Color & Perception: Scientific Labeling vs. Subjective Perception

[Mentat]

There was a line of debate that was started in the old PFs, but it was never finished, and I'd like very much to continue it.

The following is the conversation:

Alexander:
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.

RageSk8:
Interesting, yet you scientifically defined colors by perception, at least by classification.

Alexander:
Wavelength is measured not by eye but by more reliable device called spectrometer.

RageSk8:
Of course, but you said you did not accept perception, when the scientific definition of colors is merely assertained by correlating our perceptions and defintions of color to wavelengths.

Alexander:
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.

Where do you see a perception here?

You see, I would reply that all Alexander did was give the Scientific labeling of that which we percieve (color).

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Mentat
There was a line of debate that was started in the old PFs, but it was never finished, and I'd like very much to continue it.

The following is the conversation:



You see, I would reply that all Alexander did was give the Scientific labeling of that which we percieve (color).

Color is not a wavelength, else we would not have a separate and distinct word for the quality. For example, I cannot see the color "infra-red", but I can measure its wavelength and deduce it exists.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Color is not a wavelength, else we would not have a separate and distinct word for the quality. For example, I cannot see the color "infra-red", but I can measure its wavelength and deduce it exists.

Good point.

 

[Eaglesyfon]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Color is not a wavelength, else we would not have a separate and distinct word for the quality. For example, I cannot see the color "infra-red", but I can measure its wavelength and deduce it exists.

What do you mean by "color is not a wavelength?" Infra red is not a color or in the visible spectrum of wavelengths (which I'm sure you know) but color is the range of wavelengths within the visible spectrum that is visible.
Also, I heard that some people have some sort of condition/mutation where their eyes can detect wavelengths outside of the spectrum where they can see in infra red or something. Anyone know about this?

 

[C0mmie]

Color is just a certain quality that our brain assigns to a certain range of wavelengths. From the human perception, infrared or UV are not colors, because the brain is incapable of assinging a color to those waveleghts. But, from the perception of a cat (I believe cats are able to see UV) ultraviolet would be a color, while from the point of view of an animal that can't see red, red would not be a color.

 

[Eh]

I think the important thing to stress is that color is not something "out there". Photons of various energy levels do not actually posses a color themselves, but are simply the physical phenomena that causes the brain to percieve colors.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Eaglesyfon
What do you mean by "color is not a wavelength?" Infra red is not a color or in the visible spectrum of wavelengths (which I'm sure you know) but color is the range of wavelengths within the visible spectrum that is visible.

Linguistically color is a quality, not a quantity like wavelength. Thus you will hear people say things like, "My, what a beautiful color of red" but never, "Gee, what a gorgeous wavelength of 435u. In both cases, neither term has meaning outside of the context of how they are used in language. Conceptually, whether or not they are qualities, quantities, or both in the real world is a question for metaphysics.

 

[Iacchus32]

The Advent of Color

How about the relationship between the numbers 6, 7 and 8 and a hexagram with the six basic colors -- red, orange, yellow, green, blue and violet -- plotted in accordance with a color wheel, as well as the seven notes of the musical scale? All of which portrays a general "symmetrical relationship."

http://www.dionysus.org/7_colors.html

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Linguistically color is a quality, not a quantity like wavelength. Thus you will hear people say things like, "My, what a beautiful color of red" but never, "Gee, what a gorgeous wavelength of 435u. In both cases, neither term has meaning outside of the context of how they are used in language. Conceptually, whether or not they are qualities, quantities, or both in the real world is a question for metaphysics.

That is why science uses spectrometers instead of: "...But I tell you: it was orange-green with slight turquose haze - not yellow as you wrote".

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Alexander
That is why science uses spectrometers instead of: "...But I tell you: it was orange-green with slight turquose haze - not yellow as you wrote".

Yes, and that is why science is a human invention. Imperfect human perception led to the development of extremely accurate devices. Go figure.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Yes, and that is why science is a human invention. Imperfect human perception led to the development of extremely accurate devices. Go figure.

Yikes!

Yes, but wouldn't that be tantamount to saying something arose out of nothing? Or, does it suggest "something" (perfection) was already there?

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yikes!

Yes, but wouldn't that be tantamount to saying something arose out of nothing? Or, does it suggest "something" (perfection) was already there?

It suggests any number of things including the possibility of invisible pixies on our shoulders actually dictating all of our thoughts to us. That's exactly why I bring it up. As bad a mistake as it can be to extrapolate too much on limited information, it can be equally mistaken to assume you already know the answers.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by wuliheron
... Imperfect human perception led to the development of extremely accurate devices. Go figure.

Exactly. The less human senses in measurements, the better (more objective) are the data.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
How about the relationship between the numbers 6, 7 and 8 and a hexagram with the six basic colors -- red, orange, yellow, green, blue and violet -- plotted in accordance with a color wheel, as well as the seven notes of the musical scale? All of which portrays a general "symmetrical relationship."

Not much relationship because numbers 6.7.8.4 etc here were ARBITRARY assigned by a human, ruining all futher relationships or symmetries which may present there originally.

In contrast, wavelengths numbers are not arbitrary but mutually related to each other. (Say, wavelength of blue is always about 0.7 of wavelength of red regardless units or devices to measure it).

 

[drag]

Greetings !

My opinion:

Color is what we observe. It is an ellement
of our data input.

The wavelenght of the colors is a scientific
deduction from the observed data input.

If there is an additional problem or a point that
I missed here, please, do point it out to me.

Live long and prosper.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Alexander
Exactly. The less human senses in measurements, the better (more objective) are the data.

