Just How Blind is the Human Race?

jonathan wrote in message
...




"It is this common association of microbes and iron
deposition on earth that has spurred hopes that robot
crafts exploring the hematite anomaly of Mars' Meridiani
Planum might find evidence for ancient life. The
hematite deposits of Meridiani Planum [7], regardless of
their exact origin, are considered to be a favorable host
for microorganisms that might have been associated
with their formation [8]."
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2004/pdf/1369.pdf





The great search for life in the universe. We have
telescopes, probes and robots searching the heavens
for its signs. Our best minds and technology at
work.

Is it really that difficult to find, do we require charts
graphs or samples to understand reality?

Our eyes and minds are the greatest scientific instruments
in the known universe, yet we defer to grossly
simplified man-made technological imitations.
We have become so accustomed to relying on
charts and equations that we scoff at the attempt
to better train our eyes and minds to provide
first and last order evidence.

On earth wherever iron deposits are found so is
microbial life. I know there is life elsewhere, I know
there is life on Mars. I know this with complete
certainty because when I walk out in my backyard
and look up, Mars is red.

It's red from the vast iron deposits on its surface.
Mars has been ...so alive... we can see 'evidence
of life' on a hazy evening without even using
glasses. From a hundred million miles away
life makes its colorful presence ...obvious.

Is the human race collectively blind, or is 'modern'
science leading us backwards. "Proof' is that thing
set between humans so they both will agree.
Scientific evidence is that thing that removes subjective
disagreements, removes our individuality, removes our
...eyes and minds... from the process.





Jonathan


"Their height in heaven comforts not,
Their glory nought to me;
'T was best imperfect, as it was;
I'm finite, I can't see.

The house of supposition,
The glimmering frontier
That skirts the acres of perhaps,
To me shows insecure.

The wealth I had contented me;
If 't was a meaner size,
Then I had counted it until
It pleased my narrow eyes

Better than larger values,
However true their show;
This timid life of evidence
Keeps pleading, "I don't know."



By E Dickinson

If this was wrote in brail you'd have a better response.


--
Scribbler.

"Silence may speak volumes, but it has no library."
David Hamilton

My poetry is at: http://www.wordsthatstay.net/scribbler.htm



s

"It is this common association of microbes and iron
deposition on earth that has spurred hopes that robot
crafts exploring the hematite anomaly of Mars' Meridiani
Planum might find evidence for ancient life. The
hematite deposits of Meridiani Planum [7], regardless of
their exact origin, are considered to be a favorable host
for microorganisms that might have been associated
with their formation [8]."
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2004/pdf/1369.pdf





The great search for life in the universe. We have
telescopes, probes and robots searching the heavens
for its signs. Our best minds and technology at
work.

Is it really that difficult to find, do we require charts
graphs or samples to understand reality?

Our eyes and minds are the greatest scientific instruments
in the known universe, yet we defer to grossly
simplified man-made technological imitations.
We have become so accustomed to relying on
charts and equations that we scoff at the attempt
to better train our eyes and minds to provide
first and last order evidence.

On earth wherever iron deposits are found so is
microbial life. I know there is life elsewhere, I know
there is life on Mars. I know this with complete
certainty because when I walk out in my backyard
and look up, Mars is red.

It's red from the vast iron deposits on its surface.
Mars has been ...so alive... we can see 'evidence
of life' on a hazy evening without even using
glasses. From a hundred million miles away
life makes its colorful presence ...obvious.

Is the human race collectively blind, or is 'modern'
science leading us backwards. "Proof' is that thing
set between humans so they both will agree.
Scientific evidence is that thing that removes subjective
disagreements, removes our individuality, removes our
....eyes and minds... from the process.





Jonathan


"Their height in heaven comforts not,
Their glory nought to me;
'T was best imperfect, as it was;
I'm finite, I can't see.

The house of supposition,
The glimmering frontier
That skirts the acres of perhaps,
To me shows insecure.

The wealth I had contented me;
If 't was a meaner size,
Then I had counted it until
It pleased my narrow eyes

Better than larger values,
However true their show;
This timid life of evidence
Keeps pleading, "I don't know."



By E Dickinson

s

In article ,
"jonathan" wrote:

Our eyes and minds are the greatest scientific instruments
in the known universe, yet we defer to grossly
simplified man-made technological imitations.
We have become so accustomed to relying on
charts and equations that we scoff at the attempt
to better train our eyes and minds to provide
first and last order evidence.

