What colors are the dress?
Yeah I think this shows how ****py our eyes actually are (seeing how much has to be "guessed" by the receiving brain parts), and may also imply that we may very well perceive very different things when we look at the same object.
Janitsu, AFAIK cones and rods are separate entities that don't interact with each-other. In other words, the signal that cone A sends through is in no way being manipulated by what neighbor cone B sends through.
If the amount of light your monitor throws in your face remains the same after you turn all lights off, the amount of light forming the image of the dress remains the same too, and the cones and rods will perceive it in the same manner.
What your teacher said about cones and rods requiring different amounts of light to get stimulated is, AFAIK, true. I believe it's something like: rods work at smaller amounts of light and only perceive "brightness", cones only work at large amounts of light and perceive the difference between "red", "green" and "blue". (I have not studied biology, give me a break) But because the amount of light that makes up the image of the dress remains the same (it's constant), this matter is irrelevant AFAIK. Both times the same "image" is captured by the sensors. The cones and rods can't compare the amount of light coming from other locations than the monitor with the amount of light coming from the monitor, they don't interact with each-other. Only the brains can compare stuff they get from the eyes.
Ergo: the difference is made up in the brain, apparently probably by comparing the data of the dress with the data of the "background square" (xkcd comic)
Janitsu, AFAIK cones and rods are separate entities that don't interact with each-other. In other words, the signal that cone A sends through is in no way being manipulated by what neighbor cone B sends through.
If the amount of light your monitor throws in your face remains the same after you turn all lights off, the amount of light forming the image of the dress remains the same too, and the cones and rods will perceive it in the same manner.
What your teacher said about cones and rods requiring different amounts of light to get stimulated is, AFAIK, true. I believe it's something like: rods work at smaller amounts of light and only perceive "brightness", cones only work at large amounts of light and perceive the difference between "red", "green" and "blue". (I have not studied biology, give me a break) But because the amount of light that makes up the image of the dress remains the same (it's constant), this matter is irrelevant AFAIK. Both times the same "image" is captured by the sensors. The cones and rods can't compare the amount of light coming from other locations than the monitor with the amount of light coming from the monitor, they don't interact with each-other. Only the brains can compare stuff they get from the eyes.
Ergo: the difference is made up in the brain, apparently probably by comparing the data of the dress with the data of the "background square" (xkcd comic)
********'s a pretty good fertilizer
Well, my English is too weak to actually get the thing right but that sounded pretty much the same in Finnish :D
xIchi wrote:
Well then why did you ignore Nameless perfect example of the same phenomenon?
That image does in fact simulate a very similar effect, if not the same, but the image was used to illustrate her point that it was nothing new.
Don't go trying to interject into others' conversations when you clearly have no clue of what is going on.
Such is made perfectly evident from your clueless attempt to liken the cones and rods explanation to the interpretation explanation.
Sittin' on chimneys, putting fire up my ***.
"I biked 12km in a blizzard today and mice are chewing on my chocolate bars. Life's good."
"I biked 12km in a blizzard today and mice are chewing on my chocolate bars. Life's good."
Latest Legend wrote:
Yeah I think this shows how ****py our eyes actually are (seeing how much has to be "guessed" by the receiving brain parts)
Not at all, our eyes are quite amazing in many ways.
They're still multitudes more advanced than even the most advanced sensor and lens combination ever created.
And what they can do in combination with our brain is even more amazing.
Quoted:
and may also imply that we may very well perceive very different things when we look at the same object.
It does, because we do perceive different things when we look at the same object. But most of the time it's just very similar for most people, this phenomenon being an instance in which things went awry.
Quoted:
Ergo: the difference is made up in the brain, apparently probably by comparing the data of the dress with the data of the "background square" (xkcd comic)
Yup, pretty much.
"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." - Henry Ford
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts
Bioalchemist wrote:
glad to see you are still in great form searz trolling the off topic forum as usual lol
Heeeey, that's mean >:[
I ain't trolling... most of the time. Not this time at least. Read the thread, there are some interesting things in here. And sadly some idiocy too, but it's hard to avoid that.
"I love the dirty bomb tag because i get either
a) posts about the game
b) current world affairs" - steel-sentry
a) posts about the game
b) current world affairs" - steel-sentry
just poking you :D
but in reality i wrote this whole thing off as stupid because it pulled so much attention. i didn't realize the story until i read this. i do find it interesting that people see it in different colors.
janitsu's bio teacher is correct with how rods and cons in our eye are excited by light and require light at different wavelengths to trigger. that may play a part here as people have different amounts of rods and cons, but it definitely is not the singular reason for multiple answers to the initially posed question.
interesting indeed.
but in reality i wrote this whole thing off as stupid because it pulled so much attention. i didn't realize the story until i read this. i do find it interesting that people see it in different colors.
janitsu's bio teacher is correct with how rods and cons in our eye are excited by light and require light at different wavelengths to trigger. that may play a part here as people have different amounts of rods and cons, but it definitely is not the singular reason for multiple answers to the initially posed question.
interesting indeed.
Thanks to jhoijhoi for my signature!
You need to log in before commenting.
Taking stuff out of context, ignoring stuff that might prove him wrong and only answer to stuff he has some seemingly reasonable retort.
Kindly **** off.
Logic clearly flies over your head time and time again, so I wouldn't expect any different this time.
Let's review the entire piece, including the part I left out:
"Phenomenon has multiple definitions and while this is 'a fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed or observable' it is not 'something that is impressive or extraordinary'. :P We were using the word to mean different things."
The second sentence does nothing other than reiterate the point, the point itself - that we were using the word to mean different things - is quite clear from the first statement alone. Removing the second sentence does nothing to change the meaning nor context of the first sentence.
It is blatantly not.