If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Scientists now say what you see as blue, I might see as red... Can I buy some pot from you?   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 81
    More: Interesting, Zara Phillips, blue-green, shade, macular degeneration, Mary Kennedy, neurons, RED/BLACK concept, Marxist  
•       •       •

5910 clicks; posted to Geek » on 02 Jul 2012 at 3:12 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



81 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-02 12:28:39 AM  
I've always wondered that. I mean, from a physical perspective, the wavelength corresponding to red is the same for everyone so it's really a moot point. Still, it's something fun to talk about in the dorm room at 3:00 AM after a marathon Doom session.
 
2012-07-02 12:50:18 AM  
I remember wondering about this when I was a youngster.
i870.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-02 12:51:53 AM  
I don't understand. We call a certain range of wavelengths "red", another range "blue" and so on. So, different people would have to perceive completely different wavelengths in reverse. And if differences in perception were so common, how is it that there is an accepted range that we call "red"? And finally, to use the example in the article, why is blue generally calming, if some people perceive it as "red"?

Are we just talking about an ontology?
 
2012-07-02 01:04:37 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: I don't understand. We call a certain range of wavelengths "red", another range "blue" and so on. So, different people would have to perceive completely different wavelengths in reverse. And if differences in perception were so common, how is it that there is an accepted range that we call "red"? And finally, to use the example in the article, why is blue generally calming, if some people perceive it as "red"?

Are we just talking about an ontology?


From what I understand, how we preceive colors is different. But because we all equate certain colors to certain labels, it's all relative so we have no way of knowing how others percieve the colors.

I see the sky and it's blue, and someone else sees the sky and it's blue to him too, but what he thinks of as "blue" maybe seem "green" to me. But neither of us knows becuase we can perceive anything outside of our own brain.
 
2012-07-02 01:27:47 AM  

Ambivalence: Benevolent Misanthrope: I don't understand. We call a certain range of wavelengths "red", another range "blue" and so on. So, different people would have to perceive completely different wavelengths in reverse. And if differences in perception were so common, how is it that there is an accepted range that we call "red"? And finally, to use the example in the article, why is blue generally calming, if some people perceive it as "red"?

Are we just talking about an ontology?

From what I understand, how we preceive colors is different. But because we all equate certain colors to certain labels, it's all relative so we have no way of knowing how others percieve the colors.

I see the sky and it's blue, and someone else sees the sky and it's blue to him too, but what he thinks of as "blue" maybe seem "green" to me. But neither of us knows becuase we can perceive anything outside of our own brain.


But that's just it - you're looking at the same thing, with the same light entering your eyes, and both calling it blue. If it were blue to him and green to you, you'd wonder why the hell the sky was green when everyone else called it blue.
 
2012-07-02 02:23:46 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: But that's just it - you're looking at the same thing, with the same light entering your eyes, and both calling it blue. If it were blue to him and green to you, you'd wonder why the hell the sky was green when everyone else called it blue.


came here to say this ....
not sure the reporter got the article "right"
The sky IS blue. That is the wavelength. When two people look at the sky, they see exactly the same wavelengths.

I think what they meant is that one person might perceive all blue things as "plaid", but everyone is instructed to call that wavelength "blue", so while his perception is an internal thing, his external label is "blue", like everyone else's.

Otherwise the whole explanation is a bit crazy.

Plus, this is the never ending YAWNNNNNN debated about perception and reality.
There is no way to compare two perceptions. You are all just a figment of my imagination.
Which is really strange. You would think that I would get laid more.

/sigh
 
2012-07-02 02:32:58 AM  
If Bill, Sue, and Terry see different colors for red, blue, and green, with Bill seeing red for Sue's green, Terry seeing green for Bill's red, and Sue seeing the same thing for blue as Bill and Terry, what color do they see for yellow? Explain your reasoning.
 
2012-07-02 02:57:54 AM  
Well, that would explain a lot of the "outfits" I see people wearing to work.
 
2012-07-02 03:28:21 AM  
What if C-A-T really spelled dog?
 
2012-07-02 03:32:44 AM  
fark this philosophical aspect.

They might have just found a cure for colorblindness and macular degeneration. I think that might actually be worthwhile and important.

Of course, the advertising might look something like this.

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-02 03:37:22 AM  
I, too, have always wondered the exact same thing.

