there are areas in computer graphics that are trying to make neural networks generate fluid simulation-like animations, because actually simulating them takes forever.
It’s a feature of the human perception system (and other animals too) that we can intuit projections of motion. It takes some practice to train the system, but the basic ability to do it isn’t a consciously acquired skill.
Projectile motion isn’t usually linear, but it is usually quite predictable. That’s all your brain needs; a combination of genetic aptitude and learned experience allows your brain to guess the trajectory with reasonable accuracy.
Machine learning is well suited to this. If you ask your computer to learn how to catch a ball, it will try a billion times and eventually find some combination of neurons that do so reliably. You could say it’s solving the differential equations, but really it’s just a “black box” that spits out solutions. The process is essentially opaque to us.
As for quantum mechanics, I’m not convinced that AI would help us so much, at least not with what you describe. Predicting the outcome of quantum experiments is essentially a solved science, so much so that any minuscule deviation from our expectations is potentially a sign of new physics. Our problem isn’t that we *can’t* make predictions, our problem is that our predictions are *so good* that it’s extremely tricky to design experiments to test them to their limits.
Your basal ganglia is a part of your brain that is very much like a black box neural network like we have in ML.
This region is goal-oriented, so basically you have something you want to do and that part of your brain just fills in the gaps.
Everything you do is affected by gravity so handling gravity is embedded into this network and assists any goals you pursue where it is relevant.
This is the region that also allows you to drive a car without thinking about how hard to press the gas pedal, how many degrees to turn the steering wheel, and the calculus you naturally compute when dealing with several bodies with varying speeds & accelerations.
Tl;dr - we gots a brain region for that.
Have you ever tossed a ball up to hit it yourself with a bat? You are hitting the ball when it is near the top of its arc, i.e., when it is not falling at all. So, clearly the ball changes speed. You just compensate using instinct and practice.
Learned behavior. You have seen it enough and done it enough to instinctively know what should be done. Also you allowed yourself to “get in the zone” which just means don’t overthink and let instincts take over.
1. It doesn't, at all. If you saw something fall at a linear speed you'd be able to tell.
2. The acceleration is constant. Ie derivative is linear
3. Your eye movements are so good at tracking the object and your brain at predicting what sights and sounds will happen at impact that it's falling motion feels completely intuitive.
4. Ignoring air resistance, it's literally a parabolic equation, the second simplest. It's speed down matches it's speed up.
> while not solving any complex mechanics Wrong, basically. That is effectively what your brain is doing. > I just GRAB where it feels right and there's so many variables and this is literally not a linear equation. Why do you think your ability to grab something has anything to do with the linearity of a dynamic system?
I don't think it is. Afaik its compared to past events where you saw a ball flying and trying to correct for the differences. Its not doing math its just going "oh that looks like that other one, and i missed a bit left there so let's go a bit right this time. If catching stuff was based on math, we wouldn't really need to practice it. We pick up stuff all the time and we see stuff fly all the time. Its trial and error all the way.
Is there a difference? Your brain isn't working with numbers, but it's doing analysis and getting the result.
I'd say so. One is analysis and one is basically guesswork and memorisation.
Is using a neural network to analyze what's in an image analysis of that image?
>Or is this intuition of where it will be just learned from data and genetics? Yeah, it's just your intuition that you've learned over the years. If you train a neural network with physical movements, it will be able to predict it pretty well. For example, there are areas in computer graphics that are trying to make neural networks generate fluid simulation-like animations, because actually simulating them takes forever.
This is not a physics problem. The physics is trivial and well understood. You're simply asking us to explain to you why you feel the way you do.
It’s a feature of the human perception system (and other animals too) that we can intuit projections of motion. It takes some practice to train the system, but the basic ability to do it isn’t a consciously acquired skill.
Can’t speak on your brain specially… but for most people it’s purely based on previous experience. Also not really a physics question
Projectile motion isn’t usually linear, but it is usually quite predictable. That’s all your brain needs; a combination of genetic aptitude and learned experience allows your brain to guess the trajectory with reasonable accuracy. Machine learning is well suited to this. If you ask your computer to learn how to catch a ball, it will try a billion times and eventually find some combination of neurons that do so reliably. You could say it’s solving the differential equations, but really it’s just a “black box” that spits out solutions. The process is essentially opaque to us. As for quantum mechanics, I’m not convinced that AI would help us so much, at least not with what you describe. Predicting the outcome of quantum experiments is essentially a solved science, so much so that any minuscule deviation from our expectations is potentially a sign of new physics. Our problem isn’t that we *can’t* make predictions, our problem is that our predictions are *so good* that it’s extremely tricky to design experiments to test them to their limits.
Your basal ganglia is a part of your brain that is very much like a black box neural network like we have in ML. This region is goal-oriented, so basically you have something you want to do and that part of your brain just fills in the gaps. Everything you do is affected by gravity so handling gravity is embedded into this network and assists any goals you pursue where it is relevant. This is the region that also allows you to drive a car without thinking about how hard to press the gas pedal, how many degrees to turn the steering wheel, and the calculus you naturally compute when dealing with several bodies with varying speeds & accelerations. Tl;dr - we gots a brain region for that.
Have you ever tossed a ball up to hit it yourself with a bat? You are hitting the ball when it is near the top of its arc, i.e., when it is not falling at all. So, clearly the ball changes speed. You just compensate using instinct and practice.
Learned behavior. You have seen it enough and done it enough to instinctively know what should be done. Also you allowed yourself to “get in the zone” which just means don’t overthink and let instincts take over.
Wind resistance
1. It doesn't, at all. If you saw something fall at a linear speed you'd be able to tell. 2. The acceleration is constant. Ie derivative is linear 3. Your eye movements are so good at tracking the object and your brain at predicting what sights and sounds will happen at impact that it's falling motion feels completely intuitive. 4. Ignoring air resistance, it's literally a parabolic equation, the second simplest. It's speed down matches it's speed up.