Now think about the fact that we lock people up based on eyewitness testimony…
Kind of, but only after a jury agrees that the eyewitness really saw what they thought they saw.
Imma invent a new image format that just counts all of the photons and their wavelengths
Eyedea and Abilities - Powdered Water Too (1)
Give it a listen
Mantis Shrimp actually lack the hardware for color interpolation. So they see 12 colors, total, compared to the wide spectrum that humans see.
Surely they could see some color half as strong in the same place as another? Where does the difference come from?
You don’t seem to understand the bare minimum concept here. You percieve smooth transitional colors on a spectrum, mantis shrimp would see slices of colors they can recognize and large regions inbetween.
The physical eyes themselves might be perfectly capable of it, but they dont have the processing power to recognize the inputs.
The reason for their adaptation is not to improve color vision, but to percieve depth better for punching with.
Can they not see the strength of colors, only their presence? Or can they not see different colors in the same location?
Is it just that they can see the color channels separately but not combine them?
Imagine if everything you saw was one of a selection of colors. All blues are just Navy Blue. All reds and oranges are just red. They cannot tell them apart.
So it cannot tell the difference between different receptor strengths, such as bright blue vs dark blue, each only has a presence and an absence, like a 1-bit per channel quantized image?
Surely it could also see blue in the same place as it sees red, and then gain information from that even if it does not interpret that as purple?
If both of these were true than it would be able to see 2^12=4096 distinct ‘colors’ (where each is a combination of wavelengths originating from the same area)
Well, doesn’t that change everything! How disappointing. I guess that’s why they need so many receptor types, eh. They are just brute-forcing colors at this point.
You have a source for this though? I’d love to read about it and learn more.
You need a source on my comment but you took the 12 receptor comment in the meme at face value?
You need a source on my comment
I don’t need it, I’m just curious because I thought what you said was really interesting. If you’re not willing to provide it, I guess I might find the energy to look it up some time. Probably not though.
but you took the 12 receptor comment in the meme at face value?
What do you mean face value? I’ve heard the 12 photoreceptors fact a hundred times before, but never coupled with the fact that they don’t have the interpolation capability.
I don’t really get what you’re driving at, to be honest.
Hearing things often doesn’t make it a credible statement. Peer reviewed research does.
Go study.
I believe I’ve seen it in multiple credible nature documentaries as well. Where does it end? Do I need to go and ask a fucking mantis shrimp myself how many photoreceptors it has? Maybe one sample isn’t enough. Maybe I’ll ask ten thousand of them to be statistically viable?
You’re acting like a prick, by the way. I wasn’t rude to you, but you’re being rude for no reason.
Happy New Year, bro. Maybe a resolution for you could be to meet people who first treat you with respect, with some decency back. I’m not angry with you, I’m just saying these things to you because it’s something you need to hear, to grow as a person.
All the best. ❤️
Nature documentaries don’t make things credible. Peer reviewed research does.
Do you also believe in Alpha Wolves? How about ancient aliens?
Jeeesus, dude. I tried. 😂 Some people just don’t want to hear. What a prick.
Calm down, Beavis. People often just take something in without reacting to it at all, then when more details come along like in your comment the whole matter becomes more interesting. I’ve never seen anybody react badly to interest being expressed in what they said.
If its interesting then do your own due diligence instead of asking others to work for free.
If it were something like politics I might source it but idgaf if ya’ll are educated on stomatapod biology or not.
Due diligence on mantis shrimp 😂
I’m asking for the source so I can read it. How is that not trying to do my research? I’m trying to read the same thing you have so we both have the same source of knowledge, lol.
But as you say, it isn’t like this is something important. So like I said, if you’re not willing to provide it for whatever reason, then fine. But to refuse because “I don’t work for you” or some shit, instead of being like “oh, sure, thanks for sharing an interest”, that’s just on you. That’s some antisocial behavior for no reason.
Have a good year though, buddy. I hope we both grow from this interaction…
Here’s a source for you. If you’re interested in learning more I’d be happy to look around for some more for you.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2014.14578
And don’t mind finitebanjo. They tend to be extremely rude and unpleasant.
Very interesting read! Thank you very much! ❤️
don’t mind finitebanjo. They tend to be extremely rude and unpleasant.
Wow, really. Imagine being known for being an asshole. For shame.
So just to clarify, you don’t know how to find peer reviewed studies? Like, at all?
I do. I just wanted to read the same thing you did, sir.
Well alrighty then, so much for casual social interaction.
I’ve never seen anybody react badly to interest being expressed in what they said.
I know right. It’s the type of person who you’d bump into a lot on Reddit. They don’t realize it’s all about sharing interests – the social interaction of it all. Just like, do your own fucking research, you dimwit!