This is pretty damn awesome to think we may know what it could or could not be
 
2012-07-02 03:46:40 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Ambivalence: Benevolent Misanthrope: I don't understand. We call a certain range of wavelengths "red", another range "blue" and so on. So, different people would have to perceive completely different wavelengths in reverse. And if differences in perception were so common, how is it that there is an accepted range that we call "red"? And finally, to use the example in the article, why is blue generally calming, if some people perceive it as "red"?

Are we just talking about an ontology?

From what I understand, how we preceive colors is different. But because we all equate certain colors to certain labels, it's all relative so we have no way of knowing how others percieve the colors.

I see the sky and it's blue, and someone else sees the sky and it's blue to him too, but what he thinks of as "blue" maybe seem "green" to me. But neither of us knows becuase we can perceive anything outside of our own brain.

But that's just it - you're looking at the same thing, with the same light entering your eyes, and both calling it blue. If it were blue to him and green to you, you'd wonder why the hell the sky was green when everyone else called it blue.


But if you perceived the color blue as green your whole life, how would you know it was different? We aren't born instinctively knowing the names of the colors, we learn the names well after we see the actual colors. You'd grow up thinking that a green sky normal and that's just what the color 'blue' looks like to everyone else as well.

I don't know if such a thing is physiologically possible, but if it were how anyone know?
 
2012-07-02 03:47:57 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: And if differences in perception were so common, how is it that there is an accepted range that we call "red"?


Easy: the physical experience we call red is activated by the same light for everyone. The actual physical mechanism might be radically different. For you, what I see as red might be any hue expirentially, but we both experience the hue called red at the same time. So we agree this hue is the same, even if internally our experiences are different.
 
2012-07-02 05:07:25 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: But that's just it - you're looking at the same thing, with the same light entering your eyes, and both calling it blue. If it were blue to him and green to you, you'd wonder why the hell the sky was green when everyone else called it blue.


The question was more or less whether the process of interpreting color is "hardware" inherent in our biology or "software" developed by feedback later in life. Apparently this experiment indicates the latter.

It's kind of a pointless question for most practical purposes, though, yeah.
 
2012-07-02 06:01:43 AM  

Jim_Callahan: It's kind of a pointless question for most practical purposes, though, yeah.


It's more useful than a Higgs Boson so far. Monkey learning to see new hues is pretty damn good for people going blind of macular degeneration. If they can, you can too.
 
2012-07-02 06:11:17 AM  
What we call visible light is just a particular narrow range of frequencies in the same electromagnetic spectrum that contains radio and TV signals, gamma bursts, microwave ovens, etc. It's really all the same stuff. For an analogy, sound waves (which aren't electromagnetic) that we can hear range from about 20 to 20000 cycles per second; below that it just feels like vibration, above that we can't notice it.

One important fact that goes beyond just human perception is that the frequencies center on what we call green, and we have more eye cells that sense green than any other. It's not hard to figure out why the ability to sense that frequency might be selected for by [ evolution | deity ].

The ability to sense more than just green is harder to explain. We have red and blue receptors too, which are each on opposite sides of green. Those frequencies may be optimally chosen to mathematically interact with green, kind of like FM side channels.

What the experiment is pointing out is that there's no reason to assume that what YOU actually see colors looking like is the same as what I see colors looking like. It's scientifically possible to measure a frequency, and everyone associates the same names to the same frequencies because they've been shown rainbows and traffic lights, but maybe the color of a stop sign doesn't look the same to us.
 
2012-07-02 06:18:54 AM  
Yeah. The big huge news of this story is allowing the monkeys to see a new color. Whether or not we all see red the same way is an interesting question, but completely untestable.
 
2012-07-02 06:41:55 AM  

picturescrazy: Yeah. The big huge news of this story is allowing the monkeys to see a new color. Whether or not we all see red the same way is an interesting question, but completely untestable.


Hmm...

Offhand, I think I'd sit folks down in front of a color picker type screen (like what you'd find in photoshop) and tell them to slide the bars around until they see "Red".
Write down the values, average out everyones red, there's your baseline.

/Do the same test while providing alternating or opposing colors.
/Jot down results, should show if everyone's idea of "red" is slightly different.
 
2012-07-02 06:47:57 AM  

way south: picturescrazy: Yeah. The big huge news of this story is allowing the monkeys to see a new color. Whether or not we all see red the same way is an interesting question, but completely untestable.

Hmm...

Offhand, I think I'd sit folks down in front of a color picker type screen (like what you'd find in photoshop) and tell them to slide the bars around until they see "Red".
Write down the values, average out everyones red, there's your baseline.

/Do the same test while providing alternating or opposing colors.
/Jot down results, should show if everyone's idea of "red" is slightly different.


