Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Write4U, Dec 6, 2017.
Some people can distinguish shades of color which most see as exactly the same.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Perhaps someday we will find an even smaller scale which may be different.
Yes, thought the smaller we go the less we seem to find that concepts such as the shape and size of objects have any meaning. All dissolves into wavelike behaviour and consequent uncertainties in physical properties. Maybe this too will pass, if some kind of hidden variable theory can restore the physicists' dream of a deterministic physics. But I have my doubts. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I agree, I suspect it is due to lack of prior exposure to the various shades of colors, in order to develop more color sensitive synapses in the mirror neural system of the brain.
Those extra-ordinary phenomena are evolutionary result of each organisms relative association with the natural world. Thus each organism, by natural selection develops specific skills in a relatively narrow area of expertise.
OTOH, humans have become very specialized in abstract and scientific cognition of values, rather than daily exposure and experience. This has practically resulted in the redirection of neurons to other specific, but related tasks and cognition, say, skills in social life, skills in representativs arts, skills in sciences (critical thinking), and to sports (for our amusement). Thus our neural system has sacrificed extra keen senses, for greater predictive ( abstract processing) ability.
Many animals outstrip humans in sensory abilities (a survival intelligence), which was always developing during their evolution in their environment. All enduring species will perfectly adapt to the natural pockets in the earth's geosphere which have remained relatively stable.
The variety of life on earth is truly astounding, each with it's specific survival skills. Cave fishes once had eyes, but are now completely blind, except perhaps for light filtering through the scale covered eysockets.
The point is that the sensory organs in humans also have changed during our evolution, but we have sacrificed extra-ordinary sensory abilities. If you have a dog or a cat, you know how keen their natural senses are as compared to humans.
Your 1st paragraph seems contradictory. Perhaps there are environmental factors yet it is mainly the makeup of those peoples' eyes and/or brains. The ones I know of had the ability as far back as they can remember & they always thought it strange that others could not see the colors they saw.
Are the two mutually exclusive? Is Probability not a form of Determinism. If something is possible and given sufficient time and conditions, the probability has becomes deterministic . Hidden variables exist everywhere, but seem to be mere ripples in a large river of purely deterministic processes.
They are not mutually exclusive. Maybe I misunderstood you. I did say seems.
Actually, nothing is probable. Whatever will happen will happen. As I think you say in your last phrase.
Que sera sera.
Sorry, if the opening paragraph was confusing. I very much agree with you.
I think I explained my perspective of the same thing on how this "rewiring of the neural system" might have taken place.
The problem with seeing shades of colors may be due to that there are so many shades which are named red.
IOW, our senses have become lazy, in favor of other survival skills.
Possibly but also could be just 1 way in which some humans evolve differently from others. The opposite of color blind.
It seems to me that almost everything is Possible, given the right circumstances, but there is a range of Probabilities from 10^-16 % to 100 % of becoming expressed in reality.
Bohm (who espoused the hidden variable) adds a third state of "Implicate Order", which is basically the preview of what is to become deterministically expressed in reality.
Every thing is caused. Every thing which exists & every thing which happens is due to what existed & happened before.
Just as we cannot expect X cake to come out of the oven after following the recipe for Y cake, we cannot think any thing can exist or happen which was not inevitably caused by the previous ingredients & conditions.
. Yes, some people are briliant mathematicians , but can't a waltz.
Almost all people employ a "best guess" of what they observe. As Anil Seth said; "when our best guesses (controlled hallucination of what we observe) agree, we call that reality". It is all relative and mostly due to early exposure which stimulated and sensitized the cognitive neural network in processing its environment in greater detail.
Hehe, Eskimos have some 20 names for snow, depending on its physical state. Now that is a very specialized mental ability, dealing with a pure white substance. However their sensitivity to colors, may well be more limited and probably not much beyond the colors of Nortern Lights.
I recently had my cataractic eye lenses replaced with artificial lenses. When I opened my eyes, everything had a blue tint to it. This phenomena seemed to have disappeared, or I may have gotten used to it, I'll never know. I still can read the full spectrum of colors, but is it the same as before? I really don't know, even now that I can see much clearer. The experience of seeing things with renewed clarity was incredible, but still a "best guess".
A kind of "Use it or lose it".
Yes. Actually, there are no odds or chances. Those are only our best guesses at what will happen.
Whether a coin lands on heads or tails at any certain place & time is caused by various factors mostly unknown to us.
We will probably never know but I would not be surprised to find that coins land on tails 65% of the time or heads 63% of the time.
Rivers flow due to conditions. If conditions were different, rivers would flow differently. If conditions were different, planets would orbit stars differently or not at all. If Earth's orbit were much different there might be no life here or perhaps there would be life very different from what we know.
Exactly, but is somewhat ironic that the simplest organisms have the greatest adaptability. The insect world uses almost no brain functions but have developed an incredible variety of adaptive body structures and sensory intelligence.
An exo-skeleton leaves a lot of protected area inside for such a small creature. Relatively they are physically much stronger than we are, as well as greater resistance to radiation, but some species can see infra red and some ultra-violet colors. Adaption and Specialization. Not everything survives, thus what is left is the deterministic result of evolution, which itself has an hidden variable of probability, natural selection.
EVERYTHING - within the bounds of physics is probable - EVERYTHING
Discounting duplication, which I would consider to remote to be feasible, but if within physics still probable
Anyway discounting duplication every single possibility results in only one REALITY NOW
Which at the ultimate death of REALITY NOW will end forever the possibility of EVERYTHING happening
Just not enough of NOW sorry
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No it isn't. Probability is a quantitative expression of a lack of determinism. Probability reflects the chance of a given event or outcome. Chance.
And inevitably, if one outcome is observed, then the other previously possible alternative outcomes will never occur.
The "ripples in a river" stuff seems to be just woo.
This exchange between Bohm and Sheldrake may shed show some light on it;
Not if you view it from the perspective of large numbers and time.
I decline to believe that anything involving Rupert Sheldrake will shed light on anything.
Perhaps, I don't think I ever heard of him before. But it is Bohm's narratives which I wanted to posit.
And David Bohm does have the credentials to shed light on many things.
From Stranger Post 31
The classical world of our senses is built on a quantum level based on probabilistic laws.
Determinism which was the mainstream view of physicists prior to circa 1900-1920 has been junked by modern physicists.
If it were possible to rewind the universe to a pre-existing state, it would not repeat our current history. I would not expect it to even be close.
BTW: I do not consider Rupert Sheldrake to be a good source of valid information.
Separate names with a comma.