lol skill issue, fucking noobs!
this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2025
34 points (97.2% liked)
Science Memes
15412 readers
1702 users here now
Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- Infographics welcome, get schooled.
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Research Committee
Other Mander Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- !abiogenesis@mander.xyz
- !animal-behavior@mander.xyz
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !arachnology@mander.xyz
- !balconygardening@slrpnk.net
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !biology@mander.xyz
- !biophysics@mander.xyz
- !botany@mander.xyz
- !ecology@mander.xyz
- !entomology@mander.xyz
- !fermentation@mander.xyz
- !herpetology@mander.xyz
- !houseplants@mander.xyz
- !medicine@mander.xyz
- !microscopy@mander.xyz
- !mycology@mander.xyz
- !nudibranchs@mander.xyz
- !nutrition@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
- !photosynthesis@mander.xyz
- !plantid@mander.xyz
- !plants@mander.xyz
- !reptiles and amphibians@mander.xyz
Physical Sciences
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !chemistry@mander.xyz
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !geography@mander.xyz
- !geospatial@mander.xyz
- !nuclear@mander.xyz
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !quantum-computing@mander.xyz
- !spectroscopy@mander.xyz
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and sports-science@mander.xyz
- !gardening@mander.xyz
- !self sufficiency@mander.xyz
- !soilscience@slrpnk.net
- !terrariums@mander.xyz
- !timelapse@mander.xyz
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
So are any animals actually capable of seeing the invisible spectrums of light? Because humans technically can see them, since we make tools that allow us to. Suck on that, other animals. π€
Like infrared and ultraviolet? Yeah, there are animals that see those.
And all the other stuff we yse to see celestial objects and communicate long distance. Our phones are able to see colours we can't!
I've been thinking about how a species with a metal horn could evolve to use it as a radio and even a hive mind.
Imagine aliens attacking us but getting fucked because their hive mind works on the same frequency of radio or wifi.
Imagine airdropping a meme directly into the brain of an alien
In my head as they evolve and learn how it works they customize their antenna to fit their needs. But yeah, that would be funny. Like Signs but shorter. They land somewhere quiet electromagnetically. Could even make it one of those super sensitive telescopes you can't take any devices near for a bit of dramatic irony. There are some frequencies that are more quiet than others but most are pretty noisy. Sometimes I wonder what it would be like to time travel to the past and see how much noise there is compared to now.
I'm pretty sure if it worked on any frequency in the charged electromagnetic spectrum, they would get completely screwed long before they made it to earth.
As a qualified amateur operator, the radio spectrum is noisy.
The shrimp are holier than we are because they cannot see the devil's color (it's pink π©·)
Reminds me a little of CD digital audio. The original Red Book audio standard hasn't really been improved upon because it's uncompressed audio which covers basically all of the range of human hearing within the capabilities of any speaker we could build. It's uncompressed because in the early 80's when the tech hit the market, it was completely unfeasible to include the CPU and RAM needed to decompress audio in real time.
Shrimp has more color receptors because he doesn't have enough neurons to run trichromacy, so he sees in EGA.
Shrimp has more color receptors because he doesnβt have enough neurons to run trichromacy, so he sees in EGA.
love this. nice job :)
I remember experiencing the EGA to VGA graphics evolution when I was growing up. I remember thinking the VGA almost seemed too real.
In my mind, this was a game that felt like it was pretend:
But this felt entirely too real:
Have you played The Crimson Diamond? EGA is back, baby!
If you love the old murder mystery games like the Laura Bow Mystery Series, you will enjoy this game
Oh man, I had completely forgotten about the old Laura Bow games! Might have to check this out!
But compared with human eyesight, they could still see more 'colors' - As we see (almost) the same white in incandescent bulbs as LEDs and fluorescents, they might actually see the component colors and their intensities.
Not unlike how we may hear a combination tone when multiple other tones are played, and hear the difference (or sum) of them.
How would you suggest they do that. White light near equally activates our 3 cones because all spectrums of light are in it.
White light near equally activates all 12 shrimp cones because all spectrums of light are in it.
Which spectrum of color is left out of white light that wouldn't light up a cone associated with it?
Because white light from an LED bulb is not all spectrums of light. It's 3. It's pure red, pure green, and pure blue that stimulates our cones equally so our brain can't tell the difference. Like how TVs can make any color out of just three colors of sub pixel.
White light from an incandescent bulb is all spectrums of light. Through a prism it makes a rainbow. White LEDs through a prism make three stripes. For more information of this and some visuals check out this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_rendering_index
The way mantis shrimp see is nonetheless super cool and interesting. They likely have no conception of 2D color at all, and can only sense the 12 different colors in general. Furthermore, only the midband of their eyes see color, when the eyes are moving and scanning for prey, they don't see color at all, which probably helps offload mental load for their small brains. Once they do see something, they then stop moving their eyes to determine the color of what they're looking at.
Also, mantis shrimp have 6 more photoreceptors in addition to the 12 colored ones, to detect polarized light. They likely see them the same way that they see color, so they probably don't consider them anything different than wavelength which is what we interpret as color.
Ed Yong's An Immense World has a section on this and I'd highly recommend it. The ways animals sense and perceive the world are often so different for ours and it's so fascinating.
For anyone wondering why they would need to see polarized light: I actually looked into this a few months ago!
Other animals that are trying to blend in with the environment often use countershading appear less conspicuous. The problem with this is that this method can't replicate the polarization of the light behind them, making them stand out if you can see that sort of thing. ((Sunlight in the ocean is always polarized based on the direction of the sun (look up fresnel equations for s and p polarized light))). Even transparent creatures will interrupt the polarization in some way, so this is a very useful skill to have.
