Poisons (and other topics)

[dnl]

but luckily for the werewolf.... since this would be a physical change in the eye it's self we would still see full color in both forms that's because are mind works differently than a dog's or wolf's. We have known for years that are eyes see everything upside down until it enters the brain but only recently we discovered that everyone is in someway color blind it’s not untill it pass thru the brain it gains full color.

[Scott Gardener]

Actually, color is transmitted by way of four different types of cone cells. Rod cells distinguish light from dark and do most of the seeing, but cone cells add color. Humans have red, green, yellow, and blue cone sensors, while canines have yellow and blue, but not red and green, so they see red and green both as varying shades of yellow or brown. The occipital lobe of the brain processes the raw information; it's the graphics card of the body, but a graphics card is only as good as the monitor you plug into it.

[Timber-WoIf]

are werewolves at all resistant to poisioning by radiation?

[Set]

are werewolves at all resistant to poisioning by radiation?

I don't know of a single organism on this planet that is, so I have to say that's a huge resounding NO.

[Lupin]

are werewolves at all resistant to poisioning by radiation?

Compared to what?

[dnl]

Actually, color is transmitted by way of four different types of cone cells. Rod cells distinguish light from dark and do most of the seeing, but cone cells add color. Humans have red, green, yellow, and blue cone sensors, while canines have yellow and blue, but not red and green, so they see red and green both as varying shades of yellow or brown. The occipital lobe of the brain processes the raw information; it's the graphics card of the body, but a graphics card is only as good as the monitor you plug into it.

Color is a subjective phenomena - a psychological response to brain stimulation.

find me Pink on that spectrum

yellow and red don't make orange

also back to what I was saying I cant find the artical but are eyes are missing some thing that helps us define color

[Lupin]

Color is a subjective phenomena - a psychological response to brain stimulation.

That's the perception of color. Color itself is an intrinsic property of light.

[dnl]

there's no yellow there only Beta, Gamma, Rho

find Pink on that spectrum

yellow and red don't make orange

also back to what I was saying I cant find the artical but are eyes are missing something in the optic nerve helps us define color.


"Color itself is an intrinsic property of light." no most light is invisebull

Yellow is a perception rather than a wavelength

"Once the nerves enter the brain, an amazing amount of processing is done which "corrects" the images we see, making sense of the world. The lens of the eye is seldom a perfect optical shape. If you photographed the image at the back of the eye, it would contain wavy irregularities. However, by the time we are aware of what we are seeing, these wavy irregularities are removed by processing in the brain. The amount of processing power is amazing. If you were to wear inverting prisms on your eyes continually for a few weeks, after a surprisingly short time, your brain will turn the upside down image upright again! After this adaptation, when you remove such prisms, it takes a while adjust back."
Leslie C. Colaman

Color and light are intricately interwoven but they are not the same things.

[Lupin]

"Color itself is an intrinsic property of light." no most light is invisebull

Immaterial. We perceive the frequency of light as color, and all light has frequency.

[Apokryltaros]

are werewolves at all resistant to poisioning by radiation?

I don't know of a single organism on this planet that is, so I have to say that's a huge resounding NO.

I would think that, given a werewolf's regenerative abilities, it would be able to resist radiation poison a little better than humans, much like the way a june bug would be able to resist being killed by a flyswatter better than a ladybug.
And, as far as I know, scorpions and cockroachs can withstand over 100 times the lethal dosage of radiation needed to kill a human, while Deinococcus bacteria are mostly resistant to radiation poisoning because they can repair damage quickly.

"Color itself is an intrinsic property of light." no most light is invisebull

Light is not invisible: "white" light is composed of red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet light waves. We can see things because various things absorb varying levels of certain light waves, and reflect the rest away, and into our eyes, whereupon they are absorbed by the appropriate rod and cone cells, and the stimulations are then processed by the brain.
Light gives us the illusion of being invisible because we can not perceive the light that air absorbs and reflects.
That we have innate psychological responses to colors does not make them not there, nor does the fact that we can percieve colors not make them not there, either. A red apple will still be red, even if I was red-color blind, or even lacked eyes. That our eyes form an upside down image on the back of our corneas is an ordinary byproduct of using a lens, and that our brains correct this is a simple fact.

