Slashdot Mirror


Some Birds Can See Magnetic Fields

jamie found a post on the Not Exactly Rocket Science blog on research indicating that some birds can literally see magnetic fields, but only if the vision in their right eye is sharp (abstract at Current Biology). "The magnetic sense of birds was first discovered in robins in 1968, and its details have been teased out ever since. Years of careful research have told us that the ability depends on light and particularly on the right eye and the left half of the brain. The details still aren’t quite clear but, for now, the most likely explanation involves a molecule called cryptochrome. Cryptochrome is found in the light-sensitive cells of a bird’s retina and scientists think that it affects just how sensitive those cells are. ... The upshot is that magnetic fields put up a filter of light or dark patches over what a bird normally sees. These patches change as the bird turns and tilts its head, providing it with a visual compass made out of contrasting shades."

238 comments

  1. Cryptochrome? by butterflysrage · · Score: 1

    anyone else get the impression that "Cryptochrome" should be the name of some time based encryption system when they first read it?

    --
    the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
    1. Re:Cryptochrome? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Cryptochrome
      They give us those nice bright colors
      They give us the greens of summers
      Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, Oh yeah
      I got a Nikon camera
      I love to take a photograph
      So mama don't take my Cryptochrome away

    2. Re:Cryptochrome? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's actually a particular color. Those thick black lines you see in redacted documents? They look like ordinary sharpie; but they are actually special-order cryptochrome markers ("Cryptochrome: plaintext to cyphertext with the stroke of a pen")...

    3. Re:Cryptochrome? by Reilaos · · Score: 1

      I thought more of a sort of colour-based encryption system, actually. More on topic, though: What wavelength do the magnetic fields make? Are they power-line esque in frequency (really low?) It makes sense to be able to 'see' moving magnetic fields, since light is just EM waves to begin with, but if the frequency is -that- displaced from the visual spectrum, that's pretty neat.

    4. Re:Cryptochrome? by somersault · · Score: 3, Informative

      Chromo = to do with colour

      Chrono = to do with time

      --
      which is totally what she said
    5. Re:Cryptochrome? by imakemusic · · Score: 1

      That or a paint designed for undertakers.

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
    6. Re:Cryptochrome? by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      since light is just EM waves to begin with, but if the frequency is -that- displaced from the visual spectrum, that's pretty neat.

      It's beautiful to see someone get this right in the wild. It really makes me feel warm and fuzzy. :) There is hope yet!

      - Dan.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    7. Re:Cryptochrome? by butterflysrage · · Score: 1

      yes I know this... but when you read something quickly the first time m's can look like n's.

      --
      the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
    8. Re:Cryptochrome? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He He... modded as informative vice funny... I need to quickly start a website selling these special cryptochrome markers for $99 ea...
      Obviously there is a market

    9. Re:Cryptochrome? by frieko · · Score: 1

      Given that it's cryptocrome not chronochrome i'd say it means "hidden color".

    10. Re:Cryptochrome? by somegeekynick · · Score: 1

      They actually have a better grasp of the Greek language and thought of colour-based encryption instead.

    11. Re:Cryptochrome? by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Yea, sounds like a kind of color transparency film: Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Fujichrome, Cryptochrome. It blurs the picture automatically so there's no reason to focus the camera.

    12. Re:Cryptochrome? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RIP Kodachrome :(

    13. Re:Cryptochrome? by wfolta · · Score: 1

      anyone else get the impression that "Cryptochrome" should be the name of some time based encryption system when they first read it?

      No, I thought this was the stuff that made you a Jedi.

    14. Re:Cryptochrome? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      anyone else get the impression that "Cryptochrome" should be the name of some time based encryption system when they first read it?

      No, but I think this is the most inane post I've read on /. in a while.

  2. Big Whup! I can see SOUND and I can hear COLORS !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Color Me Loud !!
    Call me Purple Haze !!

  3. sharp vision? by v1 · · Score: 1

    some birds can literally see magnetic fields, but only if the vision in their right eye is sharp

    Given that some birds (particularly raptors) have insanely sharp distance vision, that's not really that much to ask. Any animal that can spot a rabbit on the ground hundreds of feet away has some amazing vision.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:sharp vision? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do predators migrate?

    2. Re:sharp vision? by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

      Some birds can see into the ultraviolet as well. For a long time biologists wondered how certain bird species (many parrots, for instance) which showed no obvious gender dimorphism could pick out another bird of the opposite sex. Now they know how it's done--the differences show up in the UV wavelengths.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    3. Re:sharp vision? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Seems strange if they really had to wonder a long time.

      --
    4. Re:sharp vision? by BattleApple · · Score: 1

      Kestrels can also see near UV which allows them to track rodents by their urine trails

  4. augmented reality by Superken7 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    augmented reality at its best.

    Makes me think what other "natural augmented reality senses" are possible, or even already exist in other species.

    1. Re:augmented reality by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Funny

      Makes me think what other "natural augmented reality senses" are possible, or even already exist in other species.

      • Cats can see tuna inside the can.
      • Pit bulls can detect and track the locations of up to 300 unguarded neighborhood children simultaneously.
      • I can hear a thread that needs trolling crying out from halfway across the internets.
      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    2. Re:augmented reality by Chapter80 · · Score: 4, Funny

      augmented reality at its best.

      Makes me think what other "natural augmented reality senses" are possible, or even already exist in other species.

      I'm able to see stupid people at work all the time. Does that count?

    3. Re:augmented reality by KillaBeave · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think technically it's not augmented reality, but rather seeing more of reality.

    4. Re:augmented reality by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Given that the number of things that you can sense without breaking the known laws of physics is limited, we have reasonably informed basis for speculation, plus a lot of field data:

      Electromagnetic radiation: everything from pretty longwave IR to UV is well documented(IR in certain snake's heat-sensor pits, UV in some insects, "visible light" is obvious enough) There are certain radiotrophic fungi, which can perform a process analogous to photosynthesis; but with gamma radiation. This isn't a directly sensory function; but it does imply that there is a biologically produce-able molecule, in the wild, that could serve as the basis of a gamma-ray vision system(if not, perhaps, a very fast one) The unknown(at least for me) is radio waves. I've never heard of anything using them; but organisms with conductive structures linked to their nervous systems are potential suspects....

      Magnetic fields: Confirmed in birds and some insects; both as a 'compass-like' directional sense, and as a visual signal. And, since electricity and magnetism are related, anything with reasonably high-resolution magnetic sensors can detect electrical currents, as well.

      Sound waves: Confirmed, obviously enough, across a pretty wide frequency band in all sorts of species, both as a conventional 'hearing' sense, and for detection and ranging.

      Chemicals: Anything with a sense of smell is a pretty sensitive chemical detector, some better than others. Even bacteria can follow chemical gradients, and animals with sophisticated olfactory systems can detect tens or hundred of thousands of chemicals, and at fairly low concentrations...

      Electrical currents: Sharks, possibly among others, can sense the electrical impulses that make your muscles move at distances long enough to make this a useful hunting tool. Don't know if anyone else has picked up this trick...

      Can anyone think of other physical phenomena that may or may not have biological sensors capable of detecting it, and any known cases?

    5. Re:augmented reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, forgot this one: Polarized light/angle of polarization can be detected by a number of aquatic species...

    6. Re:augmented reality by drewhk · · Score: 1

      No, the OP is right, this is augmented reality, because the magnetic field information is superimposed over the vision of the bird's right eye. If it closes it's eyes, no magnetic information is perceived.

    7. Re:augmented reality by Laser+Dan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm able to see stupid people at work all the time. Does that count?

      No, most people have the ability to see stupid people.

      But some people are also able to see the limits of their own ability, a far rarer skill.

    8. Re:augmented reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A visual phenomenon which exist in humans is Synesthesia.

      In one common form of synesthesia, known as grapheme, color synesthesia or color-graphemic synesthesia, letters or numbers are perceived as inherently colored, while in ordinal linguistic personification, numbers, days of the week and months of the year evoke personalities.

      Also, I experience an uncanny ability to subconsciously spot typos and errors in documents. We ran some experiments where a co-worker stood ten feet away from me with a stack of ten twelve-point font single-spaced pages, and held each one up for 2 seconds. Although I couldn't name the errors, I could tell exactly where the typos were on each page (without reading the document). I had 100% accuracy, if you count things like "the typo was on the 3rd line on the 2nd page, toward the right" and "mid-way down, about 30% across". Needless to say, it makes reading YouTube comments a bitch (and also provides me a lot of grief when I send out an email with a typo in it; I am VERY far from perfect, and anxiously await the grammar Nazis attacking this post!)

      Then there's this other phenomenon.

    9. Re:augmented reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you have a mirror at your desk?

    10. Re:augmented reality by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      And still makes me wonder what else is involved in their navigation given the steady change in magnetic declination over time.

    11. Re:augmented reality by m.ducharme · · Score: 3, Funny

      In other words, seeing stupid people in the mirror.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    12. Re:augmented reality by CODiNE · · Score: 4, Funny

      Most guys can walk into a room with 100 people in it and identify all the hot women in half a second.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    13. Re:augmented reality by Garble+Snarky · · Score: 2, Interesting

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephantnose - this fish can generate and sense electrical impulses. This seems to be a unique ability.

    14. Re:augmented reality by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      • Cats can see tuna inside the can.

      I have been suspicious about these "cat" creatures ever since I saw this site: http://www.catsthatlooklikehitler.com/cgi-bin/seigmiaow.pl

      And a couple of weeks ago, we had a thread here about cats with bionic legs . . . we are just begging for trouble . . .

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    15. Re:augmented reality by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Its not augmented reality, its just reality to the birds.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    16. Re:augmented reality by DriedClexler · · Score: 1

      In ten years, when we all have bionic eyes, they can be set to detect arbitrary bands of the EM spectrum (or anything that can image, like sonar/ultrasound, Geiger counters, etc.), and you'll be able to switch between various options at will.

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    17. Re:augmented reality by Guppy · · Score: 1

      I'm able to see stupid people at work all the time. Does that count?

      "I see Dumb People... they're everywhere. They walk around like everyone else. They don't even know they're dumb."

    18. Re:augmented reality by mrsurb · · Score: 2, Funny

      Electrical currents: Sharks, possibly among others, can sense the electrical impulses that make your muscles move at distances long enough to make this a useful hunting tool. Don't know if anyone else has picked up this trick...

      The platypus also has this. It's called electro-reception.

      Can anyone think of other physical phenomena that may or may not have biological sensors capable of detecting it, and any known cases?

      Don't know of any biological sense to detect radiation (alpha, beta, gamma). I also know that my wife lacks the sense for detecting my humour.

    19. Re:augmented reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pit Bulls are the nicest, smartest dogs
      best with children

      labs maul people to death and no one singles them out

      dont disseminate lies Rogerborg

    20. Re:augmented reality by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, the OP is right, this is augmented reality, because the magnetic field information is superimposed over the vision of the bird's right eye. If it closes it's eyes, no magnetic information is perceived.

      But you're missing the fact that, from the bird's perspective, it's simply reality. It's not augmented, it's part of it.

      If you and I strap on a device which gives us the same vision as a bird that can see magnetic fields, that is augmented reality. If the bird closes its right eye and then re-opens is, that is not augmented reality, that's blinking. That is the natural vision of the bird.

      Augmented reality means enhanced with technology, not just better than yours. The bird has a reality which sees more than we do, but it is not, strictly speaking, augmented. Cooler maybe, but not augmented. For the same reason that relative to a color blind person, I don't have augmented vision -- I have perfectly 'standard' vision, mine just happens to see more than his.

      Now, show me a bird wearing night-vision goggles, and I'll cede the point of it being augmented reality. In the mean time, you're arguing a semantic difference that isn't valid.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    21. Re:augmented reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can hear a thread that needs trolling crying out from halfway across the internets.

      It's spelled "teh interwebz."

      As a slashdot troll you should already know this.

      Damned n00bs.

      *sigh*

    22. Re:augmented reality by butterflysrage · · Score: 1

      we have sterioscopic vision, most birds dont, is that augmented reality too?

      --
      the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
    23. Re:augmented reality by pnewhook · · Score: 4, Funny

      Most women can sense desperation the instant a guy walks into a room.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    24. Re:augmented reality by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      No it not augmented. Just like a colour blind person doesn't think that a person with normal vision is perceiving augmented reality. The information is there we just cannot see it.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    25. Re:augmented reality by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

      You mean you don't?

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    26. Re:augmented reality by delinear · · Score: 1

      Although in practice most people will just keep one tuned to normal vision and one to the pr0n channel.

    27. Re:augmented reality by gsslay · · Score: 1

      Unless you think that magnetic fields are not real, this isn't augmented reality. All that is happening is that birds can detect the part of reality that is magnetic fields, and have "chosen" to represent them as shades.

      In the same way humans can detect electro-magnetic waves in a variety of wavelengths, and have "chosen" to represent this as 'color'. Neither case involves "augmenting" reality, they only involve choices in how reality is detected and represented.

    28. Re:augmented reality by Trane+Francks · · Score: 1

      Makes me think what other "natural augmented reality senses" are possible, or even already exist in other species.

      In our own species, some claim to be able to perceive life-force energy in a multitude of fashions, e.g., tactile, sight, taste, etc. The entire energy-healing paradigm is based on this premise.

      --
      ...a FreeDOS contributor: http://www.freedos.org/
    29. Re:augmented reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I can sense the slightest human suffering." - George Costanza

    30. Re:augmented reality by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      At least Labs can use consistent capitalization and punctuation!

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    31. Re:augmented reality by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Electric eels can, I think do something similar. Its ability to generate high-powered stunning or lethal pulses for hunting and defense is pretty dramatic; but it also has a system for generating weak pulses for active electrolocation.

      At the New England Aquarium, they have one in a tank wired up with sensors that convert electrical activity to sound, pretty neat to listen to it in action...

    32. Re:augmented reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, the AC proof of the GIFT.

    33. Re:augmented reality by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      augmented reality at its best.

      Makes me think what other "natural augmented reality senses" are possible, or even already exist in other species.

      Makes me wonder what possible need drove evolution of this as a survival trait...

    34. Re:augmented reality by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      That wouldn't be augmented reality, as it's the species' natural ability. If you wear glasses, contact lenses, hearing aids, or implants for sight or hearing, that's augmented reality. If their reality is augmented, what is it augmented by?

      By your definition we have augmented reality since our vision is so much better than dogs, while dogs have augmented reality since their sense of smell is thousands of times keener than ours.

    35. Re:augmented reality by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Does she lack the capacitor for nerd puns?

      As for radiation detection, would it be cheating to count closing your eyes and detecting the Cherenkov radiation produced by the interaction of beta radiation with your vitreous humor? It is kind of indirect; but more than a few sensors work by having one stage that converts what you want to measure into something easy to measure, ideally more or less linearly, and then a second stage that actually measures it...

    36. Re:augmented reality by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Funny

      Most women can sense desperation the instant a guy walks into a room.

      And, in rare instances, even before.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    37. Re:augmented reality by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      I also know that my wife lacks the sense for detecting my humour.

      Ah, but ask yourself, is she the one who is truly lacking?

      Or do you have maybe a second geek-humor chromosome? I've encountered that one before. :-P

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    38. Re:augmented reality by radtea · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But you're missing the fact that, from the bird's perspective, it's simply reality. It's not augmented, it's part of it.

      You clearly failed philosophy (I mean that in a good way.) One of the big differences between philosophers and scientists is that philosophers still think that there's something interesting about human perceptions and human scales, rather than them just accidentally being the ones we happen to have access to.

      By limiting themselves to the scale of human perceptions in every respect philosophers ensure that their conclusions will virtually never be about reality, but only about the irrelevant accidents of human perception. Oddly, Kant actually pointed them in the right direction, but because philosophers are so steadfastly innumerate and hostile to testing their ideas by systematic observation and experiment (which would make them scientists) they have consigned themselves to a permanent backwater of irrelevance.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    39. Re:augmented reality by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Oh, also forgot biological accelerometers(your inner ear, and friends).

      And temperature sensors, of course. Don't know how I forgot that the first and second time.

    40. Re:augmented reality by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      What, having an internal compass isn't helpful when you migrate hundreds of miles twice a year?

    41. Re:augmented reality by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Or do you have maybe a second geek-humor chromosome? I've encountered that one before. :-P

      I think we all just encountered it too :)

    42. Re:augmented reality by tarks · · Score: 1
      Your and the GP's arguments are actually philosophically quite relevant. A famous* paper by Nagel, "What is it like to be a bat?", The Philosophical Review 83, 435 (1978) discusses more or less exactly this question.

      * According to Google Scholar it is cited 2461 times

    43. Re:augmented reality by nomorecwrd · · Score: 1

      Mmm... very smart indeed, they have even learned how to post in /.

    44. Re:augmented reality by Omestes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You clearly failed philosophy (I mean that in the bad way).

      Philosophy has moved on quite a bit since Plato. Contemporary philosophy does understand that things exist outside of a human scale, and discusses it quite a bit. Philosophy is a moving target, it generally is always one small step ahead or behind science, but there is always a decent amount of interlap.

      A lot of scientists do philosophy, and a lot of modern philosophers are giant science junkies.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    45. Re:augmented reality by Yetihehe · · Score: 1

      Also position sensors (proprioception - in what position are your muscles) and pressure - touch.

      --
      Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
    46. Re:augmented reality by jd · · Score: 1

      It's ok. Cats already took over the world. This is why there's a risk of tuna going extinct.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    47. Re:augmented reality by jd · · Score: 1

      I thought modern medicine got rid of the Greco-Roman notion of the Humours.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    48. Re:augmented reality by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      Humans also have a very slight magnetic sense - I've heard it's linked to in a small piece of natural magnetite behind your nose, but it isn't very strong.

      There's been some interesting experimentation done with implanting tiny magnets into fingers - the brain adapts pretty quickly to the new input (http://feelingwaves.blogspot.com/ is one example).

    49. Re:augmented reality by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      First thing I thought of when I read this was Gibson's 'Virtual Light'.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    50. Re:augmented reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So colors are also augmented reality? The magnetic field is there, just because we can't see it, if anyone can it's suddenly "augmented" reality?

    51. Re:augmented reality by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      I think we all just encountered it too :)

      See, now that is funny. :-P

      "But, my timing is digital"
      Data to Geordi

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    52. Re:augmented reality by jbengt · · Score: 1

      At the risk of contributing to an offtopic thread:
      Labrador (and other) Retrievers are bred to pick up game, hold it gently in their mouths, and return it to their leader.
      Pit Bulls are bred to bite, clamp down hard, and not let go.
      Which would you rather get in a fight with?
      Individuals from either breed can be nice or can be mean, but, in general, Labs are much safer around small children than Pit Bulls.

      (full disclosure: my wife owns a Black Lab, a Golden Retriever, and a Border Collie)

    53. Re:augmented reality by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Humoural theories of medicine are long dead(well, mostly, given the persistence of homeopathy, vitalism, energy healing, and anything that purports to be an ancient chinese secret, I'm sure that somebody is still killing people in approved Galenic fashion...); but the goo that fills out your eyeball is still called that.

      If it can be seen without a microscope, odds are that it was discovered and named a long time ago(16th century at the latest) and a lot of the antique names stuck(because, hey, Latin makes you sound smarter!).

    54. Re:augmented reality by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2, Funny

      "eLabsWorld did it." - PitBullChan

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    55. Re:augmented reality by Sethumme · · Score: 1

      Seeing in color is also augmented reality. Chromatic information is superimposed over the vision of both of our eyes. If we close our eyes, no chromatic information is perceived.

    56. Re:augmented reality by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      A lot of scientists do philosophy, and a lot of modern philosophers are giant science junkies.

      You articulated that better than I would have been able to.

      I don't see the either/or between science and philosophy. They can very much be complementary.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    57. Re:augmented reality by bingoUV · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But you're missing the fact that, from the bird's perspective, it's simply reality. It's not augmented, it's part of it.

      I am (almost) with you.

      If you and I strap on a device which gives us the same vision as a bird that can see magnetic fields, that is augmented reality

      No, this is also reality. You have only augmented your vision, but the reality was always there for the beholder to behold. If humans couldn't perceive it, that does not change that "reality".

      So, augmented reality is when you wear a device on your eyes that make you see ugly women as hot. Since ugly and hot are too subjective - let's take another example. A device that "labels" things - someone "sees" you with that device and he also sees a "label" on your head saying : gstoddart, slashdot ID 321705. That is augmented reality. Because there is no label on your head - this is the reality. But the perceiver sees it - that is the augmentation.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    58. Re:augmented reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, all scientists do philosophy. You might not agree with them, and they might insist that it is not philosophy, but that is a philosophy.

    59. Re:augmented reality by radtea · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A lot of scientists do philosophy, and a lot of modern philosophers are giant science junkies.

      Then why does anyone teach logics where Leibniz's Law is true, given that it is false, has known to be false for over half a century, and this falsity has profound everyday consequences?

      In the areas I'm interested in--identity theory, empiricist epistemology, ontology, and ethical choice under uncertainty--I am not aware of anyone working in the fields who has anything resembling a grasp of the relevant science done in the past half-century.

      With regard to epistemological and ontological questions, for example, I've never read any philosopher who seems able to grasp that ontology can constrain concepts without determining them, whereas anyone with a modicum of scientific literacy has no difficulty at all with it. And if you talk to a philsopher about the ontology of actions (waves, for example) you'll rapidly find a level of innumeracy that's embarrassing. There are people out there who are willing to not just talk about but actually pronounce upon the ontology of classical waves without being able to solve the wave equation.

      Go ask your favourite ontologist, "Can a wave be properly conceptualized as an action or a thing or both?" The answer will almost certainly stun you with its lack of understanding of the topic, unless you don't understand the topic yourself.

      By "understanding science" I don't mean "read the blogs and pop sci garbage we see on /." I mean "actually have a working grasp of the topic", because that is what is required to do reasonable philosophy in an area.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    60. Re:augmented reality by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      No, this is also reality. You have only augmented your vision, but the reality was always there for the beholder to behold. If humans couldn't perceive it, that does not change that "reality".

      You sir, are correct.

      "Reality" is unchanged by seeing more of it, merely one's perception of it. :-P

      What I described would be ... augmented senses?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    61. Re:augmented reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy for slashdotters! That's between 0 and 1.

    62. Re:augmented reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Philosophy has moved on quite a bit since Plato. Contemporary philosophy does understand that things exist outside of a human scale, and discusses it quite a bit.

      Aristotle got this too. In fact, the greatest movement from Plato occurred with his student, Aristotle, over 2300 years ago.

      Philosophy is a moving target [har, like a slug], it generally is always one small step ahead or behind science, but there is always a decent amount of interlap.

      What are you talking about? I can see an argument about technology pacing with science but not philosophy. What are your examples? What are the philosophical analouges to germ theory, evolution, relativity, quantum physics, genetics, space exploration (with travel or via observation)? To say "Philosophy has moved on quite a bit since Plato" is to misunderstand each concept. It is like saying "Slashdot has moved on since Jon Katz". The statement makes little sense aside from a passage of time, a flushing out of more concepts, and a breadth of understanding that comes naturally with time. It doesn't mean that people like Katz or who like Katz are no longer around. There is no consensus on the Katz issue the way - e.g. - the way we have a good understanding of the atomic nucleus.

      Do you realize that Platonists are alive and well today? It is still a valid school of thought - not that I agree with it. Science abandons disproven concepts like the geocentric model (Earth centered). Philosophy does not tend to move but rather will rehash ideas.

      Lastly, you stated, "You clearly failed philosophy (I mean that in the bad way)." I doubt that very much - not even knowing the poster. Philosophy is hard to succeed at but abject failure is unusual too except at the highest levels or among someone not trying. This is not to say every course is fluff but people outside the major track should breeze through. I am really curious as to what your credentials are. Myself, 2nd major Philosophy, 1st major Chemical Engineering.

    63. Re:augmented reality by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Then why does anyone teach logics where Leibniz's Law is true, given that it is false, has known to be false for over half a century, and this falsity has profound everyday consequences?

      Because most (if not all) undergrad philosophy is more about history than actual philosophy. Undergrad philosophy could be renamed to "the history of ideas" with a degree of accuracy. You could pretty much take any collegiate text on ancient philosophy and mark every single thing as "wrong". The same is true for pretty much any historical philosopher. To philosophies credit, they are one of the few disciplines that celebrate their dead ends as much as fruitful theories.

      I've never read any philosopher who seems able to grasp that ontology can constrain concepts without determining them, whereas anyone with a modicum of scientific literacy has no difficulty at all with it.

      This is true for many philosophers, but then again probably a majority of philosophers don't aspire towards philosophy of science. A lot of philosophers stick with the softer aspects of the discipline, or, worse, stick with meta-philosophy (mostly decrying the discipline dead).

      I have had several professors with no problem with this, but then again I studied philosophy of science, and epistemology mainly. Our reading were mostly reading physicists, and not people labeled "philosopher". My favorite professor was working on the last chapter of his PhD thesis on physics, when he promptly quit and moved on to philosophy. There is a rather broad crossover between science and philosophy.

      I recommend reading actual, in the trenches, scientists, when they are writing things outside of the specifics of their research.

      Go ask your favourite ontologist, "Can a wave be properly conceptualized as an action or a thing or both?" The answer will almost certainly stun you with its lack of understanding of the topic, unless you don't understand the topic yourself.

      This is true. Though your favorite ontologist is probably trying to clear the semantics first, which will probably take 5-6 generations, only then can they (via future generations) actually address your concerns (generally over another couple hundred years of spirited debate and name calling).

      In the areas I'm interested in--identity theory, empiricist epistemology, ontology, and ethical choice under uncertainty--I am not aware of anyone working in the fields who has anything resembling a grasp of the relevant science done in the past half-century.

      A lot of these areas have been gobbled up by "proper" science. And, sadly, some of these areas have lost favor in philosophy.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    64. Re:augmented reality by Omestes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, all scientists do philosophy. You might not agree with them, and they might insist that it is not philosophy, but that is a philosophy.

      Back in my undergrad days, when I was majoring in philosophy, one of my friends was a physics/math dual major. We used to have rousing discussions about the philosophy of math and science, and she would always yell at me that philosophy had no role in these disciplines. I always told her, that the second she started actually discussing math and science as disciplines she was, in fact, being a philosopher.

      The methodology of science is a philosophical device, and much of the processes of scientific discovery are within the realm of philosophy. Theory building especially. But the nuts and bolts of science are not. Finding that particle x decays into particle y isn't a philosophical exercise. Asking "how can we be sure", though, then the topic turns into one of epistemology.

      Most of the recent books criticizing string theory are soundly philosophic, for example.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    65. Re:augmented reality by Omestes · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? I can see an argument about technology pacing with science but not philosophy. What are your examples?

      I'm not talking about specific discoveries, but the ideas ("paradigms", whatnot) that move behind, and drive, science, philosophy, and culture. Also, much of science IS philosophy, and a lot of what used to be philosophy is now science. There is no fine line dividing scientists from philosophers, most of the best scientists dabbled in philosophy, and most of the greatest philosophers were scientists. For an example read up on the Bohr/Einstein debate, Bohr was late vindicated scientifically, but at the time the debate was firmly philosophical.

      On the topic of AI, philosophy often moves a couple steps ahead of actual research, the same was (might still be, I'm a bit out of date) true with cognitive research in general. Historically you'll find hard determinism was floating around in philosophy before it became commonly accepted in scientific circles. Another example is Bertrand Russel and Whitehead, and the various other anglophone philosophers of that era who where working with math and logic (as well as Godel, who is famous for a largely philosophical statement).

      Do you realize that Platonists are alive and well today? It is still a valid school of thought - not that I agree with it. Science abandons disproven concepts like the geocentric model (Earth centered). Philosophy does not tend to move but rather will rehash ideas.

      Yes, there is a small amount of neo-Platonists (or would it be neo-neo-Platonists?), but you can find enclaves of people who believe very stupid things hanging about in the halls of science too.

      I didn't mean to make it sound like philosophy is some unified discipline, but there are large branches which contain very dynamic (in philosophical terms) segments who incorporate the latest learning from other disciplines. Often these people are actively engaged in the discipline (see Daniel Dennet for example).

      Lastly, you stated, "You clearly failed philosophy (I mean that in the bad way)." I doubt that very much - not even knowing the poster.

      That was a joke based on the poster's own phrase. Har har.

      . This is not to say every course is fluff but people outside the major track should breeze through

      I disagree. Most undergrad philosophy is nothing but the history of ideas, which is rather important. Also the fact that it contains so many overt failures is also important, since many sciences choose to completely ignore their dead ends. Failures can be as important as successes. Also there is a nice mix of liberal studies, critical thinking, and history, which serves as a nice balance for the annoying trade schools out institutions of higher learning are turning into.

      I am really curious as to what your credentials are. Myself, 2nd major Philosophy, 1st major Chemical Engineering.

      If by credentials you mean what I went to school for, then my primary major was philosophy (with an emphasis on the philosophy of science/epistemology), my secondary was psychology (emphasis on research).

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    66. Re:augmented reality by Nikker · · Score: 1

      I wonder if they sense you before you even post?

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    67. Re:augmented reality by TheLink · · Score: 1

      That assumes the observer isn't part of reality.

      --
    68. Re:augmented reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you and I strap on a device which gives us the same vision as a bird that can see magnetic fields, that is augmented reality.

      ... strap-on devices and augmentation... that's probably nothing new with this audience.

    69. Re:augmented reality by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Most women can walk into a room with 100 people in it and identify all the rich guys in a third of a second.

    70. Re:augmented reality by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Well, on this planet we live in a gravity well, however I can sort of imagine a creature that could live in open space, feed on some solar radiation and be able to 'see' or feel gravity disturbances.

    71. Re:augmented reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They adopt

    72. Re:augmented reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting point that is missing from this discussion :

      The bird does not actually see the magnetic fields, as, say, it can see objects in a visible light, but it only "sees" the magnetic field immediately around it's eye.

      In other words, when the bird is flying across the city, it will not be able to tell you, that those high voltage powerlines, it can see, have cylindrical B field around them.

    73. Re:augmented reality by blai · · Score: 1

      I'm able to see stupid people through a glowing rectangle all the time. Does that count?

      --
      In soviet Russia, God creates you!
    74. Re:augmented reality by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      Most women can sense desperation the instant a guy walks into a room.

      And they can also sense his net worth, and factor those two against each other before jumping to conclusions.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    75. Re:augmented reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gravity springs to mind. I always laugh when people say "sixth sense" because although it uses an organ almost the same as the ear, it is detecting an entirely different type of signal. Counting balance humans have 6 senses not 5.

      Chemistry could also be divided into multiple sub categories, detecting the presence of certain elements, their molecular configuration (smell and taste mostly use this I think), electron configuration (ionisation), atomic decay, colour (i am not sure how colour works exactly but it seems there should be some way of detecting it without measuring the light a molecule emits/absorbs, ie tasting it).

      Touch isn't fully covered by the above, I guess the physical force sensed is the strong atomic force. Leaving,

      Temperature which i think is a factor of electron excitation (i think, feel free to correct any of the science in this post I didn't check any of it).

    76. Re:augmented reality by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No, most people have the ability to see stupid people.

      I see stupid people all the time
      They just walk around like everyone else... they don't even know they're stupid

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    77. Re:augmented reality by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      We already feel gravity disturbances as humans, via our inner ear - we naturally sense when the gravity field is not oreinted normally to our body axis, and with training can use that sense to correct (though correction is often guided by vision). When that sense get's screwed up, it results in a very useless being.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    78. Re:augmented reality by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      ...you'll be able to switch between various options at will.

      Why "switch between?" If you implant the enhanced eyes early enough in life, maybe the brain will be able to adapt to process all the input at once.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  5. Tech version? by x_IamSpartacus_x · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'd love to see a Tech version of this. I may be completely ignorant and it may already exist but it seems like, since we now know the science of how to see magnetic fields, we could develop an artificial "eye" so to speak, that could do this. It would be neat to look at power lines or just browse the city and see the magnetic fields cast off by different infrastructure.

    1. Re:Tech version? by doramjan · · Score: 1

      Hmm, sounds like something I've seen before. Maybe it can be in the shape of a hair clip and can be used for people born blind.

    2. Re:Tech version? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      Well, thats not so far away, it MIGHT even already be possible.

      I know I've seen a few Hubble pictures, and they take the ultraviolet and Gamma rays that we generally can't see and put them into the visible spectrum to help show exactly whats going on in the random nebulas and stars that they find. Kind of like how night vision goggles usually just slide the infrared spectrum into light spectrum, (though I've never understood why green).

      Magnetic fields are a little different than other parts of the EM spectrum though - but I know I've seen "heat maps" based on the magnetic poles on the Earth, and so however that is determined seems like it could easily be done with a set of goggles. Perhaps the demand for such a product is just too low?

    3. Re:Tech version? by Zerth · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't see the magnetic fields surrounding an object in all directions, you'd only see those that intersected with your head.

      You probably wouldn't even be able to tell what object was emitting them without moving around.

    4. Re:Tech version? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      Isn't it as simple as sending a wave of charged particles out, and seeing what gets abnormally deflected, like Radar?

      (not that the sending or tracking of what comes back is a trivial task, but I think this would work in theory for looking at magnetic objects).

    5. Re:Tech version? by alexhs · · Score: 1

      Well there definitely is a low-tech version ;)

      --
      I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
    6. Re:Tech version? by david.given · · Score: 4, Informative

      You may be interested in Haidinger's Brush: it's basically an undocumented feature of the human eye that allows you, with practice, to see polarised light. It works due to one of the pigments in the eye being sensitive to polarised light (they think), producing a distinctive pattern when you observe strongly polarised light. By observing this pattern you can determine the direction of polarisation.

    7. Re:Tech version? by arc86 · · Score: 1

      Power lines are 60 Hz AC here in the US, so i imagine your brain (and robins' brains) would just see the average of the magnetic field, which would be zero. I think you're stuck to just seeing the DC magnetic fields.

    8. Re:Tech version? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kind of like how night vision goggles usually just slide the infrared spectrum into light spectrum, (though I've never understood why green).

      It is widely believed green puts least strain on our eyes (that's why early computer terminals had green screens) and when those things are used, they are used for prolonged periods of time.

      Night vision goggles do not "just slide the infrared spectrum into light spectrum" because visible light spectrum is much, much narrower then IR part of spectrum. They just detect image intensity in whichever part of spectrum they work and convert it into monochrome (black&green) image. Commonly used (military) night vision goggles don't even work in infrared, they just "intensify image" in visible light spectrum, using minuscule ambient light which is always present (if it is good enough for owls and cats ...). Near IR illumination (using LEDs used in TV remotes, visible by cameras, but not with naked eyes) can help in closed quarters where there isn't any natural source of light, but using it in the field would be dangerous. Thermal vision is surely a bonus, but it is bulky and demands forced cooling of the detector (which means it has to radiate heat, too, revealing its position to any other heat seekers around) so it is fundamentally hard (as well as impractical and costly) to put that into head-mounted goggles. That's why it usually gets mounted on larger gear, like planes, choppers, tanks, etc.

    9. Re:Tech version? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Kind of like how night vision goggles usually just slide the infrared spectrum into light spectrum, (though I've never understood why green).

      Well, there are two possible reasons. First is it might not spoil your night vision. Second is that the eye has a much better sensitivity to green than red or blue, so sliding the spectrum to green lets the eye pick up more details than it otherwise would. Maybe a combination of the two.

      Just guesses, though, no evidence to back it up either way (other than the eye is more sensitive to green, which is why the Bayer pattern is RGBG and the pentile displays have a half-pixel of green beside each solid red or green pixel (one pixel will be RG, other is BG, almost like a Bayer).

    10. Re:Tech version? by PhreakOfTime · · Score: 1

      I remember when I first noticed that effect myself a few years ago. Or at least what I think was that effect.

      It happened early one morning when I woke up before sunrise. I suddenly noticed that the sky directly above me looked similar to how the bottom of a swimming pool looks on a sunny day, with ripples and patches moving all over the place.

      It is easier for me to see it in the morning twilight when my eyes are usually fully dark adapted, as opposed to the evening when Im probably around brighter sources of light which would mask the effect.Although I have never seen a display nearly as strong as the first one I saw.

      Im not 100% sure it is the same effect, but its the closest I have come to try to explain it.

    11. Re:Tech version? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't it as simple as sending a wave of charged particles out, and seeing what gets abnormally deflected, like Radar?

      That doesn't work so well in air. And how would you track them anyway? Also, the Earth's field is very tiny, so the deflection would be very small. I can't see a practical way to remotely detect magnetic fields and part of my job involves mapping the Earth's magnetic fields. I'd love to find a way to do it and would know if one existed.

    12. Re:Tech version? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I forsee a fantastic device..yes..i see it now..we will call it....a compass :)

    13. Re:Tech version? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1
      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    14. Re:Tech version? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Depending on the speed of perception, they might be able to see the flicker - like some people can see fluorescent light flicker. Of course, anything flickering would probably not be natural.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    15. Re:Tech version? by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      As for -seeing- them, not easy. But there were implants into fingers that allowed you to sense electric current and magnetic fields with fingertips. I've even seen an easier, non-permanent less sensitive solution - magnetic needles implanted into upper surface of nails.

      It is quite common with people who work a lot with renovation/construction - finding wires in walls before drilling.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    16. Re:Tech version? by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      I'd love to see a Tech version of this. I may be completely ignorant and it may already exist but it seems like, since we now know the science of how to see magnetic fields, we could develop an artificial "eye" so to speak, that could do this. It would be neat to look at power lines or just browse the city and see the magnetic fields cast off by different infrastructure.

      Be careful, the article was somewhat misleading with its terminology. This phenomenon only shows the bird the magnetic field orientation at the bird's exact location. It can't see local variations in the field at a distance. Basically, it is just a compass superimposed on the bird's vision... you can do the same thing with your iPhone or with a $5 compass.

      I don't think it is possible to image magnetic field lines from only a single location with no assumptions. There is no way to sense the field changes without moving your probe through space or seeding the space with sensors.

    17. Re:Tech version? by Pioto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sorry, but "undocumented feature of the human eye"...? I didn't know there was a manual!

    18. Re:Tech version? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kind of like how night vision goggles usually just slide the infrared spectrum into light spectrum, (though I've never understood why green).

      I've heard (but have not fact-checked) that humans can distinguish more shades of green than any other colour.

    19. Re:Tech version? by karnal · · Score: 1

      Basically, it is just a compass superimposed on the bird's vision... you can do the same thing with your iPhone or with a $5 compass.

      Only if you smash the iphone into your right eye. And even then, you probably would only see the compass, not just an "overlay" or modification of existing vision.

      --
      Karnal
    20. Re:Tech version? by cffrost · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but "undocumented feature of the human eye"...? I didn't know there was a manual!

      PDR for hardware, DSM for software.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    21. Re:Tech version? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      The OP was talking about a device that worked in the same way the birds' eyes do. I'd be very much surprised if the birds' eyes were emitting a particle stream.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  6. Re:Big Whup! I can see SOUND and I can hear COLORS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol i knew a guy whose online handle was purpose haze. so calling him purple haze... would be normal?

  7. Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by molo · · Score: 1

    Maybe some biologists can answer this.. but why haven't humans or other mammalian species evolved to see/detect/transmit infrared or microwave radio? It seems that long neurons could act as conductor antennas. No evolutionary advantage? Just the night sensing possibilities alone seem worthwhile.

    -molo

    --
    Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
    1. Re:Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Some humans seem to be able to see a little further into UV, but nothing like chickens or certain insects.

    2. Re:Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe some biologists can answer this.. but why haven't humans or other mammalian species evolved to see/detect/transmit infrared or microwave radio? It seems that long neurons could act as conductor antennas. No evolutionary advantage? Just the night sensing possibilities alone seem worthwhile.

      -molo

      Because the infrared or microwaves would cook our neurons, silly!

    3. Re:Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by morphotomy · · Score: 1

      Seeing in IR wouldn't do much for us to see at night unless there was an IR source nearby.

    4. Re:Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by frozentier · · Score: 1

      We don't know that other mammals CAN'T do this, but as for humans, we haven't evolved to process infrared or microwaves for the same reason we haven't grown gills for breathing underwater: It's not necessary to the species.

    5. Re:Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Put it simple would it allow you to have more sex (implies all other things that allow you to have it, like being successful in gathering food)? If yes then you can be assured that in the long run we as a species will get it.

    6. Re:Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by molo · · Score: 1

      Think far infrared (blackbody radiation), not near infrared.

      -molo

      --
      Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
    7. Re:Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by butterflysrage · · Score: 1

      well, evolution only favors a trait if it lets you have more babies... as humans have been diurnal pretty much from the get-go, the advantage of great night vision is lessened because we are generally asleep at that time. As for mirowave... not a lot of that makes it down to the surface of the earth, things would be quite dark at mw wavelengths.

      heck, the ability to see blue is fairly recient (in evolutionary terms) whereas we have seen green and red a lot longer. This is why blue things tend to catch the eye more, and why things will not appear as bright when lit by mono-chrome blue light (try walking arounda room with a blue LED flashlight, right PITA that)

      --
      the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
    8. Re:Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by RivenAleem · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why would you need night vision if you are able to survive the day?

      Animals with great night vision tend to have it because it is not safe for them to be out and about during the day when the majority of predators are up and about. Consequently a number of predators themselves developed night vision (they didn't develop it, just that predators with night vision were able to find a niche, see below). I'm assuming you mean to ask why humans didn't evolve the abilities, the answer is simple: we are well capable of being active throughout the day, and decide instead to rest at night.

      Even though it is possible to push a human's visible spectrum into the IR range, with a long treatment of Vitamin A (http://www.edkeyes.org/blog/050825.html), there is no point in doing so, as it's not needed as a survival tool.

      The same goes for microwave radio. We do not need it to be superior to all other animals on the planet, so there has never been a reason for why it would develop.

      You have to remember that evolution is the process whereby an animal mutates randomly and a trait appears, if that animal survives to reproduce (not killed off by something) then that trait is passed on to a new generation. If that mutation proves negative to survival, chances are the animal dies and does not get to pass on that trait to next generation.

      You can't simply expect a need for night vision to present itself, and in response the body evolves in order to comply with that need.

    9. Re:Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I thought that was IR, but I suppose just due to the irregularity and imprecision of what exactly constitutes the visible spectrum, it wouldn't be constrained to one side. I noticed years ago that in the dark I'd see these clouds which would mysteriously take the form of items in the room. The color would be this unnatural white purple or golden green. Eventually I noticed that it could be used to see even when there was no meaningful difference of color in the items.

    10. Re:Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by AdmiralXyz · · Score: 1

      Maybe some biologists can answer this.. but why haven't humans or other mammalian species evolved to see/detect/transmit infrared or microwave radio? It seems that long neurons could act as conductor antennas. No evolutionary advantage? Just the night sensing possibilities alone seem worthwhile.

      -molo

      That's pretty much it. The reason we've evolved to be able to see the frequencies we can see is that those are the most useful. For example, at an extreme end, if your eyes could only see gamma radiation, everything would be completely black all the time, unless you were right next to some radioactive material. Microwaves too would be pretty useless from an evolutionary standpoint: there are basically no sources of naturally occurring microwaves on earth; again, if you could only see in microwaves, you'd be in darkness (at least, before humans started making artificial ones). Keep in mind also that the atmosphere blocks huge swathes of the EM spectrum, and so evolution would necessarily only produce creatures able to see the remaining parts.

      Near infrared and UV would seem more useful (and some animals can see in those regions), but remember that every enhancement to your capabilities requires more energy and biological complexity, and so puts you at an evolutionary disadvantage unless your extra capability makes up for it. Evidently, for humans, the benefit of seeing IF and UV didn't make up for the cost, so we can't do it.

      --
      Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
    11. Re:Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by mister_playboy · · Score: 4, Interesting
      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    12. Re:Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by mikael · · Score: 1

      We can see infra-red - if you put an infra-red filter (Hoya) over your eyes, and let them adjust in a dark room, you will be able to see around in infra-red. But that frequency of light gets washed out by the stronger blue-green-yellow light from the sky, grass and sea. Infra-red is only useful if you are hunting in caves or at dusk/dawn like a snake.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    13. Re:Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

      The reason we call it "infrared" is because we can't see it. If we could see it, we would just consider it part of the visible spectrum, and you'd be asking why we can't see radio waves.

    14. Re:Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by samkass · · Score: 1

      Besides, in order for evolution to change a trait in a species, it has to occur in someone naturally through random mutation, viral gene swaps, new enzymes activating a new combination of genes, etc. Without genetic engineering, you might have to wait millions of years for that event, at which point humans might not even exist any longer.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    15. Re:Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by cowscows · · Score: 1

      As others have mentioned, our sight is optimized towards daylight hours, because that's when humans are generally active. And while adding some cool night vision capabilities could certainly be useful in some cases, there's only so much room in the eyeball to shove more sensory cells in, and so any changes to allow infrared detection would likely come at the expense of reduced capabilities in the daytime. In the course of our evolution, that trade-off didn't work out.

      Evolution is a series of biological compromises. With every advantage comes certain disadvantages. For an organism to gain new biological capabilities it must either drop/reduce some other capability or have its food/energy requirements increase. Ain't nothin' free in this world.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    16. Re:Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's not impossible that we are actually able to sense some other frequencies of light with other organs. A mundane example is the ability to sense strong IR sources with your skin :)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Probably because it's an evolutionary deadend to go tumbling around the night with halfassed night vision. You're very unlikely to catch something, very likely to become pray or simply injure yourself. Those who survived were probably those who decided it's dark as fuck, let's return to base and live to fight another day. It's not like we're terribly poor in extreme low light, if you go camping in a remote area with no fire we see well enough for close quarter combat. And maybe that comes with a penalty for our day vision which is the tipping point between survival and starvation, it doesn't take much of an evolutionary pressure to negate the benefits.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    18. Re:Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by izomiac · · Score: 1

      Neurons do have wire effects, but nothing like metal, so I don't think you could use them as an antenna. Plus you'd be nowhere even close to the threshold voltage of fast sodium channels, so they'd never fire. If that weren't the case a simple thunderstorm would cause seizures and probably death.

      As for why we can't see infrared like a pit viper, it wouldn't really help that much. We don't hunt at night, and our greatest natural threats are cold blooded. Hunter-gatherers only hunted and gathered for ~15 - 25 hours per week, so we kinda got to be too efficient, and had plenty of free time. Hence why language and culture were developed.

    19. Re:Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by Zerth · · Score: 1

      The lens in the human eye blocks UV. People who have had their lenses removed have reported being able to detect UV, but it looks a lot like purple.

      Also, the human eye can see a teensy bit of near infrared, depending on where you put the distinction between red and IR. However, it requires goggles that only passes IR and a really bright IR source(sunny day or a IR flood lamp).

    20. Re:Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      One could say that Wings could also be an evolutionary advantage, or claws, or thicker skin.

      I think you are a little confused on how evolution really works. It's not a "This would be advantageous, lets slowly change" kind of thing. It's not more than a "Our environment requires this to survive" sort of thing. It's more like "My species will die if we do not evolve. Lets hope my babies are different. Roll 2 D20s"

    21. Re:Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by addsalt · · Score: 1

      well, evolution only favors a trait if it lets you have more babies... as humans have been diurnal pretty much from the get-go, the advantage of great night vision is lessened because we are generally asleep at that time

      it also would favor any trait that keeps you alive long enough to have more babies - say by being able to see predators at night.

    22. Re:Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by electron+sponge · · Score: 0

      We have evolved to do these very things, in a way - our brains have developed the ability to engineer machines to translate these spectra into ones we can use. Sure it's not as cool as being a real life member of the X-Men but, hey, it's still pretty neat.

    23. Re:Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by butterflysrage · · Score: 1

      and considering that we can't see IR we can assume (with all that intails) that either the mutation never happened in over 10,000 years, or that if it did it did not provide enough of an advantage to become dominant.

      Humans have had other means of dealing with predators... fire being the most obvious, shelters, partially/domesticated dogs.

      and besides, where are you thinking one would PUT these IR sensing rods/cones? The retina is already kinda crowded with just the daytime colour vision cells. Crowding them out to see at night (when most of us are asleep) will cut into our daytime resolution, which would make it harder to hunt/gather/evade daytime preditors.

      --
      the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
    24. Re:Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Specifically, females with a 4th set of cones.

      I remember the female from Total Recall with the 3rd cone, but I never knew there were women with four sets(!). That's eight, right?
      Who cares about UV sight?

    25. Re:Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by MadKeithV · · Score: 1

      Females, sets of cones...
      4 of them?

    26. Re:Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by Clueless+Moron · · Score: 1

      For IR, it's because we're warm blooded. If our eyes could detect far-IR (like a FLIR camera), it would see nothing but a white fog since the eye is already at that temperature.

      Snakes can sense far-IR because they are cold blooded. Even then, they don't do it that well because the temperature difference between their sensors (which are in the nose) and a mammal isn't that much.

      As for near-IR, it's just not useful. It makes for pretty photography effects, but it doesn't help you at night or day.

    27. Re:Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by Landak · · Score: 1

      Evolution doesn't particularly care if something is good, just if it is "good enough". We've evolved to the great humbling oafs that we are now throughout a variety of intermediate stages -- but all of them have something in common: we've been on earth, and, it is believed, underwater. Let me just show you two graphs; one of the measured absorption coefficient of water (beware the axes: it's a semi-logarithmic plot), and, secondly, the absorption spectrum of the atmosphere. If you look at one and then the other, you'll see that the only window where both materials aren't as clear as the reason for Jar Jar Blink's conception is roughly the range ~300-~1000nm. This corresponds to what we dub "the visible spectrum" and is the part of the EM spectrum where the vast majority of life on earth is either pigmented or sees -- where "the sun is brightest", as most of the light from the sky is reaching the environment in which organisms live (aquatic or not). It also roughly corresponds with the peak of the Sun's blackbody spectrum. When you consider that we can measure light from all over the universe coming to us in wavelengths ranging from the tens of metres to less than a tenth of a fermi [femtometer], you have to concede that we really are a product of our environment. Oh -- and IANAL, IANABiologist, but I am a biophysicist :-).

      --
      My UID is prime. Is yours?
    28. Re:Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Think far infrared (blackbody radiation), not near infrared.

      -molo

      You wouldn't be able to "see" a thing unless your "eyes" aren't colder then whatever emits far infrared. Some reptiles (the vipers) have far infrared senses, but they are cold-blooded animals, seeking warm prey - rodents.

    29. Re:Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by delinear · · Score: 1

      Probably the contrary - I think a lot of sex happens than would otherwise be the case specifically when people meet under poor lighting conditions (bars, clubs, concerts, sidewalks), so the ones who can see better in the dark are no doubt excluding themselves from the evolutionary process...

    30. Re:Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there are basically no sources of naturally occurring microwaves on earth; again, if you could only see in microwaves, you'd be in darkness (at least, before humans started making artificial ones).

      You don't say?
      However, even though a source is there and our world is illuminated in diffuse cosmic background radiation, unfortunately we are to small. With wavelength of cosmic background radiation being largish 21cm (8.2") we would need huge synthetic aperture antennas to be able to create an image of our surroundings. In fact this pictureis very revealing. There are basically only a handful of "windows" in our atmosphere absorption spectrum that could enable us to use radiation to get around, and what we now use is the best we can do for creatures of our size.

    31. Re:Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Because we found a different way to gt what we need to survive.

      Plus, what advantage would seeing microwaves have? It would just be noise.

      At night, our eyes are pretty darn good. Go into an environment with no artificial lights and no moon. Using just star light you will be able to move and see basic shapes. Yes, some animals are better, but we have communities to keeps us safe from night predators...safe enough anyways.

      Evolution is lazy. it tries to do the bare minimum to get it done.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    32. Re:Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by radtea · · Score: 1

      but why haven't humans or other mammalian species evolved to see/detect/transmit infrared or microwave radio?

      We can detect IR at short range. It's called heat. I'm not kidding.

      Long-range image forming sensors outside the visible haven't formed because they aren't needed, and in any case there's a notch about ten orders of magnitude deep in the absorption spectrum of water that precisely overlaps the visible spectrum. When your primary sensor is made out of water there is very strong evolutionary pressure to limit the range of sensitivty to the range where water is reasonably transparent.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    33. Re:Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Seeing microwave would serve no evolutionary purpose, and as we're diurnal creatures there's no evolutionary push for infrared vision. I suspect (perhaps a biologist here can say) that cats can see infrared.

    34. Re:Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You miss the point of "evolutionary advantage". Evolutionary advantage isn't intended to convey the meaning of any advantage - it's simply an advantage that helps you to either a) breed more effectively or b) have a greater likelihood of reaching breeding age. With this in mind, I can well imagine why we haven't evolved to see, otherwise detect or indeed transmit (?) infrared or microwave radio.

    35. Re:Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      That is easily the most interesting thing I've read today. Thank you for posting that.

    36. Re:Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Even though it is possible to push a human's visible spectrum into the IR range, with a long treatment of Vitamin A (http://www.edkeyes.org/blog/050825.html), there is no point in doing so

      I'm sorry dude, but someone's personal page is no citation, especially a geek from MIT without any more medical or biologicy education or training than you or me. If you can't even cite wikipedia (which isn't any better than any other encyclopedia as far as a cite goes), nobody is going to lend your statement credence.

      Vitamin A helps night vision, yes, but not by letting you see in the infrared. It helps the eyes' rods, the sensors that sense only shades of gray and are far more sensitive to light than the cones, and are used at night. From the link: "Vitamin A is required in the production of rhodopsin, the visual pigment used in low light levels. This is why eating foods rich in vitamin A is often said to allow an individual to see in the dark."

    37. Re:Why haven't we evolved to see IR or microwave? by WastedMeat · · Score: 1

      The visible spectrum is not too far off from the pass band of water. There are plentyt of evolutionary arguments for why this would be sufficient, but there is also the fact that a large part of the structure of your eye is water. Evolution cannot perturb the existing structure to significantly expand the visible spectrum. You would need a whole new eye that was not based on water. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Water_absorption_spectrum.png

  8. They give us those nice bright colors by randomaxe · · Score: 4, Funny

    Cryptochrome should totally be the name of a band that does Industrial covers of Paul Simon songs.

    1. Re:They give us those nice bright colors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like an 80's death metal band to me.

    2. Re:They give us those nice bright colors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Federal spooks:

      Cryptochrome
      They give us those nice, black redacts
      They cover up all our asshats
      Makes you think all is well at CIA, Oh yeah
      I got a Sharpie marker
      I love to black out all our gaffes
      So Congress don't take my Cryptochrome away

  9. Silly, inferior mammals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    So, not only can birds see a broader range of colours (they can see ultraviolet), a more detailed spectrum than we can (e.g., blue jays can tell the difference between "yellow" from a red-green mixture and "pure" yellow) thanks to having 4 or 5 types of colour-sensitive cells in their retinas (humans and other primates have 3), and having higher density of light-sensitive cells (=higher resolution), but they can also see magnetic fields?

    I feel so cheated by evolution.

    1. Re:Silly, inferior mammals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And to top it all off, birds taste better. Talk about getting the short end of the stick!

    2. Re:Silly, inferior mammals by Exitar · · Score: 1

      And to make you feel worse, they even poo on your head.

    3. Re:Silly, inferior mammals by drewhk · · Score: 1

      "And to top it all off, birds taste better."

      Yes! Yummy birds...

    4. Re:Silly, inferior mammals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah! They just inherited that from reptiles.

      Somewhere mammals took a wrong turn and it's all been downhill since then, tastiness included. All we got was hair and mammary glands ... ...um, wait a sec. Uh. On second thought, vive la difference!

  10. Feynman was able to see equations in colors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And if that doesn't tell you some brains are different from others, within what
    is apparently the same species ( maybe Feynman was an alien in disguise ? )
    then nothing will.

    1. Re:Feynman was able to see equations in colors by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      You know, with all these interesting factoids about Feynman, he almost comes across as the geek version of Check Norris....

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
  11. Parrots by whitedsepdivine · · Score: 1

    Did you know some birds have to eyelids. My parrot, even if he closes both of them, I can still see he pupil behind his lids.

    Additionally, he likes to keep his right eye closed alot of the time. I thought he might have a problem with it. The doctor said it was normal.

    1. Re:Parrots by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 1

      my cats breath smells like cat food

    2. Re:Parrots by whitedsepdivine · · Score: 1

      My poop smells like shit

  12. I would expect a more... by smitty777 · · Score: 1

    ..encompassing article from /.

    Just wanted to needle the editors a bit.

    --
    "Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish"
    Albert Einstein
  13. Reminds me of the Mistborn books by chrisl456 · · Score: 1

    This sounds somewhat like what Brandon Sanderson described in his Mistborn books. If you were "mistborn", you could (after "burning" certain metals) see blue lines extending from yourself to metal objects around you, which you could then pull or push away from you.

    Overall, they were pretty good books. I'd recommended them.

    --
    -chris
  14. You entered a normal man! by karlandtanya · · Score: 1

    You leave blind--blind-- BLIND.

    --
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
    1. Re:You entered a normal man! by radtea · · Score: 3, Insightful

      An armed society is a polite society.

      Then why are Americans so rude compared to Canadians? And why has not American courtesy increased with the expansion of concealed and open carry laws in the past decade or two?

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    2. Re:You entered a normal man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A rude person would now engage in a nationalistic debate about how much the other guy sucks. Wait--I see you've already done that!

    3. Re:You entered a normal man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because an increase in laws permitting concealed carry does not necessarily translate to a large increase in the number of people carrying. A society where people are allowed to be armed but few bother is not the same as an armed society.

    4. Re:You entered a normal man! by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

      We are polite. Just stay out of the tourist trap and megacity hellholes next time you come here.

      I never understood why people visit America and then ruin their stay by going to Chicago or New York or LA. Those are all reaver territory!

  15. News? by Gogogoch · · Score: 1

    This story is only about 2 years old - geez.

  16. Hack a bird by MHz-Man · · Score: 1

    Challenge - Hack a bird: create large magnetic field with proper orientation to temporarily blind it!

  17. The real important question: by Irick · · Score: 1

    In a fight between Quailman and Magneto, who would win?

  18. Spy vs Spy by westlake · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Some humans seem to be able to see a little further into UV, but nothing like chickens or certain insects.

    In WWII the OSS recruited elderly volunteers with cataracts who could see into the UV range. They were posted as coast watchers for communication with submarines and landing parties.

    One of the best reads around for the real world of spy tech is Stanley Lovell's Of Spies and Stratagems. Lovell was the OSS "Moriarty" - a later generation would see him "Q," and no less an enthusiastic, inventive and deadly prankster.

  19. Those lucky gits by Nick+Number · · Score: 1

    I would love to see Stephin Merritt perform live.

    --
    Promote proofreading. Don't mod up sloppy posts.
  20. EM pollution by tee-rav · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If the temporal resolution of the cytochrome signal matches that of "normal" vision, birds with this ability can likely see individual oscillations of EM fields up to ~50Hz. What do faster-oscillating fields look like to such a bird? Do they interfere with the bird's normal vision? Strobe lights come to mind as an analogue.

    1. Re:EM pollution by imgod2u · · Score: 1

      They may very well alias into the bird's vision range. But I imagine that with all the EM going around, their visual processing center most likely filters that out.

  21. OK, I should probably call Randi by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As a child, I found that if I were to walk under/near certain transformers, I started to see black waves at the very edge of my vision. I couldn't really describe it as they tended to be fairly quick, and explaining to somone just what waves of black at the edge of your vision would look like was/is difficult.

    I grew up near a steel mill, and their furnaces were electric, and on a hill near where I lived there was this MASSIVE collection of electrical equipment (Transformers, relays, etc). If I were to walk along the outer perimiter of this area, I would see those waves again.

    I've noticed this my entire life, and it happens rarely, but is always associated with electrical equipment. I also got the same 'waves' when I accidentally grabbed a makeshift fishing worm extractor (essentially an AC cord attached to a long metal rod you stick in the ground) I DEFINITELY saw the waves in my vision then (and nearly was electrocuted).

    Now, is this something that other people have in the presence of very large em fields? Or did I stick a nail up my nose when I was a toddler and forgot about it?

    It's not magic in any case, so I don't think I could go for Randi's offer right?

    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    1. Re:OK, I should probably call Randi by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You should actually be tested. What you describe seem suspiciously like confirmation bias.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:OK, I should probably call Randi by shadowofwind · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Some people claim to be able to see people's 'auras'. Maybe they're also seeing E&M fields.

      Or maybe its confirmation bias, as suggested by geekoid. Or maybe they're lying for gain or attention, as so many are prone to do. Or maybe they're really seeing auras, whatever those are.

      Scientists typically study things that can be measured and repeated reliably. If your senses do something that's unusual and difficult to demonstrate to others, there's a class of people that assumes you're probably delusional. Its different from their experience, therefore it must be unreal or unimportant. And of course a very large number of people are delusional. But I also know that there are very many real phenomena that aren't generally recognized or understood by scientists. So it does not surprise me at all to hear that some people can see E&M fields.

    3. Re:OK, I should probably call Randi by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      You should actually be tested. What you describe seem suspiciously like confirmation bias.

      I agree with you. For a while that's why I discounted it until I got the shock from what was effectively an AC current running through my body to ground (literally). I was collecting worms to go fishing and an idiot friend of mine gave the chair I was in a kick and caused me to fall and have my elbow sink into the soft soil. It went from my hand through my right arm to my elbow. Just weak enough not to damage, but strong enough that I couldn't let go without extreme effort. During that time I definately experienced the black waves.

      Now, it is also possible that it is related to a blood pressure issue. That is certainly possible especially given the AC power grounding situation I experienced. I did chalk it up to confirmation bias when I was younger until that moment. Still certainly possible, but since the 'effect' was a much more obvious manifestation of something that I earlier suspected, it removed some of the doubt in my mind. (Could have just been fluctuations in my blood pressure since I'm sure my heart behaved differently during that period, but would it behave differently in a weaker field like from a transformer is the real question).

      I'm going to start documenting (should have earlier) when this occurs before looking for causes. Not that it will prove anything until I sit myself in an anechoic chamber, have someone else manipulate the fields while recording my observations. I am curious to find out, since the black waves are definitely there, and it would be interesting to know the cause, and not just the correlation.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    4. Re:OK, I should probably call Randi by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Could it have been induced by a low-frequency hum? It'd be interesting whether a strong magnet or DC electromagnet caused the same thing.

    5. Re:OK, I should probably call Randi by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So it does not surprise me at all to hear that some people can see E&M fields

      I also don't want to come across as delusional, and I don't really see EM fields like a lot of people claim. It's just that when I was younger, and (confirmation bias maybe) in the presence of transformers. I saw a slight wavy blackness at the edge of my vision.

      It's possible that more people get this all the time, and just don't notice it. It is very slight, and very transient. The transformer I walked past to check it out was also later determined to be malfunctioning (it began arcing electricity a year later).

      It could be a completely benign aspect as well, and thus not really influenced by evolutionary pressures. I'm sure that until the 20th century, the chances of someone being exposed to a strong EM field were pretty low (Excepting thunderstorms perhaps), and since getting struck by lightning often has other warning signs (Like a giant ass thundercloud), being able to slightly see/feel the EM field isn't that advantageous.

      For all I know, I could have just ingested too much iron as a kid and a strong field messes with something in my retina.

      I don't even know if my vision is still good enough to produce the effect again. I think I am going to go take a walk past some places where I remember it happened and see if it occurs again. If it does, I'll definately contact Randi.

      I'd have to think of some test conditions too. Maybe a bright room with no variation in the lighting or colors. Incandescent bulbs or sunlight would be nice for producing light with no extra EM fields. Some sort of wall housing the equipment to produce a field that I can't see. A computer randomly generating a control signal for the equipment. Maybe give me a dial that I can turn to indicate how strong the waves I'm seeing are.

      Heh, as a test engineer, this could be fun.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    6. Re:OK, I should probably call Randi by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      Could it have been induced by a low-frequency hum? It'd be interesting whether a strong magnet or DC electromagnet caused the same thing.

      No clue. I just remembered the transformers/power stations. A few times hunting near the powerlines leading to the station. But I could be imagining those situations since it's been years removed. I'll just stick to saying I remember it consistently near two particular locations/transformers.

      The one transformer, as I described in another post, did turn out to have a problem. It had an audible hum/crackle that developed and you could sometimes look up and see arcing with it. (Do they have in-line transformers? Or is that a splice where you see those small black in-line boxes on cables. There was one near the transformer and you could also hear a bee-like buzzing coming from it.) My mom actually thought there were bees in it until I pointed out to here that if you stood just below it you could see electricity arcing.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    7. Re:OK, I should probably call Randi by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      Scientists typically study things that can be measured and repeated reliably. If your senses do something that's unusual and difficult to demonstrate to others, there's a class of people that assumes you're probably delusional. Its different from their experience, therefore it must be unreal or unimportant. And of course a very large number of people are delusional. But I also know that there are very many real phenomena that aren't generally recognized or understood by scientists. So it does not surprise me at all to hear that some people can see E&M fields.

      Sadly, I understand. My wife has synesthesia, and I have a hard time comprehending it when she tells me that 5 is orange.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    8. Re:OK, I should probably call Randi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fans that generate 2-3 Hz air vibrations can cause something similar. It's usually described as grey around the edges of vision, and has led to a number of ghost reports because people think there's someone behind them.

    9. Re:OK, I should probably call Randi by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

      Other members of my family associate colors with sounds, but its not a very prominent part of their thought process. At least not in an obvious way.

      I do not, probably because I have no "mind's eye" while awake - my visual imagination is almost completely driven by whatever is coming in through my eyes. On the flip side, while asleep I imagine very vividly and with a fair amount of control.

      I agree, it sounds like there might be something mechanically funny with your eye, it might not even be your brain that's doing that.

      Sounds like you and your wife might have interesting kids.

    10. Re:OK, I should probably call Randi by BikeHelmet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Some people claim to be able to see people's 'auras'. Maybe they're also seeing E&M fields.

      I bet we'd have more people with extra senses, if we hadn't burned them all a couple centuries ago. :P

    11. Re:OK, I should probably call Randi by Slutticus · · Score: 0

      Not completely out of the question. Infrasound has been noted to cause visual disturbances when it is near the resonant frequency of the eyeball (about 18Hz)....although this required a standing wave which would be a pretty isolated event http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrasound

    12. Re:OK, I should probably call Randi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uuum, you all do realize, that Light is just an EM field of a special frequency?
      Nothing speaks against your cones having had a rare mutation that makes them sensitive for very different frequencies.

  22. Why do birds suddenly appear? by imgod2u · · Score: 1

    Every time you are near?
    Just like me, they long to be
    inducted to you.

  23. Interesting by Windwraith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This can explain why birds never stop moving their heads. I always thought they were scanning the area for possible hazards, food or companions, or positioning their heads to receive sounds better, but this gives a new possibility to their constant head tilting (which I find adorable by the way).

    Birds are so underrated by us humans.

    1. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have modded you overrated to assuage your bird related guilt.

    2. Re:Interesting by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      The most likely explanation is that they are just looking around, since most of them can't move their eyes.

  24. More details needed by Linux_ho · · Score: 1

    Were these European swallows, or African swallows?

    --
    include $sig;
    1;
    1. Re:More details needed by lindoran · · Score: 1

      Were these European swallows, or African swallows?

      well that depends because the African Swallow is non migratory ....

    2. Re:More details needed by s122604 · · Score: 1

      I know your trying to be funny, but it made me think, European or American Robins, hopefully American, as I for one would hate to see us fall behind the world yet again...

    3. Re:More details needed by s122604 · · Score: 1

      Oh no!

      I read TFA
      European Robins!
      They're years ahead of us!

  25. misspelt/nonword in the first sentence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Orientate" is a non-word, or bad slang at best. (The correct word is "orient.") It's tough to take the article seriously when you can't get through the first sentence without a middle-school English error.

  26. Oblig BSG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I don't want to be human! I want to see gamma rays! I want to hear X-rays! And I want to - I want to smell dark matter! Do you see the absurdity of what I am? I can't even express these things properly because I have to - I have to conceptualize complex ideas in this stupid limiting spoken language! But I know I want to reach out with something other than these prehensile paws! And feel the wind of a supernova flowing over me! I'm a machine! And I can know much more! I can experience so much more. But I'm trapped in this absurd body! And why? Because my five creators thought that God wanted it that way!

    1. Re:Oblig BSG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, a idiotically whiny speech considering that turning a humanoid Cylon into a hybrid wasn't a difficult task.

  27. humans can see polarised light by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haidinger's_brush

    It looks like an hourglass shape, you can see it on an lcd if you set a uniform colour.

    the more you know. also humans (swim) can see into what we probably consider the near ultraviolet after consuming substituted amphetamines. its quite amazing, or so im told. (swim) spent hours looking at a flower bed of what normally look like uniform white flowers and found that each was a unique shade of unearthly violet/purple, like a tiny spaceship's landingpad (bees rock).

  28. Augmented Perception by mdmkolbe · · Score: 2, Funny

    You've got me thinking. Goggles that let me see magnetic fields haven't changed reality(*), they've just changed my ability to perceive reality. All this "augmented reality" stuff should be called augmented perception.

    (*) Assuming objectivism. I'm talking as a scientists. All you subjectivists can go have a party somewhere else.

    1. Re:Augmented Perception by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Some "augmented reality" is, indeed, really just "augmented perception". Some, though, involves doing things like building video games with entirely fake enemies/objectives/etc overlaid on real environments, and that is definitely "augmented reality" if perhaps not definitely "useful"...

  29. green is perceived more sensitively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i believe humans see more gradations of green than other colours, certainly more than blue. so it would make sense if its because we are more sensitive to the subtle contrasts within the green false image.

  30. PPL need to make up their minds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want to prove birds can see magnetic fields strapping clear translucent goggles on their heads probably should not have been your first choice.

    What you should have done to test your theory is to generate your own magnetic fields and observe the birds response to them and correlate behaviors. This is not rocket science.

    This is especially critical in light of countless other "studies" have shown many animals including birds and even humans with proper training (google halingers brush) can see polarization axis of sunlight and use it as visual cues for direction.

    All this study shows is that the people who conducted it are total idiots.

  31. Er, I *meant* to do that by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

    That would have been funnier had I spelled his name right. Well, unless I was subconsciously referring to "Czech Norris", the secret Warsaw Pact project to create a superbeing to rival that similarly named hero from the West....

    --
    Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
  32. Idea by PPH · · Score: 1

    Embed permanent magnets in wind turbine blades to scare birds away.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  33. Freakin awesome design! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next thing we'll discover is that birds also have a built in accelerometer and Bluetooth....or Blue Beak .

  34. Can't see them, but have certainly felt them. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I suspect having Iron in your body has something to do with it.

    I was walking through a mall and was nearly knocked on my arse once by a weird field I entered. It felt a bit like bringing two magnets close together N to N. My girlfriend felt it too and we both reeled back a step and looked at each other.

    Turns out, there was a giant old black and white TV screen from the seventies hanging overhead and displaying video from some security feed. It was cool, because we could walk in and out of the field and really feel it strongly each time. I was so intrigued that I wanted to call people over to check it out, but I was also feeling really woozy and the only people around were old ladies and other K Mart Shopper types who wouldn't have understood the significance.

    I don't react that way most of the time, but I'd been meditating and doing lots of energy work that month. My perceptions were pretty raw and being in a mall was quite overwhelming. I ended up sitting outside to breathe it off. That's the downside to opening yourself up; the sickness of society can really burn you out. I think most people just have strong blocks in place so that they don't notice this stuff normally, like being around a bad smell for a long time makes it sort of fade in the perceptions.

    -FL

    1. Re:Can't see them, but have certainly felt them. by turgid · · Score: 1

      but I'd been meditating and doing lots of energy work that month.

      What does that mean?

    2. Re:Can't see them, but have certainly felt them. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

      What does that mean?

      Meditating means meditating. My method is basically to go through a series visualizing exercises leading to a calm and open state, and then to quiet the mind. If anything comes up, then I might explore it. It's a way of staying grounded and mentally strong, but it also tends to open up my awareness from the narrow focus which can easily befall people. You know how you begin to not see the features of your own home after a while? Same thing, but extend that to human behavior and beyond.

      "Energy Work" is just the term sometimes used for the spiritual/chi side of Kung Fu. Basically, you become aware of and learn to manipulate the energetic realm around you; it's pretty thick with stuff; people's beings extend quite far beyond their bodies in many cases. I've trained with guys who can fight and catch random objects thrown at them while blind folded, or knock you down without touching you. Neat stuff like that.

      -FL

    3. Re:Can't see them, but have certainly felt them. by turgid · · Score: 1

      "Energy Work" is just the term sometimes used for the spiritual/chi side of Kung Fu. Basically, you become aware of and learn to manipulate the energetic realm around you; it's pretty thick with stuff; people's beings extend quite far beyond their bodies in many cases. I've trained with guys who can fight and catch random objects thrown at them while blind folded, or knock you down without touching you. Neat stuff like that.

      Can this be verified experimentally?

    4. Re:Can't see them, but have certainly felt them. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

      Can this be verified experimentally?

      It's been done, but I've never seen any such studies get much traction in the media. Along with awareness of these things comes an understanding that a lot of this reality is based on a deliberate choice by much of the planet's population to forget. Many experiences can only come about when certain levels of ignorance are firmly in place. A cat would be a failure at being a cat if it were hampered with a human level of awareness, for example. It would be hard to experience intimacy with your wife if you remembered that person being your father or mother in a previous circumstance, (as another for instance). -One of the problems is that as certain properties of reality become evident, by extension other things logically become inescapable as well which would make many people's lives cease to function. People only know when they are ready to know, and they subconsciously resist that which would screw them up. That's my theory, anyway.

      Another interesting thing about energy, is that it is manipulated via conscious intention, and intention only works if you believe something is there. But science only works properly when belief of any kind is suspended. So it becomes a tricky question, (which is probably by design).

      But if one is ready, then there are endless opportunities and a great deal of collected knowledge sitting about. It's an individual journey, and in that respect, understanding scientific methods is certainly helpful. But the whole of society won't ever be included in the benefits, I don't think. It's not a selfish attitude so much as self-evident when you get there. Everybody must make an individual effort and respect those who want/need to continue working with a more limited set of rules.

      We are all limited; even much more advanced beings struggle with the same things, just on a larger scale.

      -FL

  35. Thanks! by D+J+Horn · · Score: 1

    I've been seeing this for as long as I can remember! I never knew what it was, or if anyone else saw it. I recall trying to ask my parents about it when I was just a wee lad but they didn't understand what I was talking about so I never really asked anyone about it again.

    I can see it very vividly anywhere in the sky, any time of day. It's pretty awesome to finally understand it!

  36. Cell towers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Makes sense. There's one close and in clear view from my place, and birds NEVER land on it.

  37. i saw everything squiggly when I was electrocuted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when I was about eight years old. Did not see anything similar when I was at a power transfer station (huge transformers, relays, )

  38. It Exists Now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's called a haptic vest. You wear a compass that triggers vibrators in the vest. As you turn it always signals the same side. Voila, you always "see" North.

  39. Near UV is Bad For Us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The animals that see near UV are all short lived. UV tends to damage tissues. Short lived creatures die before they get retina damage, creatures like a hominid with a 30 year life expectancy would go blurry/blind prematurely. The lens of the human eye is actually a touch yellowish, it is specifically designed to keep harmful UV out of the delicate inner workings of the eye.