Here is something to wonder: Is your red different than mine?

[Braznor]

I do believe there is a logical progression in the color band as we move along the spectrum. So any color cannot be replaced with any color for the riddle to work. The entire spectrum has to be inverted upside down.

 

[Braznor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy

Tetrachromacy is the condition of possessing four independent channels for conveying color information, or possessing four different types of cone cells in the eye. Organisms with tetrachromacy are called tetrachromats.
In tetrachromatic organisms, the sensory color space is four-dimensional, meaning that to match the sensory effect of arbitrarily chosen spectra of light within their visible spectrum requires mixtures of at least four different primary colors.

Two possible human tetrachromats have been identified: "Mrs. M," an Englishsocial worker, was located in a study conducted in 1993,[8] and an unidentified female physician near Newcastle, England, was discovered in a study reported in 2006.[7] Neither case has been fully verified.

 

[SMOGZINN]

This whole thing is just playing with semantics, with a healthy dose of romanticizing the brain thrown in for good measure. Red does not exist outside of our brain. Color is an abstract concept. What we call red is a wavelength of light, and if the eyes are capable of correctly detecting that wavelength then we call that signal red. If the eyes are not able to correctly detect the wavelength, then we get an obvious disability that is easy to detect, and if we are mislabeling colors then that too is easy to detect. Ever teach a child colors?

The key to it is that we do not see color from a single receptor but instead as the difference in signal strength between two (or three) different types of receptors. So, it does not matter how the receptors are calibrated, only that we are able to read the difference between the signal strengths.

Let us think of this as software reading the output of hardware. I have hardware that reads the wavelengths of light, when it gets a specific wavelength I define the variable ‘Color’ as ‘Red’. Every time I get that signal I pass the ‘Red’ to the variable ‘Color’.

Now I have a second set of hardware and software, that also reads the wavelengths of light, and when it gets that specific wavelength of light it defines it’s variable ‘Color’ as ‘Red’. Now, does it make any sense to argue that the two machines variable ‘Color’ has different values of ‘Red’?

No, I can argue that the hardware is not precise enough to read the exact wavelengths so there is some difference between what triggers the ‘Color’ variable to have the value of ‘Red’. But I could run tests to determine just how much difference there is between the sensitivity of the hardware, and then we are looking at the obvious disability (as one machine would return a value of purple, the other red) but no one is going to argue that the software has a different concept of ‘Red’ if the differences in the hardware signal detection are insignificant.

 

[DrPizza]

The problem with your response, smogzinn, is that we don't need certain wavelengths to see color. What's yellow? A certain set of wavelengths or frequencies? What about underwater? As light travels at a slower speed, the wavelength is changed, but the frequency remains the same. Of course, when that light enters our eyes, the relationship between frequency and wavelength of that light is identical to the relationship as if the "color" had been propagated through the air or a vacuum as the speed of the light at that point is dependent on the fluid within the eyeball.

So, if something underwater is "yellow" - what does that have to do with the wavelength of light underwater - how does your machine determine what the actual wavelength is. Regardless, I'm on a tangent to my main point at the moment.

How about additive colors? If I shine a red light and a green light at a reflector, your machine is NOT going to detect wavelengths or frequencies that correspond to yellow. It's going to detect red frequencies, and green frequencies. However, our eyes will see yellow. (See additive colors.)

What if I have a white wheel with black stripes on it; I allow you to see only a portion of the wheel at a time, and I spin the wheel really fast. The wheel is ONLY black and white. Yet, everyone's eyes (except, I'm guessing the colorblind) will perceive other colors - which depend on which way the wheel is spinning.

So, while defining "what is color" is a much more difficult question than simply assigning wavelengths or frequencies, I hardly think that it's as abstract a concept as you're making it out to be. It's a real phenomenon.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I'm not certain I understand you full argument, DrPizza, because all I see you arguing is limitations of the detection equipment. Light does change color as it travels though water, or other media, and we see that change, just hold up a glass of water to the light to see it yourself. There is nothing surprising about that.

