Shower thoughts

[kerbiloid]

4 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

10 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

(not mine, but it's good enough to share)

The existence of the Uncanny Valley suggests that in Humanity's past  there was a survival advantage to being wary of things that looked Human, but weren't.

Perhaps this had to do with competing against Neanderthals and the like.

Spoiler

 

***

The thing which is strange, why are the humans instinctively afraid of deads, and decayed faces.

Obviously, they are almost at the at end of the queue of dangers.

And why do the people of Polinesia and Dravidic India depict/impersonate something dangerous with tongue out and popped round eyes.
As I had heard it in one video series, this is like a rotting corpse with members popped out. Sounds reasonable.

10 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

The existence of the Uncanny Valley suggests that in Humanity's past  there was a survival advantage to being wary of things that looked Human, but weren't.

(Can't add the images, as probably the forum staff won't be happy, but put in a row faces of angry leopard, angry ape, and rotting corpse).

[SunlitZelkova]

10 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

***

The thing which is strange, why are the humans instinctively afraid of deads, and decayed faces.

Obviously, they are almost at the at end of the queue of dangers.

Maybe years of belief in the spirits of the dead by ancestors makes us think dead person = ghost coming to get you.

Or, could it be about germs? I can’t remember at what point people realized corpses could still spread disease.

[kerbiloid]

4 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Maybe years of belief in the spirits of the dead by ancestors makes us think dead person = ghost coming to get you.

Unlikely the beliefs had appeared before the instinctive disgust/fear, and the non-believers still usually do not enjoy the view too much.

The horror movies aren't filmed for the jungle aborigines.

4 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Or, could it be about germs? I can’t remember at what point people realized corpses could still spread disease.

Those people aren't aware about the germs (which are on every inch of the rural place and tools), and calmly perform various close contact rituals with the same corpse.

[SunlitZelkova]

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Unlikely the beliefs had appeared before the instinctive disgust/fear, and the non-believers still usually do not enjoy the view too much.

The horror movies aren't filmed for the jungle aborigines.

Those people aren't aware about the germs (which are on every inch of the rural place and tools), and calmly perform various close contact rituals with the same corpse.

True.

Maybe it’s evidence of an ancient zombie outbreak /s

[TwoCalories]

We are all taught what color is what. And from then on, when someone points at a red object, you'll say "it's red." But who's to say what red is? Color is how objects reflect or emit light. Our eyes take in the light and send signals to our brain based on the responses of the millions of light-sensitive cells. Color is not just "built" into an object. It's how you and I perceive it.

For all we know, I am seeing a very different red than you are seeing, but there's no way to know. There aren't any words in our language that are adequate to "describe" color.

Just a thought.

[StrandedonEarth]

5 hours ago, TwoCalories said:

We are all taught what color is what. And from then on, when someone points at a red object, you'll say "it's red." But who's to say what red is? Color is how objects reflect or emit light. Our eyes take in the light and send signals to our brain based on the responses of the millions of light-sensitive cells. Color is not just "built" into an object. It's how you and I perceive it.

For all we know, I am seeing a very different red than you are seeing, but there's no way to know. There aren't any words in our language that are adequate to "describe" color.

Just a thought.

We don't describe color, we measure it. Red light typically has a wavelength of 625-750 nm, so however an individual perceives it, red is still red.

[kerbiloid]

8 hours ago, TwoCalories said:

We are all taught what color is what. And from then on, when someone points at a red object, you'll say "it's red." But who's to say what red is? Color is how objects reflect or emit light. Our eyes take in the light and send signals to our brain based on the responses of the millions of light-sensitive cells. Color is not just "built" into an object. It's how you and I perceive it.

For all we know, I am seeing a very different red than you are seeing, but there's no way to know. There aren't any words in our language that are adequate to "describe" color.

We have two types of photoreceptor cells:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_cell

The cone cells work in bright daylight.
They have three subtypes, each with sensitivity diagram looking like a gaussian bell with maximum at some wavelength.

Spoiler

So, the colors are measurable combinations of the cone cells output signal.

The rod cells work in weak illumination, their maximum is at ~500 nm, so they have no combinations, and we treat their vision as grayscale (while actually it's green-blue).