[dnl]

The light is not colored. It merely generates the sensation of color in your brain.
color is a very obvious thing. Color is all around us. The apple is red. The pencil is yellow. How could so obvious a thing be so hard to understand?
Unfortunately, many of the things that appear obviously true to us are actually wrong.


The spectrum contains colors that you can not see.
You can see colors that do not exist in nature.
Sometimes two colors will look exactly identical, but the physical stimuli generating the color that you perceive are quite different.

and yellow is not a color nor is pink

There is no wavelength of light that corresponds to pink. But we can see it?

[Figarou]

are werewolves at all resistant to poisioning by radiation?

I don't know of a single organism on this planet that is, so I have to say that's a huge resounding NO.

I would think that, given a werewolf's regenerative abilities, it would be able to resist radiation poison a little better than humans, much like the way a june bug would be able to resist being killed by a flyswatter better than a ladybug.

That doesn't sound right.

Resist radiation? Or heal quicker from being exposed?

The regenerative abilitiy in a werewolf is not a shield. That june bug/ladybug example is making me think that.

Radiation WILL affect the werewolf the same as a human. The werewolf might recover quicker. (It depends on the doseage of radiation.)

If you can cut a werewolf with a knife, or blow its head off with a shotgun, then radiation may kill the werewolf if its exposed to it.

And, as far as I know, scorpions and cockroachs can withstand over 100 times the lethal dosage of radiation needed to kill a human, while Deinococcus bacteria are mostly resistant to radiation poisoning because they can repair damage quickly.

Maybe having an exoskeleton has something to do with it.

Eh, what do I know. You're the bug expert.

[Apokryltaros]

The light is not colored. It merely generates the sensation of color in your brain.
color is a very obvious thing. Color is all around us. The apple is red. The pencil is yellow. How could so obvious a thing be so hard to understand?
Unfortunately, many of the things that appear obviously true to us are actually wrong.


The spectrum contains colors that you can not see.
You can see colors that do not exist in nature.
Sometimes two colors will look exactly identical, but the physical stimuli generating the color that you perceive are quite different.

and yellow is not a color nor is pink

There is no wavelength of light that corresponds to pink. But we can see it?

If "colors" as you put it, don't exist, then why are there chemicals called "pigments" which create color?
If "colors" don't exist outside of our mind, then why have we humans spent millenia upon millenia making and perfecting pigments with which to brighten up our dreary lives with?
If "colors" don't exist outside of our mind, then why do the colors of things fade over time?
If goldfish are only gold because we think they're gold, then why is it then, that, if you were to take a goldfish out of its tank, and leave it out on the counter for a week, why is it no longer gold?
You're confusing the physics of light with the fact that colors can stimulate behavioral responses.
And yes, we humans can only visibly percieve a very small portion of the Electro-magnetic Spectrum, but, then again, we were are not adapted to visually percieve all of the Electro-Magnetic Spectrum. Some birds can see into the Ultra Violet range.
But I strongly doubt that there are any organisms that exist that can see the color of a sonic boom.
And pink occurs when there is only a little violet and or red light waves absorbed by a pink surface.

[Apokryltaros]

are werewolves at all resistant to poisioning by radiation?

I don't know of a single organism on this planet that is, so I have to say that's a huge resounding NO.

I would think that, given a werewolf's regenerative abilities, it would be able to resist radiation poison a little better than humans, much like the way a june bug would be able to resist being killed by a flyswatter better than a ladybug.

That doesn't sound right.

Resist radiation? Or heal quicker from being exposed?

The regenerative abilitiy in a werewolf is not a shield. That june bug/ladybug example is making me think that.

Radiation WILL affect the werewolf the same as a human. The werewolf might recover quicker. (It depends on the doseage of radiation.)

If you can cut a werewolf with a knife, or blow its head off with a shotgun, then radiation may kill the werewolf if its exposed to it.

