Learned'd VIII: Less Bewbs, Same Nonsense

[numbnuts240]

i've always wondered if individual people perceived colors differently. like if what i saw to be red, someone else saw it as red, but if i were looking through their eyes, i'd see blue.

[Dattebayo]

Generally, I get what you mean. But specifically, blue and red are at apposite ends of the spectrum. So what you mean couldn't happen specifically.

The cones in your eye would allow for some difference, but if you look at a visible-spectrum graphic, the blue part is smaller, and [what i see as] green holds a much larger part of the whole spectrum. I can see why they think it's a new ability to see blue as a different color. Cool, huh.

Anyway, for reference, what I see that I can identify as "green" on that graphic starts just before 500nm all the way up to around 575nm.

And those silly bible-thumpers think humans can't evolve. Heh.

[Ace2cool]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evQsOFQju08[/youtube]

[Ace2cool]

The hell is this? Learned'd gone 2 days without a post? Please tell me you all are just hungover from St Patty's day celebrating all this weekend.

Also:

[numbnuts240]

i slept all day saturday. it was amazing.

[TurboSauce]

I'm sitting in accounting class, it's so much fun.
it's like getting my wisdom tooth pulled.
without the meds.

[Ace2cool]

Dude, I had my wisdom teeth done in the Navy. Wanna talk about pain?

[TurboSauce]

*insert gay naval joke*

I've only had one wisdom tooth pulled. I have to get the next 3 removed.
i've been procrastinating.

Also, The reason I got one pulled?
My tooth cracked down the middle.
and had a cavity nearly down to the root.

wooo

[frapjap]

I had three. Played an entire NFS game while 'recovering.' With the right drugs, it was pretty uneventful.

Hope everyone has been doing well. I've been slammed with work- trade show, customers, and more customers.
Finally getting some time to unwind and ski this weekend! I'm gonna drink beer and pee in the woods.

[numbnuts240]

i really want to say that i had to "endure" watching cinderella with my niece over the weekend, but to be quite honest, it wasn't bad. now let me say that i will not be adding it to my own personal collection, but it was quite tolerable. i'm glad they kept it to a respectable 113 minutes and stuck to the original movie's plot instead of dragging it on for 18 hours, 3 installments, and adding aspects from the original lore that nobody but literature elitists care about.

the first thing i did after dropping her off was bee lining for a beer. it was good.

[Ace2cool]

Wait, there's a new Cinderella? Huh.

Also, I had BBQ today.

[Dattebayo]

A lunch BBQ? Like, at someone's house? Or was it a work thing?

[numbnuts240]

Wait, there's a new Cinderella? Huh.

yup. new disney, live-action reprise of the original 50's cartoon. no lame songs (thankfully), no talking animals, although the core animals were still there in cgi to give them "character" (i liked the goose, he provided some good background lols). the best part of the whole thing was the minion trailer. those yellow guys crack me up.

Also, I had BBQ today.

ead. a fat one

[MinisterofDOOM]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evQsOFQju08[/youtube]

The bit at the end was neat (about awareness of "mind").

As for what colors "look like" to individuals, I think a pretty solid scientific case can be made for them looking the same. There are multiple bases for that. Firstly, the physics (both biological and otherwise) involved in the perception of color don't change. Secondly, the idea of colors being perceived as "complimentary" etc. is a little to clean and neat to have significant holes in it. Starting simply at the fact that the way white, black, and silver surfaces highlight topography in different light conditions is universal and consistent. But other things, like the prevalence of certain colors in indicator lights (blues, greens, and reds in electronics, for instance) is also universal. You don't have any remotely significant (even statistically) portion of the population wondering why that speaker's power light is such a disgusting color, because it's NOT a disgusting color. Now, granted, some of the reason for color prevalence in utilitarian functions is based on the physics of visual reception rather than the perception itself (short wavelengths are easier to see with less impact on contrast, and vice versa, which is why red gauges are really hard on the eyes at night because they're less crisp due to the nature of how our eyes work--high contrast [short of total overload] is always easier in terms of optics).