… That’s… what I’m trying to do here, good buddy…
We do know how things taste, sound, look, smell, feel, etc because those are all subjective concepts of perception. Without us, the physical phenomena we sense don’t do any of those things.
Are there atoms tho? Is there void?
Fancy words for “there’s something and there’s nothing”. So, yes.
:)
The term “atom” at that point was a placeholder, not a specific measurable phenomenon.
Yes, it’s where Janets go when they’ve not been summoned.
And that one time when she had to hide those people.
I have come to think of it as all being probability fields.
When studying a particle, one cannot know both the energy and position of that particle with certainty (Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle). When chemists think about the 3d “structure” of atoms and molecules, they represent the nucleus as a tiny little ball and the electrons as bubbles of probability:
.The nucleus itself is in constant motion as well, and compared to the size of the actual protons and neutrons, there is much more empty space - kind of like planets in a solar system. And each of these protons/neutrons is composed of tiny particles called quarks, which again are in constant motion and thus make up probability fields that we call protons and neutrons.
To make it even crazier while we think of color blindness as a binary thing, it’s really (like most things) a spectrum.
Everyone has a slightly different ratio of cones. And some have a different amount of cones than others. Then there’s the ratio of the different comes to rods.
Take any two random people and they’ll likely agree what name a color is, but they both experience that color slightly differently.
There are also the rare tetrachromagraphic people who see 4 colors. Most people have RGB, tetras have an orange receptor.
Yeah, I should have said:
And some have a different amount of types cones than others. Then there’s the ratio of the different comes to rods.
But it’s not really like there’s distinct type of cones, it’s about the wavelength the cones capture based on the angle of the cone.
So while normally theyre: long, medium, or short
They can also be at any point on that scale, and even so far that they’re essentially a new type of cone
But every cone is going to be a little different based on its exact shape and everyone has different ratios. Think of it like snowflakes.
If you measure exact enough, no two people will experience the same color, and you don’t even between your two eyes. It’s just very unlikely to be a noticable difference, and our brains like to do “post processing” stuff to make it similar.
The longest standing argument between myself and my family is about the color of my mother’s very 1950’s bathroom.
They say it’s battleship grey.
They’re wrong. The tile and most of the fixtures are a dull, dusty light blue. Only the marble around the sink is a true grey color, which is why it looks so obviously out of place. The room gives me fits and no one else can see it.
If you’re out to prove a point take pictures of each item zoomed in so it’s just the color in the picture, next holiday you’re all together text them to everyone in a group text and ask them what color each one is.
You may want to do it one by one instead of sending all at once.
*Epistemology
nothing is real do what you want
That is a fallacious conclusion from this observation. Don’t use this philosophy as an excuse to act like an asshole.
While everyone perceives reality slightly differently, apples do have a specific light absorption and reflection spectrum.
Our limited perception of it doesn’t make it “not real”. Same is true for other senses as well.
But you’re not real!
In the assumption that you are real, because you think and therefor you must exist in some form, but have limited control of your perceived reality through your actions, you should make choices that maximize your satisfaction but your longterm satisfaction is actually dependent on not being an asshole.
Therefor, our lack of provable existence does not factor into whether you should or should not be an asshole.
Descartes proved to me that I was!
Thank you.
There’s also the possibility of Boltzmann brain hallucinating things, but since there is no way to prove or disprove it, that’s still not a reason to be an asshole
In fact, if I am a brain in a vat hallucinating the world, then all the people I interact with are just aspects of myself.
So if I’m an asshole to other people, really, I’m an asshole to me.
Just a fun tidbit: The guy who proposed the math for the many worlds hypothesis, Hugh Everett, was reportedly a huge asshole (and abused his own health) because he figured that in a lot of other versions he was a swell guy.
“Because you have to wonder: how do the machines know what Tasty Wheat tasted like? Maybe they got it wrong. Maybe what I think Tasty Wheat tasted like actually tasted like oatmeal, or tuna fish. That makes you wonder about a lot of things. You take chicken, for example: maybe they couldn’t figure out what to make chicken taste like, which is why chicken tastes like everything.”
For the unaware, this is a Quote from The Matrix, in which the character muses about how the fake reality which is the matrix might be inconsistent with actual reality but the people would never know the difference. He then goes on to explain that, to him, the steak is delicious, so he does not care.
I think you’re confusing Mouse and Cypher…?
Probably, been a long time since I saw the film.
Yeah, Mouse talks about tasty wheat at Neo’s first breakfast in the real world. Cypher is eating steak during his monologue about going back into the matrix.
It’s a single-celled protein combined with synthetic aminos, vitamins and minerals. Everything the body needs.
Well yeah, that thought is important. While apples do have an objective color in the sense that physics teaches us that electromagnetic radiation with a certain frequency is more or less likely to be absorbed/reflected, we can only perceive a subjective color.
