Some Women See in More Colors Than the Rest of Us

This article discusses an interesting fact -- some women have extra color receptors enabling them to distinguish a vastly larger range of colors than everyone else. Instead of seeing in 3 colors, they see in 4 -- enabling them to tell the difference between 100 million different colors.

Comments

[Runde]

Cool! This "four-color vision" is a great thing to hear about. Good that someone can challenge those damn smug synesthetes.

Reminds me of something I read about heterosexual women being able to hear muffled, little sounds that men and lesbian women could not. I haven't seen it again, and it sounds a bit politically "off". Have I dreamed this up, have I been accidentally reading Nazi Scientist again, or is this real?

A-ny-way! I came here because I was sure you had linked to the site "imagine the tenth dimension" from here, but I can't find it now. I don't know if I'm mixing this blog with something else now, but there should be SOME ten-dimension talk on this blog, and by golly, I'll talk it myself if nobody else does. "Imagine the tenth dimension" is a great flash presentation, pedagogically, but it's content is brutally bashed to bloody bits HERE: http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/52743

Basically: The guy who made it is a sound engineer, and his dimensions after the 6th dimension are not in touch with anything in science. The extra dimensions are SPATIAL, not "magically metaphysical" or involving multiverses sprung from choice or possibilities. As far as I can understand. Here's a comment from the discussion that seemed good to me (I make comics for a living, and as such has no honor to loose in this department. Please read, and correct my errors of judgement ...)

---
Fair enough, Paris; I think I overstepped. But (glad you agree) this guy has nothing coherent to say, partly because he obviously doens't know shit about the science in question.

Jimbob: In our universe dimensions can have a size if they're not infinite. For example, if the length, width, and depth dimensions are not infinite, then going far enough in any direction will bring you back to your starting point.

Think of the arcade game Asteroids: go far enough to the right, and you're back on the left (topologically, the asteroids screen is a doughnut because the left and right edges are the same place and the top and bottom edges are the same place. Fold the screen (think of it as a piece of paper now) so that the left and right edges meet and you have a cylander; fold the cylander so that the top and bottom meet and you have a doughnut (a torus, in math-speak)). The screen has a size: 14 inches wide and 18 tall, or whatever.

The higher dimensions of string theory the same way, but they're unimaginably tiny: go any distance in them at all, almost, and you're where you started. They're therefore only "visible" on subsubsubsubatomic scales, where they have relevance for the behavior of strings, which are also that tiny.

----

Is this all wrong?

Cheers. I love your blog.

[Runde]

Cool! This "four-color vision" is a great thing to hear about. Good that someone can challenge those damn smug synesthetes.

Reminds me of something I read about heterosexual women being able to hear muffled, little sounds that men and lesbian women could not. I haven't seen it again, and it sounds a bit politically "off". Have I dreamed this up, have I been accidentally reading Nazi Scientist again, or is this real?

A-ny-way! I came here because I was sure you had linked to the site "imagine the tenth dimension" from here, but I can't find it now. I don't know if I'm mixing this blog with something else now, but there should be SOME ten-dimension talk on this blog, and by golly, I'll talk it myself if nobody else does. "Imagine the tenth dimension" is a great flash presentation, pedagogically, but it's content is brutally bashed to bloody bits HERE: http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/52743

Basically: The guy who made it is a sound engineer, and his dimensions after the 6th dimension are not in touch with anything in science. The extra dimensions are SPATIAL, not "magically metaphysical" or involving multiverses sprung from choice or possibilities. As far as I can understand. Here's a comment from the discussion that seemed good to me (I make comics for a living, and as such has no honor to loose in this department. Please read, and correct my errors of judgement ...)

---
Fair enough, Paris; I think I overstepped. But (glad you agree) this guy has nothing coherent to say, partly because he obviously doens't know shit about the science in question.

Jimbob: In our universe dimensions can have a size if they're not infinite. For example, if the length, width, and depth dimensions are not infinite, then going far enough in any direction will bring you back to your starting point.

Think of the arcade game Asteroids: go far enough to the right, and you're back on the left (topologically, the asteroids screen is a doughnut because the left and right edges are the same place and the top and bottom edges are the same place. Fold the screen (think of it as a piece of paper now) so that the left and right edges meet and you have a cylander; fold the cylander so that the top and bottom meet and you have a doughnut (a torus, in math-speak)). The screen has a size: 14 inches wide and 18 tall, or whatever.

The higher dimensions of string theory the same way, but they're unimaginably tiny: go any distance in them at all, almost, and you're where you started. They're therefore only "visible" on subsubsubsubatomic scales, where they have relevance for the behavior of strings, which are also that tiny.

----

Is this all wrong?

Cheers. I love your blog.