Mark Changizi

It's certainly possible, but it wouldn't have driven... There's no reason... To think that fruit would have driven those particular wavelength sensitivities of the middle and long wavelength sensitive cones.

It's certainly possible, but it wouldn't have driven... There's no reason... To think that fruit would have driven those particular wavelength sensitivities of the middle and long wavelength sensitive cones.

It's certainly possible, but it wouldn't have driven... There's no reason... To think that fruit would have driven those particular wavelength sensitivities of the middle and long wavelength sensitive cones.

Right.

Right.

Right.

Yeah. And there's all kinds of things where we leverage our color vision, which is peculiarly for empath kind of health senses. But we obviously use it for lots of things probably in nature beyond that and in culture. Yeah. It's all over the place. Yeah. But that doesn't amount to an explanation for what drove it.

Yeah. And there's all kinds of things where we leverage our color vision, which is peculiarly for empath kind of health senses. But we obviously use it for lots of things probably in nature beyond that and in culture. Yeah. It's all over the place. Yeah. But that doesn't amount to an explanation for what drove it.

Yeah. And there's all kinds of things where we leverage our color vision, which is peculiarly for empath kind of health senses. But we obviously use it for lots of things probably in nature beyond that and in culture. Yeah. It's all over the place. Yeah. But that doesn't amount to an explanation for what drove it.

Right. Well, so everything might be multipurpose, but the odds of there being two competing or multiple competing desiderata that are determining the design, that they're close to one another, are going to be typically fairly rare. Typically, one of them might be 10 times more important than the other.

Right. Well, so everything might be multipurpose, but the odds of there being two competing or multiple competing desiderata that are determining the design, that they're close to one another, are going to be typically fairly rare. Typically, one of them might be 10 times more important than the other.

Right. Well, so everything might be multipurpose, but the odds of there being two competing or multiple competing desiderata that are determining the design, that they're close to one another, are going to be typically fairly rare. Typically, one of them might be 10 times more important than the other.

Or a thousand times more important. Usually, in my experience, it turns out that one of these is the principal drivers. It can explain first-order, even second-order properties of the thing. And yeah, there can be other third or fourth order stuff, but that's mostly irrelevant. So you can get away with explaining. So for example, another one, why we have forward-facing eyes. Standard story.

Or a thousand times more important. Usually, in my experience, it turns out that one of these is the principal drivers. It can explain first-order, even second-order properties of the thing. And yeah, there can be other third or fourth order stuff, but that's mostly irrelevant. So you can get away with explaining. So for example, another one, why we have forward-facing eyes. Standard story.

Or a thousand times more important. Usually, in my experience, it turns out that one of these is the principal drivers. It can explain first-order, even second-order properties of the thing. And yeah, there can be other third or fourth order stuff, but that's mostly irrelevant. So you can get away with explaining. So for example, another one, why we have forward-facing eyes. Standard story.

And the fun thing of all of these explanations, whether it's pruning fingers, it's still probably in the Wikipedia page. It says it's a side effect of osmosis or some bull crap, right? It's still there to this day, these old narratives. And then for forward-facing eyes, it's always something about predators want forward-facing eyes. Except that every fish is a predator eating a smaller fish.

And the fun thing of all of these explanations, whether it's pruning fingers, it's still probably in the Wikipedia page. It says it's a side effect of osmosis or some bull crap, right? It's still there to this day, these old narratives. And then for forward-facing eyes, it's always something about predators want forward-facing eyes. Except that every fish is a predator eating a smaller fish.

And the fun thing of all of these explanations, whether it's pruning fingers, it's still probably in the Wikipedia page. It says it's a side effect of osmosis or some bull crap, right? It's still there to this day, these old narratives. And then for forward-facing eyes, it's always something about predators want forward-facing eyes. Except that every fish is a predator eating a smaller fish.

All the birds are predators. They all have sideways-facing eyes. By our standards, they're all sideways-facing eyes. Even all the carnivores, the paradigmatic mammalian meat-eaters, predators, have sideways-facing eyes relative to us. I mean, they still have forward-facing eyes in terms of the big picture of things. So there's a lot of variability in forward-facing eyeness across the mammals.

All the birds are predators. They all have sideways-facing eyes. By our standards, they're all sideways-facing eyes. Even all the carnivores, the paradigmatic mammalian meat-eaters, predators, have sideways-facing eyes relative to us. I mean, they still have forward-facing eyes in terms of the big picture of things. So there's a lot of variability in forward-facing eyeness across the mammals.