User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 9 to 16 of 26

Thread: Sight, smell and other senses

  1. #9
    War. War never changes. Est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Champaign, IL
    Posts
    3,935
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    For this we need to start from the bottom:

    What is definable
    Light travels in two forms: waves and as photons. So colour X is always 400nanometres long (wave), and is 3.1 electron volts (photon). Colour Y is always 700nm long (wave) and 1.8eV (photon).
    Therefore: colour X is always colour X because it is always 400nm and 3.1eV and is thus definable. When two people look an object reflecting colour X, they are exposed to the same energy.

    Human physical characteristics
    What can be discarded in the means of shared characteristics in the definition of what is a “good” colour. When I wear my glasses I have 20/20 vision (in the worse eye mind you) I like the colour blue. When I take my glasses off (shoddy vision,) my opinions remains the same. My friend and I are both subject to colour X but he likes the colour, and I do not. My friend and I have the same vision and are subject to the same parameters.
    Therefore: like characteristics do not result in like opinions, the converse is true; unlike characteristics do not result in like opinions.

    What is “good”?
    There is no universal law or constant dictating what makes a “good” colour.
    Therefore: what is a “nice” or “ugly” colour does not rest in the colour itself as the same energy is being absorbed, but something between the point of energy absorption and decision of opinion.

    What determines opinion?
    Association. The associations that an individual makes defines the individual. One may associate a colour with a memory, a smell, an image, a taste. These associations determine opinion.
    Therefore: the senses are relative to one another.

    So that ends that little chain. The colour is defined by its wavelength and energy, the opinion is defined by association. But that leaves a gap:

    What is perception defined by?
    Perception is defined by its mechanical steps. The process is the same, light enters an eye, photoreceptors absorb the light, the energy is passed on through neurons to the brain- touch is much like sight in its pathways used. In touch, a stimulus causes pressure receptors to go from their resting potential to an action potential. This action is facilitated by the charge of a cell, when stimulus is applied to pressure receptors, they open a sodium (Na+) channel causing Na+ ions to rush in to the cell, raising the cells interior charge (which is usually around -50mV (milliVolts) to -100mV) and reach an action potential (a change which is later neutralized by K+ ions exiting the cell). The electrical charge created travels down the axon and subsequently to other neurons which transport the electrical signal (to the peripheral nervous system or central nervous system). The same steps are taken in vision. Lost you yet? (lol)
    Thus, feeling can be defined -granted, within boundaries.- The same action potential will be reached for one individual as it will for another, as it is with vision. The electrical signal is not interpreted consciously before an action takes place: is touch, a reflex may take place, in vision we will see a colour. The conscious interpretation will happen soon after.

    I know there's a lot of scientists studying this stuff that would tell me where I'm wrong, but this is just my two cents on the issue. I think everyone sees the same colour (granted there aren't mechanical differences) but associations allow people to have different responses to it. Thanks to the people who read all the way through this, I didn't intend to sound highfalutin if I did. I'm sure there are plenty of mistakes in there (it's late) so feel free to bring up any points or whatever.
    ¯\(º_o)/¯ ಠ_ಠ
    My Growlist
    NASC Website Come join in on the fun!

  2. #10
    Tropical Fish Enthusiast jimscott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Western New York
    Posts
    18,768
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ah, a good exercise in existentialism! Are we really conversing with one another in cyberspace? Does Treaqum really exist? Does Clint have a Southern accent? Does Zongyi really say, "Eh"?

    But I have to agree with Joe! [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif[/img]

  3. #11

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Posts
    2,154
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Of course I'm a non entity. I exist only in the imagination. Oaky back to the topic. The "color" may be the same but I do agree with alpha that even though we can all percieve the same photons we "see" different colors. Even though the same particles of (lets say S. flava flowers for simplification) we don't smell the same thing. I did not percieve a bad smell just a typical flowery smell where as someone else thinks is smells like cat urine. I seriously doubt any sane person thinks cat urine smells good but I did not smell cat urine I smell(ed) a light flowery smell. This obvously is not helping the insanity plea but I will continue. I don't associate any color with anything except maybe ugly or not. I mean I see the metallic orange of a pontiac Aztec and thing ugly but if it is in any other color I think Oh cool. Now many other people view this car as ugly. I know a couple who do but agreed that in certain colors it is acceptiable (these colors were their favorites). So I think that the perception of the color we see is a major turn on/off for what we buy/think is good/etc.

