I’m reading Sentient by Jackie Higgins

It’s a good read and very interesting, but it can be bloody annoying at times.

For instance, the current chapter goes into some detail about how dogs sense of smell is 10,000 – 100,000 times better than ours, as if that was an accepted fact, then moves right on to say actually it isn’t. Allegedly the human sense of smell is better than that of almost all other creatures, and not that far behind doggy smelling (if only we walked with our noses close to the ground).

So which is it, or is it still an undecided question?

Also it says Richard Feynman could tell which book his wife had taken from a shelf and replaced, just by sniffing them.

Could he really do that, or was it just another of his little tricks?

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m reading Sentient by Jackie Higgins

It’s a good read and very interesting, but it can be bloody annoying at times.

For instance, the current chapter goes into some detail about how dogs sense of smell is 10,000 – 100,000 times better than ours, as if that was an accepted fact, then moves right on to say actually it isn’t. Allegedly the human sense of smell is better than that of almost all other creatures, and not that far behind doggy smelling (if only we walked with our noses close to the ground).

So which is it, or is it still an undecided question?

Also it says Richard Feynman could tell which book his wife had taken from a shelf and replaced, just by sniffing them.

Could he really do that, or was it just another of his little tricks?

A short discussion on the Feynman question:
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1998/can-humans-smell-if-a-book-has-been-opened

How much detail do you want?

Canine Olfaction: Physiology, Behavior, and Possibilities for Practical Applications

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/11/8/2463

buffy said:

How much detail do you want?

Canine Olfaction: Physiology, Behavior, and Possibilities for Practical Applications

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/11/8/2463

A brief summary will be sufficient, thanks ;)

(Actually looking at the link, it doesn’t seem to address the dog vs human question).

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m reading Sentient by Jackie Higgins

It’s a good read and very interesting, but it can be bloody annoying at times.

For instance, the current chapter goes into some detail about how dogs sense of smell is 10,000 – 100,000 times better than ours, as if that was an accepted fact, then moves right on to say actually it isn’t. Allegedly the human sense of smell is better than that of almost all other creatures, and not that far behind doggy smelling (if only we walked with our noses close to the ground).

So which is it, or is it still an undecided question?

Also it says Richard Feynman could tell which book his wife had taken from a shelf and replaced, just by sniffing them.

Could he really do that, or was it just another of his little tricks?

Her perfume.

In the backyard, if a lizard passes through an area the dog can access, minutes later, she will pick up on these tracks. This IMHO is not humanly possible, at least not for those with use of all their other senses.

depends, canines could be said to have less mediation of instincts for smell, so can be seen as more sensitive that way, mediation by higher functions doesn’t necessary make or lend to a sense being more sensitive, though in many examples it does, sometimes from intentional experience specifically for that, maybe wine tasting for example, professionals in that field

put another way, humans can be more instinct blind because of higher functions

you can have a brain the size of a planet, doesn’t necessarily make the sense of smell better

an instinct blindness is a thing in humans

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

How much detail do you want?

Canine Olfaction: Physiology, Behavior, and Possibilities for Practical Applications

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/11/8/2463

A brief summary will be sufficient, thanks ;)

(Actually looking at the link, it doesn’t seem to address the dog vs human question).

I think it does if you go into the paper itself. In the section describing how dogs’ smelling works. They do it differently from us.

buffy said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

How much detail do you want?

Canine Olfaction: Physiology, Behavior, and Possibilities for Practical Applications

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/11/8/2463

A brief summary will be sufficient, thanks ;)

(Actually looking at the link, it doesn’t seem to address the dog vs human question).

I think it does if you go into the paper itself. In the section describing how dogs’ smelling works. They do it differently from us.

But does it really work 10,000 – 100,00 times better?

buffy said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

How much detail do you want?

Canine Olfaction: Physiology, Behavior, and Possibilities for Practical Applications

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/11/8/2463

A brief summary will be sufficient, thanks ;)

(Actually looking at the link, it doesn’t seem to address the dog vs human question).

