PDA

View Full Version : Do you think everyone sees different colours?


Phlip
02-01-10, 18:08
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Do-You-Ever-Wonder-If-We-All-See-Different-Colors/343339900173?ref=sgm&v=wall

Like blue to you could mean what I see as green, but we'd never know because we where taught what colours where called what. It's confusing, but really fascinating!

MattTR
02-01-10, 18:11
Isn't that called color blind? :p

Phlip
02-01-10, 18:12
Err no not at all. :p Like you could see the Simpson's skin as purple but to you it'd be called yellow.

MattTR
02-01-10, 18:16
Err no not at all. :p Like you could see the Simpson's skin as purple but to you it'd be called yellow.

Oooh! Wow that would be scary.. :vlol: And the smurfs would really be purple instead of blue.. :ton:

LaraLuvrrr
02-01-10, 18:17
I think we each view the world differently. But color's kinda set in stone... I think thoughts are more likely to differ

silver_wolf
02-01-10, 18:24
I always wondered what things look like outside our eyes. I mean, they just receive light reflecting and our brain interprets the data, creating an image, but what do things really look like? Kinda the same thought...

tombraiderluka
02-01-10, 18:26
Well we don't see different colours. Me and my sister see the same colours.

knightgames
02-01-10, 18:28
Isn't this sort of like asking if a kiss still a kiss if someone else calls it a beso?


I mean if Maggie Simpson was painted yellow, no matter how two different people see or what they call the colour, the fact is Maggie will always be that hue.


Or am I not getting it?

Punaxe
02-01-10, 18:40
We observe the same electromagnetic waves of certain frequences, which we have all been taught to call certain colours, but whether or not we experience the resulting sensations the same, simply cannot be said. Given that we all construct our own individual neurological associations, I would personally lean towards a negative answer to the thread's question but as I said, we simply cannot know.

A bat has no eyes: he emits sound pressure waves and perceives the echo. Yet, through this sense, he does perceive different physical aspects of its surroundings and is able to distinguish different materials. For all we know, these different materials are represented in a similar fashion in the bat's brain, as are the different colours in our own brain. But again, we simply cannot know - even if we were to construct the bat's nervous system down to a single cell. We would know what exactly is being activated by what and where, but we would still not know how the bat consciously experiences anything.

silver_wolf
02-01-10, 18:41
The whole blind bat thing is a myth. They do have eyes and can see normally, just not that well.

xXhayleyroxXx
02-01-10, 18:44
^^^ indeed. They have tiny tiny little eyes. They're just not too reliant on it - they use echolocation to locate and catch their prey.

Bongo Fury
02-01-10, 18:51
Like blue to you could mean what I see as green, but we'd never know because we where taught what colours where called what. It's confusing, but really fascinating!


it's one of those beetle in the box (http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/pom/pom_behaviourism_wittgenstein.htm) things. we can assume but we never really know what someone else sees.

Changeling
02-01-10, 18:56
Or am I not getting it?

I don't think you are. :p

What they mean is, the colour blue to you might be the colour green to me, but we wouldn't know. It's difficult to explain but so simple when you get it into your head. We've all been taught that colours have different names, but the way that we all individually see it might be different. For example, take the colour that you call green. I may have been raised to think that that colour is green but I actually see it as the colour you would call blue, but we can never know if this is correct.

xXhayleyroxXx
02-01-10, 18:58
We need a little experiment - something to look at and compare answers , any ideas? xxx

LaraLuvrrr
02-01-10, 18:58
I always wondered what things look like outside our eyes. I mean, they just receive light reflecting and our brain interprets the data, creating an image, but what do things really look like? Kinda the same thought...

I wonder this as well... we only know what we sense and if we can't sense then what is really real?

::sigh:: there's so many unanswered questions. And lately quantum physics leads us to the conclusion that everything cant be explained logically.

T-Sex
02-01-10, 19:00
I always wondered this. If its true that everyone sees different colours, i like the colours i see :)

VonCroy360
02-01-10, 19:01
I don't think so. I see it as a simply mechanical thing - the same way our arms and legs are pretty much the same, so are our pupils, irises, or whatever part of the eye we use to recognize colours. They recognize the same things, send it to our brains the same way and there we will recognize it as being the same colour. Though this is quite an interesting subject. Another good question is, if we do all see the same colours, can we be sure that those colours are actually that way?

Minty Mouth
02-01-10, 19:02
It is highly possible that this is not just limited to colours. We are lead to believe that what is outside comes in, and creates our ideas and impressions, but what if what is inside our own mind creates what we see outside, instead? What if our brain harvests what it can from the outside world, organizes it in our brains to create our ideas of the world, and that is what we see. That way each person could have a completely different experience of the world, depending on whether every brain in the world categorizes in the same way.

Changeling
02-01-10, 19:25
We need a little experiment - something to look at and compare answers , any ideas? xxx

...How would that work? If you looked at the colour you thought was green, somebody else might see it as the colour you think is blue, but they were raised to call it green. It's impossible to prove.

xXhayleyroxXx
02-01-10, 19:27
...How would that work? If you looked at the colour you thought was green, somebody else might see it as the colour you think is blue, but they were raised to call it green. It's impossible to prove.

i guess im seeing this all wrong then. But wouldnt tht prove whether all colours are the same for everyone/ or that they aren't?

Minty Mouth
02-01-10, 19:31
i guess im seeing this all wrong then. But wouldnt tht prove whether all colours are the same for everyone/ or that they aren't?

No, it goes much deeper than that. All your life, when you look at the colour that you call red, you could be experiencing what I call yellow, but because someone pointed and said "Look at the yellow banana," when I was a baby, I have known no different. There is NO way to test this, at all, if there was it would undermine the whole theory. Its a bit of an induction argument.

T-Sex
02-01-10, 19:33
It's probabaly based on what colour eyes you have. I dunno :p

xXhayleyroxXx
02-01-10, 19:36
It's probabaly based on what colour eyes you have. I dunno :p

thats quite a good point - maybe it is eye colour. Guess we'll never know.

Alive_and_Funky
02-01-10, 19:39
Well, one way I've thought of looking at this theory is the idea of colours "clashing". I'm struggling to think of colours that clash with each other off the top of my head, but if you pair certain colours you will find some couples that the majority of people would believe to not suit each other. If everyone did see different colours, then how would this work? I suppose there is a chance that people could still see different colours that just so happen to clash with each other, but I doubt it.

xXhayleyroxXx
02-01-10, 19:40
Well, one way I've thought of looking at this theory is the idea of colours "clashing". I'm struggling to think of colours that clash with each other off the top of my head, but if you pair certain colours you will find some couples that the majority of people would believe to not suit each other. If everyone did see different colours, then how would this work? I suppose there is a chance that people could still see different colours that just so happen to clash with each other, but I doubt it.

like pink and red - they clash. thats a good point ;)

T-Sex
02-01-10, 19:41
Well, one way I've thought of looking at this theory is the idea of colours "clashing". I'm struggling to think of colours that clash with each other off the top of my head, but if you pair certain colours you will find some couples that the majority of people would believe to not suit each other. If everyone did see different colours, then how would this work? I suppose there is a chance that people could still see different colours that just so happen to clash with each other, but I doubt it.

