• @Hugin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      114 hours ago

      Cephalopod precursors evolved eyes and then brains developed from the eye so their eye is structured correctly.

      Vertebrate precursors evolved the brian first and the eye evolved out the brain as a sensory stub. So it’s upside down and inside out like in picture.

      The nerve cluster goes through the back of the eye splits and folds back to end in light receptors. Light hase to go through the nerves before hitting the sensor.

      There is even a reflective layer after the sensors that gives the sensors a second chance at picking up the light. This is what causes the red eye or green eye you sometimes see in flash photography.

      It would require a genetic rebuild to fix this and the intermediate steps evolution usually use would be so disadvantageous they are selected against. So the right combo of mutations to give us a working octopus eye is VERY unlikely to happen.

      • @Tattorack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        43 hours ago

        Hypothetically, what would be the advantages of “correcting” this evolutionary mistake in humans?

        • @scratchee@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          32 hours ago

          I believe no blind spot, which is the place where all the nerves bundle together and pass through the sensing layer, leaving a hole in our vision (the brain works hard to hide this hole from our perception, but it’s still there and can cause accidents) Also maybe better vision in general?

  • @rumba@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3217 hours ago

    I wonder if that afforded some level of protection to the surface dwellers’ receptors when in direct contact with high levels of sunlight.

    • Pyr
      link
      fedilink
      English
      14 hours ago

      Wonder what would happen if an octopus looked directly at the sun

    • @IndustryStandard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      5
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      As usual with biologists, if they do not understand what it does they claim it’s a useless byproduct of evolution. A few years later they discover there is actual purpose to it, and it is actually pretty nifty. Rinse and repeat.

    • @bigpEE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1423 hours ago

      This is just saying that the glial cells help make this less bad than it could be, no? Nothing about why neurons behind receptors would be worse

  • @Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    32
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    convergently evolved eyes, cephalod pod eyes evolved very differently from tetrapods. cephalpod eyes evolved by forming an invagination of those tissues. whereas the tetrapods evolved as extensions of thier brain.

    plus cephalopods eyes are more like a camera, the lens move back and forth, instead of changing shapes. they do have exceptions which allows them to simulate eyes of tetrapods. they also possess the ability to regenerate thier eyes too.

    • socsa
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      212 hours ago

      Having a larger focal point farther back from the aperture should also reduce parallax, I crease field of view and improve depth perception.

  • @Rachelhazideas@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    15
    edit-2
    22 hours ago

    Quick way to find your blindspot:

    1. Close your right eye

    2. Hold your phone/monitor 1ft (30cm) away from your face

    3. Look at the ‘x’ below with your left eye

    4. Slowly bring your phone towards you (or your face towards the monitor) until the ‘.’ disappears

      .                                                                           x
      
    • @jsomae@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      7
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      The . is not visible to me at any distance without taking my eyes off the x

      • @Rachelhazideas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        15 hours ago

        Make sure to keep your left eye looking at the ‘x’ the whole time. The ‘.’ should only be in your peripheral vision.

        • @Jax@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          14 hours ago

          It’s in my peripheral and it never disappears, I had no issue understanding the instructions.

        • @Jax@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          210 hours ago

          Ọ̶͍̖͇̔ù̷̡̗̠͚̤̲͆̆͆̈́̒͂̑̇̈͆r̶͔͔̘̣̪̻̽͆͗ ̶̡̢̢̠͈̲̪̜̘͔͇̟͐̒̑̿͐̈́͌̾̌͐̌̂̃̐͜ͅͅt̷̛̻̫̺́̈͂̓̊̔̈́̈́̀į̶̨͔̣̣̫͖̭̀̏͂̈́́̅̀̂̐̚͘͜͝m̴͇̘̼̻͔͍͚̍̏̽͛̋͛̃͠ͅe̶̜͌̾͒͒́̽ ̶̣̙̻̪͓̒͊̍a̵̭͔̝̣̙̠͇͎͈̺͋̈̇̓͐́̆̈́̈́͐̚ͅp̷̪̮̯̗̰̮̣̩̭̎̓̃̓̚̕͜͠ͅp̷̢̡̙͙̯̹̪͚̘͙̯̰̏͜ř̴̦͎̓͐̄̈́̽̔̇̈́̚̕͝͠o̴̢͍̘̹͎̹͝a̷͙̻̹̯̭̲̩̅̀͆͊̂̏̕̕͝c̴̮̎͑͛͝͝h̵̢͙͇̣͒͒̊̀̕̕͜ė̶̛͇̈́̈́̀͊̈́͛͋̊͂͗̀͋̒ş̵̧̛̘͙̬̯̰͎̖͇͚͖͂̅̔͋͋̏̏͘̕͝͝͝ ̷̢͍̺̣͉̬̹̣̲̪̽͒̏̆̄̆̂͗̒͐̃͛̚b̴̪̤͉̯̲̦̒̊̉͆͑̀̌̊̕r̴̢̢̺̬̜̦̘̪̅͌̐̓̎́̈́̋̈́͛̑̒͘ò̶̳̼̯̻͕͖̹̖̔͜͠t̵̛̖̫͓͎͚̙̀̂̀̃͛̎̅̌̆̇̚̚͠͝h̶͓̟̻̫̲͚͂̇̐e̶̩̻̗͎͎̞͇̠͎̦̊͗͝ȑ̷̢͕̣̳̪

    • @jsomae@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      30
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      that’s not how evolution works. Evolution is not able to produce global maxima, only local maxima.