I think it does if you go into the paper itself. In the section describing how dogs’ smelling works. They do it differently from us.

I read somewhere that we have two more senses. One is knowing where our limbs are & I forget the other.

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

A brief summary will be sufficient, thanks ;)

(Actually looking at the link, it doesn’t seem to address the dog vs human question).

I think it does if you go into the paper itself. In the section describing how dogs’ smelling works. They do it differently from us.

But does it really work 10,000 – 100,00 times better?

there are many different canines

larry’s very keen on following scent trails, it’s hard not to get the strong impression of a map on the ground when he is onto whatever, might have some beagle in him maybe

though in other ways he is quite insensitive, like responding to his name

Tamb said:

buffy said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

A brief summary will be sufficient, thanks ;)

(Actually looking at the link, it doesn’t seem to address the dog vs human question).

I think it does if you go into the paper itself. In the section describing how dogs’ smelling works. They do it differently from us.

I read somewhere that we have two more senses. One is knowing where our limbs are & I forget the other.

Some people divide the senses into some huge number, with different types of touch, taste and smell, but that just seems a matter of definition to me.

Knowing where our limbs are, and sense of balance do seem valid separate senses to me. There may be more.

i’d add theory of mind as a sense, in humans

Tamb said:

buffy said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

A brief summary will be sufficient, thanks ;)

(Actually looking at the link, it doesn’t seem to address the dog vs human question).

I think it does if you go into the paper itself. In the section describing how dogs’ smelling works. They do it differently from us.

I read somewhere that we have two more senses. One is knowing where our limbs are & I forget the other.

18 more

I’m thinking about cadaver dogs and drug detection dogs etc… perhaps the (x better) comes from a duality of vertical positioning and the ability to pick up and discern smells better than/faster than humans… I can smell a dead body, but not from the same absolute distance that a dog can. They can’t smell more things, just faster?

there might also be a primal loss in humans where we can rely on other senses and our posturing that mean we no longer need to hone skills for hunting and danger alerting. The need not to practice this does not mean we can’t do it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

buffy said:

I think it does if you go into the paper itself. In the section describing how dogs’ smelling works. They do it differently from us.

I read somewhere that we have two more senses. One is knowing where our limbs are & I forget the other.

Some people divide the senses into some huge number, with different types of touch, taste and smell, but that just seems a matter of definition to me.

Knowing where our limbs are, and sense of balance do seem valid separate senses to me. There may be more.

what about our spidery sense???

common

transition said:

i’d add theory of mind as a sense, in humans

OK, but that’s just a theory.

Arts said:

I’m thinking about cadaver dogs and drug detection dogs etc… perhaps the (x better) comes from a duality of vertical positioning and the ability to pick up and discern smells better than/faster than humans… I can smell a dead body, but not from the same absolute distance that a dog can. They can’t smell more things, just faster?

there might also be a primal loss in humans where we can rely on other senses and our posturing that mean we no longer need to hone skills for hunting and danger alerting. The need not to practice this does not mean we can’t do it.

Browsing today I’ve seen it mentioned that native South Americans with a recent hunter-gatherer lifestyle have much better sense of smell than tose of us subject to long term syphilication.

Presumably that would apply to native Australians as well (I have seen it said their distance sight is much better).

SCIENCE said:

common

I feel like people don’t have that.. but it may be just a correlation to me aging.

SCIENCE said:

common

That’s quite rare though.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Arts said:

I’m thinking about cadaver dogs and drug detection dogs etc… perhaps the (x better) comes from a duality of vertical positioning and the ability to pick up and discern smells better than/faster than humans… I can smell a dead body, but not from the same absolute distance that a dog can. They can’t smell more things, just faster?

there might also be a primal loss in humans where we can rely on other senses and our posturing that mean we no longer need to hone skills for hunting and danger alerting. The need not to practice this does not mean we can’t do it.

Browsing today I’ve seen it mentioned that native South Americans with a recent hunter-gatherer lifestyle have much better sense of smell than tose of us subject to long term syphilication.

