What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Sight, smell and other senses

  • Thread starter Treaqum
  • Start date
Okay This was semi-inspired by Barry Rice (well the smell part anyway).
I find it very interested how all our senses are relitive and I will discuss sight because that is easiest. When we grew up you were told the color of my font was black the face of the smilies were yellow, etc. But how can this be true? (Not the black part). The colors can't be the same to everyone. I could say my favorite color was green and someone else could say orange. Now if both of us had perfect vison (20/20) why would we have different favorite colors? Would we not percieve the same color? How could we define beauty? How could we define things as "looking good" when clearly we see different things? How could two people look at the exact same plant and the saem time and one love it and the other hate it?
I don't think we all see the same thing. It's like smell. I smell cinnimon and dislike it yet someone smells it and really likes it. I wonder if this is why identical twins are usually similar or usually can tell what the other thinks. I wonder if they see the same thing while two random people in a room see different things. I would like to see a study that addressed this phenominon. I mean when I look at someone and think they look like scum and someone else thinks they are beautiful are we really seeing the same thing? OR are we jsut taught different perceptions of color and beauty. I think the later can be taught but can the enjoyment of a color be taught? There is a new bright sky blue car sitting in the driveway infront of the house right now. I think it is fantastic. Other people think it is okay or rather gauche. I'm really wondering if everyone sees the same thing.
 
well, for example, i never liked blue cars, ever. especially sky blue. my favorite color car is red.

i always wondered how you can describe a color to a blind person, or what they see in their head. like, for a person who could never see, when they feel fur for example, what do they see it as in their head? can they see at all? even if they could it wouldnt be in color. if it did have shapes they wouldn't be polygons... it's weird....

i think people who see 20/20 do see the same thing. it's all about memory i think.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]If you want to poach something, poach eggs.
Condor eggs? Or maybe Bald Eagle?

And Trea I think you shoulda auctioned off some of what you are smoking.
smile_m_32.gif
 
i meant like... cooking them lol.

your the second person who's mentioned that. i should change that lol.
 
So I should cook the Condor eggs, got it.
smile.gif
 
As they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think we all see the same, but its just our personal preferences that make use like some colors over others. Our eyes are built the same, so we should all see the same other than people who are colorblind. All the wavelengths of color are the same, too, so we should all be seeing the same colors. Its just all up to personal preferences.

As for the blind who cant see color, I dont think they will have the capabillity to perceive it unless they see it for themselves. They say that people that are born blind only dream sounds, but people who had vision once but became blind can dream pictures. This means that no matter how much then imagin color, they will never be able to see it. Its like that mantis shrip who sees many more colors than we do. Unless we can jump in its head, we cannot hope to even imagin how the extra colors look like. Zongyi
 
ah yes but the way you see color isn't in ALL in your eyes nor in photons. it's in your brain. I say each person interprets colors differently.
I doubt we all have the exact neural pathways for each color
 
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.
 
  • #10
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!
laugh.gif
 
  • #11
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.
 
  • #12
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
 
  • #13
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.
 
  • #14
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
 
  • #16
another thing... do we all have the same amount of cones and rods?
[b said:
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.
 
  • #17
Well you know according to some studies most americans would not reconise Osama which is probibly why (what's that comic with pig, rat, zebra) is making fun of family circus.
Okay that was totally off topic but I thought is was interesting. I shall stop the babble
 
  • #18
[b said:
Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ June 28 2005,12:26)]another thing... do we all have the same amount of cones and rods?
[b said:
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.
Men typically have a slightly higher ratio of rods to cones, and sometimes it's biased far on the side of rods, which is why colorblindness is more common in men than women. Everyone's eyes are different - we don't even have the same wiring scheme for the nerves from one person to another. They all operate in basically the same way, but each eye is sculpted by the circumstances under which it came to be.
As for adults having fully restored sight, no, I don't think it was very successful on older patients, and you're probably right that there is a certain cutoff age past which the brain won't make use of the newly available sense. Most of the time people went from being totally blind to not totally blind - I don't think anyone, even the children who recieved the restoration, had particularly good eyesight afterwards. But some sight is better than no sight.
~Joe
 
  • #19
When did I say 'eh'?
biggrin.gif
.

TheAlphaWolf- I saw a show with that girl. It was about feral children and such, and they said that if you dont stimulate your brain before the growing phase, that area of your brain will never activate, like speach and such. She did get to see things though, even if she was in a very dark room. Zongyi
 
  • #20
yeah... and other parts of the brain will take over for the unused part. For example in blind people, their visual cortex is taken over by other senses like touch and hearing, etc. That's why they can hear better and stuff. In studies where people were blinfolded though, it grew but then if you take the blindfold off they go back to normal. There's just not enough space in our skulls :p
 
Back
Top