I personally define reality as any measurement that a machine (computer or robot) can take. As such, there is an objective reality. But also, most people mostly act on emotion and not based on real data.
But also, this isn’t a meme. It belongs in the philosophy or science memes community.
I personally define reality as any measurement that a machine (computer or robot) can take. As such, there is an objective reality.
Is there? How do you determine whether the machine doing the measurements is real?
The face punch method, (not a personal attack just a rather crude if effective philisophical tool) aka if I repeatedly punch you in the face you have a hard time continuing to argue that my fist is not real, or at the very least real enough for practical purposes. Personal involvment makes the situation a lot less abstract.
Oh, I never argued that fist are not a good way to determine reality, but calling your fist a machine is cringe.
Technically the person being punched is the machine in this situation, the fist is the thing being measured.
sometimes teaching be like going the opposite way and turning complex theories into relatable shitposts
How does the addition of just one proton change the material’s characteristics SO much??
It doesn’t, we’re just really good at identifying the differences.
Fluorine (9 protons)
- A highly reactive, poisonous, pale yellow gas
- One of the most electronegative elements
- Forms strong chemical bonds and reacts violently with many substances
- Highly dangerous and corrosive
Neon (10 protons)
- An inert noble gas
- Completely non-reactive
- Safe and stable
- Used in lighting and signs due to its stability
That’s not just perception. Same with chlorine/argon. Etc. These chemicals would have different characteristics that react very differently with the chemicals around them even if we weren’t here to identify the differences.
Nah dude, they’re basically the same thing. Both have a composition of protons/neutrons, both undergo a phase change to a plasma state at incredibly low temperatures, both interact with other atoms via the fundemental forces, both can (hypothetically, we can’t actually fuse anything above boron for complicated reasons I’ll pretend I remember) form one another via fusion, both are actually composites formed from tossing the fundemental particles in a blender, etc.
The differences we see are, when considered within the scope of all the possible arrangements of particles and forces we could have gotten, impossibly minor.
Look, I agree with everything you said, at the most fundamental level, they’re just different arrangements of the same cosmic lego pieces. But I think that’s exactly what makes their differences so fascinating. The fact that one extra proton, a particle so tiny we can barely comprehend its scale at ~1.67x10^-27kg, can transform a violently reactive gas into something completely inert is mind blowing.
It’s like saying a single base pair mutation in DNA and the original sequence are “basically the same thing” because they’re both just nucleotides in a chain. Sure, you’re technically correct, but that tiny change can cascade into dramatically different proteins, cellular behaviors, and ultimately entire phenotypes.
The beauty is in how these tiny quantum differences cascade up into the macro world. One proton’s difference doesn’t just change numbers on a page - it’s the difference between neon lighting up our cities and fluorine eating through your lungs. Their atomic radii differ significantly, their electron configurations lead to completely different bonding behaviors, their ionization energies vary markedly, and they even interact with electromagnetic radiation in distinct ways, absorbing and emitting entirely different wavelengths of light. All because of having 1 more of something 0.84 femtometers across. That’s crazy.
Damn, you’re really good at identifying miniscule differences!
Seriously though, I was attempting to highlight how truly unremarkable these changes are when viewed from a grand enough scale. That’s not to say I dont understand, I do, and nuclear/particle physics are fields absolutely filled to the brim with things worth waxing poetic about. And when viewed from a field that deals with meta-analysis of physical laws themselves, the differences that people are excited for start to appear… pretty mundane. Every person on earth is similar yet different, but we all avoid that guy who shares his life story at the drop of a hat because, to (badly) paraphrase Syndrome, “once everything is unique, nothing is.”
The nihilist vs. absurdist meme is popular now and does seem to serve this example well - It’s not that these changes dont matter or aren’t cool, it’s that nothing matters and probably everything is arbitrary, and that is in of itself cool! It raises so many unanswered questions
that string theorists would love to tell you the answers to but no! I cast you out, you and your vile “branes”! Back! Back in your caves you slime beasts! We shall not treat your physics fanfic this day!that we just don’t even have guesses as to what could maybe possibly be the answers yet! Hell, we’re not even sure the holographic universe theory is right, but more than half the physics community is convinced enough to get published in Nature while assuming it.There’s so much wild stuff being discovered right now, I guess it’s just sad to see people hung up on physical properties that were largely solved more than 50 years ago.
deleted by creator
This is just “tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound” but less concise.
That’s ridiculous. Our perspection is fully acceptable as proof of reality. The fact is that as our perception is limited, we are limited in our knowledge of the reality of things. Somehow mantis have an access to the reality of things we don’t have and that dog don’t have. And through their sense of hearing dogs have an access to the reality we don’t have.
