I'm just going to nip this in the ass now. You are ridiculous. You ask for a peer reviewed source.. yet where is yours? Oh that's right.. a secondhand internet comment. You posted an article, that didn't really say much about people seeing UV light.. and then said about how a comment said that some dude said that a girl in his science class could prove she could see UV light 100% of them time.. and then say that there have been tests to show that PEOPLE (not just the one girl) could prove that they could see UV light 100% of the time. That is a borderline retarded assumption to make.. but why don't you go ahead and provide the source about all these people who have been tested? Or is your only source a single secondhand internet comment? Just do a little bit of research for yourself, for once. Check out aphakia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphakia Here is a paper from Saint Louis University: http://starklab.slu.edu/humanUV.htm "Most people donot see UV light because the lens absorbs UV. After cataract surgery, acondition called aphakia, "near" UV light(300 - 400 nm) can reach visual receptors. My interest stems in part from myown condition of being aphakic in one eye. There wassurprisingly little information about human UV sensitivity though the topic wasbecoming increasingly relevant in view of the mounting evidence for UV damageto the vertebrate retina." I don't want to be a dick.. but honestly, you're annoying with your debates because you read one god damn random internet comment and jump on it like it was a scientific study and then ask other people for REAL sources. That is confirmation bias.. reading something that backs up something you want to believe and not taking a minute bit of extra effort to look any further, and confirmation bias is a sign of ignorance. So go ahead, keep on posting stupid shit for me to pick apart.. I am in that kind of mood right now.
you don't need to he a dick. You have a bad habbit of intentionally being a dick All i asked was proof of your claim. That's it The rest oof your post was unnecessary -yuri
I feel like it was completely necessary because it is a common theme for you.. you read one little blurb about something and then it evolves into a fact or study. What you did is what pathological liars do.. they take something small and meaningless and turn it into something that they present as the truth. You read an article, that barely touched on people being able to see UV light.. then read ONE comment from a random internet poster about someone else who could prove she could see UV light.. then it evolved into people who can see UV light being able to prove they can see UV light in comparison to their control groups. Like.. where the fuck did that even come from? And you're right.. I am a dick and I'd be the first one to admit it, but I am only a dick when it comes to ignorance and you got a lot of that flowing out of you that you try to present as the truth.. without anything to back up your claims, and then you want others to back up theirs. Now.. since I provided a source (not that I needed to because it is a known scientific fact that our lens blocks UV light).. care to provide a source for: Or is this yet another empty claim of yours?
But I did? Anyway, I like to think of it as deconstructive criticism. I don't believe in just going after what they are saying.. you have to go after what they're saying and their thought process, their selves. Going after just their words just allows them to still fall victim to their own confirmation bias. Going after their words and thought process is you're best bet to make any impact.. and if you're trying to make an impact, you might as well go balls deep. But.. the science behind humans seeing UV light isn't them having a 4th cone that can absorb the wavelengths. Pretty much everyone with a 4th cone has that cone somewhere within the visible light wave lengths. When humans can see UV light, it is because there is something off about their lens and/or cornea. Those parts of the eye have numerous purposes, one including protecting our neurons capable of absorbing light from being hit with damaging UV light. When someone can see UV light.. it really isn't a good thing. That means UV light is bombarding all their rods and cones, which aren't made to interact with UV light. When it does so, it creates white.. because it is activating all rods and cones just like white light would.. and if you are getting UV light, you are also getting wave lengths that are both near blue and near ultraviolet, adding a blueish hue to it.. and it as in an object that is capable of reflecting UV light. If the object being struck doesn't reflect UV light, their color vision won't look a bit different. With human tetrachromats.. the 4th cone will be a color everyone with full color vision can see, but for the tetrachromats, wherever it lands.. it will only make their experience of color more vivid. Just like with color blind people.. they might be missing a cone, but the cones that do have allow for a more vivid experience with them. That's why color blindness has such a high rate.. because during our rather recent evolution, it was an important trait for survival. People who don't have any blue cones will have more reds and greens than a normal person and can see more shades of them. Useful for things like plant identification and even against camouflage using those colors.. for some color blind people, a hunter hiding in a tree will probably stick out like a sore thumb. Long story short.. there are people who can see UV light, but it really has nothing to do with an actual receptor for UV light.. and seeing UV light, while cool.. would be bad because that just means that you're dramatically increasing your chances of shit going bad with your vision. With animals that can see full color and UV light.. it's because they evolved other means of protection for their neurons from the damaging effects of UV light. Humans don't have that.. and I know Yuri, once some random comment confirms something he wants to believe, simple reasoning like above really won't sink in. You need to slam it hard with someone who is more than likely a pathological liar in real life. The type who actually believes their own lies and therefore nothing but dickheaded brute force will have a chance of possibly getting through. Either that or just ignore those kinds of people.. which I usually do or try to do, unless they engage with me.. then I just don't give a fuck.
no, humans only have 3 different cones in our eyes for us to see colors, and those three cones make every color a human can possibly see. the only other way you could ever see more, is if it was possible to surgically implant another eye cone from another organism. for example, dogs only have 2 color cones, thats why people call them "colorblind" butterflies have 5, and a mantis shrimp has 24 i believe.
