The Great Spaghetti Wall for Outrageous Hypotheses

[Randall]

This idea is still bouncing around in the brain pan, and I think your suggestion fits nicely, but I'm still struggling with the idea that placebos can alter physical reality, i.e.: placebos have documented effects on physiology.

The placebo effect is a different principle from manifesting an objectively real object out of thin air because all the materials and means needed to produce the effect are already in place within the patient. Our bodies are factories for all kinds of chemicals and nano sized machines that build, maintain, and repair our bodies. But they can't suddenly leave our bodies and float around in the air where they can build a temporary UFO for us to see.

 

[Red]

The placebo effect is a different principle from manifesting an objectively real object out of thin air because all the materials and means needed to produce the effect are already in place within the patient. Our bodies are factories for all kinds of chemicals and nano sized machines that build, maintain, and repair our bodies. But they can't suddenly leave our bodies and float around in the air where they can build a temporary UFO for us to see.

Dude, you are just intent on harshing my buzz today. I'm thinking it may be more of a random quantum effect, if it's affecting physical reality. A sort of superimposition like Schrodinger's cat in which two states can simultaneously exist, albeit briefly. Besides, after the time slip thing I experienced, I have to consider that there are times, very rarely, when physical reality can be altered.

 

[Randall]

Dude, you are just intent on harshing my buzz today. I'm thinking it may be more of a random quantum effect, if it's affecting physical reality. A sort of superimposition like Schrodinger's cat in which two states can simultaneously exist, albeit briefly. Besides, after the time slip thing I experienced, I have to consider that there are times, very rarely, when physical reality can be altered.

While time is a factor, physical reality is constantly being altered. The question is in what way and by what? If we were to think of the possibility of UFOs as some sort of quantum superposition, the closest we can come is to think of the UFO as being from a parallel universe. In such a situation the quantum elements that comprise the UFO would move from being interposed with our universe, to being in our universe.

 

[Red]

While time is a factor, physical reality is constantly being altered. The question is in what way and by what? If we were to think of the possibility of UFOs as some sort of quantum superposition, the closest we can come is to think of the UFO as being from a parallel universe. In such a situation the quantum elements that comprise the UFO would move from being interposed with our universe, to being in our universe.

Okay, I'll shelve the placebo effect/physical interaction part of this for now, since the mechanics of it are nigh impossible to determine.

I still want to get my hands on that study, though.

 

[Red]

I ran into this idea last year. Early cultures may not have seen color the way we see color. Could it be that our own perceptual awareness or common culture is limiting how we see, interact and engage with the phenomena.

No one could see the colour blue until modern times

 

[TheBitterOne]

The mind is all there is.

The outside world is contained within the mind.

'Other people' are projections of your mind.

'Anomalous phenomena' are also projections of your mind.

In the dream state, all sorts of crazy sh*t is conjured up by the mind. Same in the waking state, but these manifestations are labelled 'paranormal' and generally interpreted as 'external' because we are in denial about the all-comprehensive power and nature of the mind.

This doesn't mean paranormal phenonema is any less 'real' than people of other physical objects, only more fluid, elusive and unstable.

Search your feelings, Luke, you know it to be true.

 

[marduk]

I ran into this idea last year. Early cultures may not have seen color the way we see color. Could it be that our own perceptual awareness or common culture is limiting how we see, interact and engage with the phenomena.

No one could see the colour blue until modern times

So why have we been making lapis lazuli stuff for at least 5000 years?

If we didn't 'see' blue, then it wouldn't be a semi-precious stone to begin with. Egyptians also used blue pigment in paintings at least 3500 years ago.

Hell, the torah says you should put fringes on your clothes the color of tekhelet, which is blue made from seashells. Isn't the Torah like 2500 years old?

I seriously doubt we were color blind as a species until recently.

 

[Red]

So why have we been making lapis lazuli stuff for at least 5000 years?

If we didn't 'see' blue, then it wouldn't be a semi-precious stone to begin with. Egyptians also used blue pigment in paintings at least 3500 years ago.

I seriously doubt we were color blind as a species until recently.

Well, I can tell you didn't bother to read the article.

"The only ancient culture to develop a word for blue was the Egyptians — and as it happens, they were also the only culture that had a way to produce a blue dye."
It is also possible that early cultures didn't name colors until they had a way to reproduce them or there are ethno-centric cultural subtleties that we are missing.

