Colour

[pzkpfw]

4 hours ago, mar_mar said:

I think that when there were no humans, there were no observation, or I'd say awareness of the world. Do plants know that they reflect '555 nanometer wavelength light'? And in the experiment with two slits we saw that observation makes electrons behave like particle. If I understood this experiment correctly. 

First thing to make clear: pop science, and bad science fiction, makes a big deal of the "observation" part of the double slit experiment but that doesn't mean anything like an intelligent observer is needed. It's just about interactions of things. No consciousness needed.

And no, plants don't "know" they reflect light. So what? Why does that matter?

Reflected light from one (unconscious unaware) object may hit another (unconscious unaware) object. The specifics of that light (wavelength, intensity, ...) can mean different effects occur, e.g. different amount of heat added to the second object. The second object, perhaps a rock, doesn't call the light "green" or "banana". Why does that matter to you?

 

(When you close your eyes, does your coffee cup vanish? Does it become non-real, only to somehow reappear when you open your eyes again?

In the centre of a large forest, that no human has ever been to - are there trees? Or just a formless void because nobody has looked at it? If someone did look, would fully-formed trees suddenly appear?)

Edited November 27, 2023 by pzkpfw

[swansont]

7 hours ago, mar_mar said:

And in the experiment with two slits we saw that observation makes electrons behave like particle. If I understood this experiment correctly. 

I don’t think you did. It’s knowing which path the electrons took that eliminates the interference pattern. It doesn’t require that someone observe them.

[mar_mar]

12 hours ago, studiot said:

Of course I gave you human references. References suitable to martians wouldn't be of much use would they ?

Is a reference to time an attempt to deflect attention from yourself ?

 

The answer is #9e978e

 

Around the world, printers, artists, designers, textile companies and many more use the Pantone system of colour referencing.

Some companies even have their own special Pantone colour and are very jealous of anyone else using it.

The point is that if you are going to print, paint or otherwise put a design onto something such as a piece of paper, plastic, tea-shirts, packaging, company headed paper, you want the colour the be identical.

That is the point of the Pantone system.

https://www.pantone.com/color-systems/pantone-color-systems-explained

 

So are you going to answer my questions or not ?

 

 

I mean not this. 

Here, Wiki

Subjectivity of color perception

 Color is a feature of visual perception by an observer. There is a complex relationship between the wavelengths of light in the visual spectrum and human experiences of color.

 

When you say frequency 555nm you get "green", but when you say green, you get 8 billions of "greens" and lengths. Except it or not colour IS subjective. 

That's why I repeat my question: what is a colour? 

 

And when you give the colour of the night sky you impose me this colour, because my vision of the night sky would be different. 

Ok, what is the colour of clouds? 

8 hours ago, pzkpfw said:

First thing to make clear: pop science, and bad science fiction, makes a big deal of the "observation" part of the double slit experiment but that doesn't mean anything like an intelligent observer is needed. It's just about interactions of things. No consciousness needed.

And no, plants don't "know" they reflect light. So what? Why does that matter?

Reflected light from one (unconscious unaware) object may hit another (unconscious unaware) object. The specifics of that light (wavelength, intensity, ...) can mean different effects occur, e.g. different amount of heat added to the second object. The second object, perhaps a rock, doesn't call the light "green" or "banana". Why does that matter to you?

 

(When you close your eyes, does your coffee cup vanish? Does it become non-real, only to somehow reappear when you open your eyes again?

In the centre of a large forest, that no human has ever been to - are there trees? Or just a formless void because nobody has looked at it? If someone did look, would fully-formed trees suddenly appear?)

Again: I don't mean timing. Not before human or after. I mean the observation, awareness of the world. 

 

No, the cup of coffee doesn't vanish, because I know that this thing is a "cup" with "coffee". 

Everything we "know", we know because of concepts. 

When you see colour you automatically recall it's name in your mind. But if you DIDN'T know the names of colours would you understand what you see? 

 

It's important for me because I came here with an idea that the world is CREATED. That the world is not the result of The Big Bang, but it is created. 

11 hours ago, iNow said:

I asked you to narrow it down. This does the opposite and expands it out. 

But my previous question applies here, too: Which animals?

Why didn't you quote "the gift of speech"? Do animals have ability  to describe the world? 

 

***

 

I have two thoughts.

1. The world is not like we see it, because colour exists only in the human mind. 

2. We see the world as we do, with colours. 

 

Does it make sense for now? 