Its like having a favourite colour, if everyone did see the same colours then wouldnt everyones favourite be the same?

Draco
02-01-10, 19:43
I think we each view the world differently. But color's kinda set in stone... I think thoughts are more likely to differ

Who says we all call each color by the same name?

Alive_and_Funky
02-01-10, 19:52
Its like having a favourite colour, if everyone did see the same colours then wouldnt everyones favourite be the same?
Well, I think a person tends to have a reason for their favourite colour being their favourite. Although I can't really think of why I like blue so much, but I guess there is a reason somewhere inside of me. Perhaps you could liken it to people's favourite shapes.

Minty Mouth
02-01-10, 19:53
It's probabaly based on what colour eyes you have. I dunno :p
Is almost certainly is not :p
Its like having a favourite colour, if everyone did see the same colours then wouldnt everyones favourite be the same?

No, again, this makes little sense. II agree with Alive and Funky

T-Sex
02-01-10, 19:56
No, again, this makes little sense.

Why?:confused:

Minty Mouth
02-01-10, 20:01
Why?:confused:

Your eye colour is passed down by your parents, it is genetic, why on Earth would these genes correspond with how you see colours? It is purely pigmentation of cells. It is like saying red things feel different to orange things.

knightgames
02-01-10, 20:02
I don't think you are. :p

What they mean is, the colour blue to you might be the colour green to me, but we wouldn't know. It's difficult to explain but so simple when you get it into your head. We've all been taught that colours have different names, but the way that we all individually see it might be different. For example, take the colour that you call green. I may have been raised to think that that colour is green but I actually see it as the colour you would call blue, but we can never know if this is correct.

Meanie! :ton:

But all of our eyes work the same way. Like televisions they are calibrated to reflect certain light the same way from person to person or TV to TV. My Samsung TV calibrated at the manufacturer will display the same colours and intensity that your Samsung would so that my Samsung green will be the same as yours. You and I process light the same way (You and I - not you and I and the TV I'm just using it as an example). Two people viewing the same light reflected off grass will see it the same (barring slight differenciations*) colour grass.

So if I call grass blue and you call it green, I'm either in Kentucky, colour blind or have a different terminology for the colour of grass.



* My left eye sees colours slightly different in shade and brightness than my right. It's subtle, but I do notice it.

Minty Mouth
02-01-10, 20:04
Meanie! :ton:

But all of our eyes work the same way. Like televisions they are calibrated to reflect certain light the same way from person to person or TV to TV. You and I process light the same way. Two people viewing the same light reflected off grass will see it the same (barring slight differenciations*).

So if I call grass blue and you call it green, I'm either in Kentucky, colour blind or have a different terminology for the colour of grass.



* My left eyes sees colours slightly different in shade and brightness than my right. It's subtle, but I do notice it. For the most part I see colours the same as anyone else - barring colour blindness.
You are forgetting one important step: The brain. ALL the imformation you possess has gone through your brains sorting system in order for you to even call upon it. Is it not possible that my brain tells me that grass looks like one thing, and your brain another?

TRfan23
02-01-10, 20:08
My brother once mentioned this except he came up with a theory on saying we see colours the same but feel different about them. Which only confused me more lol.

How on earth would colourblind work? I mean, then everyone's colourblind. I'm confused now :o

One other thing about the eye which interests me, is that inside of the eye or it could be the brain (can't remember) mirrors the world around. I'm trying to imagine how we would stand if this was removed and how we would view the world.

thats quite a good point - maybe it is eye colour. Guess we'll never know.

No because we don't view out of the colour of our eyes, we view from the pupil in the center of our eyes.

^ What MM said :)

* My left eye sees colours slightly different in shade and brightness than my right. It's subtle, but I do notice it.

I've noticed sight differences in my right & lefts eyes. The worlds more blurry in my right then my left.

Punaxe
02-01-10, 20:14
The whole blind bat thing is a myth. They do have eyes and can see normally, just not that well.

Thanks for the update on that. :p Of course the point was however that colours are nothing more than a name given to internal representations of physical properties as formed by external stimuli. How these representations come to be does not matter, what matters is being able to distinguish between them. We have given the perception of light of different wavelengths different names to be able to communicate about them, but all we really need to know for ourselves is that yellow is not the same as red, and whatever we have learned about (associated with) these representations. We can distinguish materials that reflect electromagnetic energy differently, and a bat can for example distinguish materials that reflect sound pressure waves differently. It is possible that these differences are experienced in a similar fashion.

Furthermore the ability to distinguish of colours is partly cultural: I remember reading a study a while ago where this was tested by people speaking Russian (where a certain colour variation has its own word that does not exist in other languages) and English, and the Russian were significantly better in distinguishing that one colour they had a special word for from others (through hue and brightness gradations IIRC).

(...) One other thing about the eye which interests me, is that inside of the eye or it could be the brain (can't remember) mirrors the world around. I'm trying to imagine how we would stand if this was removed and how we would view the world. (...)

It would make no difference: our brain is perfectly capable of spinning the visual input around as necessary. This has been tested: people who have worn special horizontal mirroring glasses reported seeing the world the right side up again after, I think, a few days. More interesting is the question of how the brain manages to form a coherent image out of a million individual nerves. In a computer, it's simple: they're ordered ascendingly on the X and Y axis. I do not think such a 1-on-1 translation would exist in the optical nerve.

Legend 4ever
02-01-10, 20:18
Well if you think blue is green you have a problem.

knightgames
02-01-10, 20:18
No. Barring imperfection in sight our brains will intepret the colour the same. What we call the colour might be different because of our learning.

Here knightgames. Would you like a yellow banana?
Hey Minty. Interested in a purple banana?

It doesn't matter what we call the colour it's still going to reflect light the same way. Our brains will see and interpret the light the same way. It's when we assign a definition to that colour that the difference comes it. A banana in the same lighting conditions will reflect light the same way.

What colour is used at stop lights for stop? Red. Do you see it as blue? Does anyone see it a different colour other than red? There are standards we use to associate colours. It's generally accepted that red is red for everyone or else why use a colour system for road safety?

