Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Telecaster on September 23, 2015, 04:10:38 pm
-
Some food for thought: http://www.psychonomic.org/featured-content-detail/interface-theory-of-perception-future-of-science-o
-Dave-
-
David, these sorts of propositions work because the writer says that they do.
Fortunately, it's just gone eleven at night here, and I'm getting bug-eyed looking at the screen. I say fortunately, because that means that my exhausted mind is now protected by a reality filter that screens out the over-complex, the chimera kind of stuff that isn't really going to make sense at all, other than to the fresh mind, to which it appears (at first trawl) that perhaps it can, this thus forcing that fresh mind into an avenue to nowhere. Knackeredness, on the other hand, saves you...
;-)
Rob C
-
Some food for thought: http://www.psychonomic.org/featured-content-detail/interface-theory-of-perception-future-of-science-o
-Dave-
I'm sorry to say, but it's just nonsensical babbling.
Suffice to analyze this sentence:
How could evolution favor veridical perception if the truth doesn’t help make babies?
Does it matter, for someone to have babies, to have a "veridical perception" of an approching tiger?
Hardly someone that have the false perception that the tiger is a butterfly will end up with having babies.
-
That false perception and a fear of butterflies…
Possibly.
Reading the link I'm amazed by how close these guys came to realize they are just babbling:
How could evolution favor veridical perception if the truth doesn’t help make babies? It can’t unless it does so accidentally (i.e., it's a spandrel), which is highly unlikely given the complexity of our perceptual systems, or unless truth and fitness are monotonically related.
That's their problem: they don't see that truth and fitness are indeed monotonically related (up to the point where the cognitive load became too high).
-
Some food for thought: http://www.psychonomic.org/featured-content-detail/interface-theory-of-perception-future-of-science-o
-Dave-
This guy raises ignorance to a whole new level.
-
More useless information. Movin' on.
-
That's their problem: they don't see that truth and fitness are indeed monotonically related (up to the point where the cognitive load became too high).
So you agree with them, but your problem is that you don't understand how quickly the cognitive load became too high.
-
Huh? This isn't even a debate, this is pretty much basic.
I mean, straight off, our color perception is clearly just as postulated. We don't see color "truthfully", although we certainly think we do. There's tons of physical colors that produce exactly the same perception, the point is that we distinguish colors well enough to be useful. It's well established that what we think of as "perception of the real world" is in fact largely an invention of our brain. This isn't really something about which there's any question.
Worrying about what ultimate causality is doesn't strike me as particularly useful, and it's not really a psychological question.
-
Just to laboriously drag it back to photography, because I can, the authors argue that what we "perceive" is not in fact a particularly accurate representation of the real world, but a set of metaphors that model the real world sufficiently well for survival and reproduction.
Arguably, this is why photographs work at all. They are manifestly not copies of what they depict, and yet we're able to somehow connect the flat piece of paper with the girl. Without quite a lot of flex in our perceptual systems that wouldn't happen.
-
Just to laboriously drag it back to photography, because I can, the authors argue that what we "perceive" is not in fact a particularly accurate representation of the real world, but a set of metaphors that model the real world sufficiently well for survival and reproduction.
Arguably, this is why photographs work at all. They are manifestly not copies of what they depict, and yet we're able to somehow connect the flat piece of paper with the girl. Without quite a lot of flex in our perceptual systems that wouldn't happen.
Yes, this is basically what I find worthwhile about the piece. But note that this summary isn't the actual paper. It does, though, include a link to a PDF of the paper.
I don't find anything controversial in the proposition that our perceptual systems are tuned for survival & reproduction rather than any kind of objective accuracy. As to whether or not the authors have identified the means by which this works: dunno. We shall see…
-Dave-
-
I skimmed the actual paper which is a few clicks away. It smacks slightly of non-math people trying to get math-y, which rarely goes well, but it did seem more legit than a lot of this stuff.
They had to get pretty math-y in order to write some programs to simulate things. But I suspect the simulations are more interesting than actually reflective of reality.
-
So you agree with them, but your problem is that you don't understand how quickly the cognitive load became too high.
Sorry, I totally disagree with them since I know when cognitive load become too high (that is, when the time to make a decision is a danger to your survival).
-
Just to laboriously drag it back to photography, because I can, the authors argue that what we "perceive" is not in fact a particularly accurate representation of the real world, but a set of metaphors that model the real world sufficiently well for survival and reproduction.
