To see in the sea
by Sam Baron
It was kaleidoscopic. The mantis shrimp perceived a dance of colors underwater. Ultraviolet, visible, and polarized light combined to form a visually complex picture to the mantis shrimp where the human saw monochromatic shades of blue. With more photoreceptors than the human eye, the mantis shrimp saw in colors unimaginable to the human.
In a society where improved color perception has historically been associated with prestige, do these ideas support societal superiority in a different species? [1]
It was a radar. Like a submarine, it sensed through pulsing sonic waves and outlined nearby forms. The ampullae of Lorenzini was a shark sensory organ that detected electricity, creating a radiographic map of life through some unknown method of perception. How do additional sensations compose themselves in the cognitive space of the fish?
In 1913, Dr. Otto Baron v. u. z. Aufsess of Munich studied the impact of water on human vision. He submerged human and camera underwater, claiming to mimic a “fish-eye view”.[2] Fish were rarely studied as cognitive models because of their distant relation to humans, but fish perception and cognition are equivalent to that of rats. [3] Fish are able to account for constantly changing visual fields in turbid waters, whereas humans typically only see through air. The tenth century Islamic scientist Avicenna diagnosed obscured vision as cataracts, yet underwater human vision is obscured.[4] Fish possess additional and heightened forms of sensations in an environment of diminished human sensation.
FULL VIDEO:
Script
To see in the sea
In 1913, Dr. Otto Baron of Munich studied the impact of water on human vision. His first experiments looked at when put underwater, a stick would appear to be bent because of the light. human and camera underwater, claiming to mimic a “fish-eye view”.[5]
I wanted to bring humans closer to what fish perceive, by exploring perception underwater and types of sensation exclusive to fish.
Part 1: turbid waters
In the 10th century, Islamic scientist Avicenna pathologized obscured vision as cataracts, but underwater human vision is greatly obscured.[6]
The camera records an unobscured picture which humans are also able to achieve with the use of a lens in a mask or goggles. However, they need to modify their vision to see as clearly as they do through air.
Water, unlike air, is susceptible to clouding or turbidity, making it harder to see through.
Fish are able to account for their changing visual fields, whereas humans are not able to.
The next few clips are of different samples of saltwater all with different levels of turbidity, oxidation, and light.
Water seems to be more susceptible than air to environmental changes affecting the clarity of vision, at least for the human.
When humans are underwater, ideal and normal vision is lost. If disability is characterized by evident physical effects that have become socially recognized to indicate inadequacy relative to the norm, are humans disabled when underwater?
But just because human vision is obscured in the medium of water, does not mean adept visual perception is lost in all species.
The mantis shrimp has approximately three to four times as many photoreceptor cells as the human for detecting visual stimuli.[7]
The mantis shrimp is able to see more colors than the human as well as in the ultraviolet spectrum.[8]
To achieve this heightened vision, I made kaleidoscopes and looked at everyday objects with increased awareness of color and light.
Vision underwater to the human sees dull and blue, yet the mantis shrimp can see in a wavelength not possible for us to see. It is difficult to imagine the cognitive space of this animal if it can see light in ways humans must use technology to perceive.
In the late 1800s, color perception was associated with the advancement of culture and “cultural development, [in turn], represented mental capacities.”[9] The mantis shrimp being able to perceive more colors and different wavelengths than humans, refutes the traditional cognitive hierarchy of species.
Part 2: without light
Developed in antiquity, the extramission theory of vision proposed that “objects are felt and perceived by [light] emitted from the eye”.[10] While scholars like Avicenna and Aristotle opposed this theory with the intromission theory, many sea creatures embody this idea of producing light.[11] The anglerfish has a lure atop its head as a light source and jellyfish are able to produce light despite having no eyes. Avicenna claims that “we see the stars at night when the air is dark, but not in the daytime when the intervening air between our eyes and the heavens is illuminated.”[12] What about within the deepest of waters that seem to permanently stay dark, where the only source of light is produced by a fish? Does the fish hold the same ethereal value as the stars when underwater?