That's why I mentioned the TV above, because our nervous system including senses are evolved the same. Like TVs calibrated and designed to show colours identically from set to set, we are calibrated through evolution to see the same from person to person. From there it's definitions or imperfections in our optic system.

Minty Mouth
02-01-10, 20:24
No. Barring imperfection in sight our brains will intepret the colour the same. What we call the colour might be different because of our learning.

Here knightgames. Would you like a yellow banana?
Hey Minty. Interested in a purple banana?

It doesn't matter what we call the colour it's still going to reflect light the same way. Our brains will see and interpret the light the same way. It's when we assign a definition to that name that the difference comes it.


What colour is used at stop lights for stop? Red. Do you see it as blue? Does anyone see it a different colour other than red?

That's why I mentioned the TV above, because our nervous system including senses are evolved the same. Like TVs calibrated and designed to show colours identically from set to set, we are calibrated through evolution to see the same. From there it's definitions or imperfections in our optic system.

A TV does not think. A TV does not have a brain. You are still missing the fundamental point here. Yes, our eyes are calibrated like a TV, but our brains are nowhere near that rigid.

So what if a certain reverberation of light produces a certain colour? Can we be certain of that? All we can be certain of is that you are experienceing a certain colour that you may have termed "yellow", you can not doubt that, no matter what is causing it. The fundemental point is, our brains very well might not interperet it the same way. Our brains could just as easily be skewing everything we think we experience.

Think of it as looking through red tinted glasses. Just because you see everything red, does that mean it really is red? No, of course not. Now, imagine the glasses to be your brain, do you start to see what I am getting at?

Of course, this is largely arbitrary, since if it is true we will never need to understand it, nor will it ever effect us in any way. Just like your traffic light explanation. Nevertheless, it is good food for thought.

TRfan23
02-01-10, 20:26
Well if you think blue is green you have a problem.

No your neuron cells haven't branched their leaves :(

We're just saying whether people see colours differently. So you were born to see the colour green as I see the colour blue, as an example.

In fact maybe each individual can see a colour we can't, in replacement to a colour we can. :confused: No I don't think that works?

Legend 4ever
02-01-10, 20:28
That's what I said. You have a problem if you can't tell what color is what. My granpa thinks brown is gray.

TRfan23
02-01-10, 20:37
That's what I said. You have a problem if you can't tell what color is what. My granpa thinks brown is gray.

Okay but what if, your grampa said brown was brown. But he actually saw the brown as the blue you see. But you see brown as the brown you see.

Legend 4ever
02-01-10, 20:38
What then?

Minty Mouth
02-01-10, 20:40
What then?

The world implodes.

TRfan23
02-01-10, 20:40
What then?

Well that's what we're trying to discuss in this thread lol.

I had to type it out that way, so you'd understand. As you seem to be saying that someone's calling blue as brown and grey as yellow. Yet we're on about seeing colours differently but calling them by the same name.

Edit - And also what MM said ;)

Reggie
02-01-10, 20:41
I was confronted with this question in philosophy and as with any philosophical question my first thought is: Haven't got a bloody clue. Maybe, maybe not.

knightgames
02-01-10, 20:41
A TV does not think. A TV does not have a brain. You are still missing the fundamental point here. Yes, our eyes are calibrated like a TV, but our brains are nowhere near that rigid.

So what if a certain reverberation of light produces a certain colour? Can we be certain of that? All we can be certain of is that you are experienceing a certain colour that you may have termed "yellow", you can not doubt that, no matter what is causing it. The fundemental point is, our brains very well might not interperet it the same way. Our brains could just as easily be skewing everything we think we experience.

Think of it as looking through red tinted glasses. Just because you see everything red, does that mean it really is red? No, of course not. Now, imagine the glasses to be your brain, do you start to see what I am getting at?

Of course, this is largely arbitrary, since if it is true we will never need to understand it, nor will it ever effect us in any way. Just like your traffic light explanation. Nevertheless, it is good food for thought.


I see what your meaning with the red coloured glasses. I just don't think our brain has the ability to process information differences from person to person like your analogy - at least in terms that my brain would interpret colours differently than yours. There are too many constants in the world that say you and I see the same thing - a yellow banana for example. There are too many standards that say we as humans have developed and evolved the same brain, nervous, optical system.

Even the calibration of TV to TV (despite the lack of the brain you and I have) is dependant upon a human standard that is generally accepted as the same for everyone.

I'm not trying to be obtuse nor arguementative. I just can't see it any other way. As you said. It's arbitrary and it really doesn't affect us in any great way.


What I'd like to know is: are there colours in the world that we can't see because of how our optic system works? Now that would be cool.

Minty Mouth
02-01-10, 20:45
What I'd like to know is: are there colours in the world that we can't see because of how our optic system works? Now that would be cool.

This really is a good question, and one we will never know the answer to, it seems.

Do you think you would be able to comprehend what was going on, if someone were to show you a new colour you had never seen before? The thought of finding a new colour is just too big for our little brains to handle at this stage in our development :p

knightgames
02-01-10, 20:57
Thois really is a good question, and one we will never know the answer to, it seems.

Do you think you would be able to comprehend what was going on, if someone were to show you a new colour you had never seen before? The thought of finding a new colour is just too big for our little brains to handle at this stage in our development :p

It would be a paradigm shift in how we see things. I think the emotional psychological implication to suddenly see new colours or light spectrum would be as drastic as finding out aliens exist. Adjustment would take time.

Then it would just be a matter of can my video card handle zillions of colours instead of millions. :D

Legend 4ever
02-01-10, 21:06
OMG this all sounds quite incongruous.

Minty Mouth
02-01-10, 21:07
OMG this all sounds quite incongruous.

As is the nature of philosophy.

Rai
02-01-10, 21:11
I think we see the same colours. Maybe with different eyesight (short or long sighted) or some other slight sight differences the shade/hue might vary (lighter or darker), but ultimately blue is blue (or bleu is bleu if your French etc). For instance, Lara's xmas red hat is red, not orange or blue or green. The exceptions might be for colour blindness but otherwise science has proven that the eyes, through how the brain interprets things and turns them the right way up etc and all those technical terms that knightgames mentions pretty much sees the same way for every human.

Drum Dragon
02-01-10, 21:12
We need a little experiment - something to look at and compare answers , any ideas? xxx

well maybe if we take an image like this

http://www.smashingapps.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/spring-colors.jpg

and lets say the red and green petals are really eye-catching to me, red being on the upper-left corner and green being on the right side, but u'd see what i call red as indigo and what i call green as aqua and vice-versa, wouldn't u say that the eye-catching colors are on the lower part of the picture?