Arguably, this is why photographs work at all. They are manifestly not copies of what they depict, and yet we're able to somehow connect the flat piece of paper with the girl. Without quite a lot of flex in our perceptual systems that wouldn't happen.
From what I read, what the authors said is that what is perceived is completely devoid of any accuracy (not just "non particulary accurate").
They make the example of the graphic interface of modern operating systems, where the objective qualities of the file icon has no relation with the objective qualities of the file itself.
-
All too late:
"Ce n'est pas une pipe." ------- Magritte.
Rob C
-
Can you guys please come and have your discussion here at my house? Maybe the original author can come too. I will provide chairs and snacks, but you have to sit in my garden. Once you're done, I won't have to spend money next Spring to have manure delivered for fertilizer.
Seriously, though, I don't know that I have ever seen such a blatant bunch of pseudo-intellectual and pseudo-scientific claptrap. In fact, I am half-convinced that the whole thing is a set-up.
Really, folks - THINK!
-
I'm sorry to say, but it's just nonsensical babbling.
Suffice to analyze this sentence:Does it matter, for someone to have babies, to have a "veridical perception" of an approching tiger?
You are missing the point: the image we get of the tiger does not have to be (and is not) anywhere close to completely accurate or "veridical"; it just has to serve the purpose of telling us that we need to run away.
Color vision is an obvious example: our eyes ignore infrared and ultra-violet (while some other animals see far more into the ultra-violet, so that is not a physiological or evolutionary impossibility), and lump all intermediate wavelengths of light into the three bins of the so-called primary colors. For that alone, our vision is a "cartoon" of reality. Optical illusions and proven patterns of errors in the recall of eye-witnesses reveal other ways in which the visual processing system "falsifies" the data -- probably because natural selection has determined that this processed version is more useful than the raw data.
Photoshop has nothing on our eyes and brains when it come to lack of that "veridical" virtue!
-
I am thinking. Why don't you knock off the insults. It's not like we're arguing Canon vs Nikon.
-
Actually, it gets worse than just color.
We tend to think that we're perceiving something a bit like a continuously running HD movie.
This is false. Our actual awareness comes in fits and starts. Our visual cortex (at least) edits our memory to create the illusion of continuity out of a fairly jittery and wildly incomplete set of blurry pictures. Our total awareness, our attention if you will, the gestalt of touch/taste/smell/vision/sound that we suppose informs us about the world, is woefully sporadic. Even when it's genuinely working, it is focused on a much smaller area than we think. Ask a pickpocket about human awareness, about "attention".
Our sensorium gives us a model of the world as if seen through a cardboard tube with a nylon stocking stretched over the far end. We build the notional HD movie out of that. The wonder is not that the HD movie is sometimes wrong, the wonder is that it is ever right.
They're talking about veridical perception, which as I think they're formulated it is really about 1-to-1ness with reality. It doesn't matter if what we actually perceive when we are confronted with a tiger, the point is that we reliably perceive tigers AS tigers, and we don't perceive other things as tigers. Clearly we don't. A photograph of a tiger isn't perceived as a tiger per se but there's definitely some tigerness in there someplace. We don't perceive it as merely a glossy piece of paper (which the tiger probably would).
The ideas of umvelt and umgebung have been around for ages. The conceit is, sometimes, that this only applies to animals but humans, being somehow special, perceive things as they truly are. This sort of exceptionalism is laughable.
-
Count how many times the players wearing white pass the basketball. (http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/gorilla_experiment.html)
-
I am thinking. Why don't you knock off the insults. It's not like we're arguing Canon vs Nikon.
Canon v. Nikon! That's a gas; thought you'd be sophisticated and reach for the Atomic Bomb and compare olde Leica and Contax!
;-)
Rob C
-
Your followers everywhere will take note.
Isaac, why don't you tell us how useful the information is to you so all my followers will take note. Show us with specifics how it helps you live a better life. I dare you!
-
Really, we don't need to know anything more than which plants have edible roots, and what the best spot to jam the sharp stick into the antelope is.
If you want to get fancy I guess you could start trying to recall which grubs taste best.
-
The ideas of umvelt and umgebung have been around for ages. The conceit is, sometimes, that this only applies to animals but humans, being somehow special, perceive things as they truly are. This sort of exceptionalism is laughable.
