Super Human Vision

[Seze Mune]

Remember the story of the blue-eyed Chinese boy who can see in the dark and whose eyes reflect light like a cat's eyes?  Well, here's a new X-men story.  Only this one is actually only about X-women.

Living amongst us are people who see more than we do.  While the average person has 3 cones which detect color in the environment, there are those who actually have four.  That's not so unusual, as I'll explain.  What IS unusual is that in even fewer of these cases, the woman sees so much more than we do.  We can't quantify it because we do not know what it is.  And since it is normal vision for that individual, she can't tell us how her vision differs from ours.

Most humans are trichromats.  In other words, they have three sets of cones for color vision in their eyes.  Back in 1948, Dutch scientist HL de Vries began to study the eyes of color-blind men.  In these cases, men have two normal cones and one mutant cone which is less sensitive to reds and greens.  On a whim, he tested daughters of one of them and found that even though they were not color-blind, there was something different about the way they saw color.  Continuing his testing for awhile, de Vries finally concluded that these women - the mothers and daughters of color-blind men - actually had FOUR sets of cones, the three normal ones and the imperfectly sensitive red/green cone. He dropped that portion of his investigation, and it wasn't until 2007 that it was taken up again by a scientist at Cambridge University.

It took quite a few tests and much exasperation before the scientist finally found his true tetrachromat - a doctor living in northern England.  She can see colors most of us cannot.  There may be other things she can see which we cannot, but there is no real way to know right now.  She is the first official tetrachromat known to science. She will surely not be the last.

This gives rise to some interesting speculation.  We all assume that the world looks pretty much the same to all of us.  That is a sophomoric assumption, but quite common.  The next time someone tells me they can see auras even though I can't, I'm going to give them a little more credence that perhaps they really CAN see more than I can.  Who is to judge?

[Clarke]

Who is to judge?

Me, the physicist. 

We can't quantify it because we do not know what it is.

We've seen it before, since most birds have four cones. I suspect the main issues are what the frequency response is, and what the brain is doing with all that new information. (It could just be merging it into existing data, or actually dealing with a fourth channel.)

[Seze Mune]

Who is to judge?

Me, the physicist. 

I respectfully submit that  a physicist doesn't have a background extensive enough to know how the mind processes visual responses together with how it integrates those with the ego filters.  I think both are necessary because to a large extent one doesn't see what one doesn't want to see, or doesn't believe is possible to see.  A point of contention perhaps, and imho not falsifiable.

We can't quantify it because we do not know what it is.

We've seen it before, since most birds have four cones. I suspect the main issues are what the frequency response is, and what the brain is doing with all that new information. (It could just be merging it into existing data, or actually dealing with a fourth channel.)
[/quote]

All of which is to say, we don't know.

[Clarke]

I respectfully submit that  a physicist doesn't have a background extensive enough to know how the mind processes visual responses together with how it integrates those with the ego filters.  I think both are necessary because to a large extent one doesn't see what one doesn't want to see, or doesn't believe is possible to see.  A point of contention perhaps, and imho not falsifiable.

One certainly doesn't see what one isn't paying attention to.  
selective attention test

However, in terms of what you want, people see what they don't want to all the time. That's where the maxim "The camera never lies" came from: the camera is showing you what you is true, not what an artist perceived. As for things that aren't possible to see...

We haven't actually found 9ft tall blue aliens, have we?  

All of which is to say, we don't know.

Don't use the fact that we don't know everything to dismiss everything we do know.

[Seze Mune]

I respectfully submit that  a physicist doesn't have a background extensive enough to know how the mind processes visual responses together with how it integrates those with the ego filters.  I think both are necessary because to a large extent one doesn't see what one doesn't want to see, or doesn't believe is possible to see.  A point of contention perhaps, and imho not falsifiable.

However, in terms of what you want, people see what they don't want to all the time. That's where the maxim "The camera never lies" came from: the camera is showing you what you is true, not what an artist perceived. As for things that aren't possible to see...

We haven't actually found 9ft tall blue aliens, have we?  

All of which is to say, we don't know.

Don't use the fact that we don't know everything to dismiss everything we do know.

This response, imho, is a good example of an ego-mediated filter.  That isn't what I meant and I suspect you may know it.  

[Seze Mune]

I respectfully submit that  a physicist doesn't have a background extensive enough to know how the mind processes visual responses together with how it integrates those with the ego filters.  I think both are necessary because to a large extent one doesn't see what one doesn't want to see, or doesn't believe is possible to see.  A point of contention perhaps, and imho not falsifiable.

However, in terms of what you want, people see what they don't want to all the time. That's where the maxim "The camera never lies" came from: the camera is showing you what you is true, not what an artist perceived. As for things that aren't possible to see...

We haven't actually found 9ft tall blue aliens, have we?  