As for the additive color, I mentioned that the eyes work off of not single receptors seeing single wavelengths, but multiple receptors that are stimulated by a range of wavelengths each and then compare the difference in signal strength between them in the opponent process of color detection. I could easily have my machine do the same thing, if it’s detector for 564-580 nm waves sends a strong signal, and 420-440 nm waves also sends a strong signal, while the 534-545 nm detector sends a very weak signal, then we define our ‘Color’ variable as ‘Yellow’.

The spinning wheel is the same. Just now we are just talking about how often we sample our data. A combination of the speed of the wheel and rate of sampling will determine the signal strengths being received by the hardware.

 

[firewolfsm]

I always knew this question was bullshit, before I studied physics and neuroscience, I knew there was no way someone could have his red look like my blue or something.

Think of heat, no one questions that a hotter touch feels hotter to all functioning humans. Something louder feels louder, higher pitch likewise. Colors are exactly the same, they can't be switched around. Colors seem "different" from each other, but they lie on a spectrum just like our other senses. It's just that our brain doesn't really need to compare different colors so they remain separate as ideas.

 

[Hacp]

This is pretty stupid. Do we hear the same sounds when we speak? Do you feel the same touch? We'll never know and it is pointless to know.

 

[Throckmorton]

This whole thing is just playing with semantics, with a healthy dose of romanticizing the brain thrown in for good measure. Red does not exist outside of our brain. Color is an abstract concept. What we call red is a wavelength of light, and if the eyes are capable of correctly detecting that wavelength then we call that signal red. If the eyes are not able to correctly detect the wavelength, then we get an obvious disability that is easy to detect, and if we are mislabeling colors then that too is easy to detect. Ever teach a child colors?

The key to it is that we do not see color from a single receptor but instead as the difference in signal strength between two (or three) different types of receptors. So, it does not matter how the receptors are calibrated, only that we are able to read the difference between the signal strengths.

Let us think of this as software reading the output of hardware. I have hardware that reads the wavelengths of light, when it gets a specific wavelength I define the variable ‘Color’ as ‘Red’. Every time I get that signal I pass the ‘Red’ to the variable ‘Color’.

Now I have a second set of hardware and software, that also reads the wavelengths of light, and when it gets that specific wavelength of light it defines it’s variable ‘Color’ as ‘Red’. Now, does it make any sense to argue that the two machines variable ‘Color’ has different values of ‘Red’?

No, I can argue that the hardware is not precise enough to read the exact wavelengths so there is some difference between what triggers the ‘Color’ variable to have the value of ‘Red’. But I could run tests to determine just how much difference there is between the sensitivity of the hardware, and then we are looking at the obvious disability (as one machine would return a value of purple, the other red) but no one is going to argue that the software has a different concept of ‘Red’ if the differences in the hardware signal detection are insignificant.

You're not understanding the OP's question. Your mind interprets a red object appearing to be a certain color. Another person's mind might interpret that same object with the same color as looking completely different.

If you could swap consciousness with someone else, but somehow retain your own identity, you could very well end up seeing a completely different palette.

 

[William Gaatjes]

You're not understanding the OP's question. Your mind interprets a red object appearing to be a certain color. Another person's mind might interpret that same object with the same color as looking completely different.

If you could swap consciousness with someone else, but somehow retain your own identity, you could very well end up seeing a completely different palette.

If this can really be the case, i wonder how modular the brain is. Why i wonder about this, is that we all agree that certain combinations of sound waves trigger mild emotional charges. If this is also the case with colors which i think is, but i am no expert. I wonder if people who experience wavelength of colors differently even with identical eyes(meaning similar build up and processing of the eye but different wiring in the brain) also experience the emotional charge of a combination of colors differently or get a different emotional charge. I wonder if such a person would also experience certain sound combinations differently.

I think the eyes can differ.
But i think the brain can also be wired differently.
Even without any brain damage at the early stages of life this can be possible. At least that is what i think. A genetic effect.

But i wonder how the emotional processing of these hypothetical people would be ?

 

[C1]

Sure. Not everyone can stand the sight of the color of blood nor the sound of finger nails scraping on a chalkboard.

==========
Type AB negative

 

[William Gaatjes]

Sure. Not everyone can stand the sight of the color of blood nor the sound of finger nails scraping on a chalkboard.

