• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    563 months ago

    This is worse than when I found out the blobfish is just a normal-ass fish that usually lives under lots of water pressure and had just inflated from the lack of it.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    453 months ago

    but then they can still set colors, that we don’t. Or at least there are some colors they can differentiate between, that we can’t.

    e.g if they have a receptor for orange, yellow and red, then can differentiate between pure orange and orange that is 50% red and 50% yellow.

    So both is true: We have more colors (because of brain-things), but they still have some colors, that we don’t (because of receptors).

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    293 months ago

    Can you give any source for this? The text includes 2 key links and the screenshot obviously misses out on them

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    113 months ago

    So its like they’re living compressed png world chosing 4bit as color depth (it’s 16 colors tho). I’m no retro gamer but some old graphics presents unbelievable level of expression with limited colors, so it’s possible they’re seeing something amazing still.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    83 months ago

    To be fair, we don’t see like reverse engineered printing. Printing is reverse engineered seeing. If we saw like this post is claiming shrimp see, and blue was blue and green was green and yellow was yellow, we wouldn’t be able to print by mixing three colours. We’d need one pigment per photoreceptor, same as we do now.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    73 months ago

    I remembered awhile ago hearing that compound eyes can see quite remarkably due to their properties, but if this is true than it’s possible that insects really do literally see multiple copies of the world out of each segment since they wouldn’t be able to average them out across a spectrum.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    63 months ago

    This is now our mission. It’s the job of science to give these unfortunate creatures the ability to see all the colours. Get on it, molecular biologists.

  • @TheKMAP
    link
    English
    63 months ago

    Can someone explain to me why the mistake made about shrimp is different than the assumptions that went into speculating how other creatures perceive the world? Dogs, bees etc.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    43 months ago

    I’ve always wondered what it would look like to be able to see outside the visible light spectrum

    Like would it change the colors we can already perceive or would it turn making popcorn into the trippiest shit imaginable, or would it be like Lex Luthor in all-star superman and we suddenly are able to invent new genetic material or some crazy shit.

    • Tlaloc_Temporal
      link
      fedilink
      English
      33 months ago

      Have you seen false colour images of flowers or galaxies? There’s definitely cool things to see, especially when getting into infrared light.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        83 months ago

        That doesn’t justify calling them fake. All colors are made up in our brains. At least call them composite

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          8
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          fake is just an easy way to communicate the idea without going into a bunch of complex color terminology. extra-spectral is a name for them if you really want to split hairs about it. which includes both impossible and imaginary (which are also described as fictitious).

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          I feel it’s like saying “matter is mostly empty space and objects don’t actually touch, they repel each other”. Yes, that may be true on a physics/atomic level, but on a practical, every day level, objets are “solid” and they “touch”.

          Yeah, pink/brown doesn’t “exist”. There is no “pink wavelength”. It’s “a composite”. But you can still pull a pink crayon out and everyone agrees “yeah, that’s pink”.

          Saying colors don’t exist is splitting hairs in a context most people aren’t referring to.

          In the case of the shrimp, it does matter because are they seeing “pink” or “red while also seeing purple separately and distinctly”? It’s asking if they are processing the colors in the same format.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        23 months ago

        I can’t see the fake colors either, so in a way I relate to the shrimp. I’ve done the overlapping an image of yellow and blue by unfocusing your eyes, where you’re supposed to see an impossible color instead of green, but I just see green. I’ve also done the ones with staring at a color then glancing at another, and it still produces very normal colors. Yellow circle then glancing at black? Just dark blue. Green then glancing at white? Regular pink. Blue then glancing at orange? Just looks red.

  • Rin
    link
    fedilink
    English
    13 months ago

    Is there at least a new contender for their place?