You're missing the point. Colors don't exist except in our minds. Yeah, you can easily tell which wavelengths people call red. In fact, we've known that information since, well, probably since they discovered what light actually is. What you can't test is if their brains put the same color to the information that the eyes report.
 
2012-07-02 06:53:12 AM  

way south: Offhand, I think I'd sit folks down in front of a color picker type screen (like what you'd find in photoshop) and tell them to slide the bars around until they see "Red".


What would this prove? You're applying the physical act of sensing a wavelength (immutable) with the experience of seeing a hue (proven mutable by the article)

Any experiment would have to involve the inner workings. Somehow you'd have to scan people's brains as they see a given hue and then compare the neurons that fire to other people's brains. Even then, I'm not sure that would work because no two people's bodies are exactly alike.

It's an important philosophical question that is really necessary if you're into investigation the real deep layers of the foundation of Truth, but if I knew how to test it conclusively, I wouldn't be sitting here on fark. I'd be swimming in a pool of gold coins like Scrooge McDuck.
 
2012-07-02 06:57:29 AM  

picturescrazy: way south: picturescrazy: Yeah. The big huge news of this story is allowing the monkeys to see a new color. Whether or not we all see red the same way is an interesting question, but completely untestable.

Hmm...

Offhand, I think I'd sit folks down in front of a color picker type screen (like what you'd find in photoshop) and tell them to slide the bars around until they see "Red".
Write down the values, average out everyones red, there's your baseline.

/Do the same test while providing alternating or opposing colors.
/Jot down results, should show if everyone's idea of "red" is slightly different.

You're missing the point. Colors don't exist except in our minds. Yeah, you can easily tell which wavelengths people call red. In fact, we've known that information since, well, probably since they discovered what light actually is. What you can't test is if their brains put the same color to the information that the eyes report.


Maybe I am missing the point. But the way I see it, those colors have real numbers. So effectually you can test if a human can apply the same name to it that the unbiased computer does.

Granted they might be seeing shades of blue in their brain but that has no real world meaning if they are convinced this is red. If the color interactions are all the same (which is what you get by making them pick opposing colors) then there's no meaningful difference.

They should be getting the same information that you do and processing it in the same way for similar results.
 
2012-07-02 07:14:38 AM  

Neondistraction: But if you perceived the color blue as green your whole life, how would you know it was different?


How do we know that what you perceive as a tree and what I perceive as a tree are the same?

It's a meaningless question in any context except abstract philosophy; of course our perceptions are different, and it's ridiculous to assume they are the same. Even given the same sensory organs we certainly don't all understand the same situation in the same way.

That's the whole point of language -- it's a way to share knowledge and experiences despite our differences in perception. Which is why red is the same for everyone.
 
2012-07-02 07:24:41 AM  
If that's true, it could really screw up a lot of astronomy.
 
2012-07-02 07:53:43 AM  
i dont know about color reversal, but i do know that men and women do see movement and color differently from each other, because we have different structures in our eyes. Men see movement much better than women do and women see color much better than men do. this is because there are cells behind the retina that detect movement and color (P and T cells iirc). Men have 3 times the number of movement cells, and women have 3 times the number of color cells.

Alot of behavior can be explained by this too. Male artists are much more likely to make black and white drawings that portray action. Men love action movies. male babies will look at a mobile rather than a face. boys will play with trucks instead of colorful dolls. all because those things are more stimulating to their eyes and consequently, their brains.

It makes sense too when you think about it from an evolutionary perspective. seeing color doesn't help you find immaculately camouflaged animals to eat but seeing movements does. Seeing movement doesn't help you find fruits and nuts but seeing color does.
 
2012-07-02 08:22:11 AM  
OLD NEWS IS OLD

People have been talking about the possibility of an inverted spectrum (or inverted qualia) for centuries.
 
2012-07-02 08:23:45 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: I don't understand. We call a certain range of wavelengths "red", another range "blue" and so on. So, different people would have to perceive completely different wavelengths in reverse. And if differences in perception were so common, how is it that there is an accepted range that we call "red"? And finally, to use the example in the article, why is blue generally calming, if some people perceive it as "red"?

Are we just talking about an ontology?


If plants were all red, you would associate red with nature. Colors are entirely subjective. Try explaining what blue is to a blind person. It won't work. They will only know if they have seen it. And for each of us we associate colors with other things of similar colors. The sky and ocean are blue, blood is red, purple is rare in nature - our feelings about these things affect our feelings about the colors.
 
