posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:43 AM
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
Like the lady in UK with a fourth retinal cone/rod. She sees billions of colors we have no idea about; but does that mean they don't
Thank you for providing a perfect example of the mental malfunctioning I referred to earlier.
- There is only one type of rod cell in the human eye, not three (let alone four).
- Rod cells play little or no role in colour vision.
- Most people have three types of cone cell (each sensitive to a different range of optical frequencies, i.e. colours and shades of colours), but a
few people, the majority of whom are women, are blessed with a fourth variety of cone cell. We call these people
- Tetrachromats do not 'see billions of colours we have no idea about'; they are able to distinguish finer variations of tone among colours that we,
too, can see – that is all. Mostly, they see a greater number of shades of green.
- Nobody is claiming that tetrachromats can see 'billions of colours';
an article in Discover mentioned 100 million
shades, but this was based on an arbitrary and almost certainly false calculation. In reality, there is no objective way to establish how much finer
tetrachromatic vision is than trichromatic vision.
All these facts and subtleties are ignored in your post; instead, you use fabrication and exaggeration to put forward the sensationalistic – and
false – claim that 'there is a lady in the UK who sees billions of colours we have no idea about.' This is exaggeration leading to confabulation,
and it is a misuse of your human powers of reasoning. I did not say that you were mentally ill; it is simply that you have so mistrained and misused
your rational faculties that they no longer work correctly.
My brain is very good at connecting obscure information plots
Again, thank you for providing so clear an example of what I mean. Since we're being all autobographical, let me just say that I have worked in the
creative industries all my life and have met and collaborated with innumerable artists, musicians, writers, dramatists, filmmakers and others. Such
people, in fact, form the bulk of my social circle; I also have some friends who are scientists, a legacy of my own scientific education. So I am
intensely aware that creative thinking consists largely of making felicitous connexions between previously unconnected facts, concepts, spheres of
kowledge, etc. The process is rather well described in such books as Koestler's
The Act of Creation
and James Webb Young's invaluable manual of
creativity, A Technique for Producing Ideas
There is a time and a place for everything. Making connexions between obscure pieces of information is an invaluable mental ability – but it is not
a reliable method of getting at the truth. Conclusions reached in this intuitive way have got to be carefully verified by experiment and observation
before they can be accepted; in that process a lot of ideas get shot down, and those that survive are usually altered radically. You simply neglect
this vital part of the process (understandably – it's the hard part) and parade your speculative connexions as if they were true. I have no doubt
that doing so makes life seem more interestingly mysterious and colourful, but it does not reflect any kind of reality. It is a fairytale, a fantasy,
an infantile daydream.
I study medicine and nutrition, and the ability to connect information plots works really well with this. It allows me to connect areas,
hormones, and functions of the body, so that I may gain more information as to the cause or the cure.
I see. You are a deviser and propagator of quack remedies. Yet again, my thanks for being so frank; I think we understand each other quite well
edit on 22/7/13 by Astyanax because: of colours we can see.