And then this: "The World Colour Survey, looking at 110 language systems for colour terms, found Berlin and Kay's hypothesis, first explored in Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution (1969), that there is “the existence of universal constraints on cross-language color naming” and “the existence of a partially fixed evolutionary progression according to which languages gain color terms over time” to be true. By presenting a Munsell colour chip and asking respondents to map out boundaries for colour terminology, similar results were obtained for different languages, although there were some outliers. Berlin and Kay then charted a path through which most languages took for naming colours. Light and dark (beyond just mere black and white) were firstly distinguished, followed by the addition of red, then green or yellow. Blue is only a clear category of its own after the first five are established, after which brown comes into its own. Purple, pink, orange and grey are the final additions."
The Himba and the perception of colour - Anthropology & the Human Condition

This hypothesis is still being challenged in academic circles and has not been conclusively proved or disproved, but I thought it interesting enough to post here. This is the thread for outrageous theories afterall.

 

[marduk]

Well, I can tell you didn't bother to read the article.

"The only ancient culture to develop a word for blue was the Egyptians — and as it happens, they were also the only culture that had a way to produce a blue dye."
It is also possible that early cultures didn't name colors until they had a way to reproduce them or there are ethno-centric cultural subtleties that we are missing.

And then this: "The World Colour Survey, looking at 110 language systems for colour terms, found Berlin and Kay's hypothesis, first explored in Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution (1969), that there is “the existence of universal constraints on cross-language color naming” and “the existence of a partially fixed evolutionary progression according to which languages gain color terms over time” to be true. By presenting a Munsell colour chip and asking respondents to map out boundaries for colour terminology, similar results were obtained for different languages, although there were some outliers. Berlin and Kay then charted a path through which most languages took for naming colours. Light and dark (beyond just mere black and white) were firstly distinguished, followed by the addition of red, then green or yellow. Blue is only a clear category of its own after the first five are established, after which brown comes into its own. Purple, pink, orange and grey are the final additions."
The Himba and the perception of colour - Anthropology & the Human Condition

This hypothesis is still being challenged in academic circles and has not been conclusively proved or disproved, but I thought it interesting enough to post here. This is the thread for outrageous theories afterall.

My point was that it was an anomaly, and there were more of them. We've been physically the same for well over 100K years. Our eyes see blue. The sky is blue, the ocean is blue. Purple would be a better candidate because it's comparatively rare in nature.

Indigo is among the oldest dyes to be used for textile dyeing and printing. Many Asian countries, such as India, China, Japan, andSoutheast Asian nations have used indigo as a dye (particularly silk dye) for centuries. The dye was also known to ancient civilizations inMesopotamia, Egypt, Britain, Mesoamerica, Peru, Iran, and Africa. The oldest known fabric dyed indigo dating to 6,000 years ago was discovered in 2009 at Huaca Prieta, Peru.[4]

Indigo dye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Red]

Then why is red usually the first color identified in language if blue is so pervasive?

 

[marduk]

Then why is red usually the first color identified in language if blue is so pervasive?

One could guess because it's the first primary colour in the spectrum?

 

[Red]

One could guess because it's the first primary colour in the spectrum?

Primary colors are a relatively modern construct (17th century). And your comment makes no sense, please elaborate.

 

[marduk]

Primary colors are a relatively modern construct (17th century). And your comment makes no sense, please elaborate.

I'm going back to grade 7 and the ROYGBIV spectrum.

Red is on one end of it, isn't it?

Interestingly, it looks like we actually have an abundance of red sensitive photoreceptors as well:

Primary colours are a feature of our optical systems, hence knowledge of them could have been around, well, forever, right?

But I'm just spitballing here. I don't actually know.

 

[Red]

Primary colours are a feature of our optical systems, hence knowledge of them could have been around, well, forever, right?

But I'm just spitballing here. I don't actually know.

You made me laugh. I see you are trying to make me work for this one. And way harder than I want to work tonight for anything.

Actually, though it would appear from the graphic you posted, that humans have a much greater sensitivty to the colors falling in the green to red wavelengths. Why less for blue if it's so prevalent?

 

[marduk]

You made me laugh. I see you are trying to make me work for this one. And way harder than I want to work tonight for anything.

Actually, though it would appear from the graphic you posted, that humans have a much greater sensitivty to the colors falling in the green to red wavelengths. Why less for blue if it's so prevalent?

Ok I'll keep spitballing.

Maybe because we live on a blue planet? Therefore we don't have to be sensitive to blue light because there's a hellova lot of it?

 

[Red]

Ok I'll keep spitballing.

Maybe because we live on a blue planet? Therefore we don't have to be sensitive to blue light because there's a hellova lot of it?

Or because the ability to see blue is a fairly recent development in human physiology? There may also be a perfectly mundane biological reason for it, but I ain't looking for it tonight.