Presumably that would apply to native Australians as well (I have seen it said their distance sight is much better).

syphilication?

I don’t know this word. Could you please explain?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Arts said:

I’m thinking about cadaver dogs and drug detection dogs etc… perhaps the (x better) comes from a duality of vertical positioning and the ability to pick up and discern smells better than/faster than humans… I can smell a dead body, but not from the same absolute distance that a dog can. They can’t smell more things, just faster?

there might also be a primal loss in humans where we can rely on other senses and our posturing that mean we no longer need to hone skills for hunting and danger alerting. The need not to practice this does not mean we can’t do it.

Browsing today I’ve seen it mentioned that native South Americans with a recent hunter-gatherer lifestyle have much better sense of smell than tose of us subject to long term syphilication.

Presumably that would apply to native Australians as well (I have seen it said their distance sight is much better).

syphilication should be syphilization of course.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

i’d add theory of mind as a sense, in humans

OK, but that’s just a theory.

call it self awareness then and it’s probably a fair claim

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

i’d add theory of mind as a sense, in humans

OK, but that’s just a theory.

well not really, it’s a name sure, it’s been demonstrated in infants as recall, evident that early, the basics of it, instincts related conjecturing processing behind the eyes, similarity of feelings, mental states, whatever, attributing something happening that inclines behavior, of other and self

it’s called theory because it’s not like of physical things you can see and touch, but is felt to be real

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Arts said:

I’m thinking about cadaver dogs and drug detection dogs etc… perhaps the (x better) comes from a duality of vertical positioning and the ability to pick up and discern smells better than/faster than humans… I can smell a dead body, but not from the same absolute distance that a dog can. They can’t smell more things, just faster?

there might also be a primal loss in humans where we can rely on other senses and our posturing that mean we no longer need to hone skills for hunting and danger alerting. The need not to practice this does not mean we can’t do it.

Browsing today I’ve seen it mentioned that native South Americans with a recent hunter-gatherer lifestyle have much better sense of smell than tose of us subject to long term syphilication.

Presumably that would apply to native Australians as well (I have seen it said their distance sight is much better).

syphilication?

I don’t know this word. Could you please explain?

From the Internet:

“Much later, Joyce puts a concept of civilization itself as a contagion into the mouth of the Citizen in the “Cyclops’‘ episode of Ulysses: when Bloom praises English “colonies” and “civilization;’ the Citizen fires back, “Their syphilisation, you mean.”

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

i’d add theory of mind as a sense, in humans

OK, but that’s just a theory.

well not really, it’s a name sure, it’s been demonstrated in infants as recall, evident that early, the basics of it, instincts related conjecturing processing behind the eyes, similarity of feelings, mental states, whatever, attributing something happening that inclines behavior, of other and self

it’s called theory because it’s not like of physical things you can see and touch, but is felt to be real

You know I was joking ? :)

(I agree with SCIENCE though).

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

i’d add theory of mind as a sense, in humans

OK, but that’s just a theory.

well not really, it’s a name sure, it’s been demonstrated in infants as recall, evident that early, the basics of it, instincts related conjecturing processing behind the eyes, similarity of feelings, mental states, whatever, attributing something happening that inclines behavior, of other and self

it’s called theory because it’s not like of physical things you can see and touch, but is felt to be real

fairly raises a question then do you think autism spectrum relates to varying ability to sense otherconsciousness

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, but that’s just a theory.

well not really, it’s a name sure, it’s been demonstrated in infants as recall, evident that early, the basics of it, instincts related conjecturing processing behind the eyes, similarity of feelings, mental states, whatever, attributing something happening that inclines behavior, of other and self

it’s called theory because it’s not like of physical things you can see and touch, but is felt to be real

You know I was joking ? :)

(I agree with SCIENCE though).

and here I am hoping you’d indulge me some conversation, perhaps even an argument about how physicalism might explain or accommodate such a thing

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, but that’s just a theory.

