[MD] Fwd: Re: Static Patterns Rock!

[david buchanan]

David Morey said to Ron and dmb:

Quite a lot of crap below as usual attributed to me by DMB that I have never said,  wonder why DMB can't argue with what I have actually said, never mind eh!

Here is a real empirical example of what real people experience that is impossible for DMB to explain I believe given the definitions he is defending. 


dmb says:
As I see it, David, you have use the vaguest of insults to dismiss everything I've said. You're just ignoring the whole thing for no specific reason. Instead, you have presented a question about color-blindness as a challenge to the MOQ. Huh?

I don't see how this is supposed to stump anybody. The causes of color-blindness are not a mystery. It's just a physiological deficit, a problem with the cones in the eye. There is some interesting vision-related science that can shed some light on the points that you are ignoring, however. Would you like to hear about that?

The ability to detect color depends on cells in the back of the eye. They're called cones and almost everyone has three different kinds of cones, giving us the capacity to see the three primary colors. Color blindness occurs in those who do not have three kinds of cones but just one or two or maybe even none. Colorblindness is more common in men than in women. In fact, it is now known that some women have four kinds of cone cells, which gives them a kind of super-charged capacity to see color. This is where it gets interesting.

Because of the way that primary colors can be blended to produce so many shades and hues, people with normal color vision can detect about one million different colors. People with only two kinds of cones can only detect about one thousand different colors. But the women with four kinds of cones can detect about 100 million colors. That one extra cone has a very dramatic effect, literally increasing the color of the "world" by 100 times. BUT

And this is a very big BUT, which brings us to the point that I want to make (and which you will almost certainly ignore). The women who can see one hundred times better than you or I usually don't realize it because they are "seeing" colors for which they have no words. Most people cannot "see" what they are seeing and so there are no words for it in the language. They see colors that have no name and so, in effect, they don't realize that there vision is any different. When they look at a rainbow, it's much wider and more dazzling to them than to us but they have no way to conceptualize it or talk about it. 

That's how it is with the primary empirical reality. You can only "see" what the culture predisposes you to see. Pirsig uses the dharmakaya light as an example of something we fail to see because our culture doesn't have a word or concept for it in the language. 

http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jul-aug/06-humans-with-super-human-vision#.UllFxyh4EqY