2012-07-02 08:35:21 AM  
I am so f*cking baked right now.
 
2012-07-02 08:36:36 AM  
I don't know about all this Blue looks like Red to some people business, but I've heard the color Blue when doing mushrooms, and IMO it is the best sounding color. Red sounds all angry and Yellow sounds kinda squeeky. Green is OK, but Blue, man that's one awesome sounding color.
 
2012-07-02 08:37:53 AM  
Scientists now say what you see as blue, I might see as red.

"Now say"???
 
2012-07-02 08:49:57 AM  
The perception of color must have at least some basis in the physical world. Look at a color wheel, for example. If your brain was just interpreting wavelengths of light as whatever color it damn well pleased then there's no reason to think everyone who looked at a color wheel would see smooth transitions from one color to the next (red to orange to yellow as opposed to blue to orange to green) as the wavelength of light changed. It could easily be a random color at any particular wavelength.

Mytch: Try explaining what blue is to a blind person. It won't work.


I've always disliked this line of reasoning for colors being subjective. Try explaining quantum mechanics to a 17th century Russian serf. It won't work, not because quantum mechanics is subjective or doesn't exist in reality, but because the serf lacks the requisite experience and knowledge to understand. The same can be said of the blind man and color. The argument breaks down when used the same way in a different context.

There's also a language problem. No, not Russian to English. It's just damn difficult to explain experiences to others and even more difficult if there's no common reference point. Vocabulary is very important. It's the difference between saying something like "I just feel kinda out of it, you know?" and "ennui".
 
2012-07-02 08:58:29 AM  
www.itusozluk.com
 
2012-07-02 09:06:41 AM  

way south: picturescrazy: Yeah. The big huge news of this story is allowing the monkeys to see a new color. Whether or not we all see red the same way is an interesting question, but completely untestable.

Hmm...

Offhand, I think I'd sit folks down in front of a color picker type screen (like what you'd find in photoshop) and tell them to slide the bars around until they see "Red".
Write down the values, average out everyones red, there's your baseline.

/Do the same test while providing alternating or opposing colors.
/Jot down results, should show if everyone's idea of "red" is slightly different.


Look, if we are taught that a particular color is "red", even if it looks green to you, and blue to me, and purple to another guy, we will always label that wavelength "red", with the label pointing all to the same color. This argument isn't "do different wavelengths of light get labeled inconsistently" but rather "is the wavelength i label red the same one you do?" The reason this is near impossible to discern: we can't see through another's eyes, yet we all call the colors the same due to instruction.
 
2012-07-02 09:12:31 AM  

doglover: It's an important philosophical question that is really necessary if you're into investigation the real deep layers of the foundation of Truth, but if I knew how to test it conclusively, I wouldn't be sitting here on fark. I'd be swimming in a pool of gold coins like Scrooge McDuck.


Fair enough, but the best we can describe anything is in scientific terms.
The experience of blue, of cinnamon, of a kiss, they defy our linguistic ability if you cant apply a value or comparison to it.

To me it gets to a level of pointlessness.
We can test a monkey to see if it can tell colors apart, but have no way to know if it could always see color and just didn't care until food became a factor. Maybe color blind people are just poorly trained to identify what they see.

The mechanism has to be there for perception to be possible.
 
2012-07-02 09:16:58 AM  

Baryogenesis: The perception of color must have at least some basis in the physical world. Look at a color wheel, for example. If your brain was just interpreting wavelengths of light as whatever color it damn well pleased then there's no reason to think everyone who looked at a color wheel would see smooth transitions from one color to the next (red to orange to yellow as opposed to blue to orange to green) as the wavelength of light changed. It could easily be a random color at any particular wavelength.


That's what I was going to say. I don't think there would be a radical difference, or some random colour differences. Plus, people have similar perceptions of attractive and unattractive colours. For example, a wall painted pale blue vs babyshiat brown. What is it about certain colours that might be universally unappealing? One might say associations, but there are colours associated with unpleasant things that could also be beautiful in a different context.
 
2012-07-02 09:37:04 AM  

Ambivalence:

From what I understand, how we preceive colors is different. But because we all equate certain colors to certain labels, it's all relative so we have no way of knowing how others percieve the colors.

I see the sky and it's blue, and someone else sees the sky and it's blue to him too, but what he thinks of as "blue" maybe seem "green" to me. But neither of us knows becuase we can perceive anything outside of our own brain (perspective).


Exactly.
I'm just a "regular dude", but this is how I always thought it worked.
My wife (soon to be ex) can not get it. My 9yo daughter grasped it immediately.
 
