Colour

[KJW]

24 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Was that one of Theorist’s?

It wasn't on "The Science Forum" but on an Australian forum that hasn't been running for years. The thread was started and had run its course before I had even joined the forum. I had looked at a few posts in the thread, but I don't think I contributed to it. It was a running joke on the forum to mention this thread because of the size of it. As you can imagine, it covered every conceivable aspect of the question. I doubt that it came to any definite conclusion, though.

 

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, mar_mar said:

That fact, that there are people who can't see, doesn't deny another fact, that there's no colour in the nature. And colour exists only in a human world. Human, because animals don't know what is colour, they don't know the word "colour", and they don't know the concept "colour". 

And yet we see tigers in their garish orange color trying to sneak up on their prey. They're successful because their prey's eyes only have cones that see blue and green, so orange registers as green, so the orange tiger blends in with the green foliage. Tigers evolved this coloration in part because mammals have no green pigmentation.

Tell me again how "there's no colour in the nature". Humans have trichromatic color vision, so we see more colors, but mammals still see colors. They just don't have cones for red.

[mar_mar]

9 hours ago, zapatos said:

Wait. What?!?!

 

If there were no visible light spectrum, then there would be no human mind. 

9 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

Because EM radiation can have different energies.  Why does EM radiation have different energies?  That is the way the universe is.

So you take it for granted that universe is this way. Like a given fact. Have you ever thought why universe is THIS way and not the other? Is this just coincidence that there is visible spectrum of light and there's human brain which have the ability to interpret a wavelength to a colour? 

7 hours ago, Phi for All said:

And yet we see tigers in their garish orange color trying to sneak up on their prey. They're successful because their prey's eyes only have cones that see blue and green, so orange registers as green, so the orange tiger blends in with the green foliage. Tigers evolved this coloration in part because mammals have no green pigmentation.

Tell me again how "there's no colour in the nature". Humans have trichromatic color vision, so we see more colors, but mammals still see colors. They just don't have cones for red.

I tell you again: animals see different beings and things. They don't know that this difference is a "colour" because they don't know the word "colour". 

And there's no colour in the nature, the "colour" is in a human mind only. 

If you didn't know the word colour, the names red, blue, green, what would you see? Would the sky be blue for you?

Edited December 4, 2023 by mar_mar

[mar_mar]

Do animals know that the sky is blue, the grass is green? I think dolphins can differ colours in human way, like colors have some meaning for them. 

[AIkonoklazt]

9 hours ago, Phi for All said:

And yet we see tigers in their garish orange color trying to sneak up on their prey. They're successful because their prey's eyes only have cones that see blue and green, so orange registers as green, so the orange tiger blends in with the green foliage. Tigers evolved this coloration in part because mammals have no green pigmentation.

Tell me again how "there's no colour in the nature". Humans have trichromatic color vision, so we see more colors, but mammals still see colors. They just don't have cones for red.

He might have been trying to explain how color is all in our heads:

https://www.extremetech.com/archive/49028-color-is-subjective

A practical example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress

On 11/25/2023 at 2:51 PM, mar_mar said:

The light is the wave and the particle at the same time because of the colour. There is no colour in the nature, it's a product of a human conscience. The light becomes particle when colour is created in the brain.

*consciousness

There are pigments in nature but no sensation of color "out there," if that's what you were trying to say...

[Bufofrog]

4 hours ago, mar_mar said:

So you take it for granted that universe is this way. Like a given fact. Have you ever thought why universe is THIS way and not the other?

Sure, it's just not science, that type of question is philosophy.

 

4 hours ago, mar_mar said:

Is this just coincidence that there is visible spectrum of light and there's human brain which have the ability to interpret a wavelength to a colour?

It is absolutely not a coincidence.  The sun puts out a lot of EM radiation and the highest intensity is around the 400 to 700 range so it makes perfect sense that evolution would favor eyes that detect light in that range.

4 hours ago, mar_mar said:

I tell you again: animals see different beings and things. They don't know that this difference is a "colour" because they don't know the word "colour".

