>>16564825
>Wouldn't things have been simpler
deadlier for sure

>>16564825
expect the retards here to devolve into the same good ol' argument of:
>it's just about the fruits, man

>>16564828
It is about the fruits though. If not for colour, we'd only be able to recognise objects via their shapes.
Visible boundaries around objects also form when there is a visible colour difference between them which aids in depth perception.

>>16564840
the whole "fruits" argument can be debunked by the fact that our eyes are more sensitive to green compared to other colors
>it makes sense due to the plants
well no it doesn't, we don't eat foliage or herbs, food like strawberries appear red in colour, but our eyes aren't as sensitive to red as they are to green
if evolution made sense, our eyes would be MORE sensitive to red in order to detect fruits that stand out in vegetation rather than having green being the dominant one

>>16564850
I'd say that the sensitivity to green light could be due to avoiding night time predation.
Humans are generally diurnal animals and during the night, when it's dark, seeing slight differences in plant movement and position could allow us to stop a predator.
When you go looking for fruits you do it during the day.

>>16564840
Fruits evolved to be colorful so animals could find them and eat them, which implies color vision preceded the evolution of colorful fruits.

>>16564882
not only fruits. there's other shit we eat that has colors

also weren't eyes developed under water? doesn't water life have colors?

>>16564884
That doesn't necessarily mean those things evolved color for us to eat them. Plenty of things have color for reasons besides humans. Flowers have color to attract bees, not us. Baboons have colorful asses to attract each other, not us.

>>16564825
You don't really see much color, compared to multispectral equipment we're almost blind.

>>16564890
you probably live in an urban city where everything is gray and lifeless, it's normal to think that way

File: openart-image_l6P0yGaF_17(...).png (2.25 MB, 1024x1024)

2.25 MB PNG

>>16564896
I see colours like this, a lot, most of my exprience however is lightblue or yellow on graphite-golden-darkgray. It's not about that, I wanted to say, we only see like 280 to 780nm, but there are like a much more to see if you can construct technology that captures that, but we can only see it in this range everyday.

File: 1669383404813784.jpg (144 KB, 618x597)

144 KB JPG

>>16564825
>Why

>>16564985
>t. unthinking zombie

>>16564825
No idea

>>16564825
You get better clarity in color.

>>16564825
Reminder that magenta is the most real of all colors

the better question is why is there phenomenal experience at all? wouldn't it make more sense for everyone to be zombies?

>>16564896
retard take
>>16564890
/thread

File: Absorption_spectrum_of_li(...).png (85 KB, 1584x1036)

85 KB PNG

>>16564890
>You don't really see much color,
>>16566515
>/thread
retarded statement
we don't "see" color. we detect photons of various wavelengths. color is purely a brain phenomenon.
we see in ~400nm to ~700nm. indeed there's more info below, but you're going into UV-C, you shouldn't *be* anywhere where there's UV-C for a long time, such that it becomes useful to detect in evolutionary terms. and that high frequency doesn't make it too well through water where our eyes formed.
lower frequency we go into IR which yeah might be useful but again, absorbed by water.
neither frequency is "color". color is a representation of our brain for certain wavelengths. we don't know if we'd see "new colors" or if our current color perception would just expand to account for IR (for example). IR could become red etc. so we don't know if we see new colors if we expand our wavelength detection

>>16566515
seethe more urbanlet