Minty Mouth
02-01-10, 21:15
well maybe if we take an image like this

http://www.smashingapps.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/spring-colors.jpg

and lets say the red and green petals are really eye-catching to me, red being on the upper-left corner and green being on the right side, but u'd see what i call red as indigo and what i call green as aqua, wouldn't u say that the eye-catching colors are on the lower part of the picture?

Now, I would say that the most eye catching colours are the top right, and bottom left.

Legend 4ever
02-01-10, 21:19
Don't we already know that there aren't colors, we just see them as colors due to how the light falls onto objects around us.

knightgames
02-01-10, 21:35
Don't we already know that there aren't colors, we just see them as colors due to how the light falls onto objects around us.

When you think about it, the human optic system is amazing. It's not that an item (a rock for example) has colour. It's the reflection of light and how we process it that recognises colour. Turn the lights out and Voila' blackness - the absense of colour.


In the picture by Drum Dragon I'm drawn to the bottom right hand quadrant where the light green starts to shift to pale blue. (roughly about 3:30 to 4:00 on the dial - so to say)

Minty Mouth
02-01-10, 21:37
When you think about it, the human optic system is amazing. It's not that an item (a rock for example) has colour. It's the reflection of light and how we process it that recognises colour. Turn the lights out and Voila' blackness - the absense of colour.


In the picture by Drum Dragon I'm drawn to the bottom right hand quadrant where the light green starts to shift to pale blue. (roughly about 3:30 to 4:00 on the dial - so to say)

Which is what I have been trying to explain to you :p

AmericanAssassin
02-01-10, 21:39
This is an endless conversation, in which I'll never change my mind. Sure, people have different perspectives, however, the colors are what they are. Even if that's different to each individual person.

Minty Mouth
02-01-10, 21:44
This is an endless conversation, in which I'll never change my mind. Sure, people have different perspectives, however, the colors are what they are. Even if that's different to each individual person.

Kant's Copernican Revolution is a theory that states, maybe we do not derive our concepts from the world, rather, our concepts shape our world.

What is appealing to believe at first: that we are looking out into the world, may not be true. Perhaps, instead of this, our brain takes information from the outside world, and then categorises and structures that information, then projecting that image into our mind; and that is what we see, not what is actually there at all. It is very hard to get your head around...

Punaxe
02-01-10, 21:59
(...) There are too many constants in the world that say you and I see the same thing - a yellow banana for example. There are too many standards that say we as humans have developed and evolved the same brain, nervous, optical system.

Yes, everyone sees the same thing, but how do we experience what we see? Colours are an experience. Experiences are individual, and closely related to individual associations. Every brain is unique, and it is the connections within the brain that determine experiences. We all have developed the same system to be able to have experiences, but the experiences we have with it are our own.

(...) What I'd like to know is: are there colours in the world that we can't see because of how our optic system works? Now that would be cool.

We have defined colours to cover only that range of the electromagnetic spectrum that we can see. This comes back to my bat-analogy: there are countless more aspects of the physical world that organisms could potentially perceive. We do not see the radiowaves that are constantly present all around us.
If we did though, it would simply be nothing more than yet another perception requiring its own individual neurological representation, which the brain would create, and we would name it another colour.

knightgames
02-01-10, 22:15
Which is what I have been trying to explain to you :p

Oh. We've been talking about the same thing, Minty. Could seeing colours differently from person to person happen as an anomoly? I think it could. But I still see it as the human brain has evolved the same over the millenia and each person inteprets light the same.

5600 degree kelvin light will produce the same colour no matter where you are. I think your brain and my brain will see that light reflected from the banana the same. I think it will be interpreted by the brain the same way too. Any normal variations would be subtle but well within reason to call yellow, yellow and red, red. Any variations to me would be from the receptors and not necessarily the brains process of the colour. (age injury or defect)

Now, for example you may see the banana as slightly more orangy and I may see it slightly more green, but effectively it's yellow.

:ton: This smiley is slightly on the orange side but I'd still generally classify it as yellow. :) This to me is a truer example of yellow, but still I'd generally class the two as yellow.

To me that's definition or what we call a colour and not brain process.

TRfan23
02-01-10, 22:21
I wonder how other animals see colour as opposed to us?

I know for a fact their visions different to ours apparently, plus not as good as they tend to use their other senses.

Punaxe
02-01-10, 22:23
Oh. We've been talking about the same thing, Minty. Could seeing colours differently from person to person happen as an anomoly? I think it could. But I still see it as the human brain has evolved the same over the millenia and each person inteprets light the same. (...)

What arguments do you have for interpretations being the same among all humans? Do you not think interpretations are personal? Or, please define interpretations/what else you meant.

Zebra
02-01-10, 22:24
I know for a fact their visions different to ours apparently, plus not as good as they tend to use their other senses.

The human species is definitely one with relatively well-developed eyes. But we're far from having the best eyes in the animal kingdom. There are species that have "worse" eyes than us and species that have "better" eyes than us.

knightgames
02-01-10, 22:36
Yes, everyone sees the same thing, but how do we experience what we see? Colours are an experience. Experiences are individual, and closely related to individual associations. Every brain is unique, and it is the connections within the brain that determine experiences. We all have developed the same system to be able to have experiences, but the experiences we have with it are our own.



We have defined colours to cover only that range of the electromagnetic spectrum that we can see. This comes back to my bat-analogy: there are countless more aspects of the physical world that organisms could potentially perceive. We do not see the radiowaves that are constantly present all around us.
If we did though, it would simply be nothing more than yet another perception requiring its own individual neurological representation, which the brain would create, and we would name it another colour.


RE the bold: Aw now your getting all "new agie" on me. :D Just kidding.

This reminds me of learning how to write science reports. Our first experiment with learning to write them was to log that evenings sunset. The next day we read them ll outloud. Everyone mentioned the colours. A few wrote down the times and compass heading. The teacher all failed us as an object lesson.

Experiences ARE relative and individual, and as such can produce a wide array of spurious instead of accurate data. How many shades and hues can the human see? So we break them down into basic colours instead of the myriad of millions that exist.



Off topic a bit but kinda sorta in the ball park. I like how colours can change moods, atmospheres, and even experiences. Late fall around 5 PM the sun is on the edge on the horizon. The last remaining colours would be muted and dying in the night. Those last remaining dark blue and purplish with a splash of pink colours always made me feel a bit sad. On the other hand a 4:30 A.M sunrise in mid June with clear blue skies is refreshigly and uplifting.

Ikas90
02-01-10, 22:41
Lol, I've actually thought about this as well.