Spoiler

Most of animals don't have the red cone cells, and see a tiger or a leopard as grass-green, while monkeys and their humans see them orange.

[TwoCalories]

14 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

We don't describe color, we measure it. Red light typically has a wavelength of 625-750 nm, so however an individual perceives it, red is still red.

That's probably a better way to describe it. But what I meant was that the color red you see may be different than the red you perceive, but both are still called "red".

11 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

We have two types of photoreceptor cells:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_cell

The cone cells work in bright daylight.
They have three subtypes, each with sensitivity diagram looking like a gaussian bell with maximum at some wavelength.

I am aware of cone cells and rod cells but didn't put them in my Shower Thought post because I didn't want the post to be too long.

There's a Vsauce video about this topic, somewhere. I watched it but don't remember all of the details, so I'll probably have to rewatch it.

[magnemoe]

15 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

We have two types of photoreceptor cells:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_cell

The cone cells work in bright daylight.
They have three subtypes, each with sensitivity diagram looking like a gaussian bell with maximum at some wavelength.

  Hide contents

So, the colors are measurable combinations of the cone cells output signal.

The rod cells work in weak illumination, their maximum is at ~500 nm, so they have no combinations, and we treat their vision as grayscale (while actually it's green-blue).

  Hide contents

Most of animals don't have the red cone cells, and see a tiger or a leopard as grass-green, while monkeys and their humans see them orange.

Had no idea about most not having red cones, but tigers looked like an weird color for camouflage. 
Now adding an another layer, the screen you watch this on, or that stupid dress meme. And the lighting condition you watch it in. 
An normal well light room is 100 times darker than sunlight, eyes adapt, screens on phones do to.  

[Pthigrivi]

At 41 years old Ive finally had it with string cheese. That first peel is glorious. Its even, it’s straight up and down, a perfectly satisfying start. And then everything goes to hell. The second pull doesn’t even go all the way, its this lumpen shard that throws the balance off for every subsequent pull. From then on its all switching sides, mashed ends, and disappointment until you give up and just start chomping on whats left like a sad, limp carrot. You can’t even care that its delicious. Damn you string cheese. Damn you to hell. 

Edited August 18, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[TheSaint]

32 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

At 41 years old Ive finally had it with string cheese. That first peel is glorious. Its even, it’s straight up and down, a perfectly satisfying start. And then everything goes to hell. The second pull doesn’t even go all the way, its this lumpen shard that throws the balance off for every subsequent pull. From then on its all switching sides, mashed ends, and disappointment until you give up and just start chomping on whats left like a sad, limp carrot. You can’t even care that its delicious. Damn you string cheese. Damn you to hell. 

I just open the pack and eat it. It's just mozzarella. Relax, man. Everything doesn't have to be perfect.

[Pthigrivi]

6 minutes ago, TheSaint said:

I just open the pack and eat it. It's just mozzarella. Relax, man. Everything doesn't have to be perfect.

[ColdJ]

5 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Damn you string cheese. Damn you to hell. 

Bega sliced tasty cheese (In Australia) in a sealed pack. When you first open it it is this lovely bitey taste. A day later when you have some more, all that great bitey taste has faded.

[TwoCalories]

It's clear that most animals have tails. Clearly, millions of species have found purpose for it. So, why do us humans not have a tail? Why do millions of animals have tails, but humans don't? Also, we did used to have a tail, and the tailbone still exists as evidence of it, but why did our tails just... disappear?

[kerbiloid]

49 minutes ago, TwoCalories said:

So, why do us humans not have a tail?

Because the humans are the only species who has clothes, furniture, and public transport.

Do you want someone's tail in front of you when sitting in a plane or a bus?

Should we make holes in chairs?

Wouldn't it be too cold to have a tailport in a winter coat?

52 minutes ago, TwoCalories said:

Also, we did used to have a tail, and the tailbone still exists as evidence of it, but why did our tails just... disappear?

Chimps. They don't have furniture, but they don't have tails as well.

Probably the ancested tail absence allowed the humans to invent everything listed above.

P.S.

54 minutes ago, TwoCalories said:

tailbone

But as I've heard, the rare human "atavistic" tails are actually neither atavistic, nor tails.