2012-07-02 09:37:10 AM  
I'll just leave this here...

Link

Mary's room (also known as Mary the super-scientist) is a philosophical thought experiment proposed by Frank Jackson in his article "Epiphenomenal Qualia" (1982) and extended in "What Mary Didn't Know" (1986). The argument is intended to motivate what is often called the "Knowledge Argument" against physicalism - the view that the universe, including all that is mental, is entirely physical. The debate that emerged following its publication became the subject of an edited volume - There's Something About Mary (2004) - which includes replies from such philosophers as Daniel Dennett, David Lewis, and Paul Churchland.
 
2012-07-02 09:37:11 AM  
Can I buy some pot from you?

That's funny, subby, cuz I was gonna ask you...
 
2012-07-02 09:38:02 AM  
And this thread is one of the reasons I keep reading Fark(tm).
 
2012-07-02 09:41:47 AM  
I've actually wondered this, particularly how we would ever know if it was true.
 
2012-07-02 09:47:02 AM  
I was talking to my friend about this and she said I was wearing a blue shirt. I told her it was black. I saw a black and she saw a dark blue.

Plus, I figured this is completely possible. Who says all our brains process the same information the same way.
 
2012-07-02 09:47:59 AM  

Baryogenesis: The perception of color must have at least some basis in the physical world. Look at a color wheel, for example. If your brain was just interpreting wavelengths of light as whatever color it damn well pleased then there's no reason to think everyone who looked at a color wheel would see smooth transitions from one color to the next (red to orange to yellow as opposed to blue to orange to green) as the wavelength of light changed. It could easily be a random color at any particular wavelength.


This is why I feel that my blue is your blue. Colors aren't discrete. Although, it could be that the color spectrum is inverted, but that's about all.
 
2012-07-02 09:57:25 AM  

Tellingthem: What if C-A-T really spelled dog?


abetteruserexperience.com
 
2012-07-02 09:59:23 AM  

Smoky Dragon Dish: Baryogenesis: The perception of color must have at least some basis in the physical world. Look at a color wheel, for example. If your brain was just interpreting wavelengths of light as whatever color it damn well pleased then there's no reason to think everyone who looked at a color wheel would see smooth transitions from one color to the next (red to orange to yellow as opposed to blue to orange to green) as the wavelength of light changed. It could easily be a random color at any particular wavelength.


This is why I feel that my blue is your blue. Colors aren't discrete. Although, it could be that the color spectrum is inverted, but that's about all.


Let me expand on this...

Yellow signs with black letters are frequently used because of their visibility. That's why Waffle House has that ugly color scheme on their signs. You can see it really, really well from really far away. As when you're driving down a highway at 2AM. That quality of yellow must have a physical basis for this to be universally true. If people discerned colors subjectively, say someone saw yellow as violet, this effect couldn't be universally true.
 
2012-07-02 10:08:48 AM  

way south: doglover: It's an important philosophical question that is really necessary if you're into investigation the real deep layers of the foundation of Truth, but if I knew how to test it conclusively, I wouldn't be sitting here on fark. I'd be swimming in a pool of gold coins like Scrooge McDuck.

Fair enough, but the best we can describe anything is in scientific terms.
The experience of blue, of cinnamon, of a kiss, they defy our linguistic ability if you cant apply a value or comparison to it.

To me it gets to a level of pointlessness.
We can test a monkey to see if it can tell colors apart, but have no way to know if it could always see color and just didn't care until food became a factor. Maybe color blind people are just poorly trained to identify what they see.

The mechanism has to be there for perception to be possible.


We know color blind people are color blind because they physically lack the anatomy to see color. Color perception comes from cone cells. "Normal" color-seeing people have three kinds of cone cells that can sense short, medium, and long wavelength light in what is called the visible spectrum. Colorblind people lack one or more of these types of cones.

We also have rod cells, they are active in low-light conditions, but they do not perceive color well. That's why our (human) color perception is bad in low-light conditions.
 
2012-07-02 10:26:35 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Are we just talking about an ontology?


WTF does cancer treatment have to do with this?

Oh, right... pot. We were talking about pot. Sorry.
 
2012-07-02 11:16:17 AM  
This was a thought experiment of mine as a kid as well, and it's cropped up recently again because I've noticed that my (male) fiance and I (female) often perceive colors slightly differently. He'll describe a car as purple (more bluish) while I will describe it as a more burgundy or maroon red. He argued about it so strongly once that I finally came to the conclusion that we are simply seeing the shades slightly differently. Make sense too; I've noticed that even my eyes don't see color consistently between them (a white wall is more yellow in one eye, more blue in the other).

