Re: [Utah-astronomy] Color perception (WAS: Re: Today's APOD: Infrared Horsehead)
Chuck, I don't know that we're on different sides at all. I was just stating my ideas after you said something like Despite what Joe thinks ... ACtually you don't need to change my mind about anything. I think we agree on this. -- Joe ------------------------------ On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 6:52 AM MDT Chuck Hards wrote:
You wrote: "But the wavelengths themselves that make up color definitely are an intrinsic quality. How we perceive them is up to our brains"
That's exactly what I've been saying.
A specific wavelength does describe a color as we perceive it, but human perception and individual experience does not indicate an intrinsic quality. "We've agreed to call that color red" isn't a proof of such a quality, it's a convention particular to human perception. Where we seem to disconnect (and please correct me if I've misunderstood you) is that you won't divorce the wavelength (which is an indisputable physical property) from a color association, which I maintain is a strictly human interpretation of that wavelength.
The brain's perception is not an intrinsic quality, yet that is where color exists. That is how we evolved to differentiate between energy levels (wavelengths).
This subject actually has some good debate on both sides, and hasn't been settled scientifically.
Here is an excellent paper on the two sides of the argument. By these definitions, Joe, if you want to take the strictly science-supportable stance, I believe it shows that your argument actually falls into agreement with me (i.e., that "red, blue, and the like do not appear in the inventory of properties recognized by the sciences").
Give it a read. It's pretty interesting and summarizes the argument both ways very lucidly, although I think when you take the anthropocentric view and philosophy out of the equation, the "Relational" argument (what I have mistakenly referred to as "relative" in the past, but it's the same concept) is the more robust.
My goal isn't necessarily to convince you to change your mind on the subject, but to take another look at it, and possibly admit that it is not actually as cut-and-dried as you think it is.
http://aardvark.ucsd.edu/color/guided_tour.html
Finally, here's an interesting, somewhat humorous little piece on possible alien color perception, by a noted author on vision:
http://www.science20.com/mark_changizi/alien_vision_revolution_halloween_edi...
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote:
But the wavelengths themselves that make up color definitely are an intrinsic quality. How we perceive them is up to our brains. But you can use all types of objective instruments to read the angstrom ratings of color. If you check what we perceive as red, it will show up as 700 millimicrons. There is no way around it. We have agreed to call that frequency red. It is that frequency independent of your or my color sensitivity. It exists as an independent entity. I would never argue that everyone perceives colors the same -- what my brain thinks of as colors might be something else to yours -- but I do maintain that the colors are independent of our senses. They exist. Any eye or instrument able to focus light, and which is sensitive enough to distinguish among wavelengths, can agree that light streaming out of the Orion Nebula at 700 millimicrons is "red" or whatever other label creatures from another planet put on it.
________________________________ From: Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 2:43 PM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Color perception (WAS: Re: Today's APOD: Infrared Horsehead)
Joe, you've never heard of people who associate colors with sounds, or even certain numbers or printed text? It's a fascinating phenomenon, if you care to research it.
I'm afraid that colors, as we perceive them, are not an intrinsic quality of a particular wavelength. I wouldn't discount the possibility that an alien race that evolved under a sun with the same color as ours, or very close to it, and with vision that is active over approximately the same wavelength range as ours, would probably perceive colors similarly to us. But another alien race, with vision sensitive above or below what we can see, might look at our sky and see something very, very different than what we call "blue". The rainbow would look very different to a race with microwave-sensitive vision, or vision sensitive to infra-red wavelengths.
On this planet, we're all on the same page as to what "green" looks like, but to a race with spectral sensitivity different than ours, their "rainbow" would be composed of a pallet that we may not even be able to conceive of. It's a pretty cool idea, actually. Color perception is relative, not absolute or intrinsic to wavelength, except among beings with the same eye and brain mechanisms. There are even documented cases of human beings who's eyes are sensitive to a broader spectrum than the general population, due to a physiological difference in the retina. They see colors very differently than even their fellow human beings. There's a good argument right there that color association, or perception, isn't intrinsic to wavelength, and doesn't require "what ifs" or aliens spawned under a different colored sun.
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com
wrote:
Associating colors with sound, this one sounds like WOW! (Chuck, I don't disagree that colors are perceived by our brains, but I argue that
whatever
they are like, they exist independently of our brains in definable ways, as shown by our measurements. And we can represent these actual wavelengths by printed colors that we can identify visually.) -- Joe
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Oh, my mistake Joe. We've discussed it before and my recollection was that you disagreed with my position that the assignment of specific colors to specific wavelengths wasn't an intrinsic property of the wavelength. On Apr 23, 2013 5:27 PM, "Joe Bauman" <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote:
Chuck, I don't know that we're on different sides at all. I was just stating my ideas after you said something like Despite what Joe thinks ... ACtually you don't need to change my mind about anything. I think we agree on this. -- Joe
------------------------------ On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 6:52 AM MDT Chuck Hards wrote:
You wrote: "But the wavelengths themselves that make up color definitely are an intrinsic quality. How we perceive them is up to our brains"
That's exactly what I've been saying.
A specific wavelength does describe a color as we perceive it, but human perception and individual experience does not indicate an intrinsic quality. "We've agreed to call that color red" isn't a proof of such a quality, it's a convention particular to human perception. Where we seem to disconnect (and please correct me if I've misunderstood you) is that you won't divorce the wavelength (which is an indisputable physical property) from a color association, which I maintain is a strictly human interpretation of that wavelength.
The brain's perception is not an intrinsic quality, yet that is where color exists. That is how we evolved to differentiate between energy levels (wavelengths).
This subject actually has some good debate on both sides, and hasn't been settled scientifically.
Here is an excellent paper on the two sides of the argument. By these definitions, Joe, if you want to take the strictly science-supportable stance, I believe it shows that your argument actually falls into agreement with me (i.e., that "red, blue, and the like do not appear in the inventory of properties recognized by the sciences").
Give it a read. It's pretty interesting and summarizes the argument both ways very lucidly, although I think when you take the anthropocentric view and philosophy out of the equation, the "Relational" argument (what I have mistakenly referred to as "relative" in the past, but it's the same concept) is the more robust.
My goal isn't necessarily to convince you to change your mind on the subject, but to take another look at it, and possibly admit that it is not actually as cut-and-dried as you think it is.
http://aardvark.ucsd.edu/color/guided_tour.html
Finally, here's an interesting, somewhat humorous little piece on possible alien color perception, by a noted author on vision:
http://www.science20.com/mark_changizi/alien_vision_revolution_halloween_edi...
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com>
wrote:
But the wavelengths themselves that make up color definitely are an intrinsic quality. How we perceive them is up to our brains. But you can use all types of objective instruments to read the angstrom ratings of color. If you check what we perceive as red, it will show up as 700 millimicrons. There is no way around it. We have agreed to call that frequency red. It is that frequency independent of your or my color sensitivity. It exists as an independent entity. I would never argue
that
everyone perceives colors the same -- what my brain thinks of as colors might be something else to yours -- but I do maintain that the colors are independent of our senses. They exist. Any eye or instrument able to focus light, and which is sensitive enough to distinguish among wavelengths, can agree that light streaming out of the Orion Nebula at 700 millimicrons is "red" or whatever other label creatures from another planet put on it.
________________________________ From: Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 2:43 PM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Color perception (WAS: Re: Today's APOD: Infrared Horsehead)
Joe, you've never heard of people who associate colors with sounds, or even certain numbers or printed text? It's a fascinating phenomenon, if you care to research it.
I'm afraid that colors, as we perceive them, are not an intrinsic quality of a particular wavelength. I wouldn't discount the possibility that an alien race that evolved under a sun with the same color as ours, or very close to it, and with vision that is active over approximately the same wavelength range as ours, would probably perceive colors similarly to us. But another alien race, with vision sensitive above or below what we can see, might look at our sky and see something very, very different than what we call "blue". The rainbow would look very different to a race with microwave-sensitive vision, or vision sensitive to infra-red wavelengths.
On this planet, we're all on the same page as to what "green" looks like, but to a race with spectral sensitivity different than ours, their "rainbow" would be composed of a pallet that we may not even be able to conceive of. It's a pretty cool idea, actually. Color perception is relative, not absolute or intrinsic to wavelength, except among beings with the same eye and brain mechanisms. There are even documented cases of human beings who's eyes are sensitive to a broader spectrum than the general population, due to a physiological difference in the retina. They see colors very differently than even their fellow human beings. There's a good argument right there that color association, or perception, isn't intrinsic to wavelength, and doesn't require "what ifs" or aliens spawned under a different colored sun.
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com
wrote:
Associating colors with sound, this one sounds like WOW! (Chuck, I
don't
disagree that colors are perceived by our brains, but I argue that whatever they are like, they exist independently of our brains in definable ways, as shown by our measurements. And we can represent these actual wavelengths by printed colors that we can identify visually.) -- Joe
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
participants (2)
-
Chuck Hards -
Joe Bauman