NationStates Jolt Archive

Think about it. Our eyes are tuned toward the blue end of the spectrum, so how to we know that grass is really green, the sky is blue, and tree bark is brown?
I started thinking about this when I read a dog book that said that dogs see red as a dull pink. So how do we know that red is really red? What if the colors we perceive arn't really there at all, it's just our eyes showing us what they were designed to see. (and I don't mean by some almighty god)
I have no scientific knowledge to back this up, except that dog book of which I can't remember the title. Just something I've been thinking about.

Do you think that's air you're breathing?

Because we get to name the colors, not dogs. So the particular wavelength of light that grass reflects is green because we've decided to call it that.

Seeing as humanity is the only species capable of propogating arbitrary colours to different shades, colour is whatever we say it is.

Before this question can be answered, you must define 'green'. The specific definition is rather pivotal.

I debated about something similar with a friend last year, but I forgot the conclusion we eventually came to, and I doubt he remembers either. Grr.

Nothing has any color in reality. All matter reflects a certain number of the colors in the light spectrum, and these are translated by our eyes in to the colors we see. It is simply the translation of various wavelengths of light energy that give anything color.

here in kentucky we are called the "blue-grass state."

Sometimes the grass is yellow or brown. At night it's bluish, grayish or black. In winter it's white.

So yeah, color is bullshit, but don't tell that to the racists.

All I'm saying is what if we were to not see as we do, what if we could go outside our bodies and see colors for what they really are? Would they be the same? I could care less about their names.

Do you think that's air you're breathing?

OMGROFLCOPTER

Does it complicate matters that not all humans can agree on what is 'green', what is 'blue', what is 'red', etc? And I'm not just talking about colour blind people, either. I have a stuffed dragon that I consider blue, but my roommate considers green, because it's one of those borderline 'aqua' colours.

All I'm saying is what if we were to not see as we do, what if we could go outside our bodies and see colors for what they really are? Would they be the same? I could care less about their names.
What do you mean, 'see them for what they really are'? All they are is certain wavelengths of light being reflected and others not. You need visual organs and a perceptual system to be able to make sense of it.

Does it complicate matters that not all humans can agree on what is 'green', what is 'blue', what is 'red', etc? And I'm not just talking about colour blind people, either. I have a stuffed dragon that I consider blue, but my roommate considers green, because it's one of those borderline 'aqua' colours.

That's something else I've been thinking about, does everyone perceive the same colors? What might seem blue to you could be purple to me.

What is "green" (or grün, vert, verde... you get the picture)?

The word "green" simply represents a normative abstraction that varies between sensors.

Besides, I have Bluegrass.

OMGROFLCOPTER

What the...crap...?

What is "green" (or grün, vert, verde... you get the picture)?

The word "green" simply represents a normative abstraction that varies between sensors.
Now if only I were smart like this guy/gal and were able to post something like this instead of just saying that the definition is pivotal.

What the...crap...?

http://www.rofl.name/roflcopter/

What do you mean, 'see them for what they really are'? All they are is certain wavelengths of light being reflected and others not. You need visual organs and a perceptual system to be able to make sense of it.

I knew no one would understand me, here let me put it another way:

Anybody read Animorphs? Or maybe watch Star Trek? In both of those there are supernatural beings (i.e. Ellemist and Q). They do not have sensory organs, they don't need any. What kind of color do you think they see? Without specialized sensory organs to tell you what a color looks like you can see what it really does look like. Get it? Our eyes tell us what they see, not what's really there.

Oh, and I know that Ellemist and Q arn't real, just using them for an example.

All I'm saying is what if we were to not see as we do, what if we could go outside our bodies and see colors for what they really are? Would they be the same? I could care less about their names.
green is whatever you say it is just like anything else in any language. why is the chair your sitting in "chair" if you called it "table" it wouldn't change what it really was. so green is just the NAME we gave to a specific range of wavelengths reflected off or transmitted through any object. if i said that the chair im sitting in is blue when it really is black, everyone would say, your a dumb ass, that chair is black. so we just say "green" because thats what we've all agreed upon

Think about it. Our eyes are tuned toward the blue end of the spectrum, so how to we know that grass is really green, the sky is blue, and tree bark is brown?
I started thinking about this when I read a dog book that said that dogs see red as a dull pink. So how do we know that red is really red? What if the colors we perceive arn't really there at all, it's just our eyes showing us what they were designed to see. (and I don't mean by some almighty god)
I have no scientific knowledge to back this up, except that dog book of which I can't remember the title. Just something I've been thinking about.
Dude! WTF? You need a vacation! :)

Dude! WTF? You need a vacation! :)

You're tellin' me.
But then again, I am a bit wierd. At least that's what most people say.

I knew no one would understand me, here let me put it another way:

Anybody read Animorphs? Or maybe watch Star Trek? In both of those there are supernatural beings (i.e. Ellemist and Q). They do not have sensory organs, they don't need any. What kind of color do you think they see? Without specialized sensory organs to tell you what a color looks like you can see what it really does look like. Get it? Our eyes tell us what they see, not what's really there.