Fixed the italics. :)
Anyway, I suspect you've identified the source of (most of) the ire investigation into how sense perception actually works typically draws. Sacred cow territory.
-Dave-
-
You are missing the point: the image we get of the tiger does not have to be (and is not) anywhere close to completely accurate or "veridical"; it just has to serve the purpose of telling us that we need to run away.
I'm not missing this point because A) I agree with it and B) that's NOT what these guys are saying.
These guys are saying that our perception of the tiger has no relation whatsoever with the "truth of the tiger" (which, if ever means something, means "the objective qualities of the tiger".
The example you make about the color is spot-on, but it also shown why these guys are wrong: you may perceive "red" and "green" in a completely personal way but, unless your vision is impared, your perception of "red" is different from your perception of "green".
And this difference if perception is related (probably non uniquely, but related nonetheless) with the objective difference in wavelength of red and green light.
-
Color is exactly the kind of thing these guys are talking about.
There's lots of world experiences (physical colors) which cause the same perception (roughly, RGB color).
-
Color is exactly the kind of thing these guys are talking about.
There's lots of world experiences (physical colors) which cause the same perception (roughly, RGB color).
And there is a lot of different world experiences that causes different perception: that's why they are wrong.
-
Darn good thing aviation engineers, neurosurgeons, and even electricians are all "exactly alike" in thier misperception of reality.
This kind of rubbish is exactly what one would expect from reductionism run amok.
Rand
-
Darn good thing aviation engineers, neurosurgeons, and even electricians are all "exactly alike" in thier misperception of reality.
This kind of rubbish is exactly what one would expect from reductionism run amok.
Rand
Yeaph, I agree.
-
Honestly, if you can't be bothered to keep track of what's being talked about you could at least perform the courtesy of not barging in to loudly dismiss it all.
-
Is it possible that, on this one occasion, you are mistaken? :-)
Thanks, Isaac, for the laugh. But, as often as I am mistaken, the odor of manure is unmistakable - and in this case, very strong!
-
Perhaps you chappies want to take a crack, then, at just how it is that we are able to visually identify a photo of a tiger with an actual tiger.
And 'well, duh' and its cognates don't count. You have to break it down a little more than that.
-
Honestly, if you can't be bothered to keep track of what's being talked about you could at least perform the courtesy of not barging in to loudly dismiss it all.
Are you in reference to my post?
Rand
-
I am referring to several posts, at least one made by you, yes.
-
I am referring to several posts, at least one made by you, yes.
Thanks for the clarification. Unless you claim omniscience, how can you possibly know who "has kept track" of what is being dicussed, and who has not? And even if you claim omniscience, how do you know that your perception of omniscience is the same as others? As I said, reductionism run amok.
Rand
-
I don't need to be omniscient. Your post, reply #29, makes it clear that you don't understand the paper I'm taking about.
-
The funny thing is…other researchers in this same field will do their best to tear this paper apart. And they may well succeed. But if they do succeed it won't be via arrogantly slinging pejoratives but via creating even better models and via analyzing the data even more rigorously and insightfully than these authors.
-Dave-
-
I don't need to be omniscient. Your post, reply #29, makes it clear that you don't understand the paper I'm taking about.
And I would posit that your sphere of awareness doesn't include the underlying philosophical a priori assumptions that underlie the article.
Rand
-
You should italicize the Latin phrases. It lends gravitas.
-
You should italicize the Latin phrases. It lends gravitas.
LOL... good one! ;D
Rand
-
It should be clear to anyone with any basic physics schooling that what we perceive is not the actual truth of reality. Take the classic doubble slit experiment where a photon will interact with itself.
-
It should be clear to anyone with any basic physics schooling that what we perceive is not the actual truth of reality. Take the classic doubble slit experiment where a photon will interact with itself.
Do you think it is "close enough" (though) to "do physics?"
Rand
-
It is the lack of dispersion that makes it possible to do science and engineering, not the veridicality.
Although, obviously, our actual perceptual strategies do have a little dispersion. A great deal of scientific technique is about managing dispersion.
-
It is the lack of dispersion that makes it possible to do science and engineering, not the veridicality.
Although, obviously, our actual perceptual strategies do have a little dispersion. A great deal of scientific technique is about managing dispersion.