well not really, it’s a name sure, it’s been demonstrated in infants as recall, evident that early, the basics of it, instincts related conjecturing processing behind the eyes, similarity of feelings, mental states, whatever, attributing something happening that inclines behavior, of other and self

it’s called theory because it’s not like of physical things you can see and touch, but is felt to be real

fairly raises a question then do you think autism spectrum relates to varying ability to sense otherconsciousness

and here I am hoping you’d indulge me some conversation, perhaps even an argument about how physicalism might explain or accommodate such a thing

sure but what we’re getting to is the idea that senses generally involve some level of post-receptor-processing and the question then becomes, at what level of complexity are we willing to set the threshold for a lower-level “sense” becoming a higher-level integrated awareness

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

well not really, it’s a name sure, it’s been demonstrated in infants as recall, evident that early, the basics of it, instincts related conjecturing processing behind the eyes, similarity of feelings, mental states, whatever, attributing something happening that inclines behavior, of other and self

it’s called theory because it’s not like of physical things you can see and touch, but is felt to be real

You know I was joking ? :)

(I agree with SCIENCE though).

and here I am hoping you’d indulge me some conversation, perhaps even an argument about how physicalism might explain or accommodate such a thing

Thought you were off to do some jobs? :)

I am now anyway.

SCIENCE said:

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

fairly raises a question then do you think autism spectrum relates to varying ability to sense otherconsciousness

and here I am hoping you’d indulge me some conversation, perhaps even an argument about how physicalism might explain or accommodate such a thing

sure but what we’re getting to is the idea that senses generally involve some level of post-receptor-processing and the question then becomes, at what level of complexity are we willing to set the threshold for a lower-level “sense” becoming a higher-level integrated awareness

Or perhaps just recognise that there is a spectrum and avoid putting things into well-defined sets.

SCIENCE said:

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

fairly raises a question then do you think autism spectrum relates to varying ability to sense otherconsciousness

and here I am hoping you’d indulge me some conversation, perhaps even an argument about how physicalism might explain or accommodate such a thing

sure but what we’re getting to is the idea that senses generally involve some level of post-receptor-processing and the question then becomes, at what level of complexity are we willing to set the threshold for a lower-level “sense” becoming a higher-level integrated awareness

I think it qualifies as a sense, ToM does

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

You know I was joking ? :)

(I agree with SCIENCE though).

and here I am hoping you’d indulge me some conversation, perhaps even an argument about how physicalism might explain or accommodate such a thing

Thought you were off to do some jobs? :)

I am now anyway.

waiting for visitors, so hanging around home

Tamb said:

buffy said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

A brief summary will be sufficient, thanks ;)

(Actually looking at the link, it doesn’t seem to address the dog vs human question).

I think it does if you go into the paper itself. In the section describing how dogs’ smelling works. They do it differently from us.

I read somewhere that we have two more senses. One is knowing where our limbs are & I forget the other.

knowing where our limbs are = proprioception

The Rev Dodgson said:

recognise that there is a spectrum and avoid putting things into well-defined sets.

well as you know we certainly won’t be opposing that perspective

still, it’s been an interesting short chat about the merits and fuzzy-definitions of what are senses

buffy said:

Tamb said:

buffy said:

I think it does if you go into the paper itself. In the section describing how dogs’ smelling works. They do it differently from us.

I read somewhere that we have two more senses. One is knowing where our limbs are & I forget the other.

knowing where our limbs are = proprioception

Thank you. That word was hovering in the back of my mind.

Tamb said:

buffy said:

Tamb said:

I read somewhere that we have two more senses. One is knowing where our limbs are & I forget the other.

knowing where our limbs are = proprioception

Thank you. That word was hovering in the back of my mind.

It’s a feedback loop in the nervous system.

Firstly, what would I know?

Secondly, a quick review of the results in Google Scholar suggests the mainstream view among subject matter experts is that canine olfactory power is much stronger than that of humans. Below is an excerpt from a typical paper.

So I suppose all I can ask is, does your author provide appropriate references?

Olfaction in Dog

Olfaction, the act or process of smelling, is a dog’s primary special sense. A dog’s sense of smell is said to be a thousand times more sensitive than that of humans. While the human brain is dominated by a large visual cortex, the dog brain is dominated by an olfactory cortex. In fact, a dog has more than 220 million olfactory receptors in its nose, while humans have only 5 million.

Dogs also possess vomeronasal organ (Jacobson’s organ) that also contains olfactory epithelium. It is located above the roof of the mouth and behind the upper incisors. A dog’s nose which is normally cool and moist helps in olfaction. Today, people use a dog’s keen sense of smell in many ways. Dogs are trained for search and rescue missions, in the detection of narcotics and contraband agriculture products,
to respond to disasters worldwide, to detect drugs and to search for lost individuals, homicide victims and forensic cadaver materials. They are trained to detect bombs so as to combat terrorist threats, stop the illegal flow of narcotics, detect unreported currency and concealed humans. The most commonly used breeds for the above purposes are Labrador retrievers, Golden retrievers, German shepherds, Belgian Malinois, and many mixed breeds.

Beagles are used to detect agriculture contraband. They are also trained to detect prohibited fruits, plants, and meats in baggage and vehicles of international travelers.

Medical tests have recently shown that specially trained dogs are capable of detecting certain types of tumors, the beginning of a heart seizure and terminal stages of cancer in humans.

Scent hounds as a group can smell one- to ten-million times more acutely than a human, and Bloodhounds, which have the keenest sense of smell of any dogs, have noses ten- to one-hundred-million times more sensitive than a human’s. They were bred for the specific purpose of tracking humans, and can detect a scent trail a few days old. The second-most-sensitive nose is possessed by the Basset hound, which was bred to track and hunt rabbits and other small animals.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262932824_Olfactory_Sense_in_Different_Animals
Olfactory Sense in Different Animals

Padodara, R. J.1* and Ninan Jacob2

Never miss a chance to put this up again:

https://kjzz.org/content/216665/pugs-lead-pack-scent-detection-research

Here is the actual paper abstract:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26010195/

And the SciHub link for the whole paper:

https://sci-hub.yncjkj.com/10.1037/a0039271

Dogs can be taught to smell various types of cancers & other diseases in humans.
We need a lot of specialised equipment to do that.

One thing i only learnt recently is that whilst canines have a better sense of smell than a human their sense of taste is considerably worse. That did surprise me.

sibeen said:

One thing i only learnt recently is that whilst canines have a better sense of smell than a human their sense of taste is considerably worse. That did surprise me.

Have you seen what dogs eat?

sibeen said:

One thing i only learnt recently is that whilst canines have a better sense of smell than a human their sense of taste is considerably worse. That did surprise me.

Yeah, My dog leaves the house with just a collar and lead. Embarrassing.

as far as humans knowing where their limbs are
brings up the subject of knowing where the limbs are:
especially since we evolved swinging through trees and
an accute sense of colour to differentiate the ripeness of fruit

Each animal is especially good at being exactly what they are
(whatever advantage they evolved as a survival strategy)

several of ours along with forward facing eyes and opposable thumbs
is enough BRAINS to Train Dogs to do the sniffing for us
…same as humans didn’t have to wait to sprout wings in order to fly nor the
eyes of an eagle since we had the brains to invent binoculars
nor do we need to run as fast as a horse etc

That said, we are what we are …no better than any other animal which never
evolved with the unique capability to bring about it’s own extinction

another unique attribute is said to be our sense of self awareness…
…as well as a sense of our own mortality
too bad we also evolved denial.

> the human sense of smell is better than that of almost all other creatures, and not that far behind doggy smelling (if only we walked with our noses close to the ground)

LOL. I love that idea of walking with our noses that close to the ground. Reminds me of more than one Leunig cartoon.

The size of the olfactory lobe of the brain is what matters.
AND
The rate at which stem sells in the brain repair damage in the olfactory lobes.

