5 ms·
> Bird vision is so much better than mammalian vision. Primate vision is a poorly hacked together attempt to get back to something similar to what birds have, b
by ejstronge 7y ago
> Bird vision is so much better than mammalian vision. Primate vision is a poorly hacked together attempt to get back to something similar to what birds have, but compared to the cephalopod eye they are both hacks [0].
What are the criteria you consider when you say bird vision is better than primate vision? Fundamentally, different evolutionary pressures will lead to distinct optimizations in different lineages - this, it is difficult to suggest that one extant lineage is better than another.
As an example, consider the cephalopod. The different organization of the cephalopod eye does indeed seem better. But it’s possible that 360-degree vision was important to evolving cephalopods, so the anatomical organization of the eye adapted to facilitate this (i.e., through avoiding the presence of blind spots)
- danieltillett 7y agoIt is actually explained in the OA the issues with the mammalian eye. One issue they didn't mentioned is the hacky way we (primates) got colour vision via gene duplication of the red light receptor to form the green receptor. This makes primates prone to colour blindness due to recombination between the red and green receptor genes. Any system that results in ~5% of males having colour vision problems is a pretty bad system. The cephalopod eye is better in almost every respect to the vertebrate eye. Not only isn't it wired in backwards, it can regrow if damaged. If there is a designer God, his second attempt was certainly the cephalopod eye.
- misterman0 7y agoHow certain are we that the visual configuration of those ~5% males aren't an intermediary step towards better human sight, a benign mutation? They might even have better sight than us normies already only we haven't the technology yet to take advantage of it. Given the right glasses maybe they can see to Mars. Or maybe once we live on Mars, they are the ones with the better eye sight and we are considered the ones with a flaw.
- danieltillett 7y agoVery. Colour vision defects are not something you really want to have.
- misterman0 7y agoI know many who have them and know they are crippling but in another type of world where our colors aren't as important, would these defects still be a handicap? Or have we manufactured a society that cripple those with a certain gene combination? Edit: spelling
- danieltillett 7y agoActually modern society protects those that have colour vision defects much more than societies of the past. In the past if your vision wasn't perfect you tended to die, now days you can be completely blind and live a long life. Colour vision is not much help under low light conditions which is the reason our distant shrew-like ancestors lost their colour vision in the first place.
- misterman0 7y ago>> Colour vision is not much help under low light conditions which is the reason our distant shrew-like ancestors lost their colour vision in the first place. You seem to have authority, clearly, but doesn't your statement very precisely support my claim that we are now living in a society that dis-favor the color-blind? Our ancestors lost their ability to distinguish colors but now (all of a sudden) color seems very important. So we have in fact started, very recently, to select for non-color blindness. No?
- Farradfahren 7y agoOptimization - no- the algo is not searching for a optimum, is not referee in some competition for improvement. It selects for good-engoughness. If we would gain vision, by having a fungi rot our braincells depending on light stimultion- and that was good enough for a short, re-productive life - evolution would run with that. Assuming a optimum, is assuming intent in physics, is superstition. This is not a person, not a god, not even a "pure" evaluation operation.