Oh, and I know that Ellemist and Q arn't real, just using them for an example.
'What's really there' is raw data. Wavelengths being reflected and such. We cannot possibly imagine what it would be like to simply perceive the raw data without interpretation. Also, I would think that any ability to perceive visually would require interpretation of a sort.

I believe it come down to this:
If what you suggest is possible, there is no way to begin to imagine or describe what a being of that sort would see. We can't conceive of things outside of our perceptory and interpretative systems at all, at least not that I know of.

What the...crap...?

OMG-ROFL-COPTER

green is whatever you say it is just like anything else in any language. why is the chair your sitting in "chair" if you called it "table" it wouldn't change what it really was. so green is just the NAME we gave to a specific range of wavelengths reflected off or transmitted through any object. if i said that the chair im sitting in is blue when it really is black, everyone would say, your a dumb ass, that chair is black. so we just say "green" because thats what we've all agreed upon


Like I said, I could care less about the name we give a color, I just have to use that particular name to get my point across. I mean, what we perceive as green, red, or black.
How do you know that your chair is really what we call "black?"

Like I said, I could care less about the name we give a color, I just have to use that particular name to get me point across. I mean what we perceive as green, red, or black.
How do you know that your chair is really what we call "black?"

It could be any color, because the names are meaningless. The only way to really identify what color something is would be to say "This object has a wavelength of X and a frequency of X", but even then the color words are required to define where it lies. :confused:

I'll leave y'all to discuss this, cos I gotta go now. I'll be back later to see what happened.

It doesnt matter what colors we percive, as long as everyone sees the same color and they agree on what to call it. People ay see things as in reality, different colors, but as long as there arent sufficient words to describe exactly what color we are seeing, everyone will agree on the color, no matter what they really see...

All I'm saying is what if we were to not see as we do, what if we could go outside our bodies and see colors for what they really are? Would they be the same? I could care less about their names.

Seeing itself is relative. Your idea of sight even outside of your body could still be based on what you know as sight from inside your body.

Wasn't it Einstein who said "There are few absolutes in nature", or something to that extent? Of course I prefer "The only things certain in life are death and taxes."

I have a friend who works at a company that does color control. Every wonder why all the ketchup is the same color. She explained to me how not eveyroen sees the same colors the same way and how each person percieves the same color slighty differently

as far as I understand it, there's this light, right? It's this energy that travels at 186,282 miles per second. It's got no mass, and it's generated by excited electrons shedding extra energy.
Ok, now there's this organism, right? It's self-aware and sentient (is that redundant?) and it has photo-sensitive cells on organs in its head called its eyes. now pretend you are this organism. Some light happens to travel into your eyes, and what do you know, this light is of just a frequency adequate of being detected by these photosensive cells. Some chemical thing in these cells freaks out when it gets hit by this light, so it sends this electronic signal down past a whole bunch of other cells. It eventually reaches your brain, at which point you say, "green".

Problem solved.

Think about it. Our eyes are tuned toward the blue end of the spectrum, so how to we know that grass is really green, the sky is blue, and tree bark is brown?
I started thinking about this when I read a dog book that said that dogs see red as a dull pink. So how do we know that red is really red? What if the colors we perceive arn't really there at all, it's just our eyes showing us what they were designed to see. (and I don't mean by some almighty god)
I have no scientific knowledge to back this up, except that dog book of which I can't remember the title. Just something I've been thinking about.
Each color is a specific frequency of light (or wavelength, either way works). Green just happens to be what we assigned that frequency.

You're tellin' me.
But then again, I am a bit wierd. At least that's what most people say.
Don't feel bad ... they say the same of me! I take it as a compliment! :D

About perception ... the reason we see a color which we have elected to name "green" is because of the way our visual sense has developed. We could rename it and call it something like "boiginder," but that wouldn't alter our perception of the color itself.

As studies by Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela of the University of Santiago, Chile have shown, the act of percieving is cognition ( the act of making decisions ). The act of perception is the act of cognition. Perception does not so much "represent" an external reality as it "specifies" one. This does not mean that we can choose to perceive any sort of "reality" we like, but rather means that what reality looks like to us is to a considerable degree a decision made for us by the way we perceive things.

As genetic science progresses, I imagine we will be able to change and add to our ability to percieve, which will also impact the way we think. Don't like the way you think? Change your means of perception.

I'm not really sure where I'm going with all that, but I just thought I'd share. :)

I'm still not sure if you all understand my question. But, I think I've finally simplified it as much as possible, so here goes:

How do we know that grass, which we perceive as a color we call "green", is really "green"? How do we know it's not, in reality, some weird different color?
Again I go back to the dog. Dogs see what we call "red" as a dull "pink". So which is correct? "Red" or dull "pink"?