8 hours ago, iNow said:

He’s playing a slightly solipsistic silly semantic game whereby only a human calls it by the exact word “color” and a dog calls it “bark bark ruff ruff,” ergo “color” didn’t exist before humans etc. 

Just wasting time. 

I'm "she" if you don't mind. And I don't play games ever. 

Edited November 28, 2023 by mar_mar

[John Cuthber]

Colour is not the same as wavelength: discuss.


In the meantime , here is some music...

 

[mar_mar]

32 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Colour is not the same as wavelength: discuss.


 

 

This is the point. If there's no colours viz. no humans, the wavelength doesn't matter. Who will measure the length? Who will witness the world? 

Animals also distinguish colours, but do they know that blue is "blue" and red is "red". For them it doesn't matter. 

[John Cuthber]

24 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

This is the point. If there's no colours viz. no humans, the wavelength doesn't matter. Who will measure the length? Who will witness the world? 

Animals also distinguish colours, but do they know that blue is "blue" and red is "red". For them it doesn't matter. 

For plenty of animals "red is ripe but green isn't" is relevant.

[Sensei]

"Color" is a poor human perception of the wavelengths of visible light. When you look at the color "yellow" on an LCD, LED, CRT, smartphone screen, it is simply a mixture of red and green light at maximum values. A human perceives it as the color "yellow". But there is no yellow wavelength there at all!

Some screens have three LEDs: red, green and blue. They form pulses. If the end of the pulse is at the beginning of the pulse, it is equivalent to a continuous signal, and we have the light of a given wavelength (R, G and B) on all the time. If the pulse on time is equal to the pulse off time, it is half bright, and so on. Everything else is created in the human brain. All the gray scales, all the intermediate colors. It is simply in the brain.

It is called PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-width_modulation

You create it with 0, 1, on time and off time signals.

[studiot]

4 hours ago, mar_mar said:

I'm "she" if you don't mind.

Excellent, we need more women with an enquiring mind.

4 hours ago, mar_mar said:

I have two thoughts.

1. The world is not like we see it, because colour exists only in the human mind. 

2. We see the world as we do, with colours. 

But  please try to respect the views of others as well as stating your own.

And be prepared to modify your ideas as a result of discussions with others.

The collection of the matters you have ranged over in this thread sound like a youngster trying to make sense of and reconcile different stories told to you by different teachers over a very wide range (religion, science, arts and so on).

I don't know and I don't need to know if that's true and further I don't know if you are using a translator, though your English is pretty good.

English is an excellent language because it allows two concepts for nouns and adjectives.

English allows the 'abstract' and the 'concrete'.

Colour is an abstract noun and I agree with you that 'colour is in the eye of the beholder.'

So colour does exist as an abstract noun, as do individual colours.

 

But you have some misconceptions about this as well.

 

1 hour ago, mar_mar said:

This is the point. If there's no colours viz. no humans, the wavelength doesn't matter. Who will measure the length? Who will witness the world? 

Animals also distinguish colours, but do they know that blue is "blue" and red is "red". For them it doesn't matter. 

 

So two things arise from these statements.

Firstly, colour is seen and used by other creatures than humans.

More particularly, and amongs other creatures, bees, butterflies and estrelid finches see more colours than humans.
This ability is called tetrachromacy.

Many members have offered you information about how we know these things and of course you can look them up for yourself.

If you look up the sensitivity of eyes to the three colour system I described, you will discover that the eye does not have the same sensitivity across the board.
The eye sensitivity tails off in the red and blue regions and has a peak in the yellow/green in the middle.
A botanist once described to me the connection between the enhanced yellow sensitivity and the fact that the first flowers of spring are nearly all yellow. There are fewer pollinators about at that time so it is important for the plants to best attract them.

 

Secondly there is no way I can tell exactly what you see when you see a particular colour or if it is the same or different from what I see.
Worse still, the question of what do you or I see when I view the same light source in either different circumstance or at a different time. Do I see the same colour ?
There is an old joke about the American television system NTSC  -  'never twice the same color.'

 

So what have we learned about the subject of colour ?

Well we have learned that colour is a very complicated subject and that what we is is subjective.

Because of this subjectivity we require objective information and criteria, if we want to delve more deeply into the subject. Luckily modern science has developed many objective techniques and I have described a few.