What if every kind of food we eat tastes differently to us as well? :eek:

Love2Raid
02-01-10, 22:43
I think what the optical system does with light is the same in all healthy people, therefore I doubt there are major differences. Maybe it is influenced by factors like mood, for example when people are depressed all colours are 'faded'. And when they are in a mania everything is really 'bright'? See how depressed people usually dress in dark colours, and maniacs (people who are going through a mania, not 'crazy' people in general :p) dress in really bright colours. I don't know, just making assumptions.

It's probabaly based on what colour eyes you have. I dunno :p
Lol, no. ;) The iris works as a diaphragm, the colour has nothing to do with the perception of light and colours.
Its like having a favourite colour, if everyone did see the same colours then wouldnt everyones favourite be the same?
Sorry, but I have to disagree again! :hug:
You have a favourite flavour of ice-cream, favourite type of music, favourite tv show etc etc. Having a favourite colour is just a personal preference that hasn't got much to do with the actual perception. It has got more to do with emotions.

dizzydoil
02-01-10, 22:43
I used to think about this ALL the time. I mean- literally nearly my whole school life I'd sit and ponder on the idea that others see the same 'colour' but that colour is a different colour to them. It's so... strange, and so hard to explain:pi:.

lara c. fan
02-01-10, 22:45
Lol, I've actually thought about this as well.

What if every kind of food we eat tastes differently to us as well? :eek:

It might.....
I've probably got the wrong explanation, but people like things others don't...

knightgames
02-01-10, 22:53
What arguments do you have for interpretations being the same among all humans? Do you not think interpretations are personal? Or, please define interpretations/what else you meant.

I look at interpretation as a mechanical function. Light enters the eye to the retina. The receptors send the signal to the brain. The brain takes them, processes them, and determines that light reflected off an item will be a certain reflective feature we call colour. We as humans need to define that colour as X.

Is a ball still round because we may interpret it differently? Yes. But heres the thing we will never interpret a ball as anything other than what we call round because that's what a ball is. It's round. Our eyes see it, recognise it and we call that shape round. Someone ions ago may have defined the ball as cylendrical for example, but it doesn't negate the actual proportions, shape of a ball.

A banana will always be yellow because that's how light bounces off of it.


I have to ask if I'm understanding your definition of interpretation. I see it purely as mechanical. So I don't think I'm quite getting your point Punaxe. A little help here? ;)

Thorpe
02-01-10, 23:19
I have always thought this myself. Like blue is blue to someone but not necessary what I would think if I were to somehow obtain their vision.

Legends
02-01-10, 23:37
I have never thought about like that before. I guess it could be a possibility and we all probably have different color tones in our vision, but I do believe that we all see the same color. Unless you are colorblind. But then again, what color is really my font? Most would answer "Teal". and think "blue-ish".

aktrekker
02-01-10, 23:41
The question is pointless.
Take for example the color red. It doesn't matter how you perceive it, you are taught that it is red. You associate the color with how your eyes perceive that color. If your eyes detect it as green, you wouldn't know. You believe it is red no matter how your eyes see it. Everytime you see it you will believe it is red.

Minty Mouth
02-01-10, 23:43
The question is pointless.
Take for example the color red. It doesn't matter how you perceive it, you are taught that it is red. You associate the color with how your eyes perceive that color. If your eyes detect it as green, you wouldn't know. You believe it is red no matter how your eyes see it. Everytime you see it you will believe it is red.

Indeed, it is pointless at first glance, but if we learn to understand this, who knows what we can grow to understand about our world? The quest for knowledge is a bumpy one... :p

Punaxe
02-01-10, 23:47
I look at interpretation as a mechanical function. Light enters the eye to the retina. The receptors send the signal to the brain. The brain takes them, processes them, and determines that light reflected off an item will be a certain reflective feature we call colour. We as humans need to define that colour as X.

Is a ball still round because we may interpret it differently? Yes. But heres the thing we will never interpret a ball as anything other than what we call round because that's what a ball is. It's round. Our eyes see it, recognise it and we call that shape round. Someone ions ago may have defined the ball as cylendrical for example, but it doesn't negate the actual proportions, shape of a ball.

A banana will always be yellow because that's how light bounces off of it.


I have to ask if I'm understanding your definition of interpretation. I see it purely as mechanical. So I don't think I'm quite getting your point Punaxe. A little help here? ;)

The thing is that we do not know what exactly happens when the brain is indeed "processing" the stimuli ("interpreting the colour"). What we do know is that in the brain, every single neuron is connected to many, up to thousands other neurons, and that these links between neurons are formed by experience. Let's make it easy and say there's only one neuron firing when light of 430nm is perceived. What is necessarily the case is that even this single neuron is connected to many other neurons, each connected to others and so on, and therefore influencing their firing patterns. All these connections being unique to every human individual, it must be concluded that even if we assume every human being has the same 430nm-neuron, the resulting neurological representation and cascade of associations are unique for everyone.
Now of course we don't know where and how exactly consciousness, sensation and experience come into the picture, but the fact that the human brain is built based on the individual's unique life experiences, makes me hinge towards thinking that every sensation is unique, even those as seemingly basic as colour perception.

voltz
03-01-10, 00:22
I got a question. Say you have 2 people standing out in a field and each has a flag in hand, 1 red, 1 blue. in that same field is a bull staring at both of them and he should choose red because that's like a bulls eye. Now if you put the same situation with another bull, will he still charge the guy holding a red flag?

aktrekker
03-01-10, 01:26
The thing is that we do not know what exactly happens when the brain is indeed "processing" the stimuli ("interpreting the colour").

Again, it doesn't matter. You learn to call it red, green, or whatever no matter how the brain is processing it. So we will always agree on the color.

Let's take red, defined by a certain frequency of light waves.
Your brain might process it like red light. If my brain happens to process it as green light, I would still have been taught it is red. I would call it red, and would never know that I'm not seeing it the same way as you.

Legend 4ever
03-01-10, 02:55
When you think about it, the human optic system is amazing. It's not that an item (a rock for example) has colour. It's the reflection of light and how we process it that recognises colour. Turn the lights out and Voila' blackness - the absense of colour.


You quoted me and said exactly what I said.

Punaxe
03-01-10, 10:04
Again, it doesn't matter. You learn to call it red, green, or whatever no matter how the brain is processing it. So we will always agree on the color.

Let's take red, defined by a certain frequency of light waves.
Your brain might process it like red light. If my brain happens to process it as green light, I would still have been taught it is red. I would call it red, and would never know that I'm not seeing it the same way as you.

Yes, of course, we learn to name the external stimuli. This is the fundament of communication: sharing (predefined) communicable definitions about what we internally mean. But the topic's question was about the internal experience. We can't know and we may never know, and it may not matter in everyday life, but it's still a very interesting question.

lara c. fan
03-01-10, 10:08
I got a question. Say you have 2 people standing out in a field and each has a flag in hand, 1 red, 1 blue. in that same field is a bull staring at both of them and he should choose red because that's like a bulls eye. Now if you put the same situation with another bull, will he still charge the guy holding a red flag?