(from now on color names will be put in italics)

I'm still not sure if you all understand my question. But, I think I've finally simplified it as much as possible, so here goes:

How do we know that grass, which we perceive as a color we call "green", is really "green"? How do we know it's not, in reality, some weird different color?
Again I go back to the dog. Dogs see what we call "red" as a dull "pink". So which is correct? "Red" or dull "pink"?

(from now on color names will be put in italics)
Grass isn't "green" it is simply composed of a material that relfects green light, and absorbs other wavelengths. What we see is only what we perceive as a color and in reality are we are doing is observing waves of light.

If you want to get even more convoluted nothing you see is actually how you percieve it. Any matter you see is simply energy condensed to a slow vibration. Furthermore because of the inability of humans to detect more than a small fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum we can only hope to ever see less than a millionth of existence.

Grass isn't "green" it is simply composed of a material that relfects green light, and absorbs other wavelengths. What we see is only what we perceive as a color and in reality are we are doing is observing waves of light.

If you want to get even more convoluted nothing you see is actually how you percieve it. Any matter you see is simply energy condensed to a slow vibration. Furthermore because of the inability of humans to detect more than a small fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum we can only hope to ever see less than a millionth of existence.


That's the answer I was looking for! So you say that what we see isn't what really is there, it's just how we perceive it. That's what I thought but it's really confusing.

I'm still not sure if you all understand my question. But, I think I've finally simplified it as much as possible, so here goes:

How do we know that grass, which we perceive as a color we call "green", is really "green"? How do we know it's not, in reality, some weird different color?
Again I go back to the dog. Dogs see what we call "red" as a dull "pink". So which is correct? "Red" or dull "pink"?

(from now on color names will be put in italics)
Red is correct, and yes the grass is green. Why? Because humans name colors, not dogs, and colors are named by the wavelengths they posses, which are the same whether it is percieved as Green, or Magentas with teal polkadots.

Red is correct, and yes the grass is green. Why? Because humans name colors, not dogs, and colors are named by the wavelengths they posses, which are the same whether it is percieved as Green, or Magentas with teal polkadots.

Hey, how do you know dogs don't have names for colors? You ever been a dog? :D But really, I COULD CARE LESS about the names we give colors. That's why I put colors in italics, the names are trivial.
Different animals (including humans) perceive light wavelengths and frequencies different ways, surely you know this. So how do we now that what a dog sees is really what something like a rose really looks like? So which is it, "red" or dull "pink"?

If people spent as much time discussing the causes of global poverty as they did debating frivolous subjects, we'd all be living like kings.

If people spent as much time discussing the causes of global poverty as they did debating frivolous subjects, we'd all be living like kings.
No, because all we would do is talk and argue and never do anything about it. Duh.

Is this like your first day on the internet or something? :D

Hey I don't think this is frivilous! It's really important to me!!

Its the colors I perceive it to be because all life really is is perseption. In Maxx Barry's book Syrup, he says the life "reality is perseption" many times and it is very true.

There is no fork.

Grass isn't green when its on fire!

This mans circular logic astounds me......

....light wavelengths may be percieved differently by different things but the wavelength is the same regardless of perception. Color, at its core scientific definition deals with wavelengths, not perception of wavelenghts. It is green due to the length of the light, whether it is percieved as green does not matter, as the wavelength is still the same. And it doesn't matter if dogs talk and have a word for green. So do the french.....

...why am I even trying. :confused:

spoken)
Breathe deep in the gathering gloom
Watch lights fade from every room
Bedsitter people look back and lament
Another day's useless energy's spent
Impassioned lovers wrestle as one
Lonely man cries for love and has none
New mother picks up and suckles her sun
Senior citizens wish they were young
Cold-hearted orb that rules the night
Removes the colors from our sight
Red is grey and yellow white
And we decide which is right
And which is an illusion?

Part of the lyrics to Knights in White Satin.

...So how do we now that what a dog sees is really what something like a rose really looks like? So which is it, "red" or dull "pink"?
We do not know. That's why we just agree on it.

Horses can't see the difference between green and red (at least not properly). Most of us can. Some injects may be able to see several other colours which can't see (infrared, ultraviolet, or just more colours in general)

a rose is a rose is a rose
:)
and, chosing the word "grass" seems to be at the same level or arbitrary-ness as the color green being green (d'oh, or even being named "green")

No, because all we would do is talk and argue and never do anything about it. Duh.

LOL!
too true.

I've always wondered what color UV and Infrared light were. Most butterflies have UV patterns on top of their Vis patterns to help attract other butterflies. So all those dull-colored butterflies you see flying about actually have tons of colors, just ultraviolet ones we can't see.

As mentioned several times, the colours we give things are only to make communication easier.

The frequency of the light is what makes the difference, what gives the 'true' image. To see what something 'really' looks like requires defining 'look'. The most objective way is to measure the spectrum of wavelengths produced including all the way up to x-rays down to radio waves.

Humans can only 'see' a tiny portion of the wavelengths possible (as someone else said) and to make arbitrary divisions such as 'red' and 'blue' is purely for convenience.