And what would be the mechanism for "lack of dispersion" given that our perception is unreliable?
Rnad
-
Um, you seem to be the only person in the thread stating that our perception is "unreliable" and I'm not sure what you mean.
I used "reliably" once, in an assertion that our perception is reliable, in the sense that it lacks dispersion.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'the mechanism for "lack of dispersion"' actually. It's just a property, like pink. What is the paint's mechanism for being pink? I don't know. It's just a property of the pigment, surely.
-
The funny thing is…other researchers in this same field will do their best to tear this paper apart. And they may well succeed. But if they do succeed it won't be via arrogantly slinging pejoratives but via creating even better models
Non necessarily: a theory can be shown to be wrong even without proposing something better.
In this case, the theory fails completely to explaing why different stimulus produces different perception (since the theory claims that the perception has no relation whatsoever with the objective qualities of the stimulus, one of which is their difference, as shown with the red and green color), therefore it is wrong.
-
Huh?
-
Here's an interesting merger of this discussion of the veracity of a visual system designed by evolution and the New Horizons Pluto photos: the design evolved (by engineers in this case) for the New Horizons camera is deliberately color blind to green, because for the purpose of viewing Pluto "less [color accuracy] is more [useful]". Wasting resources on the additional veracity of having green sensors would give worse results overall, due to requiring resource cuts elsewhere:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/09/new-horizons-sends-back-stunning-partial-color-images-of-a-new-world/?comments=1&post=29817209
-
Here's an interesting merger of this discussion of the veracity of a visual system designed by evolution and the New Horizons Pluto photos: the design evolved (by engineers in this case) for the New Horizons camera is deliberately color blind to green, because for the purpose of viewing Pluto "less [color accuracy] is more [useful]". Wasting resources on the additional veracity of having green sensors would give worse results overall, due to requiring resource cuts elsewhere:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/09/new-horizons-sends-back-stunning-partial-color-images-of-a-new-world/?comments=1&post=29817209
p
The known, objective, characteristics of green were eliminated because they are "know, objective, consistent" and in this case not desirable. "Green" was still green regardless of any perceptual differences individuals may have when they "see" green. The reality of the objective world is what makes possible our ability to even discuss it, let alone do science, medicine, engineering, photography, ad naseum.
The general coherence/congruence of our collective perception is fundamental to our existence as society. Philosophical reductionism likes to say differently, but even those saying such things leave them in the study when they walk out the door.
Rand
-
You are completely talking past the ideas in the paper, as are all the naysayers.
It's painfully clear that none of you know what the paper is saying. Which is a shame, because it's pretty interesting.
-
You are completely talking past the ideas in the paper, as are all the naysayers.
It's painfully clear that none of you know what the paper is saying. Which is a shame, because it's pretty interesting.
When someone speaks of "truth" refering the word to physical entities (like tigers, trees, rocks and so on) there is no need to read what he's writing because it's clear that he doen's know what he's talking about.
-
p
The known, objective, characteristics of green were eliminated because they are "know, objective, consistent" and in this case not desirable. "Green" was still green regardless of any perceptual differences individuals may have when they "see" green. The reality of the objective world is what makes possible our ability to even discuss it, let alone do science, medicine, engineering, photography, ad naseum.
The general coherence/congruence of our collective perception is fundamental to our existence as society. Philosophical reductionism likes to say differently, but even those saying such things leave them in the study when they walk out the door.
Rand
So true and obvious, yet so obscure to some.
-
(http://kids.niehs.nih.gov/assets/images/p/pinkdots.gif)
Don't try to follow the green dot. Only realize the truth. There is no green dot.
-
(http://kids.niehs.nih.gov/assets/images/p/pinkdots.gif)
Don't try to follow the green dot. Only realize the truth. There is no green dot.
And therfore...?
-
OK. So we're on the same page: you have no idea what you're talking about, and don't care.
You can move on now.
-
OK. So we're on the same page: you have no idea what you're talking about, and don't care.
You can move on now.
Believe so, if it fits you.
The facts remains that they are just babbling nonsense (and provably so with the red and green thing).
-
The general coherence/congruence of our collective perception is fundamental to our existence as society. Philosophical reductionism likes to say differently, but even those saying such things leave them in the study when they walk out the door.