I agree that animals see different things, not so much different beings though.  Many insects and some lizards that I am aware of see in the ultraviolet light frequency.  So they probably see some things differently than we do.  Many mammals do not see colors, so you could put a dog and a person in a room lit by a red light and the person could easily see and the dog could not.

4 hours ago, mar_mar said:

And there's no colour in the nature, the "colour" is in a human mind only.

OK.

4 hours ago, mar_mar said:

If you didn't know the word colour, the names red, blue, green, what would you see? Would the sky be blue for you?

Yes, the sky would be blue, you just wouldn't have a word for it.

If I give my dog a treat, he likes the smell and the taste of the treat, even though he doesn't have a word for smell or taste.  

[exchemist]

12 hours ago, KJW said:

It wasn't on "The Science Forum" but on an Australian forum that hasn't been running for years. The thread was started and had run its course before I had even joined the forum. I had looked at a few posts in the thread, but I don't think I contributed to it. It was a running joke on the forum to mention this thread because of the size of it. As you can imagine, it covered every conceivable aspect of the question. I doubt that it came to any definite conclusion, though.

 

Haha, like “Motor Daddy and the Motor Boat” on sciforums, perhaps. That too became a standing joke. 

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, mar_mar said:

Do animals know that the sky is blue, the grass is green? I think dolphins can differ colours in human way, like colors have some meaning for them. 

Crap, is this your argument, that color doesn't exist for animals because you don't think they know what colors are? Holy moley, if I'd known that I wouldn't have bothered. I don't appreciate willful ignorance and purposeful obfuscation. It shows you aren't arguing in good faith.

[studiot]

6 hours ago, mar_mar said:

If there were no visible light spectrum, then there would be no human mind. 

Well this human minds very much and finds it insulting to blind folks.

 

You have come full circle to the twaddle you started with, despite having acknowledged you were wrong and others had a point or three, along the way.

 

I'm out of here.

Edited December 4, 2023 by studiot

[iNow]

5 hours ago, mar_mar said:

Do animals know that...

Which animals?

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Crap, is this your argument, that color doesn't exist for animals because you don't think they know what colors are? Holy moley, if I'd known that I wouldn't have bothered. I don't appreciate willful ignorance and purposeful obfuscation. It shows you aren't arguing in good faith.

Me, a week ago today:

 

On 11/27/2023 at 5:06 PM, 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. 

 

[zapatos]

9 hours ago, mar_mar said:

If there were no visible light spectrum, then there would be no human mind. 

Thanks. Repeating yourself really cleared things up. 

[exchemist]

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Crap, is this your argument, that color doesn't exist for animals because you don't think they know what colors are? Holy moley, if I'd known that I wouldn't have bothered. I don't appreciate willful ignorance and purposeful obfuscation. It shows you aren't arguing in good faith.

As does the deliberately erratic spelling, color and colour in the same sentence, phisics (really?) etc. 
 

Timewaster.

[Alysdexic]

"Colour"?! Who said that you could corrupt Latin? That "word" has nothing to do with English. It is not English, American or British, and has never been; it is a Latin-muttish abomination. Is spelling drivene by Francish awk?

The accepted answer is: colors are liht energhies, or relate to different wavelengths of liht; when specific ones are absorbed they yield their distinct color. In semiconductors, for example, the valence elèctròn plasma frequency is usually in the deep ultraviolet, which is why they are reflective. Newton is to thank for 7 hues: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum#History. If you add the nonspectral color center pink and the two intermediate shades to the 7 you get that 10. The oddness of spectral hues comes from the oddness of your cones, trikromatism, and the evenness of intermediate and extreme hues. When this spectrum is wrapped around on a color wheel the hues become even, with 12 as a function of twofold the 2-ball packing constant (6).