Part 3: under the sea
Dr. Baron’s experiments focused on vision, but fish can also hear through internal anatomy, whereas humans have external ears to localize sound. Sound travels faster through the denser medium of water, so I wanted to determine how we would hear in these different mediums using one of my favorite songs.
Notice the emphasis on bass in the next clip with sound underwater.
“Ok Max, we are going to have a conversation under water.”
“Ok, what do you think I said?”
“What’s your favorite drink?”
“Oh, I asked what your favorite color was.”
“Ah.”
“And I thought you said my favorite color…”
“I said My favorite drink is Dr. Pepper.”
“So, do you think it’s easier or do you prefer to have a conversation in air or water?”
“In air.”
“Is there any particular reason?”
“It’s easier to hear.”
“Ok.”
What’s your favorite color?
My favorite drink is Dr. Pepper.
Do you know what mine is?
I don’t know what you’re saying.
So underwater, it seems that both human vision and hearing are dampened or obscured. In this environment of diminished human sensation, fish possess additional and heightened forms of sensation relative to the human, like the ampullae of Lorenzini.
With this sensory organ, sharks are able to detect electricity in their surrounding environments, whether it is from life-forms or even the movement of the Earth itself.
Generating this cognitive map of electricity, sharks sense location in addition to the five senses they have in common with humans. Humans have resulted to technology like GPS to form similar types of maps.
“Hello there, Max. Can you tell me what SnapMaps does?
“SnapMaps is a digital map of you and your friends on SnapChat.”
“Can you show me it? So, what does each icon represent?”
“Each icon is someone that I know in that location.”
“So,what do people use SnapMaps for?”
“People use SnapMaps mainly for, uh, checking to see if their boyfriend or girlfriend is cheating on them.”
“So, it shows people’s locations? Or does it show the locations of their phones?”
“It shows the locations of their phones.”
“So, if the individual icons represent the body and where it is, would you consider the technology to be an extension of the body or separate from the body?
“I’d say it’s separate from the body.”
“If we define a cyborg as a “hybrid of machine and organism” and we are using this icon in SnapMaps to represent a physical human body what do you think this means for the relationship between human and technology?”[13]
“I’d say from here technology is just going to get more integrated into our lives and more a part of us as we go on in the future.”
“Do you think you can know someone’s location with your existing senses?
“Yes. You could see where they are. You could hear where they are. You could feel where they are. You could taste where they are.”
“What about smell?”
“I guess you could smell them if they smelt enough.”
“Ok. So, is technology getting information that you can already determine with your senses?
“Yes, but technology goes a lot further than what your senses could do by themselves.”
But just to clarify this technology is additional and not necessary for your perception?”
“Correct. You don’t need it.”
“So then why use it?”
“It enhances what’s already there and makes it a lot easier.”
It seems that humans are using technology to come closer to sensing electricity, or the location of life. While the reasons for this mapping vary, sharks are able to do so with their bodies, whereas humans rely on a computer.
Despite being proven to be equivalent to that of rats and mice which are used in human research, the fish is neglected cognitively. The fish is able to perceive in a medium that hinders human sensation, a place that is turbid, where its inhabitants have adapted with heightened and different forms of sensing.[14]
Works Cited
Akdogan, Cemil. “Avicenna And Albert’s Refutation of The Extramission Theory of Vision.” Islamic Studies 23, no. 3 (1984): 151–57.
The Berlin Correspondent of the Scientific American. “Seeing Under Water.” Scientific American 108, no. 21 (1913): 469–70.
Brown, Culum. “Fish Intelligence, Sentience and Ethics.” Animal Cognition 18, no. 1 (January 2015): 1–17.
Cronin, Thomas, Roy Caldwell, and Mark Erdmann. “Tuning of Photoreceptor Function in Three Mantis Shrimp Species That Inhabit a Range of Depths. I. Visual Pigments.” Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology 188, no. 3 (April 1, 2002): 179–86.
Garcia, Missael, Christopher Edmiston, Radoslav Marinov, Alexander Vail, and Viktor Gruev. “Bio-Inspired Color-Polarization Imager for Real-Time in Situ Imaging.” Optica 4, no. 10 (October 20, 2017): 1263–71.