The other thing is that the colorblindness tests don't test PERCEPTION. They test RECEPTION. The optical function of colorblind people's eyes is impaired, which is what causes the colorblindness. It's not something happening uniquely in their mind. It's happening in their eyes. It's physically observable and correctable. It's also binary: you are either colorblind or you are not. The colors not being distinctly received by the eye are consistent. There are specific types of colorblindness. There's no "What you see as red, I see as blue, but Bart sees as green." If you're protanopic, you don't see red, instead you see muddy green. EVERYONE who is protanopic sees that. No variance. And sure "how do you know what "green" is for each person?" Well...traffic lights. Every protanopic person I know has trouble distinguishing red from green. That means Red AND Green are (respectively) exactly the same to everyone, either protanopic or not. Because we all understand the difference (or lack of difference) between those colors the same.

Then, of course, there's the nature of spectral color. This is also universal. Colors are based upon wavelength and, despite the fun-sounding ideological paradox of individual perception, colors relate in a way that, due to physics, is perfectly scientifically sensible according to a wavelength spectrum. This wouldn't be the case if blue for me was red for you. It would create issues with our understanding of the light spectrum, which just conveniently for demonstration purposes happens to be a very core aspect of much of our understanding of basic science.

You see a color because it exists, despite the goofy existential suggestion that it only exists in your head. Color is no less "real" outside your head than sound or gravity or time. In fact, from a modern particle physics perspective, color is perhaps even MORE real than those things, because it's an aspect of light, and light correlates with many different aspects of science that often don't otherwise agree.

Asking "Is red the same for me as for you" is no different than asking "is a cube the same shape for me as for you?" It might sound all fancy and insightful, but in reality it's just silly. It's a cube because it's a cube, not because my brain wants it to be one. And red is the same damn thing. It's red. It will always be red. If your optical receptors are broken you might not be able to see that color correctly, but it's still red. If I can't see you can you still see me? Of course you f*** can...unless you're blind (again an impairment, not some kind of "mind" perception difference). Do I look like an eggplant to you? Am I Schrodinger's cat? Am I alive or dead? Who the Hell are you people anyway? What am I doing here!?

Good Lord.

[numbnuts240]

dammit, chris. i just wanted to be profound just this one time. here you come with all your science. i got some science for you that i know we can both agree on: the following pictures are orgasm inducing:

[MinisterofDOOM]

I know it's Ferrari sacrilege, but a sub-4-liter TT V8 from Ferrari sounds like the most incredible goddamn thing in the history of the universe. I, for one, welcome our new snail-shaped overlords!

I feel quite pleased that Ferrari seems to share my opinion that small, high-tech, boosted V8s are the future of Real Cars everywhere.

Now, let's see an F12 Berlinetta successor with two or three turbos on a ~4.5 liter V12, please. Just trying to imagine the sounds it would make has necessitated a change of pants. Twice.

[numbnuts240]

i don't remember telling you guys, actually, i know i didn't, but i lost my dog to lymphoma. it appeared suddenly, and it was aggressive. i ended up putting him down the monday before christmas. no need for sympathy, it sucked, and it still sucks, but it's done and he's no longer suffering.
i know i'll never replace him in any way, and idk if any other dog could live up to who he was, and what he meant to me, especially during roughest times in my life. that being said, being single and living alone is certainly taking its toll on me. i'm finding myself restless and bored by myself. i've tried to keep myself occupied with little projects around the house, as well as staying away from home, helping friends out with their stuff, all to on avail. i'm a homebody, so being out, probably overstaying my welcome, at friends' houses isn't working. nor are the tasks i'm assigning myself at home (sometimes i just wanna sit in the garage with tunes).

long story short, i'm lonely, and i need a loyal companion. i want to stay in the breed (american bulldog). great dogs with the perfect physical attributes and "character" for me and my lifestyle. i came across a litter of puppies who will be available next week, and i've also e-mailed a breeder about being put on a list for their next litter.

i guess i'm looking for advice from you guys on my situation and feedback from personal experience, and what you guys think about my actions so far.