IMO you're reading a post-modernist solipsism into this paper that isn't there. The paper simply postulates a particular theory about how our sense perception works. It's not trying to describe or define the reality of what we perceive. There is a corollary, though, that I can imagine some folks might find objectionable: anyone claiming the ability to objectively perceive "the world out there" shouldn't be taken seriously. Can't imagine that sitting well with dogmatists of any stripe.
-Dave-
-
anyone claiming the ability to objectively perceive "the world out there" shouldn't be taken seriously.
A sentence hard to take seriously when read on a computer.
-
We're taking about a paper here. Either you've taken a shot at reading it or you haven't.
It's clear that several commenters here haven't read it, but see fit to judge it anyway. And their judgements are laughably wrong, which happens sometimes when you choose to attack in ignorance.
Dismissing it as philosophical blabbering doesn't work when it's not philosophical blabbering.
-
We're taking about a paper here. Either you've taken a shot at reading it or you haven't.
It's clear that several commenters here haven't read it, but see fit to judge it anyway. And their judgements are laughably wrong, which happens sometimes when you choose to attack in ignorance.
Dismissing it as philosophical blabbering doesn't work when it's not philosophical blabbering.
We're talking about a theory, here, not a paper.
And the theory is wrong (as demostrated by the red/green thing).
But again: believe what fits you.
-
The red/green thing is about dispersion not about veridicality. You don't know what "dispersion" means in this context, because you havem't read the paper. If you think we're talking about a "theory" rather than a "paper" I assume you mean we're talking about this "interface theory" which is described in the paper which you have not read. So distinctions between the paper and the theory are moot. You are equally ignorant of both having not read the paper in which the theory is described
The interface theory of perception as elucidated in the paper is about dispersion-free perceptual strategies which are not veridical. Since you don't know what either "dispersion" or "veridical" mean because you haven't read the paper you are arguing in complete ignorance, and are simply wrong. Which is going to happen when you're arguing without knowing what any of the words mean.
-
The red/green thing is about dispersion not about veridicality.
You don't even know what I'm referring with the red/green thing and yet you're saying and I don't understand the theory these guys are selling.
What about explaining the red/green thing with these guy's theory?
-
You don't even know what I'm referring with the red/green thing and yet you're saying and I don't understand the theory these guys are selling.
What about explaining the red/green thing with these guy's theory?
Your "red/green" thing is what you mentioned in reply #26, I assume, since that seems to be the only mention of anything to do with red versus green. If you're citing some random "red/green thing" from inside your own mind where nobody else can know what it is, well, you're on your own. I have already explained why the red/green thing is irrelevant, several times. Admittedly, I have done so using the language of the paper which you have not read and the theory about which you know absolutely nothing and so it's probably the case that you've missed the explanation.
-
I have already explained why the red/green thing is irrelevant, several times.
No you didn't.
So try again: how it comes that the perception of red and green maintains the "different" relationship of the two lights if the perception has nothing to do with the perception?
Let's see how your favorite theory response.
-
No you didn't.
So try again: how it comes that the perception of red and green maintains the "different" relationship of the two lights if the perception has nothing to do with the perception?
Let's see how your favorite theory response.
Even if we discount your obvious typo, and assume you mean something like "the perception has nothing to do with the real world", you're simply wrong. There's nothing that even suggests such a statement in the paper, or in the abstract. You've simply made up this disconnect between the real world and perception, and are arguing from this completely wrong position. At this point. Sometimes you seem to be talking about perceptual strategies with dispersion, which are also irrelevant here.
Just to be clear:
nobody except you is talking about a situation in which perception has no connection to the real world
-
Even if we discount your obvious typo, and assume you mean something like "the perception has nothing to do with the real world", you're simply wrong. There's nothing that even suggests such a statement in the paper, or in the abstract. You've simply made up this disconnect between the real world and perception, and are arguing from this completely wrong position. At this point. Sometimes you seem to be talking about perceptual strategies with dispersion, which are also irrelevant here.
Just to be clear:
nobody except you is talking about a situation in which perception has no connection to the real world
From the link originally posted:
http://www.psychonomic.org/featured-content-detail/interface-theory-of-perception-future-of-science-o
From the abstract of the paper:
Thus, a perceptual strategy favored by selection is best thought of not as a window on truth but as akin to a windows interface of a PC. Just as the color and shape of an icon for a text file do not entail that the text file itself has a color or shape, so also our perceptions of space-time and objects do not entail (by the Invention of Space-Time Theorem) that objective reality has the structure of space-time and objects.