This isn't exactly true.. just because an animal has more color cone receptors doesn't mean they'll be able to see new colors. All it means is that they'll be able to see more hues of color. Like a person who is colorblind and can't see blue.. they typically have more red and green cones to make up for the lack of blue. So they will be able to see more hues of red and green than a normal person. Like if you looked at a red wall, you'd see a flat red.. but someone with more red cones will be able to see variations in the red, like they might see where the painter missed a layer of paint. It's why colorblindness is so prevalent in humanity, because it was useful to survival at one point. Provided it is made up of the colors a colorblind person can see, someone who is colorblind will be able to see something camouflaged. If someone with full color vision were walking through the woods and someone was wearing camo, they'd have a hard time seeing them.. but to someone who is colorblind, they'd stick out like a sore thumb. So a mantis shrimp won't see any new colors that we can't see, they're able to see more hues of the same color.
With regards to vision of the two eyes most all people have the visible spectrum is pretty limited to that of the rainbow. Kaleidescopic vision would be something new to experience. But if we as humans were to be able to experience new colors I would guess it would have to be sensitive to heat in some new way more than just "seeing" can allow you to believe or comprehend. For those individuals who are able to see auras around people, perhaps that natural glow radiates all the time around objects, just not in a discernible pattern traceable by modern eyes. However, with the mention of cybernetics I wouldn't doubt some people could be able to adapt to things such as night vision and black lights to see a more broad range of particle physics that have yet to filter into our sensible outlook on reality. You never know until you know, you know?
The key here is that what we call 'color' does not actually exist in any physical form. What we perceive as color is nothing more than oscillations of the Electromagnetic Spectrum at particular frequencies. Because of the relationship between light frequency and its energy level, we perceive these differences as different color. So your question should be this: Is it possible that mankind will evolve to perceive a wider range of light? This would allow us to: for example, perceive differences in surface temperature in our surroundings.
I'm not sure if I agree with this. I mean, I can't say that color physically exists.. but it does exist as a physical characteristic of the universe. Say you have a blue ball.. it has physical pigments in it that are blue. When light hits it, all but blue light waves get absorbed. Runs along the lines of 'opposites attract, like repel'.. and when it repels the like light waves that correspond to blue, they enter your eyes and can only pass through cone cells with blue pigment. It is like when you take a flash light and put a blue film over it, the only light that can pass through is blue. That is how light passes through your cone cells.. it is like shining a flash light through a colored film. So if there are physical pigments that repel physical, like wave lengths and those wave lengths have to pass through physical pigments that correspond to that wave length.. then I can only see color as a physical property of the universe. Color doesn't exist in the light itself, but does exist outside our minds. As for perceiving a wider range of light.. aside from UV light which doesn't interact with color, we pretty much have the small, but full range of light and colors already covered. With things like infrared and heat, that would be a separate sense.. that's why all the animals we know of that can detect heat do so through a separate sense. Like a put viper.. it doesn't see heat, it senses it through pits that are apart from the eyes. Would be interesting to be able to know how their brains assemble vision and heat, but it is probably like how our brains feel heat on our skin.. we simply sense it.
Darwin tells us this is a possibility, if evolution calls for a need to see another color or in the ultra violet spectrum or the infra red spectrum.. or any light pattern that cant be seen currently by humans for that matter.
In the future when bionic eyes become available to the consumer market. -Sent from Zeta Reticuli starsystem-
mankind will evolve to see a wider range of color, if women see this as an advantage. I remember watching this neat documentary on wolf spiders, and their display of UV during mating. Quite spectacular. It'd be cool to see UV the way they do. And I'd rather have night vision than to see extra colors.
And imagine if we were able to see infrared like some animals can. We'd surely need genetic engineering to be able to achieve this though. And really, what would be the point? The heat generated by ones own body would be a constant source of annoyance... I'd only want an ability like this if I could consciously turn it on and off.
Technically, those animals don't see infrared. They have a different sensory organ to detect infrared, it isn't done through the eyes. The information from infrared sensory organs more than likely gets overlaid visual information, but how it appears is still a mystery. Cool thing is though.. like most senses, it goes "brain blind". If you placed a hot object in front of a pit viper and it remained steady, the sensory organ would eventually stop sending signals to the brain and the hot object would pretty much "blend in". If you removed it, the sensory organ would pick up on the change and start sending signals again.. but where the object was would appear to be a cold spot.. until that too blends in.