You are the only thing that’s real in this world. YOU’RE IN A COMA．ＷＡＫＥ ＵＰ！
The lights flickered when I read this. I think that means I’m the real one and they upped my sedative to keep me stuck here. Oh well. Maybe I’ll get fun dreams out of it tonight, at least.
Quick Guys… he’s onto us!
Wait, you guys are distinct consciousnesses? I though we were all just aspects of his
Wake up, Link!
Shrimp have multiple color recptors because their brains are too primitive/rudimentary to combine input from more than a single receptor into a composite color. The result is that 12 colors (or however many receptors it is) is the total number of colors they can see.
They also see in UV and can see polarized light
and can see polarized light
So can we. It’s also like to point out that seeing polarized light is different from being able to tell that it is polarized. Which we can still do, just not as well
How can I tell when I’m seeing polarized light?
Physicists: spend hundreds of generations empirically proving objective science
Philosophers: yeah, well, that’s just like your opinion, man
Philosophers: It is what it is.
Physicians: We need to be a bit more specific than that. Can we measure it?
Physicist: Who invited the medical doctor? He seems far too invested in applied physics! Who is next, a (retches) engineer?
Funny – just this week I ran into the concept of Solipsism for the first time in my life, and now this post.
I sincerely doubt you ran into anything given that you don’t exist.
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.
What colors can mantis shrimp even see? Having 16 different cones doesn’t mean anything if they’re all slightly different variations of green, for example.
Edit: Okay, they can see more colors that us. They can see 300 nm to 720 nm and we can see 400 nm to 700 nm.
I think your question was spot on. They have more cones but they seem worse. They also lack our ability to process the stimuli into a rich tapestry of color.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24458639/
Not sure if there’s more current info though.
Just the span of wavelengths isn’t the only thing that’s important, the spectral resolution is also important. For example, theoretically with 6 different cones we would be able to tell the difference between the mixture of red and green wavelengths vs only seeing yellow wavelengths.
Or the mixture of blue and red wavelengths vs violet wavelengths, which just happen to be at the furthest possible point from the red wavelengths. Human color perception is strange.
Materialism is believing chemicals in your brain are chemicals in your brain because that’s what the chemicals in your brain told you they were, and that what you can personally measure is all there is despite the fact that we keep finding shit we literally cannot measure.
Eh? What’s your point?
My point? I don’t have a point. It’s just a philosophical concept related to what you’ve described. Have a read, you might find it interesting. Otherwise ignore. 👍
Happy New Year! 🎆
Sorry I just don’t see the connection between “Your brain is lying to you” and “You are the only real person.”
I think they are related. Not the same, of course. If you aren’t interested, ignore. 👍
That’s ridiculous. How perspection is fully acceptable as proof of reality. The fact is as our perception is limited we are limited in our knowledge of the reality of thing. 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.
Mantis Shrimp actually lack the hardware for color interpolation. So they see 12 colors, total, compared to the wide spectrum that humans see.
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.
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…
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.
Well alrighty then, so much for casual social interaction.
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.
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)
I discovered that what we think is real is only what we perceive and behind that is just an empty void when I had a particularly strong acid trip
“nothing really tastes [etc], it’s just your brain’s interpretation”
1 that brain is you
2 the interpretation constitutes the fact that it tastes or whatever, what else could that even mean?
If that’s where that person ends up after “thinking too much”…
“A little learning is a dang’rous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, And drinking largely sobers us again.”
omg qualia
omg u genius
I’m getting old and bitter.
We gotta preserve our curiosity and childish naivite. Imagine yourself a professor sharing a beauty of math – the good ones are always as excited to explain it, as the first time they’ve felt it ^^
*Epistemology
Are there atoms tho? Is there void?
Yes, it’s where Janets go when they’ve not been summoned.
And that one time when she had to hide those people.
Fancy words for “there’s something and there’s nothing”. So, yes.
:)
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.
The term “atom” at that point was a placeholder, not a specific measurable phenomenon.
Remember kids that you don’t feel matter; you feel the electrostatic repulsion of electrons that occupy part of the 99+% of empty space of each atom is composed of. The vibrational frequency of those atoms create heat that radiates through that void to be detected by other atoms as more or less heat energy. Over 99% of you is empty space and radiant energy, which means that mathematically you barely even exist.