==========
Type AB negative

I recognize this. But flesh with blood makes me hungry(No i am not a vampire although my first premolars are built up of 2 cones where the inner cone is elongated, spike shaped and tongue piercing(this i know from experience and hurts like hell).
The fingernails sound, yes. It does not bother me on a conscience level, meaning it does not spawn memories other than the visual of fingernails on a chalkboard and if i zoom in the animation happens where i can view the simulated physics(with rounding errors but good enough) happen but in layers of subjects : sound waves, mechanical properties, deformation of the nails. My memory and imagination works like this. I do wonder if there are more people who have this ? When comparing people, i know a lot of people have this ability. It is i think standard but must be developed. Do you have this way of recalling memories as well ?

But i get shivers when i hear the sound and the strong desire to tense up my muscles which i have to give in to. Giving me a face of someone who smells something horrible.

I wonder how many people have something similar like this ?
Do you ?

 

[f4phantom2500]

Working in the art field there is a test studios use to determine that the person working there doesn't have altered color perceptions. It is very involved and done on calibrated displays within a room with preset lighting conditions. It involves sorting colors based on the order they should be in from blue to red. The one I did was 512 colors . I didn't score a perfect score, I got 478 out of 512. People that score a perfect score are the ones that are highly sought after for color matching and can actually get paid more for being able to do it.

There is an online version you can try. Realize that its not as accurate as the lab version , but still will give you an idea of how you see color compared to others and what if any areas of color you see better or worse.
http://xritephoto.com/ph_toolframe.aspx?action=coloriq

is it normal to get a perfect score on that test in 1 try? cuz i did 😀! granted my monitor has an unusually high level of color reproduction.

 

[SMOGZINN]

You're not understanding the OP's question. Your mind interprets a red object appearing to be a certain color. Another person's mind might interpret that same object with the same color as looking completely different.

If you could swap consciousness with someone else, but somehow retain your own identity, you could very well end up seeing a completely different palette.

No, I understood exactly what the OP was saying, and my argument was against your exact statement. The 'Red' in one system, is the same as the 'Red' in another system because 'Red' is a physical characteristic of light, and the mental image of ‘Red’ is not a thing, but just a symbol of that physical characteristic. Just like my example of the computers with the variables, it makes no sense to say that my symbol is qualitatively different then your symbol when they are both the symbol for ‘Red’. It makes just as much sense to say that I might interpret ‘Four’ differently then you interpret ‘Four’.

 

[C1]

But isnt this really the problem? Is your "four" the same as my fore?

A transducer on a pickup arm converts the fixed grooves of a phono record to a complex electrical signal that is fed into the input of a preamp then to an amp & then speakers. No two systems sound the same because of the conversions (eg, pickup transducer characteristics, RIAA equalization of the preamp input, preamp circuits, amplifier circuits, speaker differences). I imagine a minds ability to perceive color via the human eye is "shaded" in an analogous fashion as in the phono example.

Try a test then using the color chart arrangement test offered in this thread. Put two individuals each in a separate room, show each person the same of one of the chart colors. Then take the sample away & then ask them to identify in the color selection panel the reference color they were first shown. Betcha nothing (also nobody) matches up.

Some advice too about colors. Dont try to guess and pick out touch up paint for your car at the parts store without going by a reference number (looked up in a color identification catalog for your make/model/vintage). You have almost no chance of grabbing the correct spray can even when the plastic top is a sample of the color of the paint inside.
==============
Four
For
Fore
Phor

 

[William Gaatjes]

But isnt this really the problem? Is your "four" the same as my fore?

A transducer on a pickup arm converts the fixed grooves of a phono record to a complex electrical signal that is fed into the input of a preamp then to an amp & then speakers. No two systems sound the same because of the conversions (eg, pickup transducer characteristics, RIAA equalization of the preamp input, preamp circuits, amplifier circuits, speaker differences). I imagine a minds ability to perceive color via the human eye is "shaded" in an analogous fashion as in the phono example.

Try a test then using the color chart arrangement test offered in this thread. Put two individuals each in a separate room, show each person the same of one of the chart colors. Then take the sample away & then ask them to identify in the color selection panel the reference color they were first shown. Betcha nothing (also nobody) matches up.

Some advice too about colors. Dont try to guess and pick out touch up paint for your car at the parts store without going by a reference number (looked up in a color identification catalog for your make/model/vintage). You have almost no chance of grabbing the correct spray can even when the plastic top is a sample of the color of the paint inside.
==============
Four
For
Fore
Phor

The problem is how to deal with deviations from a value.