Maybe I'm not the one who doesn't understand the meaning of the paper.
-
There's a world of difference between "no connection at all" and what the abstract says.
You are engaged here in what is called the Motte and Bailey fallacy. You argue based on wrongheaded nonsense "if there is no connection between reality and perception then.. " blah blah blah. Then, when confronted with the ugly truth that nobody is claiming that there's no connection, you retreat to quoting the part where they say that the connection between reality and perception is not necessarily direct and literal.
Then you hope nobody notices that you've retreated to a this quite different position.
Shortly, you will come bursting out again, arguing nonsense, when you think it might be safe to start claiming that the authors are saying stuff they didn't say.
Welcome to the internet!
-
There's a world of difference between "no connection at all" and what the abstract says.
What don't you show me where, in the paper, their theory says that the perception are constrained by objective properties of the stimulus?
Because, again, maybe I'm not the one who don't understand the meaning of the paper.
-
For those playing along at home, and because I might as well stop torturing poor Diego:
The fact that any given color produces the same perceptual impression every time you see it is what "dispersion-free". If the same stimuli produce different perceptual impressions at different times, that is "dispersion".
If every color produced a different perceptual impression, then color perception would be "veridical". The fact that it is not means that our color perception is "non-veridical"
Interface theories of perception are dispersion free. The same stimulus produces the same perception. This is what you need to make science and engineering work. Interface theories of perception need not be veridical. It doesn't matter if you see "green" as a color or a smell or a looming beast, as long as you reliably perceive it the same every time. Dispersion-free, non-veridical. It works fine.
As for you, Diego, look up the definition of dispersion in the paper. Download it, search for the word "dispersion" and you will find precisely the place in the paper you're asking me to show you. As I have suggested repeatedly. Dispersion is precisely the concept you've gotten wrong all along, when you're bothering to argue from a coherent position at all.
-
For those playing along at home, and because I might as well stop torturing poor Diego:
...
Too bad that all of this doesn't answer my question: "What don't you show me where, in the paper, their theory says that the perception are constrained by objective properties of the stimulus?"
That's not an hard question for someone who have read and undestood the paper.
Don't worry, take your time to answer.
I know you will.
-
Too bad that all of this doesn't answer my question: "What don't you show me where, in the paper, their theory says that the perception are constrained by objective properties of the stimulus?"
That's not an hard question for someone who have read and undestood the paper.
Don't worry, take your time to answer.
I know you will.
Uh. I already did. I gave you precise directions for finding the place. What more can I possibly do? Do I need to visit you at your home and read it out loud to you? I am quite genuinely puzzled at this response.
"Download it, search for the word "dispersion" and you will find precisely the place in the paper you're asking me to show you."
how much more can I say?
Perhaps "Definition 1, starting at the lower right corner of the third page" would be of assistance? And then Definition 7, which states that "an interface strategy is simply a dispersion-free perceptual strategy"? I mean, that seems to be absolutely unambiguous and complete. The next step is literally to read it out loud to you, Diego.
-
Uh. I already did. I gave you precise directions for finding the place. What more can I possibly do? Do I need to visit you at your home and read it out loud to you? I am quite genuinely puzzled at this response.
"Download it, search for the word "dispersion" and you will find precisely the place in the paper you're asking me to show you."
how much more can I say?
No, you didn't.
What about the "the sentence X in the page Y and line Z"
Because maybe you're not aware that "look for yourself" it's an old and cheese trick.
So, just to close this thing once and for all: can you show me where, in the paper, these guys are saying that perceptions are constrained by objective qualities of the stimulus?
If not, don't bother to reply.
If yes, reply with sentence/page/line coordinates.
-
I didn't say "look for yourself", I gave you the equivalent of lines and pages. A search isn't ambiguous.
Anyways, you now have chapter and verse in the previous reply.
-
I didn't say "look for yourself", I gave you the equivalent of lines and pages. A search isn't ambiguous.
Anyways, you now have chapter and verse in the previous reply.
Ok, I acknowledge you can't do what I asked, so I'm not gonna waste more time with you.
-
Not worth it even to call this guy out. It's obvious to all what he's at.
-
... you may perceive "red" and "green" in a completely personal way but, unless your vision is impared, your perception of "red" is different from your perception of "green".