"Spiders can detect danger coming their way with an early-warning system called eyes."
Really fantastic book. I did have some notes though. Firstly, if honeybees have such low dpi vision, how can they see each other dance? I assume it's because they're experiencing the dance some other way, but how? (Also it's hella dark in there, isn't it?)
He says many times that humanity's umwelt is dominated by sight, but I very much disagree. To lose my hearing or sense of touch would make me feel quite blind, as I use them to perceive things outside my cone of vision constantly. Being in deep water is unnerving for this reason, because I can't "see" what's around me, and I have this whole new area below that I can't hear either. So I have to wonder whether other people feel the way he does or whether my usage is more unique.
He really blew my mind when describing exafference and reafference because these things are reliant on a sense of self in the first place, which means that even the worm in his example must have some form of ego.
You show that you are dominated by sight even as you say you aren't.
Losing your hearing or touch would remove peripheral senses, yes, and certainly that would be unnerving, but think how much worse it would be to lose sight. Hearing wasn't even a factor for you beyond your peripheral, because what you can see is so much clearer, so much more comprehensive, than what you can hear, that hearing is negligible where you have sight.
Hearing is a backup sense. Something you lean on when you don't have sight, but its fidelity is poor enough in people that we rely nearly wholly on sight, when we can.
Losing that cone of vision impacts us far more than our hearing, although of course losing either is massively detrimental.
Hearing is a backup sense.
That might vary by person, but for me it's not. If I had to pick between being able to see and being able to hear, it'd be hearing, hands down. Being able to see is amazing and I'd miss it, but hearing is just a whole other dimension.
Being able to know how someone is feeling, just by hearing their voice. Listening to music and hearing all the shapes, colors, and feelings that come with it. The colors aren't always ones you can see, like blue or yellow. It's hard to describe. I'll close my eyes and just listen at a concert (not the whole time) and same with TV, a lot of times. I usually remember it better that way.
If I have to find something in a backpack, I'll often do it by feel. I probably look like a raccoon washing its food, but it just works for me. You can tell things apart by feel and sound.
Your description of hearing shapes and colors sounds a lot like someone with synesthesia, a rare condition that's seems to have no downsides and only benefits.
I think this speaks to a significant misunderstanding that most people hold of the way vision actually works.
Most people imagine that vision is a relatively simple process by which our eyes detect and transmit to us the nature of the world. Not so.
Eyes are complex and interesting organs in their own right but fundamentally what they do is relatively simple. They are able to detect and report to the brain certain qualities of the light that hits them. Primarily these are: intensity, direction, and proximity to three points on the frequency spectrum (what we perceive as red, green, and blue). But this data alone is not vision. Vision is a conscious experience our brains create by interpreting and processing this data into the visual field before usβbasically, a full scale 3D model of the world in front of us, including the blended information on reflection and emission that color entails.
Quite amazing! Most of this takes place in the human brain, and not the eyes. From this perspective, it is not terribly surprising that an organism with more complex eyes but a much simpler brain might have worse vision than we do.
Ha! I read the following Science new article just today about how Purple Only Exists In Our Brains. It's written for a younger audience (I think), but it lays out how our sight works, and how our brains trick us into seeing purple (a red-blue colour, as opposed to violet).
Poor shrimpos, no purple for them, I bet.
This phrasing always bothers me a little, because, as even the article quotes a scientist saying: βAll colors are made up by the brain.β
Purple is special because it triggers from non-continuous wavelengths of light, not because the subjective experience of purple is an invention of the brain. Being 'invented' is something common to all colors. Or sounds. Or tastes.
Color is not invented by the brain but is socially constructed. You cannot look inside someone's brain and find a blob of green, unless idk you let the brain mold for awhile. All you can do is ask the person to think of "green" and then correlate whatever their brain patterns are that respond to that request, but everyone's brain patterns are different so the only thing that ties them all together is that we've all agreed as a society to associate a certain property in reality with "green."
If you were an alien who had no concept of green and had abducted a single person, if that person is thinking of "green," you would have no way to know because you have no concept of "green," you would just see arbitrary patterns in their brain that to you would seem meaningless. Without the ability to reference that back to the social system, you cannot identify anything "green" going on in their brain, or for any colors at all, or, in fact, for any concepts in general.
This was the point of Wittgenstein's rule-following problem, that ultimately it is impossible to tie any symbol (such as "green") back to a concrete meaning without referencing a social system. If you were on a deserted island and forgot what "green" meant and started to use it differently, there would be no one to correct you, so that new usage might as well be what "green" meant.
If you try to not change your usage by building up a basket of green items to remind you of what "green" is, there is no basket you could possibly construct that would have no ambiguity. If you put a green apple and a green lettuce in there, and you forget what "green" is so you look at the basket for reference, you might think, for example, that "green" just refers to healthy vegetation. No matter how many items you add to the basket, there will always be some ambiguity, some possible definition that is compatible with all your examples yet not your original intention.
Without a social system to reference for meaning and to correct your mistakes, there is no way to be sure that today you are even using symbols the same way you used them yesterday. Indeed, there would be no reason for someone born and grew up in complete isolation to even develop any symbols at all, because they would just all be fuzzy and meaningless. They would still have a brain and intelligence and be able to interpret the world, but they would not divide it up into rigid categories like "green" or "red" or "dogs" or "cats." They would think in a way where everything kind of merges together, a mode of thought that is very alien to social creatures and so we cannot actually imagine what it is like.