Bulls have something against the colour red I think. At least some do.
So.... probably, yes

digitizedboy
03-01-10, 11:40
I know this is a different matter, but don't our eyes degrade as we get older too. Colour tones may seem more muted as we get older?

TR love
03-01-10, 12:17
I've actually been thinking about that for the last few weeks, then considering ways it could and couldnt work :p

Wolf Angel
03-01-10, 13:01
Well bulls are attracted to the colour red, but what I don't get is that I heard bulls only see black and white :confused:
So how could they be attracted to red??

Your_Envy*
03-01-10, 13:21
Well bulls are attracted to the colour red, but what I don't get is that I heard bulls only see black and white :confused:
So how could they be attracted to red??

They are not (attracted to the colour red), they only find that waving sheet in front of their head annoying, that's why they go crazy. It could be yellow or pink too, they would start running either way. :)

michaeldt
03-01-10, 13:26
I used to think that, but my mum and dad are both doctors, they said no and they've been working as doctors for about 20 years now.

Trigger_happy
03-01-10, 13:37
That only works if you get told the totally wrong things as a child: so if your parents and teachers teach you the colours wrong: someone on FML has a story about their child being laughed at at school, as their father got bored and told him the colours wrong for amusement.

Today, my five-year-old came home from summer camp crying because her friends and counselors had all laughed at her when she couldn't identify colors correctly during a game. My husband then confessed that he had taught her colors wrong because he thought it would be funny. FML

Minty Mouth
03-01-10, 13:42
I used to think that, but my mum and dad are both doctors, they said no and they've been working as doctors for about 20 years now.

With all due respect, this is not a medical or scientific issue.

lara c. fan
03-01-10, 13:43
That only works if you get told the totally wrong things as a child: so if your parents and teachers teach you the colours wrong: someone on FML has a story about their child being laughed at at school, as their father got bored and told him the colours wrong for amusement.

:yik:

Not a good parent :(

Minty Mouth
03-01-10, 13:46
That only works if you get told the totally wrong things as a child: so if your parents and teachers teach you the colours wrong: someone on FML has a story about their child being laughed at at school, as their father got bored and told him the colours wrong for amusement.

Reminds me of te case where a girl was brought up by her father using completely different words for different things. Yes to mean no, Sir to mean Ma'am, etc. The point was to see if she would realise that she had been taught wrong after watching TV, which she didn't. I will try to find a link...

Chocola teapot
03-01-10, 13:46
One thing I know is, I Love the way I see Colours.

I Love my Blues, Greens, Reds and Yellows.

I Honestly wouldn't change them for anything,
Even if it means I'm the only person in the world seeing colour correctly.

LightningRider
03-01-10, 13:47
Could someone sum up pretty much what we've been talking about? I'm getting confused reading through the thread. :p

Punaxe
03-01-10, 13:48
They are not (attracted to the colour red), they only find that waving sheet in front of their head annoying, that's why they go crazy. It could be yellow or pink too, they would start running either way. :)

Do you have a recent publication to support that? As far as I know, there have been different findings.

Chocola teapot
03-01-10, 13:51
Could someone sum up pretty much what we've been talking about? I'm getting confused reading through the thread. :p

Basically, Are colours interpreted differently between two people?

You could be seeing Red as the Red you see, Though someone else looking at Red may see Red as the way you see Blue but Call that Red because they learned to call it Red.

Is that Still confusing?

LightningRider
03-01-10, 13:53
No, I think I got it.

I have no Scientific Proof, so I'll stay away from posting here. Thank you, Choco. :)

Lightning Soul
03-01-10, 14:01
Yes, I think we do as I always have to turn up the colour on our TV in the living room. MY dad has it at like 43 and I see washed out crap... I need it at 70 at least for bright, stunning colours :D

My brother says he see's the sky as a purple colour sometimes... I'm like LOL IT'S BLUE!!

So yeah, different colours for everyone

Minty Mouth
03-01-10, 14:03
Yes, I think we do as I always have to turn up the colour on our TV in the living room. MY dad has it at like 43 and I see washed out crap... I need it at 70 at least for bright, stunning colours :D

My brother says he see's the sky as a purple colour sometimes... I'm like LOL IT'S BLUE!!

So yeah, different colours for everyone

He's probably just slightly colour blind.

Your_Envy*
03-01-10, 14:05
Do you have a recent publication to support that? As far as I know, there have been different findings.

It's hard to scan a book, especially if it's written in Slovene. :) I doubt you trust internet though, so I won't copy paste links. Of course I am not 100% sure about that, since scientist don't know everything. I am kinda sure they don't see all the colours though, but since I am studying Biology, I will ask that my Zoology teacher just to make sure I am not wrong about it. :) And the red cape is not the only one they are using, it's also yellow and pink, so if they would be annoyed only by the red colour, they wouldn't attack the other one, too. But like I said, that's not 100%. :)

Punaxe
03-01-10, 15:52
It's hard to scan a book, especially if it's written in Slovene. :) I doubt you trust internet though, so I won't copy paste links. Of course I am not 100% sure about that, since scientist don't know everything. I am kinda sure they don't see all the colours though, but since I am studying Biology, I will ask that my Zoology teacher just to make sure I am not wrong about it. :) And the red cape is not the only one they are using, it's also yellow and pink, so if they would be annoyed only by the red colour, they wouldn't attack the other one, too. But like I said, that's not 100%. :)

Alright. Last I read was this (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T2J-45XSNP0-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1152629056&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0923c42a76eb74cca5becf103f4ae69c), and while it's only from 1980, I don't think that much would've changed... They do note that others before them stated it was indeed the movement, not the colour. But yeah your teacher probably knows. :p

cbragg09
03-01-10, 15:56
I don't think you are. :p

What they mean is, the colour blue to you might be the colour green to me, but we wouldn't know. It's difficult to explain but so simple when you get it into your head. We've all been taught that colours have different names, but the way that we all individually see it might be different. For example, take the colour that you call green. I may have been raised to think that that colour is green but I actually see it as the colour you would call blue, but we can never know if this is correct.

then how come we all arent fighting with each other


"mom, i said i wanted a RED phone"

"it IS a red phone"

"hands her yellow phone"



...or am i not getting it either

jackles
03-01-10, 16:26
Alright. Last I read was this (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T2J-45XSNP0-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1152629056&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0923c42a76eb74cca5becf103f4ae69c), and while it's only from 1980, I don't think that much would've changed... They do note that others before them stated it was indeed the movement, not the colour. But yeah your teacher probably knows. :p

I was just reading that mythbusters busted this (2007 Episode 85) apparently the bull would go after anything.

