Color & Perception: Scientific Labeling vs. Subjective Perception

[Mentat]

Entropy, it is you who needs to be more mature, and stop making personal attacks. Yes, I attacked Alexander's post, but only after having opened it (and Rage's posts) up for public discussion. When I quote others, in other "revival threads", I may have some comment - for or against what they said - but that doesn't mean that the purpose of starting the thread was to contradict them.

 

[FZ+]

Can we stop this now?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by FZ+
Can we stop this now?

Yes, I'm sorry for having retaliated in the first place.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
Which is why "color" is different from "wavelength of light".

Color is only different in the sense that we each "perceive" wavelength differently, and yet the wavelength remains the same, and each of our perceptions remain the same, so in this respect color can be equated with wavelegnth. However, in order to establish the correct criteria for color, we need to go with wavelength, because it's much more accurate and not subject to interpretation.

 

[Royce]

I have mentioned this before in other threads.

there is no way that I can know the the color or wavelength that I perceive as blue is the same blue that you perceice.
Our eves and brains not being calibrated to the same standard source probably don't perceive any given frequency as exactly the same color even one moment to the next much less from person to person. It is all subjective. Even to measure wavelength requires subjective perception and all spectrometers are not the same nor calibrated to the same standard source.
We define a certain wavelength as being blue but we all know that there are hundreds of blues. The first is a definition, the latter a conveniant and imprecise label for a perception, making it subjective.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat
Which is why "color" is different from "wavelength of light".

In laymanship.

In science they are synonoms (see the accepted by science correspondence chart that I gave above).

This is science forum.

 

[C0mmie]

Lets not forget that wavelength is not the only thing that determines the color that we perceive. Intensity also has some impact, as well as the surrounding colors. Take a look at some Impressionist paintings. When a color is by itself it looks different from when its paired up with its complement.

 

[C0mmie]

Originally posted by Alexander
This is science forum.

Last time I checked this was the Philosophy section.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
In laymanship.

In science they are synonoms (see the accepted by science correspondence chart that I gave above).

This is science forum.

I'm aware of that, however you are wrong in generalizing "Science". Neurological and Psychological sciences will tell you that people percieve "color" differently, and that it is just a subjective thing. Physics may equate wavelength with color, but that is merely because, at the subatomic level, there is no such thing as difference of perception (therefore, no such thing as "color").

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Color is only different in the sense that we each "perceive" wavelength differently, and yet the wavelength remains the same, and each of our perceptions remain the same, so in this respect color can be equated with wavelegnth.

Yes, the wavelength is the same, but "color" is a mental response to certain wavelengths, not a property of the actual wave.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
Yes, the wavelength is the same, but "color" is a mental response to certain wavelengths, not a property of the actual wave.

And yet every wavelength of light denotes a specific color, whether each of us perceives them the same or not is another story.

 

[Alexander]

Mentat, let me conclude your thread by my words you quoted:

Alexander said:

Red=0.65 um, green=0.55 um, blue=0.48 um (+/-0.02 um) - that is how prime colors are defined in science - just by wavelength.

Of course, some people (or some insects and animals) may have perception which does NOT distinguish between blue and red (or some other) wavelengths - so perseption is subjective and thus can not be used in science.

 

[Royce]

Alexander how can you possiply presume to conclude someone else's thread. Your not a mentor. My God! What arrogant gall!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet every wavelength of light denotes a specific color, whether each of us perceives them the same or not is another story.

This strikes at the heart of the matter, as what we call "color" was assigned to the common perception of the wavelength. IOW, the real difference between "color" and "wavelength of light" is that "color" is what was ascribed to what the majority of humans agreed upon, according to their perception. If "color" was invented by bees (who see Ultraviolet light), it would be an entirely different set of "colors" altogether, even though the wavelengths would be the same.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Mentat, let me conclude your thread by my words you quoted:

Alexander said:

Red=0.65 um, green=0.55 um, blue=0.48 um (+/-0.02 um) - that is how prime colors are defined in science - just by wavelength.

Of course, some people (or some insects and animals) may have perception which does NOT distinguish between blue and red (or some other) wavelengths - so perseption is subjective and thus can not be used in science.

What this fails to address is that "color" was invented by people, to explain their perception of different wavelengths of light. It is not a property of light itself, and if our eye was different, it would even exist.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
Alexander how can you possiply presume to conclude someone else's thread. Your not a mentor. My God! What arrogant gall!

It's alright, good buddy Royce; I've gotten rather used to it.