You're viewing a single thread.
Mantis Shrimp actually lack the hardware for color interpolation. So they see 12 colors, total, compared to the wide spectrum that humans see.
Well, doesn't that change everything! How disappointing. I guess that's why they need so many receptor types, eh. They are just brute-forcing colors at this point.
You have a source for this though? I'd love to read about it and learn more.
You need a source on my comment but you took the 12 receptor comment in the meme at face value?
You need a source on my comment
I don't need it, I'm just curious because I thought what you said was really interesting. If you're not willing to provide it, I guess I might find the energy to look it up some time. Probably not though.
but you took the 12 receptor comment in the meme at face value?
What do you mean face value? I've heard the 12 photoreceptors fact a hundred times before, but never coupled with the fact that they don't have the interpolation capability.
I don't really get what you're driving at, to be honest.
Hearing things often doesn't make it a credible statement. Peer reviewed research does.
Go study.
I believe I've seen it in multiple credible nature documentaries as well. Where does it end? Do I need to go and ask a fucking mantis shrimp myself how many photoreceptors it has? Maybe one sample isn't enough. Maybe I'll ask ten thousand of them to be statistically viable?
You're acting like a prick, by the way. I wasn't rude to you, but you're being rude for no reason.
Happy New Year, bro. Maybe a resolution for you could be to meet people who first treat you with respect, with some decency back. I'm not angry with you, I'm just saying these things to you because it's something you need to hear, to grow as a person.
All the best. ❤️
Nature documentaries don't make things credible. Peer reviewed research does.
Do you also believe in Alpha Wolves? How about ancient aliens?
Jeeesus, dude. I tried. 😂 Some people just don't want to hear. What a prick.
Calm down, Beavis. People often just take something in without reacting to it at all, then when more details come along like in your comment the whole matter becomes more interesting. I've never seen anybody react badly to interest being expressed in what they said.
I've never seen anybody react badly to interest being expressed in what they said.
I know right. It's the type of person who you'd bump into a lot on Reddit. They don't realize it's all about sharing interests – the social interaction of it all. Just like, do your own fucking research, you dimwit!
... That's... what I'm trying to do here, good buddy...
If its interesting then do your own due diligence instead of asking others to work for free.
If it were something like politics I might source it but idgaf if ya'll are educated on stomatapod biology or not.
Well alrighty then, so much for casual social interaction.
Due diligence on mantis shrimp 😂
I'm asking for the source so I can read it. How is that not trying to do my research? I'm trying to read the same thing you have so we both have the same source of knowledge, lol.
But as you say, it isn't like this is something important. So like I said, if you're not willing to provide it for whatever reason, then fine. But to refuse because "I don't work for you" or some shit, instead of being like "oh, sure, thanks for sharing an interest", that's just on you. That's some antisocial behavior for no reason.
Have a good year though, buddy. I hope we both grow from this interaction...
Here's a source for you. If you're interested in learning more I'd be happy to look around for some more for you.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2014.14578
And don't mind finitebanjo. They tend to be extremely rude and unpleasant.
Very interesting read! Thank you very much! ❤️
don't mind finitebanjo. They tend to be extremely rude and unpleasant.
Wow, really. Imagine being known for being an asshole. For shame.
So just to clarify, you don't know how to find peer reviewed studies? Like, at all?
I do. I just wanted to read the same thing you did, sir.
Surely they could see some color half as strong in the same place as another? Where does the difference come from?
You don't seem to understand the bare minimum concept here. You percieve smooth transitional colors on a spectrum, mantis shrimp would see slices of colors they can recognize and large regions inbetween.
The physical eyes themselves might be perfectly capable of it, but they dont have the processing power to recognize the inputs.
The reason for their adaptation is not to improve color vision, but to percieve depth better for punching with.
Can they not see the strength of colors, only their presence? Or can they not see different colors in the same location?
Is it just that they can see the color channels separately but not combine them?
Imagine if everything you saw was one of a selection of colors. All blues are just Navy Blue. All reds and oranges are just red. They cannot tell them apart.
So it cannot tell the difference between different receptor strengths, such as bright blue vs dark blue, each only has a presence and an absence, like a 1-bit per channel quantized image?
Surely it could also see blue in the same place as it sees red, and then gain information from that even if it does not interpret that as purple?
If both of these were true than it would be able to see 2^12=4096 distinct 'colors' (where each is a combination of wavelengths originating from the same area)