Punaxe
03-01-10, 16:55
I was just reading that mythbusters busted this (2007 Episode 85) apparently the bull would go after anything.

Yeah I have seen that episode, but I wouldn't turn to the MythBusters for rigorously, scientifically tested findings. :p

aktrekker
03-01-10, 20:57
never mind.

TRfan23
03-01-10, 21:36
then how come we all arent fighting with each other


"mom, i said i wanted a RED phone"

"it IS a red phone"

"hands her yellow phone"



...or am i not getting it either

Your not getting it. Basically as the example you used - Mom gives you a red phone, to her the phone may look the yellow you see yellow as. But calls it red, which you see the colour red as :) That's the debate here.

knightgames
04-01-10, 00:59
The thing is that we do not know what exactly happens when the brain is indeed "processing" the stimuli ("interpreting the colour"). What we do know is that in the brain, every single neuron is connected to many, up to thousands other neurons, and that these links between neurons are formed by experience. Let's make it easy and say there's only one neuron firing when light of 430nm is perceived. What is necessarily the case is that even this single neuron is connected to many other neurons, each connected to others and so on, and therefore influencing their firing patterns. All these connections being unique to every human individual, it must be concluded that even if we assume every human being has the same 430nm-neuron, the resulting neurological representation and cascade of associations are unique for everyone.
Now of course we don't know where and how exactly consciousness, sensation and experience come into the picture, but the fact that the human brain is built based on the individual's unique life experiences, makes me hinge towards thinking that every sensation is unique, even those as seemingly basic as colour perception.

Sorry. Got busy shoveling snow and work. And I've been thinking about this. I want to read the rest of the posts and respond, but I think I'm understanding where others are now coming from. Thick headed me wouldn't let it sink into my cranium.

Uzi master
04-01-10, 01:18
well, people can describe coulors to, like yellow is brightly tinted, sort of an orange only brighter in a way, alsois similer to pink when very bright. of course, you'd need a larger vocab to vibrantly describe it.

also, humans see 3 basic coulors, red,blue and yellow (or green and yellow, I forget exactly since combining any 2 makes the other) these will make up other coulors, tinits and shades can make a difference too. there our animals mith less basic coulors and some with more, like a kind of shellfish that sees 27 coulors. Basicly different species can see differently but humans, no.

Catracoth
04-01-10, 01:22
Like blue to you could mean what I see as green, but we'd never know because we where taught what colours where called what. It's confusing, but really fascinating!

I'm not sure I understand the concept--I think I do, but I'm not sure. Is the concept that perhaps what is one colour really is something else? If so, I don't see how this has to do with how people see the colour--like you said, we were all taught what colour is what.

silver_wolf
04-01-10, 01:30
OK, let's say you see the color "green" one way, but someone else sees it another way. maybe they see it as what you would call "red", but you both call it "green" because you were taught that that's what it is.

Catracoth
04-01-10, 02:15
OK, let's say you see the color "green" one way, but someone else sees it another way. maybe they see it as what you would call "red", but you both call it "green" because you were taught that that's what it is.

That's rather interesting--but how would people see things differently? Pardon my ignorance, but if someone saw something that was yellow, how could someone else see it as blue?

silver_wolf
04-01-10, 02:41
What is yellow and what is blue is only determined by what we are taught. If you were told all your life that a color is red, to you it would be red, even if it's green to me.

Capt. Murphy
04-01-10, 02:49
No. NO! This just can't be. Because if you mixed a color with another you'd get a different/certain color. If colors were dependent on an individual's perception - once they're mixed with different colors you'd still get the same colors that someone else sees.

The idea of naming a color the wrong color couldn't be the case here. Take green :D -- if you were to subtract yellow - you'd get blue. But if another person perceives the color yellow as another color - you shouldn't be able to get blue. It's like a mathematical equation.

:) + ;) = :D

Yellow + Blue = Green.

If I didn't see the first one as yellow, lets say I see violet...

:( + ;) =/= :D

Even if you did have some colors flipped on the color wheel - since it is a circle there would always be at least 2 colors that look the same to everyone else.

Silly topic. :pi:

Edit: Take color gradients. If certain colors were different then gradients couldn't work for everyone. Like when a blue gradually fades into the color red. The medium between the two is purple. That's why this idea can't work.

Let's say person A sees the color Blue, but to person B it looked Red - then you had a gradient (gradual change) to yellow....

Person A sees the transitional color from blue to yellow is green.
For person B the transition from "Red" to yellow is orange.


What looks like to person A - green -- does this also appear green to person B? Or do they just see orange?

Orange is the opposite color to blue. To gradually change blue to orange - it isn't a very pretty color.


There're lots'a examples....

I guess the only thing this topic relies on is the notion that another person would have a different definition for a color than someone else.

If I see Red because it looks red to me, but another person claiming what I call Red - Green because it does indeed look green to them... This is why it falls apart. Because when you get into other different colors - the 2 people would lose boundaries or standards of color.

This has never happened because it is impossible.

silver_wolf
04-01-10, 02:55
huh...makes sense...

Simochka
04-01-10, 03:01
well maybe if we take an image like this

http://www.smashingapps.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/spring-colors.jpg

and lets say the red and green petals are really eye-catching to me, red being on the upper-left corner and green being on the right side, but u'd see what i call red as indigo and what i call green as aqua and vice-versa, wouldn't u say that the eye-catching colors are on the lower part of the picture?

imo the bottom right is the eye catching color. :p ITs just brighter and thats what I like :p

aktrekker
04-01-10, 04:16
What is eye-catching is partly based on preference, partly on instinct, partly on movement, partly on how unusual the sight is. I think very little, if any, is based on how the eye itself detects the light waves. It's the higher brain functions that filter out unnecessary sights and enhances what it thinks is important.

ihatecold17
04-01-10, 04:53
Probably. I have a friend who is mildly colorblind, and he sees certain shades of green as a gold kind of color, and that always made me wonder this exact question.

Punaxe
04-01-10, 09:15
No. NO! This just can't be. Because if you mixed a color with another you'd get a different/certain color. If colors were dependent on an individual's perception - once they're mixed with different colors you'd still get the same colors that someone else sees.

The idea of naming a color the wrong color couldn't be the case here. Take green :D -- if you were to subtract yellow - you'd get blue. But if another person perceives the color yellow as another color - you shouldn't be able to get blue. It's like a mathematical equation.

:) + ;) = :D

Yellow + Blue = Green.

If I didn't see the first one as yellow, lets say I see violet...

