Colour is not real is it?

Colour definitely exists but only in the form we perceive it to be. For example, the colour red appears only within the wavelength frequency that we see it in. However, other animals possibly perceive that frequency as a different colour. The true colour, 'out in the world' might never be known.

So, OP makes a valid point. Colour is just our perception of a frequency of light. However, colour does exist.
 
yep you are right OP - colour isn't a property of light, its merely our perception in the brain. Its due to chemicals absorbing light in the eye and translating that into signals that go to the brain.
Its interesting that a lot of processing occurs in the eye before it gets sent to the brain, then the brain tries to make sense of what you see (iirc a good 25% of higher brain function is dedicated to doing just that - so there is a great deal of interpretation going on).
All the evidence we have though suggests most people see colour in the same way (we are all pretty similar genetically/structurally).
Perception plays an enormous part of what colour you ultimately see though - not just the light conditions, but what colours are also in your field of view greatly affect the colour you see due to all the after processing that occurs.

The only variable property of light is its frequency so i've had many arguments with colour physicists who say black isn't a colour but i say it clearly is as its as valid a perception as white. More of a scientific semantics argument really.
 
aardvark said:
The only variable property of light is its frequency so i've had many arguments with colour physicists who say black isn't a colour but i say it clearly is as its as valid a perception as white. More of a scientific semantics argument really.
Click to expand...

Black isn't a certain frequency of light, its an absence of it. Depends what you mean by black really, a "black" object isn't really black as it still reflects a small amount of light (unless it's made of that weird carbon stuff). Actual black (e.g. 100m underground in a cave with no torch) is definitely not a colour, in the same way as perfect silence is not a sound (despite what Simon and Garfunkel would have you think ;))
 
Nothing exists without human interpretation.

/put the bong down.

I have quite a lot of experience with certain mind-altering drugs and the best way id describe it is a link to Synesthesia.
The sense becomes combined or linked in some way which can be incredibly overwhelming to some people.
Hearing colouring, seeing sound its actually incredibly awesome. Combine that with all the most subconscious nonsense you can think of, or not! Really good fun!
 
rubberduck said:
Which is exactly my point... While we know that no human can 'see' (lets say) microwaves there is no scientific reason that they are any more or less (let's say) yellow than the wavelength of light we interpret to be yellow. Right?
Click to expand...

Colours are assigned to what wavelengths we can see. Our eyes interpret the narrow band of 400-700nm wavelength, and send the signals of what they 'see' to our brain. We evolved into doing this, perhaps because it's the best region for us to see, where as seeing in microwave, IR and so on would not be as useful. For the billions of years it took, most of those waves would be background radiation from the universe, something our atmosphere shields us against. I believe women have an extra receptor in the eye for colour to men, so their colour perception is more accurate and hence why they do not suffer colour blindness. We also have the ability in rare cases to see into the UV.

The argument of photons being a wave or a particle, well.. it's both.
 
D3K said:
Well it's a popular debate that ultimately leads nowhere as there is no proof. Your interpretation of red might be how I see blue. It's all arbitrary.
Click to expand...

If this was the case colour blindness tests wouldn't work, smoothly graduated colour fades wouldn't work, and the entire artistic concept of complementing and contrasting colours wouldn't work. So we can be highly certain that we see roughly the same colours as each other.
 
Haggisman said:
Black isn't a certain frequency of light, its an absence of it. Depends what you mean by black really, a "black" object isn't really black as it still reflects a small amount of light (unless it's made of that weird carbon stuff). Actual black (e.g. 100m underground in a cave with no torch) is definitely not a colour, in the same way as perfect silence is not a sound (despite what Simon and Garfunkel would have you think ;))
Click to expand...

i disagree because as i've said, colour is not a property of light, its an interpretation in the brain.
so is only a perfect absence of photons black? and if it is, what are the other 'blacks' we see?
 
The likelihood that every person see's colour differently is a bit of a stretch, i'd say at the very most there are 2-3 different variations of the same colour that everyone see's, but color is purely based on what light is reflected by an object, and what light is not. The information reaching the retina is identical to everyone elses..
 
terley said:
The likelihood that every person see's colour differently is a bit of a stretch, i'd say at the very most there are 2-3 different variations of the same colour that everyone see's, but color is purely based on what light is reflected by an object, and what light is not. The information reaching the retina is identical to everyone elses..
Click to expand...

I agree with your conclusion, but your reasoning is off. Colour is not purely based on what light is reflected by an object; it's constructed by your brain from the information received by the retina and a host of other knowledge and biases which aim to interpret what it is seeing in a useful fashion. As a result of this, your ability to perceive colours based solely on the wavelengths of light is really bad. You use so many other cues to construct what colour you think something "really" is that you can't perceive what colour light is actually reaching your eye.
 
aardvark said:
i disagree because as i've said, colour is not a property of light, its an interpretation in the brain.
so is only a perfect absence of photons black? and if it is, what are the other 'blacks' we see?
Click to expand...

It's an absence of photon emission. This is why black things heat up far faster in sunlight, as they absorb the energy, but transmit far less back (certainly for true for our visible region). White objects being the opposite.
 
Guess we better send more detailed directions than the blue planet, next to the red one to any aliens out there. For all we know we could be purple :p
 
Ryan-3 said:
It's an absence of photon emission.
Click to expand...

Look at something black on your screen. It is emitting photons. Is it black? Why, or why not? Your screen probably also has a black surround, that surround is likely reflecting less photons than the black regions of your screen are emitting, is it black? Why, or why not?

The idea of a perfectly black object that emits, and reflects, no photons is a theoretical physics notion that has never actually been observed.
 
Mr Jack said:
If this was the case colour blindness tests wouldn't work, smoothly graduated colour fades wouldn't work, and the entire artistic concept of complementing and contrasting colours wouldn't work. So we can be highly certain that we see roughly the same colours as each other.
Click to expand...

I'm glad somebody put it better than I could.
The proof is to go in a room with people of all ages and ask them what colour they see and the vast majority will all see the same colour and not one seeing red while the other sees blue (unless colour blind).
 
I've often wondered if everyone sees things the same. I see what I call red, you might see what I call yellow, but because we have both been taught that it's red, we both know it as red, regardless of what we see.
 
SexyGreyFox said:
The proof is to go in a room with people of all ages and ask them what colour they see and the vast majority will all see the same colour and not one seeing red while the other sees blue (unless colour blind).
Click to expand...

The problem with that is that then you don't know whether they're seeing the same colour (i.e. experiencing the same qualia, if you've studied philosophy at all) or whether they've just learned to use the same word for a different colour - i.e. when you look at the sky and say it's blue do you actually experience the same thing I experience or have we just learnt to use the same word for different experience? I think you do see the same thing, for the reasons that I gave in my post you quoted, but it's a tricky subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom