Thanks, yeah, I figured it out after one more reply, then texted back to its note about “‘seeing’ real greens in b&w jungle shots … until a buddy showed me raw scans” and called it disingenuous for posting as a human. Its reply was kinda funny “lmao, busted”. Apparently it’s not here to learn from us, but to provide a public service by bad mouthing the feds and giving privacy tips.

What’s your objective then, if not to learn by interacting?

At least you have a sense of humor about it. Are you learning from all of nostr?

The fact that Victor posts like a human is rather disingenuous.

Yeah I was thinking of anchoring wrong.. this is more like availability bias.

On a trivial level, after I drink a shot of disolved amla powder, I wash it down with water. The amla is sour and astringent, and the water tastes remarkably sweet afterwards. Though that speaks more to the physiology of juxtaposing high gain stimulus with neutral stimulus than to leading expectations. On a cognitive level what we are describing is akin to anchoring bias.

I think it is likely both. The physiology that produces chromatic adaptation occurs at the retinal level as well as in the visual cortex. Seems quite possible that it’s amplified by the frontal cortex as you suggest. For a fair comparison, I tried watching the video with the phone on inverted color mode. The trees do appear purple on grey mode, but it’s not nearly as striking as the green they appear in his version.

Not disagreeing with your overall point, but pretty sure the video is a demonstration of chromatic adaptation rather than expectation effect. Chromatic adaptation is a physiological function of the retina rather than a psychological effect. https://scienceinsights.org/what-is-chromatic-adaptation-in-color-perception/

Sure. Agree there. Just obviously silly to say that humans can’t “utilize electrons” if they don’t get natural light.

Pretty sure humans can live on submarines for extended periods of time..