Grimes, “Violence – Original Mix- i_o,” track 4 on Miss Anthropocene, 4AD, 2019.
Haraway, Donna. “A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late 20th Century,” in The International Handbook of Virtual Learning Environments, edited by Joel Weiss et al., 117-158. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2006.
Nejabat, M, B Maleki, M Nimrouzi, A Mahbodi, and A Salehi. “Avicenna and Cataracts: A New Analysis of Contributions to Diagnosis and Treatment from the Canon.” Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal 14, no. 5 (May 2012): 265–70.
Pell, Rich. “’Quantum’ Sensor Mimics Shark’s Ability to Detect Tiny Electric Fields.” Smart2.0, December 19, 2017. https://www.smart2zero.com/news/quantum-sensor-mimics-sharks-ability-detect-tiny-electric-fields.
Pacific, Aquarium of the. “Meet Our Jellies.” Animals. Aquarium of the Pacific. Accessed April 24, 2020. http://www.aquariumofpacific.org/exhibits/jellies/animals_jellies.
Ramanujan, Krishna, and Danté Fenolio/Provided. “Genetics Shed Light on Symbiosis of Anglerfish and Glowing Bacteria.” Cornell Chronicle. Cornell University, July 16, 2018. https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2018/07/genetics-shed-light-symbiosis-anglerfish-and-glowing-bacteria.
Rossi, Michael. “Colors and Cultures: Evolution, Biology, and Society” in The Republic of Color: Science, Perception, and the Making of Modern America, 115-145. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2019.
Sabra, A. I. “On the effect of light upon sight” in “Book I. On the Manner of Vision in General” in The Optics of Ibn al-Haytham. Books I-II-III: On Direct Vision English Translation and Commentary, 51-55. London: The Warburg Institute, University of London, 1989.
Simon, Matt. “When a Mantis Shrimp Fights a Disco Clam, It Meets Its Match.” Wired. Conde Nast, December 13, 2019. https://www.wired.com/story/when-a-mantis-shrimp-fights-a-disco-clam/.
NOTES
[1] Michael Rossi, “Colors and Cultures: Evolution, Biology, and Society” in The Republic of Color: Science, Perception, and the Making of Modern America, (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2019), 118.
[2] The Berlin Correspondent of the Scientific American, “Seeing Under Water,” Scientific American 108, no. 21 (1913): 469.
[3] Culum Brown, “Fish Intelligence, Sentience and Ethics,” Animal Cognition 18, no. 1 (January 2015): 10.
[4] M Nejabat, B Maleki, M Nimrouzi, A Mahbodi, and A Salehi, “Avicenna and Cataracts: A New Analysis of Contributions to Diagnosis and Treatment from the Canon,” Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal 14, no. 5 (May 2012): 268.
[5] Scientific American, “Seeing Under Water,” 469.
[6] Nejabat, Maleki, Nimrouzi, Mahbodi, and Salehi, “Avicenna and Cataracts,” 268.
[7] Thomas Cronin, Roy Caldwell, and Mark Erdmann, “Tuning of Photoreceptor Function in Three Mantis Shrimp Species That Inhabit a Range of Depths. I. Visual Pigments,” Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology 188, no. 3 (April 1, 2002): 179.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Rossi, “Colors and Cultures,” 118.
[10] Cemil Akdogan, “Avicenna And Albert’s Refutation of The Extramission Theory of Vision,” Islamic Studies 23, no. 3 (1984): 151.
[11] Ibid.
[12] A. I Sabra, “On the effect of light upon sight” in “Book I. On the Manner of Vision in General” in The Optics of Ibn al-Haytham. Books I-II-III: On Direct Vision English Translation and Commentary, (London: The Warburg Institute, University of London, 1989), 52.
[13] Donna Haraway, “A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late 20th
Century,” in The International Handbook of Virtual Learning Environments, ed. Joel Weiss et al. (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2006), 117.
[14] Brown, “Fish Intelligence,” 10.