Long ago, Lotfali Askar Zadeh invented fuzzy logic based on a model of how the brain works.
The trick is that there is no hard single value of red. But red is a collection of values that has a lower limit and a upper limit. As long as the perceived value lies within these boundaries, it will be accepted as red. I am sure cones in the eyes allow for some deviation. As such, the brain must not look at hard values. My opinion is that the neurons of the brain just doing nothing more then integrating and averaging.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average

 

[Throckmorton]

No, I understood exactly what the OP was saying, and my argument was against your exact statement. The 'Red' in one system, is the same as the 'Red' in another system because 'Red' is a physical characteristic of light, and the mental image of ‘Red’ is not a thing, but just a symbol of that physical characteristic. Just like my example of the computers with the variables, it makes no sense to say that my symbol is qualitatively different then your symbol when they are both the symbol for ‘Red’. It makes just as much sense to say that I might interpret ‘Four’ differently then you interpret ‘Four’.

But what we're talking about IS the mental image. Not the object being red. Are my mental image of red and your mental image the same? How do you know I don't see blue the same way you see red? How could we possibly know? Even if a CT scan shows the same parts of the brain lighting up, how does that relate to the mental image that your actual consciousness sees?

 

[KIAman]

But what we're talking about IS the mental image. Not the object being red. Are my mental image of red and your mental image the same? How do you know I don't see blue the same way you see red? How could we possibly know? Even if a CT scan shows the same parts of the brain lighting up, how does that relate to the mental image that your actual consciousness sees?

This is interesting because this raises more questions about perception in general. Because there is no proof that we all see/hear/feel/taste the same way as anybody else, we just have to assume.

My sugar can taste like your sour in your brain although in your brain, you are wired to enjoy sour and dislike sweet. My hot can be perceived like your cold, etc.

But, like my first response, we have yet to have any documented cases where a person has shifted their perceptions. We have people who develop accents and people who suddenly become passionate about music and many more examples of how a change in the brain causes a change in entire behavior but nothing regarding a change in perception.

 

[C1]

But, like my first response, we have yet to have any documented cases where a person has shifted their perceptions. We have people who develop accents and people who suddenly become passionate about music and many more examples of how a change in the brain causes a change in entire behavior but nothing regarding a change in perception.

Huh? Common!

Your brain CAN be retrained though. In one psychological study, participants were asked to wear inverting lenses - lenses that invert the image BEFORE they get to your eye, so that when your eye inverts it, it's right-side-up. At first, everything appeared upside-down to the participants. But, after a few days, people began to report that everything appeared right-side-up! As a second part of the study, the people were asked to take the glasses off. Because they were now used to the lenses, their NORMAL vision appeared upside-down!! Within a day, though, their vision returned to normal. The reason you don't see everything upside-down, then, is simply because it's easier to think about right-side-up!

http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae353.cfm

 

[KIAman]

Huh? Common!

Your brain CAN be retrained though. In one psychological study, participants were asked to wear inverting lenses - lenses that invert the image BEFORE they get to your eye, so that when your eye inverts it, it's right-side-up. At first, everything appeared upside-down to the participants. But, after a few days, people began to report that everything appeared right-side-up! As a second part of the study, the people were asked to take the glasses off. Because they were now used to the lenses, their NORMAL vision appeared upside-down!! Within a day, though, their vision returned to normal. The reason you don't see everything upside-down, then, is simply because it's easier to think about right-side-up!

http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae353.cfm

Wrong, that guy summarized the actual study by concluding the perception actually changed where in reality, the perception NEVER changed, the brain simply adapted to the inverted image. And he's also spewing this mis-information all over the internet considering how many hits I get with the exact phrase.

Here is the source.

Did everything turn upright again for the humans? No. While they wore the goggles, their visual images remained upside down. But subjects learned to perform most routine activities, and their inverted world began to seem relatively normal.

http://books.google.com/books?id=s1...A#v=onepage&q="Sperry, 1956" inverted&f=false

 

[Anteaus]

There is perception and there is reality. Reality dictates the the color "red" is defined at a very specific range of wavelength (630-740nm). When dealing with perception, things get tricky.