  4. #12
    Let's positive thinking! seedjar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Olympia, Washington
    Posts
    4,064
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Agree with me? I didn't even post! This is the classical qualia problem, often summed up by the question, "What is it like to be a bat?" Philosophers have been debating it for hundreds, if not thousands of years. I think the Greeks touched on it, but I know for sure that Descarte and Hume and the more modern philosophers spent/are spending a lot of time on it. I personally don't think there's any much answering this question. We can never quantify qualia (the "essence" of a sensation) and so we can never make an objective comparison of one person's perceptions vs. another's. (We can't make objective comparisons at all, according to folks like Hume, but that's another argument.) Everything we know about what anyone but ourselves sees, feels or otherwise senses is vieled by their cognitive processes, their reaction to the stimulus.
    Interestingly, while discussing this topic in my philosophy classes, we read about a study in which people whom had been blind from birth had their sight restored; it is possible for someone who has never seen to begin seeing (after all, how would infants be able to see if starting blind meant being blind forever?) What really piqued my curiosity was that several nerve structures in the brain used exclusively for sight in some people (the lateral geniculate nucleus and optic chiasm) were found to be using visual, aural and tactile information in the patients whose sight have been restored. Some blind people also demostrate the ability of echolocation, and report being able to see objects (usually this is limited to large, massive objects) in front of them when they walk around. The parts of the brain involved in vision and spatial relations are closely related to this ability. After numerous studies, it turns out that some blind people learn to echolocate based on the sound of their footsteps - the ability can be reduced by having the subjects wear soft-soled shoes or by feeding them specially engineered white noise through a headset.
    ~Joe
    o//~ Livin' like a bug ain't easy / My old clothes don't seem to fit me /
    I got little tiny bug feet / I don't really know what bugs eat /
    Don't want no one steppin' on me / Now I'm sympathizin' with fleas /
    Livin' like a bug ain't easy / Livin' like a bug ain't easy... o//~

  5. #13

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Posts
    2,154
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well Seedjar if you close your eyes or are in a very dark room you can sort of ecolocate and not walk into things. Even if you have not been there before. OR you get that sensation that you are about to walk inot something.

  6. #14
    Let's positive thinking! seedjar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Olympia, Washington
    Posts
    4,064
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yeah, I can also close my eyes and feel around with my toes and get a good idea of what's around me. These folks demonstrate a very advanced capacity, though, like being able to sketch what obstacles were in front of them, knowing specific details such as size, shape, and arrangement, or being able to navigate through large, crowded areas without the aide of a guide. Another difference is that it all occurs subconciously - the sensations they reported were totally distinct from their hearing, so far as the subjects were aware. These people didn't know that they were listening to their footsteps - they actually reported seeing things, or a sensation that things were in front of their face, with perhipheral details such as the size of those objects and their relative distance from the observer, sensations not associated with normal hearing.
    ~Joe
    o//~ Livin' like a bug ain't easy / My old clothes don't seem to fit me /
    I got little tiny bug feet / I don't really know what bugs eat /
    Don't want no one steppin' on me / Now I'm sympathizin' with fleas /
    Livin' like a bug ain't easy / Livin' like a bug ain't easy... o//~

  7. #15

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Posts
    2,154
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That's interesting.

  8. #16

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    2,344
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    another thing... do we all have the same amount of cones and rods?
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]we read about a study in which people whom had been blind from birth had their sight restored; it is possible for someone who has never seen to begin seeing (after all, how would infants be able to see if starting blind meant being blind forever?)
    on ADULT people? hmm... that's very interesting. I thought after a while you could never get your sight back. In some studies, they covered a cat's eye since it was a baby and it never developed so the poor cat was blind.
    There was also a case about a girl who was abused from babyhood until she was 12 years old, and she could only see clearly at exactly the distance to the wall of the room she was kept in. She never became very good with language either. She couldn't comprehend many concepts. it's quite interesting.
    Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish-Euripides
    wikipedia rocks! (except for species info)(CPers-add your vast knowledge of CPs to wikipedia&#33
    A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it
    Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •