Post #771 • April 10, 2006, 1:46 PM • 17 Comments
Researchers at the University of Rochester, counting cones in the retina, find huge disparities in their number from person to person. They hypothesize that color perception takes place largely in the brain rather than the eye. (Reddit).
An animal's behaviour tends to maximise the survival of the genes 'for' that behaviour, whether or not those genes happen to be in the body of the particular animal performing it.
Good Reads comments:
Basically, if a beaver is a beaver because of it's DNA, a beaver's dam is also an expression of that DNA. Therefore, the CN Tower is also an expression of human DNA, as is every other aspect of our material culture.
Consider the Madonna of the Pinks as a product of Raphael's DNA, and collectively, ours.
What's it like to be colorblind? Scott Harrell tells you. (Also via Reddit.)
"Quick! What color is that car?" "Does that one bush look different from that other bush?" "Is my hair the same color underneath as it is on top?" The number of these questions I will consecutively try to answer truthfully depends largely on how badly I want to have sex with the person asking them.
Not really going anywhere with this today. I like science's insistence on data - it corresponds to my preference for observations over ideas about them. Now that the creationists have gotten in bed with postmdernism, I like science more than ever. Nothing will explain everything, but using your data is a great way to start.