For a color blind person who is dealing with shades of gray, they are still recieving the proper wave length of red however they do not see the same thing. Thats perception. You can both see the same thing can get two different results. As long as you're seeing the particular wavelength of red, it doesn't matter what you percieve it to be, its still red.

We can all have a philosophical discussion on "what red means to me", but it's all quite irrelavent to how red is defined in science.

 

[William Gaatjes]

If we assume that a part of color processing to be similar as when sensing hot or cold water, just as as fuzzy logic, no hard value but a collection of values. I wonder what the finest detail is the brain can process. For some reason i think the brain can process a single value difference if learned and detected by the eyes . So under normal circumstances, red = 650nm. But assume we now see a red of 660nm. If we assume the eyes can not measure the difference, how would the brain know this difference ? I think it does not. Now lets create hypothetical bionic eyes where these eyes can see a difference of 1nm so 650nm and 651 nm. I wonder if the brain can be learned to cope with this new data, i have a feeling the brain can, but i do not know why. has there ever done research what the level of discrimination is of the eyes when thinking of variable wavelength at a fixed intensity ?

 

[Anteaus]

If we assume that a part of color processing to be similar as when sensing hot or cold water, just as as fuzzy logic, no hard value but a collection of values. I wonder what the finest detail is the brain can process. For some reason i think the brain can process a single value difference if learned and detected by the eyes . So under normal circumstances, red = 650nm. But assume we now see a red of 660nm. If we assume the eyes can not measure the difference, how would the brain know this difference ? I think it does not. Now lets create hypothetical bionic eyes where these eyes can see a difference of 1nm so 650nm and 651 nm. I wonder if the brain can be learned to cope with this new data, i have a feeling the brain can, but i do not know why. has there ever done research what the level of discrimination is of the eyes when thinking of variable wavelength at a fixed intensity ?

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/color-perception.htm

 

[William Gaatjes]

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/color-perception.htm

When looking at the graphs, it seems to me our eyes are sensitive enough relatively speaking to detect a single wavelength color(650nm and 651nm).
But since temperature will likely also play a role in the sensitivity for a given wavelength, it makes sense that we cannot discriminate at such a high level because it would vary to much and nothing would ever look the same. Therefore i think the brain together with the eye does do an averaging algorithm on color perception.


I think i must see it in the saturation and hue of a given color. But even then, the brains needs to be trained to be able to discriminate between wavelengths. It is certain the eye is able to detect a single wavelength color if the temperature stays the same( yay, warmblooded animals ?) . But the hue and saturation needs to be adjusted for a constant intensity level.

I noticed that with the color test of modelworks, that i had to drag the box over the entire line to get enough difference to be able to detect a difference although i noticed that to feel the color works a lot better than to see the color and on a conscience level discriminate the different boxes.

 

[Modelworks]

I think to discuss the topic you have to separate two parts of the process. One would be acquiring the color information and the second processing the information. It is very similar to how digital cameras work. The first part of the camera is the optics (lens of the eye, iris) which focus the signal on the CCD (rods and cones of the eye) . The second part is the signals from the CCD that are then interpreted by the DSP chip (brain) and processed as colors.

If two eyes process color the same, the signals to the two different brains would be the same ,then you could discuss if the two brains being different had any effect on what color is perceived to be.

A study was done where they blindfolded people for 1 week. During that time they did mri scans to see how the brain adapted. While blindfolded the brain started to use the visual cortex area to process sounds and touch. It was the same across all participants. It was as if the brain determined after a few days that since the visual cortex was no longer being of any use it would allocate the area to helping out the brains other functions.

They also did studies of people with half a brain or less. Normally that would mean serious disability. Instead these people were nearly the same as anyone else. What they lacked were things like being able to do math or draw. The brain seemed to pick what was the most essential and map out all the functions it could with the space available until there was no more room. The study made the conclusion that people who say humans only use a small percentage of the brain are wrong, that really the brain uses every bit of space it has if it is available.

 

[Modelworks]

is it normal to get a perfect score on that test in 1 try? cuz i did 😀! granted my monitor has an unusually high level of color reproduction.

Keep in mind that is a very minimal version of the test. The real test is made of 512 colors.