And, as far as I know, scorpions and cockroachs can withstand over 100 times the lethal dosage of radiation needed to kill a human, while Deinococcus bacteria are mostly resistant to radiation poisoning because they can repair damage quickly.

Maybe having an exoskeleton has something to do with it.

Eh, what do I know. You're the bug expert.

Well, I guess a werewolf could regenerate from radiation poisoning better than a human, though, many experiments involve the gross impairment of an animal's regenerative abilities through massive irradiation.
We're not sure why scorpions and cockroaches resist radiation better: it may be because of their exoskeletons, or it may be that they evolved when the Ozone layer was still forming.

[dnl]

If "colors" as you put it, don't exist, then why are there chemicals called "pigments" which create color?

we say they creat color but that right back to what I'm saying.

If "colors" don't exist outside of our mind, then why have we humans spent millenia upon millenia making and perfecting pigments with which to brighten up our dreary lives with?

That has nothing to do with this for this has all to do with the mind.

That our eyes form an upside down image on the back of our corneas is an ordinary byproduct of using a lens, and that our brains correct this is a simple fact.

In 1897, George Stratton wore special goggles containing optics that turned his view of the world upside-down. After using the goggles nonstop for six days, Stratton suddenly saw the world right-side up, as the brain had adapted to make proper sense out of unusual input. When Stratton removed the goggles, the world turned upside-down again, until his brain adapted back to normal.

You're confusing the physics of light with the fact that colors can stimulate behavioral responses.

I don't remeber say anything about behavioral responses that has more to do with everythig you just sead.

[dnl]

hmmm I found the articel .......


"Color Perception Is Not in the Eye of the Beholder: It's in the Brain"

"Images of living human retinas showing the wide diversity of number of cones sensitive to different colors.
First-ever images of living human retinas have yielded a surprise about how we perceive our world. Researchers at the University of Rochester have found that the number of color-sensitive cones in the human retina differs dramatically among people—by up to 40 times—yet people appear to perceive colors the same way. The findings, on the cover of this week's journal Neuroscience, strongly suggest that our perception of color is controlled much more by our brains than by our eyes.
"We were able to precisely image and count the color-receptive cones in a living human eye for the first time, and we were astonished at the results," says David Williams, Allyn Professor of Medical Optics and director of the Center for Visual Science. "We've shown that color perception goes far beyond the hardware of the eye, and that leads to a lot of interesting questions about how and why we perceive color."
Williams and his research team, led by postdoctoral student Heidi Hofer, now an assistant professor at the University of Houston, used a laser-based system developed by Williams that maps out the topography of the inner eye in exquisite detail. The technology, known as adaptive optics, was originally used by astronomers in telescopes to compensate for the blurring of starlight caused by the atmosphere.
Williams turned the technique from the heavens back toward the eye to compensate for common aberrations. The technique allows researchers to study the living retina in ways that were never before possible. The pigment that allows each cone in the human eye to react to different colors is very fragile and normal microscope light bleaches it away. This means that looking at the retina from a cadaver yields almost no information on the arrangement of their cones, and there is certainly no ability to test for color perception. Likewise, the amino acids that make up two of the three different-colored cones are so similar that there are no stains that can bind to some and not others, a process often used by researchers to differentiate cell types under a microscope.
Imaging the living retina allowed Williams to shine light directly into the eye to see what wavelengths each cone reflects and absorbs, and thus to which color each is responsive. In addition, the technique allows scientists to image more than a thousand cones at once, giving an unprecedented look at the composition and distribution of color cones in the eyes of living humans with varied retinal structure.
Each subject was asked to tune the color of a disk of light to produce a pure yellow light that was neither reddish yellow nor greenish yellow. Everyone selected nearly the same wavelength of yellow, showing an obvious consensus over what color they perceived yellow to be. Once Williams looked into their eyes, however, he was surprised to see that the number of long- and middle-wavelength cones—the cones that detect red, green, and yellow—were sometimes profusely scattered throughout the retina, and sometimes barely evident. The discrepancy was more than a 40:1 ratio, yet all the volunteers were apparently seeing the same color yellow.

"Those early experiments showed that everyone we tested has the same color experience despite this really profound difference in the front-end of their visual system," says Hofer. "That points to some kind of normalization or auto-calibration mechanism—some kind of circuit in the brain that balances the colors for you no matter what the hardware is."
In a related experiment, Williams and a postdoctoral fellow Yasuki Yamauchi, working with other collaborators from the Medical College of Wisconsin, gave several people colored contacts to wear for four hours a day. While wearing the contacts, people tended to eventually feel as if they were not wearing the contacts, just as people who wear colored sunglasses tend to see colors "correctly" after a few minutes with the sunglasses. The volunteers' normal color vision, however, began to shift after several weeks of contact use. Even when not wearing the contacts, they all began to select a pure yellow that was a different wavelength than they had before wearing the contacts.
"Over time, we were able to shift their natural perception of yellow in one direction, and then the other," says Williams. "This is direct evidence for an internal, automatic calibrator of color perception. These experiments show that color is defined by our experience in the world, and since we all share the same world, we arrive at the same definition of colors."
Williams' team is now looking to identify the genetic basis for this large variation between retinas. Early tests on the original volunteers showed no simple connection among certain genes and the number and diversity of color cones, but Williams is continuing to search for the responsible combination of genes."

[Lupin]

That our eyes form an upside down image on the back of our corneas is an ordinary byproduct of using a lens, and that our brains correct this is a simple fact.

In 1897, George Stratton wore special goggles containing optics that turned his view of the world upside-down. After using the goggles nonstop for six days, Stratton suddenly saw the world right-side up, as the brain had adapted to make proper sense out of unusual input. When Stratton removed the goggles, the world turned upside-down again, until his brain adapted back to normal.

Once again, this is because there is a lens in the eye, which in the act of focusing light waves, inverts the image. When I replace the film in my camera with a piece of ground glass, I get an upside-down image. This is completely normal, and happens on every single camera on the planet.

"Color PerceptionIs Not in the Eye of the Beholder: It's in the Brain"

They're not talking about color. They're talking about the preception of color

[Vilkacis]

It's funny how close to the truth that article is and yet how completely they miss the point.

The issue here is not perception, it's definition.

How does one know what yellow is? They're shown, of course! Someone tells them, "This is yellow."

The way they perceive this color may be different. For all you know (to use an extreme and unlikely example), what my brain sees as yellow would be interpreted by your brain as green. But if we both name it 'yellow,' we'll never know.

So it's not exactly surprising that there would be an agreement about the name of a particular wavelength, because it was defined as such a long time ago. If you raised a child using different names for the colors, than I almost guarantee you they'll come up with different wavelengths when asked to identify 'yellow.' The issue has little to do with some magical property of the brain, it's definition.

Now, as for the colored contacts, that's essentially the same situation, but with a twist. There's one thing that the brain is very good at doing, and that is discarding useless information. Perception requires contrast.

A common experiment is to put each hand in a container of water (one hot; one cold), and then, after a while plunge them both into a container of luke-warm water.

The body adapts very quickly. By keeping your hand in cold water for long enough, it begins to feel normal (the contrast fades as you no longer have anything to compare it to) and eventually you can't even tell that it's not room-temperature. The same with the hot water.

But once you remove them, you get that contrast back. Room temperature no longer feels normal. To the cold hand it feels warm, and to the hot hand it feels cool.

This is a matter of perception changing definition (or rather, to you the definition seems constant, but to an onlooker your definition has changed).

This is the issue that was introduced with the colored contacts. They were taking your eyes and sticking them in a bucket of cold water for a while, and then dumping them in a bucket of warm water and asking you what you felt. Well, of course it seems different now, you're using an entirely different definition.



Now, back to this color argument.

Semantics.

One of you is saying, "The cup is lacking half its liquid; therefore, it is half-empty and you are wrong."

The other is saying, "The cup still has half its liquid; therefore, it is half-full and you are wrong."

Well, you are both right and you're both wrong. Each of your definitions are correct, but your conclusion that the other is wrong is flawed.

To say that colors are an inherent property is correct, inasmuch as we define wavelength to be color.

To say that colors are merely a product of our brain is also correct, inasmuch as we perceive them and give them names.