Colors are often associated with temperature: reds are warm and blues are cool. Likewise most fires are yellow to red and the upper sky and the sea are blue, but coincidentally; hotter fires depart from this rule as they become blue then violet. But why do we associate them thusly? I don’t know if anyone but me has answered that. I think it’s due to the redness of the retina. Reds reflect off the retina easilier; therefore it takes more work to see or notice reds so when one looks at red more brain activity is needed to understand it. The brain warms up so red is felt as warm. Likewise the opposite of red, turquoise, is felt as quite cold. But blue is darker than turquoise so it isn’t felt as cold as turquoise. (We can see colors with our eyes closed too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamachine). 

Colors are also associated with moods and health: red with lust or wroth, blue with sorrow [and of course cold] or cramps, yellow with cowardice or jaundice, green with envy or sickness, grey with death, and purple with horniness or suffocation. These actually happen in the body. When they are associated with the body their associations are appropriate; however when they occur in other objects like plants or toys they evoke other feelings appropriate to those objects.

Edited December 4, 2023 by Alysdexic

[mar_mar]

10 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

Sure, it's just not science, that type of question is philosophy.

 

It is absolutely not a coincidence.  The sun puts out a lot of EM radiation and the highest intensity is around the 400 to 700 range so it makes perfect sense that evolution would favor eyes that detect light in that range.

 

Yes, the sky would be blue, you just wouldn't have a word for it.

 

But where is evolution if animals also distinguish colours? As I am being proved. Evolution of what?

 

How could the sky be blue if there is no blue.

 

 

 

And yet. Animals don't distinguish colors, this is wrong statement. They distinguish carriers of a color. And I stand on this thought. 

And I have one more question. what science or area of knowledge does color relate to? So that I could choose a correct way of communicating. Because I can see that philosophical way of thinking is not appreciated. But color is a philosophical question also.

 

5 hours ago, Alysdexic said:

"Colour"?! 

Color (American English) or colour (Commonwealth English) 

Edited December 4, 2023 by mar_mar

[Bufofrog]

1 hour ago, mar_mar said:

But where is evolution if animals also distinguish colours?

Huh?

1 hour ago, mar_mar said:

As I am being proved. Evolution of what?

Huh?

1 hour ago, mar_mar said:

How could the sky be blue if there is no blue.

Why do you think there is no blue color?  Have you ever been outside on a clear day and looked up?  You seem mighty confused at this point.

1 hour ago, mar_mar said:

And yet. Animals don't distinguish colors, this is wrong statement

Of course they do.  You can easily run experiments that show that animals perceive different colors.

1 hour ago, mar_mar said:

They distinguish carriers of a color. And I stand on this thought.

What's that supposed to mean?

 

1 hour ago, mar_mar said:

And I have one more question. what science or area of knowledge does color relate to? So that I could choose a correct way of communicating.

I recommend you reread the thread since those answers have been given.

[mar_mar]

15 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Huh?

Huh?

 

Literally. You said that

it is absolutely not a coincidence. The sun puts out a lot of EM radiation and the highest intensity is around the 400 to 700 range so it makes perfect sense that evolution would favor eyes that detect light in that range

 

Evolution of whom/ what?

 

 

15 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

 

Why do you think there is no blue color?  Have you ever been outside on a clear day and looked up?  You seem mighty confused at this point.

 

For animals there's no color as a concept. For all animals, kingdom Animalia.

1 hour ago, mar_mar said:

Color (American English) or colour (Commonwealth English) 

What's wrong with this?! This is Wikipedia. 

 

21 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Of course they do.  You can easily run experiments that show that animals perceive different colors.

What experiment?

Edited December 5, 2023 by mar_mar

[swansont]

34 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

For animals there's no color as a concept

This is different from the claim “Animals don't distinguish colors”

Babies don’t understand color as a concept, either. But they can distinguish them (at a few months of age)

Can we raise this above the level of petty semantic arguments?

40 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

What experiment?

There are videos of birds putting colored objects in bins matching the color. I suspect it would be pretty easy to find such examples, or even more rigorous studies.