:( + ;) =/= :D

Even if you did have some colors flipped on the color wheel - since it is a circle there would always be at least 2 colors that look the same to everyone else.

Silly topic. :pi:

Edit: Take color gradients. If certain colors were different then gradients couldn't work for everyone. Like when a blue gradually fades into the color red. The medium between the two is purple. That's why this idea can't work.

Let's say person A sees the color Blue, but to person B it looked Red - then you had a gradient (gradual change) to yellow....

Person A sees the transitional color from blue to yellow is green.
For person B the transition from "Red" to yellow is orange.


What looks like to person A - green -- does this also appear green to person B? Or do they just see orange?

Orange is the opposite color to blue. To gradually change blue to orange - it isn't a very pretty color.


There're lots'a examples....

I guess the only thing this topic relies on is the notion that another person would have a different definition for a color than someone else.

If I see Red because it looks red to me, but another person claiming what I call Red - Green because it does indeed look green to them... This is why it falls apart. Because when you get into other different colors - the 2 people would lose boundaries or standards of color.

This has never happened because it is impossible.

Nah, this again deals only with the definition of colours. We receive input first of all based on the firing pattern of the cones in our retina, which react on electromagnetic energy of short, medium and long wavelengths. When seeing different colours, we receive different firing patterns from each of these cones, and we have learned to give the resulting combined firing pattern a name ("blue", "green", "red" etc.). Gradients are gradual changes in the presence of wavelengths, which are the same for everyone because they're still at the physical input level. The colour wheel remains exactly the same on this level. It doesn't say anything about the experience of colour.

Also, you used the subtractive colour model (used in painting) while the eye uses first of all the additive colour model (describing light). After that, higher up the brain, it is translated using complementary colours, which is another sign for the colour wheel to remain intact: it is physically not possible to have a "greenish red", because red and green complement each other.

Gabi
04-01-10, 13:58
Let's say person A sees the color Blue, but to person B it looked Red - then you had a gradient (gradual change) to yellow....

Person A sees the transitional color from blue to yellow is green.
For person B the transition from "Red" to yellow is orange.


What looks like to person A - green -- does this also appear green to person B? Or do they just see orange?



As I understand the topic starter, he wanted to know whether the following might be possible:
That people might see a different colour, but still name it the same, because that is what they have learnt.
In your example person A would call blue blue and person B would call red blue.
So, even when mixing the colours, one would see green and the other orange, but they both would call it green.

knightgames
04-01-10, 17:49
The thing is that we do not know what exactly happens when the brain is indeed "processing" the stimuli ("interpreting the colour"). What we do know is that in the brain, every single neuron is connected to many, up to thousands other neurons, and that these links between neurons are formed by experience. Let's make it easy and say there's only one neuron firing when light of 430nm is perceived. What is necessarily the case is that even this single neuron is connected to many other neurons, each connected to others and so on, and therefore influencing their firing patterns. All these connections being unique to every human individual, it must be concluded that even if we assume every human being has the same 430nm-neuron, the resulting neurological representation and cascade of associations are unique for everyone.
Now of course we don't know where and how exactly consciousness, sensation and experience come into the picture, but the fact that the human brain is built based on the individual's unique life experiences, makes me hinge towards thinking that every sensation is unique, even those as seemingly basic as colour perception.



As I mentioned in the other post I was busy and working. As I was away I was thinking this subject. It is interesting.

Anyway. One of my jobs is video production and as such one of the first things you do with a video camera is WHITE BALANCE. There are reasons for doing this that has to do with varying kinds of light in the production environment. Sunlight has a different colour temperature than indoor incandescent, which again is totally different than flourecent light. Our eyes naturally filter the differences in light and and we interpret the image we see as the appropraite colour.

A video camera can't do that. It picks up the light through the lens onto the coupling device which is then translated into a signal the camera can record onto tape or memory card. The problem is. If we don't tell the camera how to interpret the light the result when we see it on the tv would be blue coloured table cloths when they should be white for example.

The camera doesn't care. It's only how WE viewers relate to the colours on the TV that becomes the problem. There's nothing wrong with how the camera picks up the light, records or displays an image. It's only when we need to view the images from the camera ourselves so we can see green grass, white clouds and azure blue skies that's an issue. That's why we need to have the camera intepret light so that WE the viewers see everything the same. In other words - White Balance.

Now how this applies to the human element for our disscussion is that you or I will never view the same image identically. How could I unless we exchange optic centers of our brains so I could see what you actually see. In essense what you see -a red apple for example- may be picked up as orange. Since I will never see the what you see there is no reason colour is an issue. As Minty said it's arbitrary and doesn't affect us.

I now get the subjectivity in this question. I was thinking so linearly and mechanical I couldn't see the trees through the forest.

I have to change my opinion about the possibility that some people see colours differently, but because of education learning have the same reference point. Your Mum may have picked up a red ball and handed it to you, but you may see it as purple. Because your were educated to call that purple ball red there is no issue between what you see or your Mum sees because there is a common understanding that the light bounced off the ball produces a certain response in the brain which when given a name/label identifies the two perceived colours as the same. In other words. Human white balancing.

I can't believe I was thinking so linearly and mechanically that it took a mechanical action of the camera to understand the 'experience/perception' part of the topic.

knightgames
04-01-10, 18:24
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e354/knightgames/spring-colors.jpghttp://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e354/knightgames/spring-colors_2.jpg


There are two seperate flower images here. They are both identical to the one previously posted. The difference being is that the one of the right has had it's hue chaged for the sake of demonstration. The one on the left is the original.

Every single one of you see the left picture as it really is. But let's say my brain interprets the colours as seen on the image to the right

If you saw this you'd be wondering what's wrong with me (don't lie. I already know you do.... :ton: But I digress)? With all of you seeing the flower as the one on the left of course you'd be puzzled. Your frame of reference through education and learning experiences is that someone taught you the upper left portion of the flower was red.

You look at my flower and are confused because my top left corner of the flower is coloured light blue/green.

Through my learning experience someone taught me that the flowers top left corner is RED. Some person percieve it as red and taught me it's red. My brain interprets light and causes me to see the top left of the flower as blue, but because someone told me it's red, I associate what you call and percieve as blue as red.

interstellardave
04-01-10, 18:28
There is a lot of fascinating discussion (I can't read it all right now, though) in this topic... but the topic itself doesn't require most of it.

The topic isn't about the technical aspects of sight, or electromagnetic waves, etc. It's just one of those goofy "what ifs", that's all. It's about labels and nothing else, I think.

It's like talking to someone who was taught differently from everyone else for some reason. I point to a chair and say "chair", but he points to the same chair and says "horse". We're both seeing the same exact object and are just using a different label for it. It could certainly happen, but it's still a silly "what if".