Seeing The Middle

[wanabe]

T0rp, a very educated explanation.

I invite you and others to guess why vertebrates 'took' a different evolutionary path in regards to their vision; it seems that being able to see more spectrum would be advantageous.

[T0rp]

I invite you and others to guess why vertebrates 'took' a different evolutionary path in regards to their vision; it seems that being able to see more spectrum would be advantageous.

I guess the first thing to do is to nail down some rough order of magnitude limits.

If you want to receive wavelengths of say ~1 meter you'd have to use an antenna of roughly that size. A significantly smaller antenna will simply not interfere with the radiation. Also, for very short wavelengths < 10 nanometers each individual photon is very energetic and will cause damage to the receiver.

Certain fish are lined with current producing aggregates of cells which they use to sniff out the electric field of other creatures and for some species to deliver an electric shock. These conductive bands could in principle be utilized to pick up short wave radio I suppose. I don't think there are any land living creatures with a similar setup. Mainly because an electrical organ like that would be of little use unless immersed in water.

Photons in the visible spectrum have energies in a range that will excite molecular- and valence electrons which allows the detector to essentially be a single molecule (i.e a retinal pigment). Far Infrared photons are not energetic enough to excite an atom but instead cause molecular vibration (heat motion). We have detectors for these too although not very sensitive ones - the temperature sensitive cells in our skin. Far UV photons excite core electrons and pack enough punch to damage individual cells.

Although it would undoubtedly be beneficial to see more of the EM spectrum, there are some problems to overcome too. Beyond near IR and UV - in both directions - single molecule pigments will no longer work as detectors. Thus for say a UHF sensitive organ to evolve there would have to be benefits every evolutionary step of the way (see the electrical fish above). However even if we had one we would probably not perceive the UHF signals as sight. All our other sensory perceptions seem to be rather distinct - discounting such things as "the taste of blue"

[Belinda]

Wanabe, I apologise for being pernickety about how and why questions. It's because it worries me that any philosopher including wanabes like you and me allow a religious or Platonic dogma to creep in undetected.It can happen so easily is my excuse.

[wanabe]

I thought this was interesting, and may help anyone that came new to the discussion:
T0rp,
You didn't take a stab directly at the question, but I enjoy your answer regardless.

I agree that perhaps 'seeing' another wavelength may be more like feeling or tasting it; or a separate sense entirely.

So this next question you may not like, but I encourage your support.

If the potential exists for living things to experience things beyond what we know as the 5 senses. Do 'psychics' have a slightly higher chance of being legitimized(assume the information they get is of some wavelength known or beyond the known region: I would say it was a very low energy state.)? Could they be a evolutionary link that would allow us to experience more?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Belinda,
Do you consider science a religion in some way; by this statement?

...allow a religious or Platonic dogma to creep in undetected.

Granted some people do believe science like a region, and accept it at face value, no questions asked. Scientists however do experiments to test their thoughts/beliefs(begs questioning), where as religions generally ask/suggest/tell; a person to not question anything about the religion(forebodes questioning). The problem I think you may have and I share, and to some degree we all share. To ask a correct/effective questions in science, one has to ask in the scientific language, that one may not know well enough, however it can be learned.

Perhaps my new line of questioning that I asked T0rp is what you are worried about?

[Belinda]

I don't mean that some scientific lexicon is de rigeur for philosophers I mean that the naughty teleological assumption can creep in undetected if we are not careful.

[wanabe]

Belinda,
"naughty teleological assumption" explain.....please...