Well, we really are practically blind. Our eyes are trichromatic
sensors, with limited resolution and only capable of giving very crude
estimates of color, lightness, and size. We can not see spectral
distributions, we see only activation intensities of a bunch of cone
cells, each of which has a peak sensitivity at one of three wavelengths
within a very short band of the electromagnetic spectrum. (sometimes
there are four cone types, for some women, but that's a different story
and makes no difference)

Our vision is only useful for judging distances on a scale very near
that of our bodies. At best, Mars is a tiny disk in the sky, it is
usually a point of orange light. You can't figure its orbit by standing
outside and looking at it. Microbes are only visible to the naked eye in
large masses...looking at a lump of iron ore, you would never guess
there was life in it. The existence of microbes wasn't even known until
we started looking at things with those "technological imitations" you
deride. This is due to simple optics, not a lack of "training" in the
eyes.

Our eyes are really only suitable for dealing with everyday, nearby
objects. Using them to identify chemistry is foolish...hydrochloric acid
looks just like water. The same goes for many other properties: hot
glass looks just like cold glass, but one of the two can sear your skin
off.


On earth wherever iron deposits are found so is
microbial life. I know there is life elsewhere, I know
there is life on Mars. I know this with complete
certainty because when I walk out in my backyard
and look up, Mars is red.

On Earth, we see microbes pretty much wherever we use our instruments to
look. That means very little, other than that microbes are ubiquitous on
Earth. Appearances can be very deceiving...many things look alike, but
are very different.


Is the human race collectively blind, or is 'modern'
science leading us backwards. "Proof' is that thing
set between humans so they both will agree.
Scientific evidence is that thing that removes subjective
disagreements, removes our individuality, removes our
...eyes and minds... from the process.

It removes ego. The mind is still required for understanding present
knowledge, conceiving new possibilities, and devising tests to verify
those possibilities. The scientific method merely provides a mechanism
for weeding out the bad models of reality. You want to see what "trained
minds" come up with? Go look up Aristotelian physics. Like many "natural
philosophers", Aristotle believed truth could be found by simply
thinking about it, by "training our eyes and minds". It wasn't until
scientists like Galileo started measuring and testing things that we
figured out how things really worked.

--
Christopher James Huff
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG:
http://tag.povray.org/

just how blind is the human race
just how dim is his son
smiling as time ate off his face
thinking it was his race to run

In sci.space.policy Christopher James Huff wrote:
snip
Well, we really are practically blind. Our eyes are trichromatic
sensors, with limited resolution and only capable of giving very crude
estimates of color, lightness, and size. We can not see spectral

Looking at the spectral sensitivities, it's amazing there is
any vivid contrast between red and green at all.
The two sensors are so similar that the difference in sensitivity
at any given wavelength between red and green is quite small.

Ian Stirling wrote:

In sci.space.policy Christopher James Huff wrote:
snip
Well, we really are practically blind. Our eyes are trichromatic

Monochromatic-with-filters; or "quadrichromatic." But not "tri-."
11-cis retinal is the /only/ photosensor we've got.
The three oil filters (assorted among the "cones") reduce the
incident light level considerably, not the sensitivity.
Same happens putting color filters on a camera or litho
separations.

sensors, with limited resolution and only capable of giving very crude
estimates of color, lightness, and size. We can not see spectral

Looking at the spectral sensitivities, it's amazing there is
any vivid contrast between red and green at all.

Heh. Some few people have none whatsoever.
Monochromatic contrast is /all/ in the filters.

The two sensors are so similar that the difference in sensitivity
at any given wavelength between red and green is quite small.

Actually not; we are rather more sensitive to green by at least
e=hf.
Why subs and planes are set "cockpit red" at night.
--
-------(m+
~/)_|
The most essential gift for a good writer is
a built-in, shock-proof, **** detector. -- Hemingway
http://scrawlmark.org

In sci.space.policy Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
Ian Stirling wrote:

In sci.space.policy Christopher James Huff wrote:
snip
Well, we really are practically blind. Our eyes are trichromatic

Monochromatic-with-filters; or "quadrichromatic." But not "tri-."
11-cis retinal is the /only/ photosensor we've got.
The three oil filters (assorted among the "cones") reduce the
incident light level considerably, not the sensitivity.
Same happens putting color filters on a camera or litho
separations.

sensors, with limited resolution and only capable of giving very crude
estimates of color, lightness, and size. We can not see spectral

Looking at the spectral sensitivities, it's amazing there is
any vivid contrast between red and green at all.