[numbnuts240]

I know it's Ferrari sacrilege, but a sub-4-liter TT V8 from Ferrari sounds like the most incredible goddamn thing in the history of the universe. I, for one, welcome our new snail-shaped overlords!

I feel quite pleased that Ferrari seems to share my opinion that small, high-tech, boosted V8s are the future of Real Cars everywhere.

Now, let's see an F12 Berlinetta successor with two or three turbos on a ~4.5 liter V12, please. Just trying to imagine the sounds it would make has necessitated a change of pants. Twice.

all of ^ that is what made me like you from the beginning. i'm all for change in the name of performance progression, as long as it's done well, and correctly. ferrari always seems to do that with each new iteration of their awesome vehicles.

[MinisterofDOOM]

I know zip about dogs, I've got a good friend who is a (professional) dog breeder and trainer. Sounds like you're already going that direction locally, but I'd be happy to reach out to her if it'll help.

[numbnuts240]

what type(s) does she breed? i'm open to different breeds, given their typical attributes fall in line with what i'm after. i know every individual dog is different, but there is a general "base line" among them.

[Bubba1]

Using a breeder is a very good way to go if you're set on one breed.. That's how we got our last two sets of beagles. They tend to fare better health wise than puppy mill dogs. Another way is to see if there are local rescues for that breed. but in the interim, Heavy might roll over for you if you rub his belly.

[Ace2cool]

My pup was a backyard accident pup. And she's seriously the best dog I've ever had. Unbelievably smart. Sit/Shake/Potty trained on day two. She's a lab/akita mix. There may also be some pit in there somewhere, but I couldn't get the guy to answer to that, but all the pictures I've seen of pit/akitas look almost exactly like the mom.

And Tita, you're going through the "right" process. When we lost our Shih-Tzu of 15 years, Mom went downright reclusive. She was missing work some days, and would always mope around the house and want to go do things to get out of the house. When she got Abbi (another Shih-Tzu), she was SO much better. She wasn't tryign to replace Maggie, but she was missing the companionship. Long story short, Abbi had some respiratory things that no one could figure out and passed away, and now Mom has 3 Shih-Tzus.

Oh, and MoD, I see what you're saying from the science standpoint, but not enough is known about the neural center of the brain responsible for optical processing to know 100% that red and blue look the same to both you and I. Complimentary colors are still complimentary if you shift the waves to the left or right along the scale. Strongest argument for this: favorite color. Who's to say that a large majority of people actually like the same perceived color, but due to the way our brains handle the information, it is viewed differently in actuality on the wavelength scale?

[frapjap]

Sucks to hear about your pup Tito. When you learn and go through the entire motion of events, let us know what you did. I'll have to do something similar when my mothers dog of (so far) 15 years dies. Those two are 100% inseparable.

How did you lose your S14? I feel like I know, but also feel as if I forgot. Though, it was a long time ago.

Hammering away at the work week here. Skied this past weekend- was fantastic. Missing my bed, lady, and dog at home though...

[numbnuts240]

How did you lose your S14? I feel like I know, but also feel as if I forgot. Though, it was a long time ago.

teenager creamed me while i was exiting a walgreens. i think it happened like 5 years ago now. holy crap it's been a long time already.

[MinisterofDOOM]

what type(s) does she breed?

Honestly, I'm not sure. I should probably find out.

[frapjap]

How did you lose your S14? I feel like I know, but also feel as if I forgot. Though, it was a long time ago.

teenager creamed me while i was exiting a walgreens. i think it happened like 5 years ago now. holy crap it's been a long time already.

Hmm, don't think I knew that.
Sucks man.

Hows the RB coming?

[Dattebayo]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evQsOFQju08[/youtube]

The bit at the end was neat (about awareness of "mind").