      • @lazyViking@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        914 hours ago

        Not really. Needs is a fairly strict word. If it was needed they would not survive without. Useful, i agree with you

        • @TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          011 hours ago

          Need requires context. “if they don’t have it, they don’t need it to survive”. And survival is conditioned upon the environment. If something emerges that exploited the blindspot, then we’d need it to survive.

          What was the evolutionary pressure that caused receptor orientation to be different in cephalopods that vertebral animals didn’t encounter? Or did they encounter it and have other adaptations that allowed it to deal with them.

      • @tetris11@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        213 hours ago

        Dont they eventually produce global maxima by iterating towards it through the many degrees of freedom allowed by crazy mutations and time?

        • Jännät
          link
          fedilink
          English
          412 hours ago

          There’s no guarantee that an evolutionary search process will lead to a globally optimal solution. It’s the same thing with evolutionary algorithms in computing

        • @jsomae@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          412 hours ago

          The problem is that the landscape of where the global maxima are changes faster than evolution can keep up. If the environment were entirely static, then yes, mathematically speaking any random optimizer would eventually reach a global maximum. However, it could take, say, 1050 years or more to jump from a local maximum to a distant, higher maximum.

        • kadu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          312 hours ago

          Imagine an alligator. Quite good at catching prey with their current anatomy.

          An alligator that shoots laser beams for tracking and bullets would be even better. There’s however no path from their current anatomy to this state, regardless of the randomness and timescale for mutations. In fact, in order to achieve this higher state several non advantageous intermediates would be necessary and therefore never selected for.

          So no, evolution can’t achieve global maxima, it can however optimize the shit out of what it’s given to work with.

        • @SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          11 hours ago

          There needs to be pressure for animals with a mutation to reproduce more or animals without the mutation to die before reproduction. Like a disease for example. Otherwise the genes don’t spread and just disappear in the soup of all that species genes and never become dominant. Without any evolutionary pressure the mutation will only spread in one family and probably be gone after a few generations. Like there are human families that are more likely to produce offspring with 6 digits on their hands, but since it isn’t more advantageous than 5 digits (6 digit people don’t produce more offspring and 5 digit people aren’t more likely to die before reaching reproductive maturity) that mutation doesn’t spread across the entire species. Sure if you could sample the genome of every human on earth and identify every advantageous gene mutation you could build the ultimate human DNA. But that’s artificially created, something like that will never happen through evolutionary pathways.

      • @pyre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1312 hours ago

        no they’re not. by definition if you don’t have what you need you don’t survive. we definitively don’t need it. or at least haven’t for millions of years. that’s different from saying we wouldn’t benefit from it.

        although that’s not a guarantee either. more information isn’t always better.

        • @jsomae@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          4
          edit-2
          12 hours ago

          Okay true, but I still feel the comment was misleading. If it were phrased as “If vertebrae don’t have it, it means it wouldn’t improve their fitness” it would be wrong. I’ll admit that the comment as worded is true, but it does depend on a very literal interpretation of what “needs” means. Why even post that? In my opinion, that makes it low-quality content, so worth a downvote.

          • @pyre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            10 hours ago

            disagree. again, we don’t even know if such a change would be beneficial.

            also, more importantly, the post is entirely stupid.

            suboptimal by what measure? became disadvantageous how? against what? last time i checked ve**rtebrates were still dominating. now even more than they did during the ages of dinosaurs.

            evolution was too late to correct it… what? first of all, is it even a mistake to correct? where’s the evidence of that? second of all, did evolution stop? too late how? it’s complete bullshit, and if anything the original comment wasn’t harsh enough on it.

            • @jsomae@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              13 hours ago

              I’m not claiming that this change in how eyes work would be an improvement. I’m claiming that the following does not hold generally: “Doesn’t have adaptation X ⇒ adaptation X would not improve fitness.”

  • @Typhoon@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1911 day ago

    This is one of many reasons the perfect eye argument by creationists is utter bullshit.

    • themeatbridge
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1511 day ago

      Ugh that drives me crazy. The human eye is a perfect example of observable evolution. Organisms exist with every stage of eye development, from a photosensitive spot to a more advanced convergent evolution of our eye. And the human eye is poorly designed for it’s current use, resulting in a significant percentage of people requiring corrective lenses.

      • @floofloof@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        651 day ago

        It’s a good example of evolving towards a local maximum then being unable to travel through a valley to a more optimal design. As such it confirms exactly what evolutionary theory would predict, and not what “intelligent design by an omniscient creator” would predict.

      • The Quuuuuill
        link
        fedilink
        English
        691 day ago

        most of the dipshit “the eye is to perfect to have evolved” people also have cheap optics on their rifles. something to think about

    • Catoblepas
      link
      fedilink
      English
      791 day ago

      Clearly this means God’s chosen are the cephalopods.