Yes; how does that contradict the paper? At most it indicates that our perceptions can fail to make some distinctions – typically distinctions that do not add significantly to our fitness in the sense of enhancing our contribution to the propagation of our hereditary traits, in particular the trait of the ability to make that distinction.
Can you point to where the paper implies that our perceptual system fails to report the difference between red and green? "Not representing things as they literally are" is very different from "not representing important differences". In that article's computer desktop analogy, the icons for different files are still distinguishable. False color reproductions of infra-red or ultraviolet light and manipulation with color filters can even go in the opposite direction: deviating from literal representation can help to make some important differences more noticeable.
On the other hand, our visual system clearly does fail to make many color distinctions, since combinations of just three wavelengths can produce perceptions very close to light with a mixture of many more different wavelengths. And many other animals do not distinguish those two colors or any others, because they have monochrome vision – sacrificing color discrimination can allow for better resolution and low-light performance, which can be a better fitness trade-off for some "lifestyles". And on the other hand, bees (if they could think and talk trash) might mock us humans for being ultraviolet-blind.
-
And on the other hand, bees (if they could think and talk trash) might mock us humans for being ultraviolet-blind.
That's why they sting us on the ass now and again. It's an advanced sense of humour to which we are generally blind and, when we see it at all, most unreceptive.
Rob C
-
That's why they sting us on the ass now and again. It's an advanced sense of humour to which we are generally blind and, when we see it at all, most unreceptive.
Rob C
It's a noble gesture on their part and we should more widely appreciate it as they inevitably die through doing so (most species anyway).
-
This is the absorption spectrum of chlorophyll, the pigment responsible of the green colour of plants:
http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/local/projects/steer/cloroads.gif
If you take a picture of plants, you can try to match the color of the print with the colour of real leaves. You can succeed to match the two colours for the human eye (as long as you keep them under the same light), but the prints will have a completely different spectrum. There is no possibility to emulate the two narrow absorption peaks in the violet and blue range with just red, green and blue pigments. So the print and the original will be different for a spectrometer but will look the same to the human eye.
Our eyes have not evolved to allow us to recognise the functioning of chlorophyll in plants, because our ancestor did not need to do that. They have evolved to allow us to see the differences between leaves and berries (which a lot of animals cannot), because that was useful to our ancestors.
-
Our eyes have not evolved to allow us to recognise the functioning of chlorophyll in plants, because our ancestor did not need to do that. They have evolved to allow us to see the differences between leaves and berries (which a lot of animals cannot), because that was useful to our ancestors.
And to think: instead of all that science they only needed food testers!
Imagine, no more capital punishment, life-imprisonment and the arguments about conjugal prison rights.
Sometimes, the perfect solutions lie right under our nose. Maybe it's the wrong colour filtration code?
;-)
Rob C
-
If you take a picture with plants… (http://www.bjp-online.com/2015/09/alice-cazenave-how-photography-is-just-like-photosynthesis/)
-
If you take a picture with plants… (http://www.bjp-online.com/2015/09/alice-cazenave-how-photography-is-just-like-photosynthesis/)
That is a fascinating article!
-
This is the absorption spectrum of chlorophyll, the pigment responsible of the green colour of plants:
...
Our eyes have not evolved to allow us to recognise the functioning of chlorophyll in plants, because our ancestor did not need to do that. They have evolved to allow us to see the differences between leaves and berries (which a lot of animals cannot), because that was useful to our ancestors.
Maybe this is related to the surprising appearance of leaves and such in infrared photography, which can create huge tonal differences that our not-so-literally-accurate vision system completely lacks.
On "a lot of animals cannot", I believe that many or all carnivorous mammals are color-blind, which fits with that who cares about berries and leaves? evolutionary scenario.
-
Maybe this is related to the surprising appearance of leaves and such in infrared photography, which can create huge tonal differences that our not-so-literally-accurate vision system completely lacks.
On "a lot of animals cannot", I believe that many or all carnivorous mammals are color-blind, which fits with that who cares about berries and leaves? evolutionary scenario.
I wonder about that; they make very good use of camouflage and I doubt that it's just a product of their own natural colouring - I think they may be using natural cover intelligently, and that would require a sense of colour too, I think. Otherwise, they might make excellent b/white photographers!
Rob C