3 ms·

I understand #2. I hope you understand the people refuting it. Humans haven’t evolved additional perception, we created it. We evolved to see electromagnetic r

by 300bps 4y ago

I understand #2. I hope you understand the people refuting it. Humans haven’t evolved additional perception, we created it. We evolved to see electromagnetic radiation in the “visible light” spectrum but we created tools to see every other part of it. We’ve even created tools to accelerate matter to just under the speed of light, smashed atoms together and then detected the particles created from the collision. We’ve explored our entire world, launched telescopes into space, sent probes outside of the solar system and so much more. Can we see everything? Not even close. But our vision today is incomparably far compared to even just 150 years ago. Cave fish today see as well as cave fish 100,000 years ago.

Loquebantur 4y ago
Only, having the possibility to use such sensors isn't the same as actually using them. Most advanced sensors are exceedingly rare and consequently locally far too restricted to be useful in this context. Social hurdles apply. The most comprehensive sensor network on earth belongs to the US military. In spite of being provided extraorinary amounts of taxpayers' money for this, the resulting data isn't shared for common interests like science at all.
hoseja 4y ago
We barely see neutrinos, we don't even know what dark-matter and -energy are, we can't reconcile micro and macro physics, we've lived for an eyeblink, we really don't have much clue.
- 300bps 4y ago
  That's why I wrote, "Can we see everything? Not even close." But the cave fish comparison is not accurate.
- colordrops 4y ago
  Not referring to 300bps, as they seem to get it, but unfortunately many of the most unimaginative people limited by dogma also seem to be the most confident and condescending.
colordrops 4y ago
You aren't taking the analogy far enough. That fish doesn't have a prefrontal cortex, and can't even comprehend what we are capable of or capable of perceiving. Whatever more advanced being that us would have perception and experience that we aren't capable of comprehending. They would do whatever they do that we are incapable of just as the fish is incapable of human-level creation.

by 300bps 4y ago

Loquebantur 4y ago

Only, having the possibility to use such sensors isn't the same as actually using them. Most advanced sensors are exceedingly rare and consequently locally far too restricted to be useful in this context. Social hurdles apply. The most comprehensive sensor network on earth belongs to the US military. In spite of being provided extraorinary amounts of taxpayers' money for this, the resulting data isn't shared for common interests like science at all.

hoseja 4y ago

We barely see neutrinos, we don't even know what dark-matter and -energy are, we can't reconcile micro and macro physics, we've lived for an eyeblink, we really don't have much clue.

300bps 4y ago
That's why I wrote, "Can we see everything? Not even close." But the cave fish comparison is not accurate.
colordrops 4y ago
Not referring to 300bps, as they seem to get it, but unfortunately many of the most unimaginative people limited by dogma also seem to be the most confident and condescending.

colordrops 4y ago

You aren't taking the analogy far enough. That fish doesn't have a prefrontal cortex, and can't even comprehend what we are capable of or capable of perceiving. Whatever more advanced being that us would have perception and experience that we aren't capable of comprehending. They would do whatever they do that we are incapable of just as the fish is incapable of human-level creation.