As for what colors "look like" to individuals, I think a pretty solid scientific case can be made for them looking the same. There are multiple bases for that. Firstly, the physics (both biological and otherwise) involved in the perception of color don't change. Secondly, the idea of colors being perceived as "complimentary" etc. is a little to clean and neat to have significant holes in it. Starting simply at the fact that the way white, black, and silver surfaces highlight topography in different light conditions is universal and consistent. But other things, like the prevalence of certain colors in indicator lights (blues, greens, and reds in electronics, for instance) is also universal. You don't have any remotely significant (even statistically) portion of the population wondering why that speaker's power light is such a disgusting color, because it's NOT a disgusting color. Now, granted, some of the reason for color prevalence in utilitarian functions is based on the physics of visual reception rather than the perception itself (short wavelengths are easier to see with less impact on contrast, and vice versa, which is why red gauges are really hard on the eyes at night because they're less crisp due to the nature of how our eyes work--high contrast [short of total overload] is always easier in terms of optics).

The other thing is that the colorblindness tests don't test PERCEPTION. They test RECEPTION. The optical function of colorblind people's eyes is impaired, which is what causes the colorblindness. It's not something happening uniquely in their mind. It's happening in their eyes. It's physically observable and correctable. It's also binary: you are either colorblind or you are not. The colors not being distinctly received by the eye are consistent. There are specific types of colorblindness. There's no "What you see as red, I see as blue, but Bart sees as green." If you're protanopic, you don't see red, instead you see muddy green. EVERYONE who is protanopic sees that. No variance. And sure "how do you know what "green" is for each person?" Well...traffic lights. Every protanopic person I know has trouble distinguishing red from green. That means Red AND Green are (respectively) exactly the same to everyone, either protanopic or not. Because we all understand the difference (or lack of difference) between those colors the same.

Then, of course, there's the nature of spectral color. This is also universal. Colors are based upon wavelength and, despite the fun-sounding ideological paradox of individual perception, colors relate in a way that, due to physics, is perfectly scientifically sensible according to a wavelength spectrum. This wouldn't be the case if blue for me was red for you. It would create issues with our understanding of the light spectrum, which just conveniently for demonstration purposes happens to be a very core aspect of much of our understanding of basic science.

You see a color because it exists, despite the goofy existential suggestion that it only exists in your head. Color is no less "real" outside your head than sound or gravity or time. In fact, from a modern particle physics perspective, color is perhaps even MORE real than those things, because it's an aspect of light, and light correlates with many different aspects of science that often don't otherwise agree.

Asking "Is red the same for me as for you" is no different than asking "is a cube the same shape for me as for you?" It might sound all fancy and insightful, but in reality it's just silly. It's a cube because it's a cube, not because my brain wants it to be one. And red is the same damn thing. It's red. It will always be red. If your optical receptors are broken you might not be able to see that color correctly, but it's still red. If I can't see you can you still see me? Of course you f**king can...unless you're blind (again an impairment, not some kind of "mind" perception difference). Do I look like an eggplant to you? Am I Schrodinger's cat? Am I alive or dead? Who the Hell are you people anyway? What am I doing here!?

Good Lord.

Hey, you forgot about dyslexia. Just because you can rationalize colors being the same for everyone doesn't mean that differences in perception don't happen.
A disorder being labeled as such doesn't make it just being outside of normal, you can't assume that others just don't have a different perception about it! And the cause of color blindness isn't just a open-and-shut case as you seem to think it is. Many of the "understandings" that we have about it all are based on assumptions made on assumptions.

[Dattebayo]

Whoops, I made it all serious in here again. Sorry boys...

[MinisterofDOOM]

Hey, you forgot about dyslexia.

That's an interpretation problem. As is the inability to make sense of letters I've been reading for decades when I'm experiencing a migraine. That's the brain not knowing what to do with information, not the information itself being percieved differently.

If your printer collates out of order, it doesn't change what the pages say. It just means you need to rearrange them.

[Ace2cool]

I get to see Jesda today so all of you can suck it.