Heh. Some few people have none whatsoever.
Monochromatic contrast is /all/ in the filters.

The two sensors are so similar that the difference in sensitivity
at any given wavelength between red and green is quite small.

Actually not; we are rather more sensitive to green by at least
e=hf.
Why subs and planes are set "cockpit red" at night.

That's to optimise the low-light sensitive cells, which are different
to the ones that are used to sense colour vision, and very insensitive
to red.

They are most sensitive to green light, but a slightly different wavelength
green to the one that the green cells used to sense colours.

Normalising the sensitivity, where 1 is the sensitivity peak.
The differences are fairly small, compared to the differences between
them and blue.

red green blue
658nm .1 .085
600nm .8 .3
570nm 1 .8
554nm .96 .96
542nm .9 1
513nm .5 .7
503nm .32 .47 .1
442nm .04 .07 1
456nm .06 .1 .84

Well that is well said and very well put Jonathan.
I would think that these old guys in this newsgroup would be bit opened
minded. but alas they are not. but take heart not all are like these old
geezers.

I know that there are fossils on mars and I don't have to go there to prove
it. One can SEE if they have EYES to SEE with. Most scientists are STUCK in
one or two DISCIPLINES... not venturing out of the mold they PUT themselves
in. Thinking they are right when in fact they are not . seems sad that many
scientist do this.... I would advocate a multi discipline in the field of
space science if we are to continue with the bots and images and
spectrometers.
------------------------------------------------------------
to the old geezers :
I would like to take note here....one when giving a philosophical thought
use one of your own. using Plato and such is so lame like you don't have a
mind to come up with something of your own. Now when Jonathan presented you
with a thought that is based on what he has been writing about is one thing
to but to combat it with another is pretty lame. and you are all what ?
GEOLOGISTS? or wanna be's ?
If you are GEOLOGIST then you need to go back to school and learn to play
nice. if not then you need to go to school to learn to play nice. either way
your not playing nice.

Quote from Christopher James Huff :
It removes ego. The mind is still required for understanding present
knowledge, conceiving new possibilities, and devising tests to verify
those possibilities. The scientific method merely provides a mechanism
for weeding out the bad models of reality.

Aristotle believed truth could be found by simply
thinking about it, by "training our eyes and minds". It wasn't until
scientists like Galileo started measuring and testing things that we
figured out how things really worked.
------------------------------------------------------------------
well i think it takes TWO ..
SEEING is the FIRST PART of Discovery as everyone knows.



Jonathan these old guys have only ego left. they don't have much else.

oh yeah wanted to let George know ............Sir Charles is Right. .
check it out http://www.xenotechresearch.com/marsu.htm
wonder what they will say to that Jonathan?



"jonathan" wrote in message
...




"It is this common association of microbes and iron
deposition on earth that has spurred hopes that robot
crafts exploring the hematite anomaly of Mars' Meridiani
Planum might find evidence for ancient life. The
hematite deposits of Meridiani Planum [7], regardless of
their exact origin, are considered to be a favorable host
for microorganisms that might have been associated
with their formation [8]."
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2004/pdf/1369.pdf





The great search for life in the universe. We have
telescopes, probes and robots searching the heavens
for its signs. Our best minds and technology at
work.

Is it really that difficult to find, do we require charts
graphs or samples to understand reality?

Our eyes and minds are the greatest scientific instruments
in the known universe, yet we defer to grossly
simplified man-made technological imitations.
We have become so accustomed to relying on
charts and equations that we scoff at the attempt
to better train our eyes and minds to provide
first and last order evidence.

On earth wherever iron deposits are found so is
microbial life. I know there is life elsewhere, I know
there is life on Mars. I know this with complete
certainty because when I walk out in my backyard
and look up, Mars is red.

It's red from the vast iron deposits on its surface.
Mars has been ...so alive... we can see 'evidence
of life' on a hazy evening without even using
glasses. From a hundred million miles away
life makes its colorful presence ...obvious.

Is the human race collectively blind, or is 'modern'
science leading us backwards. "Proof' is that thing
set between humans so they both will agree.
Scientific evidence is that thing that removes subjective
disagreements, removes our individuality, removes our
...eyes and minds... from the process.