If I look at a stop sign, and I call that "red", you will also call it red. Doesn't matter that you might actually be seeing a color *I* would call blue.
 
2012-07-02 11:20:55 AM  

Peki: This was a thought experiment of mine as a kid as well, and it's cropped up recently again because I've noticed that my (male) fiance and I (female) often perceive colors slightly differently. He'll describe a car as purple (more bluish) while I will describe it as a more burgundy or maroon red. He argued about it so strongly once that I finally came to the conclusion that we are simply seeing the shades slightly differently. Make sense too; I've noticed that even my eyes don't see color consistently between them (a white wall is more yellow in one eye, more blue in the other).

If I look at a stop sign, and I call that "red", you will also call it red. Doesn't matter that you might actually be seeing a color *I* would call blue.


I had the same thing happen between myself and my friend but when it comes to clothing. She would tell me I am wearing a different color then what I see. usually its her dark blue to my black.
 
2012-07-02 11:24:49 AM  

Peki: This was a thought experiment of mine as a kid as well, and it's cropped up recently again because I've noticed that my (male) fiance and I (female) often perceive colors slightly differently. He'll describe a car as purple (more bluish) while I will describe it as a more burgundy or maroon red. He argued about it so strongly once that I finally came to the conclusion that we are simply seeing the shades slightly differently. Make sense too; I've noticed that even my eyes don't see color consistently between them (a white wall is more yellow in one eye, more blue in the other).

If I look at a stop sign, and I call that "red", you will also call it red. Doesn't matter that you might actually be seeing a color *I* would call blue.


Some people have more receptors than others, which allows them to see more variances of shading and hue than others. I think you've offered a good example of that. So both hardware and software makes a difference in what we are perceiving as reality.
 
2012-07-02 11:36:42 AM  

Smoky Dragon Dish: Smoky Dragon Dish: Baryogenesis: The perception of color must have at least some basis in the physical world. Look at a color wheel, for example. If your brain was just interpreting wavelengths of light as whatever color it damn well pleased then there's no reason to think everyone who looked at a color wheel would see smooth transitions from one color to the next (red to orange to yellow as opposed to blue to orange to green) as the wavelength of light changed. It could easily be a random color at any particular wavelength.


This is why I feel that my blue is your blue. Colors aren't discrete. Although, it could be that the color spectrum is inverted, but that's about all.

Let me expand on this...

Yellow signs with black letters are frequently used because of their visibility. That's why Waffle House has that ugly color scheme on their signs. You can see it really, really well from really far away. As when you're driving down a highway at 2AM. That quality of yellow must have a physical basis for this to be universally true. If people discerned colors subjectively, say someone saw yellow as violet, this effect couldn't be universally true.


No, that's a math based perception thing. Combining something that strongly stimulates only one type of your cones with something that stimulates your rods isn't as easily interpreted by your brain as something that stimulates multiple types of cones and your rods. That has to do with the specific wavelengths.

You see a certain imagine, certain rods and cones are fired, and that nerve impulses is more or less the same for everyone with a healthy average set of eyes.

What this experiment shows is that how that impulse is interpreted can be changed, and that implies the interpretation is completely fluid. If you combine this with other experiments that show people perceive colors as a function of language (ie, if you don't have WORDS for lighter or darker shades of colors, you tend to be unable to distinguish or remember the differences between them), and it's becoming more clear we do NOT all see the world the same.

What that means is it's entirely possible that I took up photography as a hobby because my brain is more interested in how it interprets the color information provided by my eyes. It's possible that things like disagreement between what colors are "pretty" and "clashing" colors aren't a mathematical function, or even a social pressure, but an actual difference in perception.

It's possible that some people's brains are throwing away color information, and other people's brains are hyper focusing on it. The implications are subtle, but powerful.
 
2012-07-02 12:05:12 PM  

LittleSmitty: I don't know about all this Blue looks like Red to some people business, but I've heard the color Blue when doing mushrooms, and IMO it is the best sounding color. Red sounds all angry and Yellow sounds kinda squeeky. Green is OK, but Blue, man that's one awesome sounding color.


i played in the clouds for many years and i've got to say you are pretty much on the money IMHO. this is going to bug me out the rest of the day. well i'm just going to go in the basement and work on a guitar cause i think i need a time-out.
 
Displayed 50 of 81 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report