But neither of you are listening to each other because you already know you're right ( therefore, the other must be wrong...) and you start picking nits to prove it.

Once you reach that point, you probably ought to just move on to something else.

-- Vilkacis

[dnl]

To say that colors are an inherent property is correct, inasmuch as we define wavelength to be color.

That's not all correct. Color Perception Is Not Innate, But Acquired After Birth. if your talk about a thing.

and i'm rally talking about color constancy and the artical has all to do with color.

So it's not exactly surprising that there would be an agreement about the name of a particular wavelength, because it was defined as such a long time ago. If you raised a child using different names for the colors, than I almost guarantee you they'll come up with different wavelengths when asked to identify 'yellow.' The issue has little to do with some magical property of the brain, it's definition.

What do you mean this all strated with way a werewolf would still see full color. Yellow is not a wavelengt. useing the normal definition. I'm not sure any of this has to do with definition.

But neither of you are listening to each other because you already know you're right ( therefore, the other must be wrong...) and you start picking nits to prove it. Once you reach that point, you probably ought to just move on to something else.

If no one was ever willing to fight for something there would be no proggres. There is a differce from arguwing and dabating. Dabating is one of the greats was to learn and one greates from's of logic even if your wrong. ethir way right or wrong no hard feeling at the end of the day

[Set]

Quite frankly, this "discussion" is starting to annoy me. Give it a rest will ya?

[dnl]

fine Thro I don’t think you have contribute much to this discussion at all and if it annoys you it would seem to me you could just read something other then this but that is rude(or picking nits as Vilkacis would say) of me so let me rephrase it as a question. May I ask what it is that annoys you? If it’s because it took a long time or maybe ultimately pointless look at this discussion. No offence.http://www.talktheory.com/forums/showth ... ge=1&pp=25 96 replies on one subject.that was awrsome


Well if anyone does want to continue this come here http://www.talktheory.com/forums/showthread.php?t=520

[Figarou]

Well, I guess a werewolf could regenerate from radiation poisoning better than a human, though, many experiments involve the gross impairment of an animal's regenerative abilities through massive irradiation.
We're not sure why scorpions and cockroaches resist radiation better: it may be because of their exoskeletons, or it may be that they evolved when the Ozone layer was still forming.

exoskeleton=radiation suit?

[Lupin]

Well, I guess a werewolf could regenerate from radiation poisoning better than a human, though, many experiments involve the gross impairment of an animal's regenerative abilities through massive irradiation.
We're not sure why scorpions and cockroaches resist radiation better: it may be because of their exoskeletons, or it may be that they evolved when the Ozone layer was still forming.

exoskeleton=radiation suit?

It could act something that, in theory depending on the thickness of the exoskeleton, and the penetration depth of the radiation.

[dnl]

to my Knowledge thickness would not matter becouse radiation poisioning
this is the defintion: When the energy released by a radioactive element is strong enough to dislodge electrons from another atom or molecule in its way, it can damage living tissue. Alteration of cell structure by radioactive particles can lead to the development of cancer. If sufficient amounts of calcium, potassium, and other primary nutrients are not oresent, human tissues are susceptible to radiation damage.

we are exposed to radiation a lot and must of the time these electrons will go straight thro are bodys its only when they hit something that it does dameg.

[Lupin]

to my Knowledge thickness would not matter becouse radiation poisioning
this is the defintion: When the energy released by a radioactive element is strong enough to dislodge[...]

Ah, but to do this it actually has to get inside the body first.

Different elements decompose in different ways. Some emit alpha particles (basicaly a helium nucleus, going really really fast) which can only travel a few cm in air, and can be stopped by a sheet of paper. That dead layer of skin cells you have makes a fairly good shield too.

Others undergo beta decay emitting an electron or positron, and a(n) (anti)neutrino. Beta decay is 10x more penitrating than alpha decay, but is only 1/10th as ionizing. It can be stopped by a sheet of metal.

Still others produce gamma radiation, which is more penitrating than both alpha and beta radiation, but is less ionizing. To shield against this, we usually use something with high mass or density such as lead or concrete.