[Philosophy] Red

[Camacha]

Thats the way neurology textbooks describe it. Just saying. If you know better than that type of literature, sure.

Show me what the textbooks say. I love to learn new things.

[Aanker]

Show me what the textbooks say. I love to learn new things.

I don't have my Purves Neuroscience textbook with me in the US (currently doing an internship for half a year), but in the meantime I will refer you to the 'second best' alternative:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_color

It's a quite expansive article. It is partly dependent on the opponent process (if this is what you mean by colour negative?) but the topic is much deeper than that and for standard vision these colours cannot be accurately represented.

[Bill Phil]

Of more interest may be the way some 'exotic' or 'impossible' colours may be perceived under certain conditions. By looking at a field of one colour for an extended period of time and then shifting one's focus to another field we may see things like 'bluish yellow' or 'grey-fluorescent pink'. I don't remember the exact examples but with a simple google search you should get the picture... or not

By bluish yellow I assume you mean green...

[Aanker]

It isn't actually perceived as green - hence why the colour is called 'impossible' - the perception stems from two normally opposing colours in the retinal opposition process being combined in the brain. So it's not really green. If you saw a blue and yellow interlacing pattern at a distance with both eyes equally at once, however, you might see green.

In the wikipedia article (as well as through a google image search) there is an example of how the imaginary colour can be seen.

[lajoswinkler]

Our colors are the same wavelength, but how our brain reacts to it is different per person.

Only slightly different. Color perception is an evolutionary trait for which humans have well established mechanisms, both sensory and processing ones. Differences are minimal and that can be seen in brain activity scans and other sensitive tests. It's not really an issue anymore. It was a hundred years ago. Today it's not.

Didn't we already discussed it in some thread back then ?

My own reaction: I'd argue that just the same as a baby need not to be told how to breathe, move fingers, cry, smell, feel, and taste, vision should be the same - it has to be genetic. And at least, my family should look at things the same way.

Yes, we did have this at least couple of times. If you don't include science, it boils down to cheap philosophy.

[SciMan]

If we're being pedantic, I'd use the wavelength of light emitted from my screen, instead of trying to use a potentially ambiguous name of a color. Therefore neatly sidestepping the problem in its entirety.

I don't see a philosophy problem here. I see a problem with the definition of the word "red" being imprecise and subjective.

Perhaps that's because I tend to think of things as an engineer or scientist would.

The glass isn't half empty, and it's not half full. It's twice as big as it needs to be.

Edited May 3, 2015 by SciMan

[Kryten]

Do you have a source, I'm intrigued.

Here's the original study.

If we're being pedantic, I'd use the wavelength of light emitted from my screen, instead of trying to use a potentially ambiguous name of a color. Therefore neatly sidestepping the problem in its entirety.

That's not how screens work. They emit at most four and usually three actual wavelengths.

[SciMan]

That's not how screens work. They emit at most four and usually three actual wavelengths.

That's not my point. My point is that I would use an analytic definition based on physical facts instead of a subjective definition based on emotions, feelings, or opinions. I suppose I should have said that instead.

[Xannari Ferrows]

I don't see a philosophy problem here. I see a problem with the definition of the word "red" being imprecise and subjective.

Well, the color itself doesn't have much value. It is but an example in the much greater discussion about qualia.

Perhaps that's because I tend to think of things as an engineer or scientist would.

The glass isn't half empty, and it's not half full. It's twice as big as it needs to be.

I think you just blew my mind.

[Camacha]

Perhaps that's because I tend to think of things as an engineer or scientist would.

The glass isn't half empty, and it's not half full. It's twice as big as it needs to be.

Or half as full as it could be, which means you are at pretty much exactly the same point, just differently worded.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Camacha

[NeatCrown]

All people learned the first colour as red. Even if another person may see it in another colour, they still know it as "red". Besides, any creature with eyes has a slightly dissimilar visible spectrum compared to the next.

SCIENCE: Ruining everything since 1543

[Xannari Ferrows]

All people learned the first colour as red. Even if another person may see it in another colour, they still know it as "red". Besides, any creature with eyes has a slightly dissimilar visible spectrum compared to the next.

SCIENCE: Ruining everything since 1543

That's the point. We call it red, communicate, and walk away without knowing how different each experience was from person to person [or human to human]

It's not what we call it that matters. It's what we see.

[NeatCrown]

That's the point. We call it red, communicate, and walk away without knowing how different each experience was from person to person [or human to human]

It's not what we call it that matters. It's what we see.

Well, I did say Every living being has a slightly different visible spectrum, so we literally see different things. Also, the frequency of light is the same for all.

News Flash: Scientists are now banned from philosophy

[Xannari Ferrows]

News Flash: Scientists are now banned from philosophy

I dare to argue Philosophy is a science, just not one that follows the generalized definition.