We have machines that can receive the incoming light and analyse it in an objective way so that we can compare one colour with another.
We can then use these measurement for instance to set the colour guns in a cathode ray tube so that it is producing an identical colour (ie standardisation) to that of another cathode ray tube.

 

And from you point of view you can extend to understanding of the subject of colour to include objectivity v subjectivity.

Objectivity v subjectivity is incredibly important in science.

 

[KJW]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

For plenty of animals "red is ripe but green isn't" is relevant.

Also, in the animal world, brightly coloured means dangerous. This is called "aposematism".

 

[iNow]

8 hours ago, mar_mar said:

Do animals have ability  to describe the world? 

Which animals?

[mar_mar]

On 11/28/2023 at 1:06 PM, studiot said:

Excellent, we need more women with an enquiring mind.

But  please try to respect the views of others as well as stating your own.

And be prepared to modify your ideas as a result of discussions with others.

The collection of the matters you have ranged over in this thread sound like a youngster trying to make sense of and reconcile different stories told to you by different teachers over a very wide range (religion, science, arts and so on).

I don't know and I don't need to know if that's true and further I don't know if you are using a translator, though your English is pretty good.

English is an excellent language because it allows two concepts for nouns and adjectives.

English allows the 'abstract' and the 'concrete'.

Colour is an abstract noun and I agree with you that 'colour is in the eye of the beholder.'

So colour does exist as an abstract noun, as do individual colours.

 

But you have some misconceptions about this as well.

 

 

So two things arise from these statements.

Firstly, colour is seen and used by other creatures than humans.

More particularly, and amongs other creatures, bees, butterflies and estrelid finches see more colours than humans.
This ability is called tetrachromacy.

Many members have offered you information about how we know these things and of course you can look them up for yourself.

If you look up the sensitivity of eyes to the three colour system I described, you will discover that the eye does not have the same sensitivity across the board.
The eye sensitivity tails off in the red and blue regions and has a peak in the yellow/green in the middle.
A botanist once described to me the connection between the enhanced yellow sensitivity and the fact that the first flowers of spring are nearly all yellow. There are fewer pollinators about at that time so it is important for the plants to best attract them.

 

Secondly there is no way I can tell exactly what you see when you see a particular colour or if it is the same or different from what I see.
Worse still, the question of what do you or I see when I view the same light source in either different circumstance or at a different time. Do I see the same colour ?
There is an old joke about the American television system NTSC  -  'never twice the same color.'

 

So what have we learned about the subject of colour ?

Well we have learned that colour is a very complicated subject and that what we is is subjective.

Because of this subjectivity we require objective information and criteria, if we want to delve more deeply into the subject. Luckily modern science has developed many objective techniques and I have described a few.

We have machines that can receive the incoming light and analyse it in an objective way so that we can compare one colour with another.
We can then use these measurement for instance to set the colour guns in a cathode ray tube so that it is producing an identical colour (ie standardisation) to that of another cathode ray tube.

 

And from you point of view you can extend to understanding of the subject of colour to include objectivity v subjectivity.

Objectivity v subjectivity is incredibly important in science.

 

I'm very greatfull for your answer. You are right on my reaction, I always feel that I'm right and and the other opinion doesn't exist. That's how colour teches me to volume down myself a bit. I look at the blue sky, and the other person looks at the blue sky, but our blue skies are different. Different, not better not worse, but different. There's different ability to see the world.

And colour is a tricky topic for the scientific world because of it's subjectivity. Colour is a paradox, and paradoxes rules the world I think. Colour is a paradox for it's simultaneous objectivity and subjectivity. Just like the light is a wave and a particle at the same time. 

And yes, sorry for my English, I'm not a native speaker. 

 

On 11/28/2023 at 4:42 PM, iNow said:

Which animals?

You answer a question with a question. What I mean is that human's  mind and animal's mind receive different information of a colour and use it for different purposes. 

Edited December 1, 2023 by mar_mar

[joigus]

1 hour ago, mar_mar said:

I look at the blue sky, and the other person looks at the blue sky, but our blue skies are different. Different, not better not worse, but different. There's different ability to see the world.

I just knew that was the direction you were going. I remember many discussions with philosophers, and I had a deja vu. But I didn't want to bring it up until you stated it clearly.

You inquiry is not about colour. It's about qualia --or should be. Philosophy really.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/

[studiot]

3 hours ago, mar_mar said:

And yes, sorry for my English, I'm not a native speaker.

Don't be sorry for your English.

It is good enough, if we cooperate.

😀

Now please consider this

3 hours ago, mar_mar said:

That's how colour teches me to volume down myself a bit. I look at the blue sky, and the other person looks at the blue sky, but our blue skies are different. Different, not better not worse, but different.

I believe you are generally correct here.

But

We cannot prove it.

Note how I put exactly the same idea more scientifically.

3 hours ago, mar_mar said:

Secondly there is no way I can tell exactly what you see when you see a particular colour or if it is the same or different from what I see.

Also you say this

3 hours ago, mar_mar said:

Colour is a paradox, and paradoxes rules the world I think.

A helpful correction to your English.

Many people incorrectly use the word paradox to mean something difficult or notunderstandable or even comically funny.

In Science we always try to by as accurate as we can and that means using carefully defined words strictly.

A paradox is a statement which appears to be self contradictory but actually is not.

Is that what you meant ?

 

3 hours ago, mar_mar said:

Just like the light is a wave and a particle at the same time. 

This is not a paradox, although many people make it seem more mystical than it really is.

 

[iNow]

6 hours ago, mar_mar said:

human's  mind and animal's mind receive different information of a colour and use it for different purposes

And my mind  and your mind receive different information of a color and use it for different purposes, too. 

So what? You’re barely even the same person having the same thoughts now as you were when you write the post above 6 hours ago. 

[mar_mar]

On 12/1/2023 at 11:05 PM, joigus said:

I just knew that was the direction you were going. I remember many discussions with philosophers, and I had a deja vu. But I didn't want to bring it up until you stated it clearly.

You inquiry is not about colour. It's about qualia --or should be. Philosophy really.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/

No, I'm definitely interested in a colour. And now you see how much scientific knowledge color combines in itself. 

On 12/2/2023 at 1:12 AM, studiot said:

Don't be sorry for your English.

It is good enough, if we cooperate.

😀

Now please consider this

I believe you are generally correct here.

But

We cannot prove it.

Note how I put exactly the same idea more scientifically.

Also you say this

A helpful correction to your English.

Many people incorrectly use the word paradox to mean something difficult or notunderstandable or even comically funny.

In Science we always try to by as accurate as we can and that means using carefully defined words strictly.

A paradox is a statement which appears to be self contradictory but actually is not.

Is that what you meant ?

 

This is not a paradox, although many people make it seem more mystical than it really is.

 

Ok, colour isn't a paradox. Ok. I have a question for you: does colour exist? 

Or, if the question is not accurate, here's another one: does colour exist in the nature? 

On 12/2/2023 at 1:12 AM, studiot said:

 

 

This is not a paradox, although many people make it seem more mystical than it really is.

 

Well, I think that light IS more mystical than many people make it seem.

[studiot]

32 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

No, I'm definitely interested in a colour. And now you see how much scientific knowledge color combines in itself. 

Ok, colour isn't a paradox. Ok. I have a question for you: does colour exist? 

Or, if the question is not accurate, here's another one: does colour exist in the nature? 

 

Did you understand this ?

 

On 11/28/2023 at 12:06 PM, studiot said:

English is an excellent language because it allows two concepts for nouns and adjectives.

English allows the 'abstract' and the 'concrete'.

Colour is an abstract noun and I agree with you that 'colour is in the eye of the beholder.'

So colour does exist as an abstract noun, as do individual colours.

 

[mar_mar]

On 12/2/2023 at 3:52 AM, iNow said:

And my mind  and your mind receive different information of a color and use it for different purposes, too. 

So what? You’re barely even the same person having the same thoughts now as you were when you write the post above 6 hours ago. 

Ok, I want to change my thought: human's  mind and animal's mind receive different TYPE of an information of a colour and use it for different purposes. 

I insist that animals don't know that colour is a colour, and the names of colours. 

All animals. Because they literally can't read and speak. They just see a colour without knowing of the features. It is more like feeling. 

15 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Did you understand this ?

 

 

That's why I think that colour is a paradox. Because colour do exist. My cup is red. And i don't know what is "there" without my mind. 

Edited December 3, 2023 by mar_mar

[Genady]

13 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

And i don't know what is "there" without my mind.

There is nothing special about color in this respect. The same holds for shape, motion, smell, taste, touch, etc.

[iNow]

16 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

I insist that animals don't know that colour is a colour <…> They just see a colour without knowing of the features. It is more like feeling. 