Which means that we haven't found them.  In no way can it be logically assumed that because we cannot/have not found something, it does not exist.

I am not supposing they actually do exist in this probability.  I am neutral on the matter.

[Taronyu Leleioae]

We haven't actually found 9ft tall blue aliens, have we?  

Maybe that's what they found at Roswell?   

All of which is to say, we don't know.

Don't use the fact that we don't know everything to dismiss everything we do know.

As an independent reader, I didn't interpret Seze Mune's meaning to be dismissing anything although perhaps it could have been differently worded.  My impression was recognizing differences in fact vs conclusion and that, scientifically, the tools do not currently exist to isolate essentially hardware (eyes, optical nerve) from the software (brain's interpretation of said information from the hardware).

A fundamental challenge here is that it's easy to prove the absence of something.  In terms of the article on the Chinese boy, it's not so easy to prove with concrete evidence something that the average human may or cannot see.  But that does not mean that it's not possible or that this rare variation doesn't or can't exist.  It just means it can't be quantified AND verified currently.

But an interesting theory on whether a fourth channel might be possible.  It would depend on not only the sensors (cones) being able to keep their data separated, but the receiver would also have to be capable of interpreting that additional signal / data.  An interesting evolutionary variation if proven.

[Clarke]

This response, imho, is a good example of an ego-mediated filter.  That isn't what I meant and I suspect you may know it.  

Well, since we can't speak formal logic at one another, there will be ambiguities. ...Also, I wrote that post at 5 past midnight, so I was not entirely lucid.

Which means that we haven't found them.  In no way can it be logically assumed that because we cannot/have not found something, it does not exist.

I am not supposing they actually do exist in this probability.  I am neutral on the matter.

To give you a better answer to your original point, we can plainly see the impossible.


To go back to auras, I'm not going to give much credit to anyone who says that they're phenomenon so objective a machine could pick up - we know enough physics to say, for sure, that they're not some sort of energy field or anything like that. If it's anything at all (not guaranteed. ) it would have to be body language, microexpressions, or something more abstract, like the viewer assigning an emotional state to the person. Essentially, it's guaranteed that they're making it up to some degree or another; the question is what its based on. (And as mentioned, "nothing except placebo" is a possible answer.)

[moonbeam]

I really wish I can see more colors then the normal person. That would be awesome.

[Niri Te]

 OK, it's 03:30 and I can't get back to sleep just yet, so I'll jump into this. Could it be that some people have a cone that is slightly more sensitive to a slightly wider range of color than is "Normal"? When I look at a rainbow, I think that I can see closer into the ultraviolet than a lot of people, because when I describe how I can see a "color" that goes beyond the normal Purple. Only two other people knew what i was talking about. I don't think that I have extra receptors in my eyes, I just think that one of them has a bit wider of a frequency span. Id that medically possible?
Niri Te

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

The tetracone thing should be easy to study. Expose a tetracone and atricone person 9as a control) to a stimulus of various wavelengths of monochromatic light. The perception of this light 9is it seen at all?) is the main answer sought. Then compare the brightness of light perceived by both respondents to references of a known brightness to see if the tetracone has a different sensitivity to the wavelengths visible to both persons.

Any perception of new colors by the tetracone person would be highly subjective, and would probably require finding a number of these people and testing them, to get any idea whatsoever as to any new 'colors' they can see. In any case, any new colors would undoubtedly be in reference to existing colors. And what might look 'red' to me might 'look' very different to another person, but still be red.

[Clarke]

OK, it's 03:30 and I can't get back to sleep just yet, so I'll jump into this. Could it be that some people have a cone that is slightly more sensitive to a slightly wider range of color than is "Normal"? When I look at a rainbow, I think that I can see closer into the ultraviolet than a lot of people, because when I describe how I can see a "color" that goes beyond the normal Purple. Only two other people knew what i was talking about. I don't think that I have extra receptors in my eyes, I just think that one of them has a bit wider of a frequency span. Id that medically possible?
Niri Te

Unlikely, since the colours the retina cells react to depends on the protein chemistry, and I'd be surprised if that changed noticeably from person to person. (Whereas tetrachromancy would require an entire extra type of cell) After all, electrodynamic structure is a complicated thing. 

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Niri Te's observations show just how subjective the perception of color is. I bet if she were subjected to a test to determine how far into the ultraviolet she could perceive color, I bet it would not be much different from anyone else. But for whatever reason, she perceives a 'purpler purple' than most people, and this could easily be mistaken for having more UV vision than most people.

I think there are some things that are also psychospiritually perceived, and these could not be measured with any instruments thatt we currently have. There are enough credible observations about these phenomenon that they cannot be made up per se. But they exist only in the mind of the observer, either by some poorly known process in the brain, or perhaps a genuine spiritual experience.