From Wikipedia: The mantis shrimp has one of the most elaborate visual systems ever discovered.<sup>[11]</sup> Compared to the three types of color receptive cones that humans possess in their eyes, the eyes of a mantis shrimp carries 16 types of color receptive cones. This gives the crustacean the ability to recognize colors that are unimaginable by other species.<sup>[12]</sup> The midband region of its eye is made up of six rows of specialised ommatidia. Four rows carry up to 16 different photoreceptor pigments, 12 for colour sensitivity, others for colour filtering. The vision of the mantis shrimp can perceive both polarised light and multispectral images.<sup>[13]</sup> Their eyes (mounted on mobile stalks and capable of moving independently of each other) are similarly variably colored and are considered to be the most complex eyes in the animal kingdom.<sup>[14]</sup> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I have been fascinated by this animal ever since finding out about it. It is basically scientific proof of just how subjective "reality" is. What must life be like with eyes like that? Obviously the Mantis Shrimp does not have anywhere as complex a brain as a human, but imagine those eyes paired with a human brain. How would that reshape our reality? It also raises pondering about what other organs/body parts in nature can exist in higher versions than ours. Just like this shrimp has a vastly superior sight to ours, imagine a species that has a brain that is that much more complex than ours.
perception is subjective but reality is not. When multiple entities witness the same object, they still see and interact with the same reality. Some are just privileged to seeing more detail. -yuri
What is any idea of reality you can come up with based on if not your own perception of it? The fact that others share the same limited tools and perception as you do, still makes your shared reality based on the tools you have for observing it. Someone/Something with the capacity for observing it in more detail is privy to far more information, better understanding of it, and with a sufficiently developed brain and (technological) advancement, eventually able to interact with it better and shape it as needed or desired.
What you said isn't really wrong, nor is what Yuri said wrong. You kind of said the same thing.. lol, but once we learn the specific hardware that goes into their eyes, we would be able to mimic it with technology. I mean, we kind of already have the technology to view light how they do.. just not advanced enough to replace our eyeballs with it.. yet. I think a good way to detail what Yuri was saying is that when a life form with the same color cones looks at something colored, overall they'll be seeing the same color.. let's say blue.. but if one life form has more blue light receptors, they'll be able to see many more shades of blue. Like if you and I were to compare the amount and ratio of cone cells in our eyes and everything was the same except you have a mutation where you have 25% more blue cone cells, when we both look at a wall that is painted blue, it will look solid to me.. but to you you'll be able to see different shades. Like you might be able to tell if there was a spot where someone missed another coat of blue paint or even see variations in the blue where the brush stroked.
I've been reading that their vision isn't all that jazzed as some hyped it up to be. Sorry I can't provide a link, but it's out there. I remember trying to find a mantis shrimp at reef stores, and they were like ' you want to buy one? They're pests!'. They prey on very expensive fish and smash very expensive hard corals haha. I was looking for the smasher not the stabber, and the colorful one, many are dull in color.
right exactly. The perception is subjective, but the information being percieved is still objectively real. Imagine we are in the matrix. I break a vase and you see it. We were both able to see the vase, proving its an object being observed and not a constricted illusion. If you were to then tell me that the vase wasnt real, and explained the concept of the matrix to me, I would say that you merely explained why the "vase" was there, as opposed to proving its not real. My point is merely that the information making up the vase is the same regardless of how you.observe it. -yuri
mantis shrimp and cuddle fish are my favorite sea creatures. octopi come in a very close 3rd. matter of fact i have a monster octopus on my back. not finished, but there never the less!
I'm with what you're saying. Having a more detailed vision, or any other sense for that matter doesn't make 1+1 = 3. If my post implied otherwise, that was not my goal. I see the subjectivity of relativity going on as a result of increased data volume which better tools allow a species to process, and the conclusions the species gets to make as a result thereof. The Mantis' version of reality is different from ours not because 1+1 = 3 in his world, but because his world reveals far more visual data. Aside from just being able to see and imagine more colors, the shrimp is also be privy to seeing more factors of nature interacting with one another. Its ability to observe multispectral images as an example. As a human example, before we had a higher scientific understanding, many people for a very long time believed the Earth to be flat. This was a huge part of what they considered to be reality. Eventually, with new calculations, new data, and eventual social acceptance, our reality became that we are on a sphere. Then our reality became that we are part of a solar system, then a galaxy, and so on. We were on the same round rock the whole time, but because our perception is all we have to dictate our reality, a more limited perception gave us a wrong impression of what our reality is. I see the same applying to anything with a strongly detailed sense of anything, sight, smell, hearing, touch. The reality observed/heard/felt is still the same, but more detailed tools reveal far more volume about it and thus "alter" how you perceive it and interact with it. As I mentioned, the Mantis' brain is nowhere as complex as a human's, so what exactly he is or isn't imagining or doing with this giant pallet of visual imagery is most likely highly simplistic. I would love to see such visual tools paired with a human mind. My biggest point with the Mantis is the demonstration and implication nature made by showing us a creature with such a vastly superior sight. If the shrimp can have 5x human vision complexity, dogs can smell far and hear better than we can, and both of those are just two creatures on our little planet, then who's to say there isn't something out in space with a 5x (or more) complex brain? What is that like, and what could "reality" possibly look like to something like that?
had a mantis shrimp hatch from one of the rocks in my reef tank, and it banged a hole in the side of the tank and ate my starfish..
That is horrible. They're evil creatures, whether their eyesight is all it's cracked up to be or not.
This creature is like the Bruce lee of the water world. Check this video out lol Bruce lee kicks in at 2:05 hahaha https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H69cLQdLPfg