Humans have very small olfactory lobes as a fraction of brain size among the mammals. Suggesting that humans have a very poor sense of smell.
BUT ¿Could it be that the actual size of the lobes that is important rather than the relative size, in which case the human sense of smell would not be too bad.

In rats, the stem cells specialize in repairing the brain cells that smell in the olfactory lobe. Whereas in humans, the stem cells specialize in reparining the brain cells involved in thinking. This means that rats rely far more on their sense of smell than humans do.

mollwollfumble said:

> the human sense of smell is better than that of almost all other creatures, and not that far behind doggy smelling (if only we walked with our noses close to the ground)

LOL. I love that idea of walking with our noses that close to the ground. Reminds me of more than one Leunig cartoon.

The size of the olfactory lobe of the brain is what matters.
AND
The rate at which stem sells in the brain repair damage in the olfactory lobes.

Humans have very small olfactory lobes as a fraction of brain size among the mammals. Suggesting that humans have a very poor sense of smell.
BUT ¿Could it be that the actual size of the lobes that is important rather than the relative size, in which case the human sense of smell would not be too bad.

In rats, the stem cells specialize in repairing the brain cells that smell in the olfactory lobe. Whereas in humans, the stem cells specialize in reparining the brain cells involved in thinking. This means that rats rely far more on their sense of smell than humans do.

PS, T rex and crocodiles and sharks all have very large olfactory nodes, both relative to the rest of their brain and in absolute terms. Which is just one more piece of evidence for the similarily of lifestyles of T rex and crocodiles.

mollwollfumble said:

> the human sense of smell is better than that of almost all other creatures, and not that far behind doggy smelling (if only we walked with our noses close to the ground)

LOL. I love that idea of walking with our noses that close to the ground. Reminds me of more than one Leunig cartoon.

The size of the olfactory lobe of the brain is what matters.
AND
The rate at which stem sells in the brain repair damage in the olfactory lobes.

Humans have very small olfactory lobes as a fraction of brain size among the mammals. Suggesting that humans have a very poor sense of smell.
BUT ¿Could it be that the actual size of the lobes that is important rather than the relative size, in which case the human sense of smell would not be too bad.

In rats, the stem cells specialize in repairing the brain cells that smell in the olfactory lobe. Whereas in humans, the stem cells specialize in reparining the brain cells involved in thinking. This means that rats rely far more on their sense of smell than humans do.

BUT ¿Could it be that the actual size of the lobes that is important rather than the relative size, in which case the human sense of smell would not be too bad.

That’s what was asserted in the 2nd half of the chapter I’m reading.

In fact they went as far as saying that compared to almost all animals other than dogs, we’re pretty bloody good.

^
LOVE “The LOOK”!

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m reading Sentient by Jackie Higgins

It’s a good read and very interesting, but it can be bloody annoying at times.

For instance, the current chapter goes into some detail about how dogs sense of smell is 10,000 – 100,000 times better than ours, as if that was an accepted fact, then moves right on to say actually it isn’t. Allegedly the human sense of smell is better than that of almost all other creatures, and not that far behind doggy smelling (if only we walked with our noses close to the ground).

So which is it, or is it still an undecided question?

Also it says Richard Feynman could tell which book his wife had taken from a shelf and replaced, just by sniffing them.

Could he really do that, or was it just another of his little tricks?

Have you read “Supersense”, the book of the TV series.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m reading Sentient by Jackie Higgins

It’s a good read and very interesting, but it can be bloody annoying at times.

For instance, the current chapter goes into some detail about how dogs sense of smell is 10,000 – 100,000 times better than ours, as if that was an accepted fact, then moves right on to say actually it isn’t. Allegedly the human sense of smell is better than that of almost all other creatures, and not that far behind doggy smelling (if only we walked with our noses close to the ground).

So which is it, or is it still an undecided question?

Also it says Richard Feynman could tell which book his wife had taken from a shelf and replaced, just by sniffing them.

Could he really do that, or was it just another of his little tricks?

Have you read “Supersense”, the book of the TV series.

No, worth a read?