[Bufofrog]

3 hours ago, mar_mar said:

Literally. You said that

it is absolutely not a coincidence. The sun puts out a lot of EM radiation and the highest intensity is around the 400 to 700 range so it makes perfect sense that evolution would favor eyes that detect light in that range

That is correct.

3 hours ago, mar_mar said:

Evolution of whom/ what?

Animals with eyes, like I said in the above sentence.

 

3 hours ago, mar_mar said:

For animals there's no color as a concept. For all animals, kingdom Animalia.

Who cares if they have a 'concept', they can still see colors.

[mar_mar]

7 hours ago, swansont said:

This is different from the claim “Animals don't distinguish colors”

Babies don’t understand color as a concept, either. But they can distinguish them (at a few months of age)

 

Animals don't distinguish colors, because they don't know the concept. They distinguish different objects. 

But babies are humans and they have inherited ability for colours. Colours have human meaning for them.  Babies also begin talking in some months.  Because they interact with another humans. 

 

7 hours ago, swansont said:

There are videos of birds putting colored objects in bins matching the color. I suspect it would be pretty easy to find such examples, or even more rigorous studies.

I found video with a parrot. First , parrot was taught by a human to sort coloured objects. And still the parrot doesn't know that the sky is blue. If told a mouse that the sky is blue would it believe me? 

7 hours ago, swansont said:

Can we raise this above the level of petty semantic arguments?

My idea is that color "exists" because of a human mind. Because color has the meaning for humans.  aesthetic sense. Humans observe the world and witness it. And color proves that the light is simultaneously a wave and a particle. Wavelength becomes a red cup. 

Edited December 5, 2023 by mar_mar

[John Cuthber]

10 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

Animals don't distinguish colors, because they don't know the concept.

It can be dangerous to make absolute claims on science discussion boards.

"By the late 1980s, Alex had learned the names of more than 50 different objects, five shapes, and seven colors."

Alex was a parrot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_cognition
Being able to name the colour of an object means you understand the idea of colour.
The crucial test is naming the colour of an object which you had not previously seen.
I understand that Alex passed that test.

 

[mar_mar]

4 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

Animals with eyes, like I said in the above sentence.

But animals already have an ability to "distinguish colors" without evolution. 

4 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

Who cares if they have a 'concept', they can still see colors.

See , but don't realize. 

[John Cuthber]

1 minute ago, mar_mar said:

But animals already have an ability to "distinguish colors" without evolution. 

And, since this is a science site, I expect you to provide the extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claim.

 

[mar_mar]

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Alex was a parrot.

Parrot trained by a human? Does that parrot know that the sky is "blue" and the grass is "green". What does it mean for it?

3 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

And, since this is a science site, I expect you to provide the extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claim.

Ok. Animals can distinguish colors without evolution.

[John Cuthber]

9 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

without evolution.

 

11 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

And, since this is a science site, I expect you to provide the extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claim.

 

11 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

Parrot trained by a human? Does that parrot know that the sky is "blue" and the grass is "green". What does it mean for it?

For teh sake of discussion, it's unlikely that Alex was ever told about a toy doll.
But if you showed him a green doll and asked what colour it was then (so I'm told) he would tell you it was green,
He could tell you that a coke can was red without needing to be told.

What Green meant to Alex was the same as it means to you or me.

[mar_mar]

46 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

For teh sake of discussion, it's unlikely that Alex was ever told about a toy doll.
But if you showed him a green doll and asked what colour it was then (so I'm told) he would tell you it was green,
He could tell you that a coke can was red without needing to be told.

What Green meant to Alex was the same as it means to you or me.

I think this event connects with the ability to speak. But I read, that yes, parrots can speak, but they repeat trained words and they can't generate new senses. And I am not sure that a color "green" means the same for parrot and for me. Because we have different brain 

46 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

And, since this is a science site, I expect you to provide the extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claim.

If you mean that evolution still continues than where new homo sapiens evolved from chimpanzees?

And I thought that dinosaurs could distinguish colors.

Edited December 5, 2023 by mar_mar