      • @deus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        301 day ago

        In the lore of Lord of the Rings, it is said that the supreme being of that universe personally created both men and elves and since men were his favorite creations, he gave them the gift of… having pretty short lives (wow, thanks). Well, octopuses have a much shorter lifespan than us, so if our universe’s creator is anything like the Middle Earth’s then there’s a good chance they are his favorites.

        • @roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          191 day ago

          It’s been a while, so correct me if I’m wrong; but isn’t the gift moving on to something else after a mortal life? If I recall correctly, elves are stuck in the physical world forever. Even when they die don’t they just go to some limnal place for a while then come back?

          • @Confused_Emus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            231 day ago

            Essentially, yeah.

            Elves’ spirits either linger in Middle Earth or go to the Halls of Mandos in Aman. After some period of time, they can be re-embodied if they choose.

            The souls of men did not linger, they were called to the Halls of Mandos upon death. Their souls would stay for a while in Mandos, separate from the elves, until they departed the Halls to only Eru knows where.

    • @dave@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      121 day ago

      Yeah, my eyes are so perfect, I read that as ‘cartoonists’ and spent a good few minutes confused.

  • diverging
    link
    fedilink
    English
    78
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Because of this we have blind spots, one for each eye. They are not usually noticeable because 1) the blind spot of one eye can usually be seen by the other, and 2) the brain fills in the gap.

    So with this I will perform a magic trick, I will make your thumb disappear: Close your left eye and with your right look at a spot in the background, make a thumbs up gesture and place the tip of your thumb on that spot, move your thumb to the the right continuing to look at the spot in the background, when your thumb moves about 15 cm your thumb should disappear.

    You can use your left eye too, just switch the directions.

    • @Carrot@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      714 hours ago

      Woah, i didn’t know that the effect would be so drastic. I want to point out to those struggling to get it to work that, as diverging mentioned, your arm needs to be fully extended. Also, the blind spot is about a thumb’s width, at least for me, and is only visible at a specific x/y axis location. Any deviation from that single spot will cause it to stop working. I could tell I was close to the spot when parts of my thumb would disappear, and just had to slowly move it around until I found the spot that looked like the thumb was gone completely.

      • 0ops
        link
        fedilink
        English
        312 hours ago

        Thanks you helped me see it (or not see it I guess)

    • cally [he/they]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      514 hours ago

      It looks like there’s just a gap in spacetime or something.

      By the way, your eyes are not meant to track your thumb when doing this, you have to keep still and move only your thumb for it to work, so don’t move your eyes.

    • Dr. Moose
      link
      fedilink
      English
      25
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      the brain fills in the gap

      To expand on this, current leading theory (predictive processing) says that brain first generates a visual image then confirms it with inputs and if there’s no input to confirm/deny the halucination it’s just accepted as is. So we can have a whole load of blind spots in all of our sensors and continue functioning rather well with an ocassional artifact.

      • @Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1220 hours ago

        I think about this at night when my eyes are forced to attempt to make sense of the low light levels in a dark room. I know my room isn’t grainy and grey-scale - that’s just the best my eyes and brain can do at night. It’s interesting to look around and try to imagine the proper colors and shapes of things, reckoning the difference between what I know and what I see in the moment.

        With our brains constantly making things up to explain gaps in information, it’s no wonder kids think they see “monsters” in the dark. It’s also no wonder that nightlights work well to keep said “monsters” away.

      • Owl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        317 hours ago

        AI witchhunting crowd hates this one simple trick !

    • @InvalidName2@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      401 day ago

      It’s way too late at night for all those directions, somehow ended up creating my own blind spot by sticking my thumb in my bum.

      • diverging
        link
        fedilink
        English
        161 day ago

        Well, I guess your thumb disappeared.

        I can try another way the blind spot is about 15 cm at arms length to the right of the right eyes center of vision. So put your thumb there and it should disappear

    • @Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      51 day ago

      I couldn’t make it work. But I did notice that the spot in the background changed focus a tiny bit at one point. I suspect my brain was tracking the thumb and simply refused to continue to truely focus on the background spot. I tried and tried, but just couldn’t make it happen. Neither eye. :(

    • Clot
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 day ago

      What is a “spot in the background”? Like where exactly

      • @Todd_cross@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Anywhere. It makes it easier, if you have a dot or a feature to look at, but really it’s anywhere in the distance. I guess generally straight ahead.

  • @gedaliyah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    501 day ago

    ✅ Discount number of limbs

    ✅ Cheaply made eyeballs

    ✅ Held together with a bunch of inflexible bones

    Wait, am I just an off-band octopus?

    Damn.

    • @Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      320 hours ago

      Lol, at first glance I thought this was a poster for some new movie. All we need to do is change the font of “Cephalopods” to something exciting, and arrange the listed species as if they were actors’ names.

    • diverging
      link
      fedilink
      English
      241 day ago

      I don’t think you understand correctly. The cephalopod eye and the fish eye (which includes tetrapods) evolved independently.