Jonathan


"Their height in heaven comforts not,
Their glory nought to me;
'T was best imperfect, as it was;
I'm finite, I can't see.

The house of supposition,
The glimmering frontier
That skirts the acres of perhaps,
To me shows insecure.

The wealth I had contented me;
If 't was a meaner size,
Then I had counted it until
It pleased my narrow eyes

Better than larger values,
However true their show;
This timid life of evidence
Keeps pleading, "I don't know."



By E Dickinson

s

Peter J Ross wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 04:31:44 -0400, jonathan quoted Emily Dickinson,
the boring loony shut-in closeted dyke:

"Their Height -- in Heaven -- comforts -- not,
Their Glory -- nought -- to me me me me me me *me*;
'T was Best -- imperfect --, as it Was;
I'm -- Finite, I I I I I *I* can't -- see.

I fixed your typos, Jonny-boy.

Why do people still read that delusional, talentless, self-obsessed
poetasteress's crap?
--
PJR :-)

Evidently for the same reason they consent to read yours:
establishing the range of the universe of observation. Poultry is
surrounded by /various/ delusional, talentless, self-obsessed crap.
--
-------(m+
~/)_|
The most essential gift for a good writer is
a built-in, shock-proof, **** detector. -- Hemingway
http://scrawlmark.org

In sci.space.policy Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
Ian Stirling wrote:

In sci.space.policy Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
Ian Stirling wrote:

In sci.space.policy Christopher James Huff wrote:
snip
Well, we really are practically blind. Our eyes are trichromatic

Monochromatic-with-filters; or "quadrichromatic." But not "tri-."
11-cis retinal is the /only/ photosensor we've got.
The three oil filters (assorted among the "cones") reduce the
incident light level considerably, not the sensitivity.
Same happens putting color filters on a camera or litho
separations.

sensors, with limited resolution and only capable of giving very crude
estimates of color, lightness, and size. We can not see spectral

Looking at the spectral sensitivities, it's amazing there is
any vivid contrast between red and green at all.

Heh. Some few people have none whatsoever.
Monochromatic contrast is /all/ in the filters.

The two sensors are so similar that the difference in sensitivity
at any given wavelength between red and green is quite small.

Actually not; we are rather more sensitive to green by at least
e=hf.
Why subs and planes are set "cockpit red" at night.

That's to optimise the low-light sensitive cells, which are different
to the ones that are used to sense colour vision, and very insensitive
to red.

Merely "less" by e=hf.

True, quite a lot less though, especially if you'r working down near
the tail end of red sensitivity, and comparing it to an equivalent
white or green light.

snip
They're "most sensitive" to "green" because (see your chart,
again) the "green" filter is the sloppiest, i.e., has the broadest
passband. Neural response is proportional to number of successful
(at 11-cis -- 11-trans-retinal) incident photons above the
infrared, and the green cone is passing a lot of red and blue.
Rods have no filter and a longer absorption path along which
/more/ photons will be successful at converting retinal, making the
/neuron/, not retinal, more sensitive with respect to incident
levels.
(N.B.: "Infrared" is /defined/ by retinal's e=hf threshold; it's
the color whose energy is too low to succeed at the transition.

Which is in itself quite a fuzzy number, only hitting a millionth
way out at over 800nm.

"Ultraviolet" is defined by the passband of the filters, humors,
lens, and cornea; water and window glass, e.g., are opaque to it.)

Normalising the sensitivity, where 1 is the sensitivity peak.
The differences are fairly small, compared to the differences between
them and blue.

red green blue
658nm .1 .085
600nm .8 .3
570nm 1 .8
554nm .96 .96
542nm .9 1
513nm .5 .7
503nm .32 .47 .1
442nm .04 .07 1
456nm .06 .1 .84

This is a /filter/-sensitivity curve set. Be rather sharper and
essentially exclusive were they dichroic rather than dye filters,
too.

True.
Got a kit to upgrade the existing ones?

I was referring only to the dramatic difference between the sharpness of
the red/green filters, and the blue ones, which is really quite dramatic,
and emphasises how much of the red/green distinction is not made by the
filters, but by the processing of their output by the neurons and brain
behind them.

Obvious reasons can be seen for the tradeoff. Compared to having R/G
filters with similar sharpness to the B one, you gain significantly
in lower light visual acuity, though the colour drops out as the
signal-noise from the incoming photons becomes too poor to work out
if something is red or green.