Humans are a type of animal, though. Part of the great ape family to be specific. Humans are not an exception to your argument.

Basically, I reject your silly unfounded assertions about animals being unable to do these things… also, which animals? Some can, some can’t, but you continue speaking in absolutes. 

[studiot]

38 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

Ok, I want to change my thought: human's  mind and animal's mind receive different TYPE of an information of a colour and use it for different purposes. 

I insist that animals don't know that colour is a colour, and the names of colours. 

All animals. Because they literally can't read and speak. They just see a colour without knowing of the features. It is more like feeling. 

That's why I think that colour is a paradox. Because colour do exist. My cup is red. And i don't know what is "there" without my mind. 

@iNow  is correct, of course animals can see and moreover distinguish colours.

Since there is a huge range of animals it would not be suprising to find there is a range of capability in this respect.

You know that a dog will chase a thrown bone or stick but can distinguish between bones and sticks.
Here is some scientific testing to show that they can distinguish some colours as well.

Quote

https://www.wonderopolis.org/wonder/how-can-we-know-if-an-animal-is-color-blind

Scientists actually use sophisticated tests involving food and colored panels to test whether animals can sense different colors. For example, if a dog could tell the difference between colors enough to choose a light-colored panel, it would receive a treat.

These tests showed scientists that dogs and cats can indeed see colors — just not all the same colors that humans can see. Scientists now believe that dogs and cats can see blue and green.

 

Ok so you cup is red. Now that you have recorded this fact online that fact (and the cup) will still be there if the ground suddenly opened up and swallowed you.

[mar_mar]

5 minutes ago, Genady said:

There is nothing special about color in this respect. The same holds for shape, motion, smell, taste, touch, etc.

 we do receive a shape of an item thanks to a colour, but smell, touch, taste is more like phisical process. And yes, these processes are possible when mind is present. 

18 minutes ago, iNow said:

Humans are a type of animal, though. Part of the great ape family to be specific. Humans are not an exception to your argument.

Basically, I reject your silly unfounded assertions about animals being unable to do these things… also, which animals? Some can, some can’t, but you continue speaking in absolutes. 

Ok, does animal's mind differ from human's? 

[iNow]

13 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

Ok, does animal's mind differ from human's? 

Which animals?

And yes, your mind and my mind differ and we’re both human. Hell, even my own mind today differs from my mind yesterday. 

So what? Relevance?

[Genady]

18 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

we do receive a shape of an item thanks to a colour

This is incorrect. Blind people know shapes.

[mar_mar]

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

@iNow  is correct, of course animals can see and moreover distinguish colours.

Since there is a huge range of animals it would not be suprising to find there is a range of capability in this respect.

You know that a dog will chase a thrown bone or stick but can distinguish between bones and sticks.
Here is some scientific testing to show that they can distinguish some colours as well.

 

Ok so you cup is red. Now that you have recorded this fact online that fact (and the cup) will still be there if the ground suddenly opened up and swallowed you.

humans know that colour is a colour. We know the concept - color. 

Today I had a dream of an animal. It was like zebra but with one leg, even not a leg, but holder. Like chess knight.  And she was alive, and was jumping. So do I have a concept of that "animal"? Was it animal at all? I didn't analyse this "animal" I just saw it in my dream. 

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

Which animals?

And yes, your mind and my mind differ and we’re both human. Hell, even my own mind today differs from my mind yesterday. 

So what? Relevance?

Is there difference between animal's mind and human's mind? Or I'll go to Wikipedia. 

5 minutes ago, Genady said:

This is incorrect. Blind people know shapes.

Because of the memory. And concepts, again. 

[studiot]

20 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

humans know that colour is a colour. We know the concept - color. 

Today I had a dream of an animal. It was like zebra but with one leg, even not a leg, but holder. Like chess knight.  And she was alive, and was jumping. So do I have a concept of that "animal"? Was it animal at all? I didn't analyse this "animal" I just saw it in my dream. 

Humans love to classify thing into 'pigeonholes', but Nature rarely plays ball with our efforts.

It is easy to think that abstract things can be fact or fiction.

However one test of 'reality' is the question can it influence our real world ?

The problem comes when I note that Harry Potter (fiction) has definitely influenced the world more than I have.

It is said that the writings of Swift (a factual character) about Gulliver ( a fictional character) was all about the perceptions in our minds. And who is the more famous, Swift or Gulliver ?

Edited December 3, 2023 by studiot