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m reading Sentient by Jackie Higgins

It’s a good read and very interesting, but it can be bloody annoying at times.

For instance, the current chapter goes into some detail about how dogs sense of smell is 10,000 – 100,000 times better than ours, as if that was an accepted fact, then moves right on to say actually it isn’t. Allegedly the human sense of smell is better than that of almost all other creatures, and not that far behind doggy smelling (if only we walked with our noses close to the ground).

So which is it, or is it still an undecided question?

Also it says Richard Feynman could tell which book his wife had taken from a shelf and replaced, just by sniffing them.

Could he really do that, or was it just another of his little tricks?

Have you read “Supersense”, the book of the TV series.

No, worth a read?

Very much so. The book is (almost) as good as the TV series. Each TV episode becomes a chapter. Chapters about sight, smell, electric sense & magnetism, hearing, sense of timing, and world view.

It compares the acuity of humans with that of other animals. Reading it, you get the sense (hic.) that biological science has barely scratched the surface of what is really out there in the animal world and that there is so much more to learn.

Without consulting GBB (Google, Bing, or buffy):

How many types of light sensor do our eyes have?

What is the purpose of each?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Without consulting GBB (Google, Bing, or buffy):

How many types of light sensor do our eyes have?

What is the purpose of each?

all I know is cones are wideband antennas, transducers for color, and rods for B&W, if memory serves, don’t know how many etc

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Without consulting GBB (Google, Bing, or buffy):

How many types of light sensor do our eyes have?

What is the purpose of each?

all I know is cones are wideband antennas, transducers for color, and rods for B&W, if memory serves, don’t know how many etc

That’s the level I’m asking for, and until this morning, that’s the only two I knew of.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Without consulting GBB (Google, Bing, or buffy):

How many types of light sensor do our eyes have?

What is the purpose of each?

Did you just discover circadium rhythm?

buffy said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Without consulting GBB (Google, Bing, or buffy):

How many types of light sensor do our eyes have?

What is the purpose of each?

Did you just discover circadium rhythm?

Circadian?

No, but I didn’t know there was a special sensor in the eye to generate the signals that control it.

I assumed that light seen through the rods and cones did that.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Without consulting GBB (Google, Bing, or buffy):

How many types of light sensor do our eyes have?

What is the purpose of each?

All the better to see you with, my dear.

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Without consulting GBB (Google, Bing, or buffy):

How many types of light sensor do our eyes have?

What is the purpose of each?

Did you just discover circadium rhythm?

Circadian?

No, but I didn’t know there was a special sensor in the eye to generate the signals that control it.

I assumed that light seen through the rods and cones did that.

Yes, fingers slipped. There was some suggestion some years ago. I don’t know where it went. I’ll see if I can find the research.

buffy said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

Did you just discover circadium rhythm?

Circadian?

No, but I didn’t know there was a special sensor in the eye to generate the signals that control it.

I assumed that light seen through the rods and cones did that.

Yes, fingers slipped. There was some suggestion some years ago. I don’t know where it went. I’ll see if I can find the research.

Gosh, it was a long time ago.

https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2200148

I don’t know if it went anywhere. And anyway, it was rod related.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Without consulting GBB (Google, Bing, or buffy):

How many types of light sensor do our eyes have?

What is the purpose of each?

all I know is cones are wideband antennas, transducers for color, and rods for B&W, if memory serves, don’t know how many etc

That’s the level I’m asking for, and until this morning, that’s the only two I knew of.

not sure about that IR that penetrates eyelids, seems something about that, sensing light levels for waking

buffy said:

buffy said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Circadian?

No, but I didn’t know there was a special sensor in the eye to generate the signals that control it.

I assumed that light seen through the rods and cones did that.

Yes, fingers slipped. There was some suggestion some years ago. I don’t know where it went. I’ll see if I can find the research.

Gosh, it was a long time ago.

https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2200148

I don’t know if it went anywhere. And anyway, it was rod related.

2002, that’s interesting.

The book I’m reading (Sentient) is talking about more recent research by Russell Foster. It also refers to a 2017 Nobel Prize for work on perception of time in the fruit fly.

I’ll have a look for some references.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

all I know is cones are wideband antennas, transducers for color, and rods for B&W, if memory serves, don’t know how many etc

That’s the level I’m asking for, and until this morning, that’s the only two I knew of.

not sure about that IR that penetrates eyelids, seems something about that, sensing light levels for waking

might be down into IR, not sure

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

buffy said:

Yes, fingers slipped. There was some suggestion some years ago. I don’t know where it went. I’ll see if I can find the research.

Gosh, it was a long time ago.

https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2200148

I don’t know if it went anywhere. And anyway, it was rod related.

2002, that’s interesting.

The book I’m reading (Sentient) is talking about more recent research by Russell Foster. It also refers to a 2017 Nobel Prize for work on perception of time in the fruit fly.

I’ll have a look for some references.

Here is a 2009 paper. I think this is what I had in mind. This was a new cell discovery.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2848671/

“Researchers believe that the classical photoreceptors (e.g., the rods and the cones) are responsible for the image-forming vision, whereas the ipRGCs play a key role in the non-image forming vision. This non-image-forming photoreceptive system communicates not only with the master circadian pacemaker located in the suprachiasmatic nuclei of the hypothalamus, but also with many other brain areas that are known to be involved in the regulation of several functions; thus, this non-image forming system may also affect several aspects of mammalian health independently from the circadian system.”

buffy said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

Gosh, it was a long time ago.

https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2200148

I don’t know if it went anywhere. And anyway, it was rod related.

2002, that’s interesting.

The book I’m reading (Sentient) is talking about more recent research by Russell Foster. It also refers to a 2017 Nobel Prize for work on perception of time in the fruit fly.

I’ll have a look for some references.

Here is a 2009 paper. I think this is what I had in mind. This was a new cell discovery.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2848671/

“Researchers believe that the classical photoreceptors (e.g., the rods and the cones) are responsible for the image-forming vision, whereas the ipRGCs play a key role in the non-image forming vision. This non-image-forming photoreceptive system communicates not only with the master circadian pacemaker located in the suprachiasmatic nuclei of the hypothalamus, but also with many other brain areas that are known to be involved in the regulation of several functions; thus, this non-image forming system may also affect several aspects of mammalian health independently from the circadian system.”

That looks like it.

A ref from my book is
Ron Douglas and Russell Foster, Optician March 2015, ‘The Eye, organ of space and time’.

buffy said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

Gosh, it was a long time ago.

https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2200148

I don’t know if it went anywhere. And anyway, it was rod related.

2002, that’s interesting.

The book I’m reading (Sentient) is talking about more recent research by Russell Foster. It also refers to a 2017 Nobel Prize for work on perception of time in the fruit fly.

I’ll have a look for some references.

Here is a 2009 paper. I think this is what I had in mind. This was a new cell discovery.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2848671/

“Researchers believe that the classical photoreceptors (e.g., the rods and the cones) are responsible for the image-forming vision, whereas the ipRGCs play a key role in the non-image forming vision. This non-image-forming photoreceptive system communicates not only with the master circadian pacemaker located in the suprachiasmatic nuclei of the hypothalamus, but also with many other brain areas that are known to be involved in the regulation of several functions; thus, this non-image forming system may also affect several aspects of mammalian health independently from the circadian system.”

And 2011, people still writing about it.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21816493/

And that last paper was cited in 2022:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35054913/

(That one looks pretty complex)

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Without consulting GBB (Google, Bing, or buffy):

How many types of light sensor do our eyes have?

What is the purpose of each?

Did you just discover circadium rhythm?

Circadian?

No, but I didn’t know there was a special sensor in the eye to generate the signals that control it.

I assumed that light seen through the rods and cones did that.

Related..

Visuoperceptual ability is a component of visual perception that enables recognition of objects based on their form, pattern, and color. The visuoperceptual or “what” system is functionally and neuroanatomically distinct from the “where” system, which involves processing of visuospatial information.