They are a form of hernia, with a loop of nerves and blood vessels inside, but no bones. That's why cutting them can be fatal.

[TwoCalories]

14 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Because the humans are the only species who has clothes, furniture, and public transport.

Do you want someone's tail in front of you when sitting in a plane or a bus?

Should we make holes in chairs?

Wouldn't it be too cold to have a tailport in a winter coat?

It's convenient now, but why then?

[kerbiloid]

50 minutes ago, TwoCalories said:

It's convenient now, but why then?

The chimps have four hands. Why spend resources on tail?

[ColdJ]

14 hours ago, TwoCalories said:

It's convenient now, but why then?

This is what I believe, It may not be what others believe, I am not saying that my belief is more valid than someone elses, I am just posing a possible answer to a question.

Under the "Survival of the Fittest" model, it is considered that variations in each generation, had versions that survived better under the conditions they lived in and versions that didn't. The versions that did, were able to pass their genetic material down, and as the generations went by this repeated and refined until you got something most suited to the environment. If we assume that our ancestors had a variation that improved creative thinking, leading to tool use and working in collective groups for the greater survival of those groups as a whole. And that this led to to the wearing of skins as protection against the elements. It is possible that the same variation that led to bigger and more complex brains also led to variations with less fur. So what @kerbiloid said about not wanting to have holes out the back of your coat may be very apt. Maybe those that hunted using tools were more likely to get trapped or caught by their tails, so those with ever shorter tails were more likely to survive. Tool use would have led to needing to walk on only the rear limbs more often and so those with flatter feet may have survived better. Or there may even have been predjudice, that led to flatter feet versions getting more action.

Tailed primates generally would have needed to stay close to trees for protection, where as the variations of our ancestors would have allowed them to spread out and survive in the plains.

 

So simply I believe that the variations that survived better in their given conditions resulted in the version that survived to be modern day humans.

Edited August 28, 2023 by ColdJ

[magnemoe]

On 8/27/2023 at 4:56 AM, TwoCalories said:

It's clear that most animals have tails. Clearly, millions of species have found purpose for it. So, why do us humans not have a tail? Why do millions of animals have tails, but humans don't? Also, we did used to have a tail, and the tailbone still exists as evidence of it, but why did our tails just... disappear?

Read about this once, many animals like cats uses the tail for stability and it let them do very rapid turns. I guess smaller animals like rats also do this as they have long tails. 
Many smaller apes uses the tail as an 3rd hand and they can use it well. For the rest the tail don't see that useful, yes it can be used for communication or chasing away flies. 
But primates don't have tails, this go back well before tools even was an thing as no primate has it likely 20 million years ago or earlier. 
My guess is that they became an liability in fights then you have grabby hands, also random chance. Tails had little purpose and was a bit of an problem so they disappeared.  
And if we had tails it would probably been an pathetic short one like rabbits has.

[kerbiloid]

Either tail for the touchscreen, or buttocks for the office chair.

[magnemoe]

 

6 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Either tail for the touchscreen, or buttocks for the office chair.

Or just holding the flashlight or mirror, throttle or manual gear shift.  If we had prehensile tails then the became toolmakers we would kept them but most animal tails are pretty useless as I see it. 
 

[ColdJ]

Things with tails generally don't sit on their buttocks, so if we did have tails, would we constantly get numb tails and pins and needles tails as the circulation comes back?

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, ColdJ said:

Things with tails generally don't sit on their buttocks

They also usually don't sit long. So, the absence of tail is a natural consequence of the office evolution.

[Hotel26]

Does this look like a missile to you?

It looks like a missile to me.

So, I am thinking, "why haven't I used a brace of these mounted under wing?"  OK, so I know they fire with asymmetric thrust.  In kerbalthink: "even better!!".

(Kerbals underline everything when they get excited.  Have you noticed that?)

Four of these:

So I do a search in the forum.  (Here).  Surely somebody?  No...?

Hmm.  Maybe I'll solve this conundrum during my next shower, whenever that might be.

Huh.  Or maybe, "I'll just do it!".

Edited August 29, 2023 by Hotel26

[kerbiloid]

5 hours ago, Hotel26 said:

Does this look like a missile to you?

It's a plane tail brake. Use it to land on a roof.