So, if a tree falls in the forest and you have a decebel measuring system set up that no one ever checks on, that is perfect objectivity.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Alexander
Not much relationship because numbers 6.7.8.4 etc here were ARBITRARY assigned by a human, ruining all futher relationships or symmetries which may present there originally.

In contrast, wavelengths numbers are not arbitrary but mutually related to each other. (Say, wavelength of blue is always about 0.7 of wavelength of red regardless units or devices to measure it).

What about "pigmented" colors, which is what they teach you about in art in school? What about the three primary colors -- red, yellow and blue -- which cannot be derived by mixing any other colors, and the three secondary colors -- orange, green and violet -- which are derived by mixing the three primary colors? From which all other colors are supposedly derived from these "basic six?"

Doesn't that suggest a sense of universality, as well as symmetry, in accord with the number six and a hexagram, where a hexagram (i.e., honeycomb effect) extends unto infinity?

http://www.dionysus.org/7_colors.html

 

[Mentat]

Alright, I'm glad to see that there have been some responses.

I must say that I agree with Eh and Drag, that "color" [x=] "wavelength", but is rather a discription of the mental projection caused by the perception of wavelength in humans (obviously none of them used these exact words, I'm just re-stating in my own words).

 

[RSM1000]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What about "pigmented" colors, which is what they teach you about in art in school? What about the three primary colors -- red, yellow and blue -- which cannot be derived by mixing any other colors, and the three secondary colors -- orange, green and violet -- which are derived by mixing the three primary colors? From which all other colors are supposedly derived from these "basic six?"

You're making a big error in perception.

Colors are not mixed to make other colors. Instead two sets of matter which give off two different colors (in white light) are put closely together to give the effect of being one color. They are not making any new colors.

"Mixing colors" is a perceptional illusion because of the size of pixels an eye can recieve.

Stand back from a wall with small checkers and it can look like one color, get close and you see it is not.

 

[C0mmie]

Iacchus32, regarding your question on universality:

There is a certain disorder in some people where they see the complementary of every color. For expample, instead of blue they see orange and instead of green they see red. Wouldn't that mean that there is no universality in color perception?

 

[RSM1000]

Originally posted by C0mmie
Iacchus32, regarding your question on universality:

There is a certain disorder in some people where they see the complementary of every color. For expample, instead of blue they see orange and instead of green they see red. Wouldn't that mean that there is no universality in color perception?

Commie indeed there is not.

One might see red where another might see orange or black or white.
Color is a statement of relativity like everything else.

Wavelength is the objective property of light.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by RSM1000
You're making a big error in perception.

Colors are not mixed to make other colors. Instead two sets of matter which give off two different colors (in white light) are put closely together to give the effect of being one color. They are not making any new colors.

Sure they are, and here's the key, "within context" of the artist "mixing" them on the palate.

"Mixing colors" is a perceptional illusion because of the size of pixels an eye can recieve.

Then what's the point in painting a picture?

Stand back from a wall with small checkers and it can look like one color, get close and you see it is not.

This is why when people paint a picture on canvas, they aren't concerned so much with the detail, because it's virtually undiscernable when viewing it from an "appropriate distance."

 

[Alexander]

Wavelength of light is not related to human perseption. Wavelength is just distance between maxima of E or B field of photon.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by C0mmie
Iacchus32, regarding your question on universality:

There is a certain disorder in some people where they see the complementary of every color. For expample, instead of blue they see orange and instead of green they see red. Wouldn't that mean that there is no universality in color perception?

A universality in color perception amongst people? No. And yet the idea still alludes to a "possible standard."

http://www.dionysus.org/7_colors.html

 

[Alexander]

Better not to use perceptions then. I know one guy who does not see colors.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Wavelength of light is not related to human perseption. Wavelength is just distance between maxima of E or B field of photon.

Which is why "color" is different from "wavelength of light".

 

[eNtRopY]

Originally posted by Mentat
There was a line of debate that was started in the old PFs, but it was never finished, and I'd like very much to continue it.

The following is the conversation:



You see, I would reply that all Alexander did was give the Scientific labeling of that which we percieve (color).

Oooh... reviving a dead topic from the old PFs... Not that this is interesting, but I see that you haven't had enough internet-fighting with Alexander. You must still be pissed off about the Langauge of Mathematics debate (and I use the term debate loosely).

Take my advice, grow up.

eNtRopY

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by eNtRopY
Oooh... reviving a dead topic from the old PFs... Not that this is interesting, but I see that you haven't had enough internet-fighting with Alexander. You must still be pissed off about the Langauge of Mathematics debate (and I use the term debate loosely).

Take my advice, grow up.

eNtRopY

This topic was not directed at Alexander. I was asking for everyone's opinion. The fact that I happened to disagree with Alexander on this topic as well, has nothing to do with my posting it. I am planning on reviving a few more threads from the old PFs, and can only hope that they are not also misconstrued as personal attacks on any of the members that posted in them.

 

[eNtRopY]

Originally posted by Mentat
This topic was not directed at Alexander. I was asking for everyone's opinion. The fact that I happened to disagree with Alexander on this topic as well, has nothing to do with my posting it. I am planning on reviving a few more threads from the old PFs, and can only hope that they are not also misconstrued as personal attacks on any of the members that posted in them.

I think I can safely speak for all of us when I say no one here believes you.

And I quote...

You see, I would reply that all Alexander did was give the Scientific labeling of that which we percieve (color).

Again, I urge you to become a more mature person.

eNtRopY

 

[FZ+]

Let's try and stop this dueling, please? Conduct personal wars and pre-emptive strikes by PM - it reduces the amount of collateral damage.

Actually, I may be having a brain fart, but isn't wavelength related to perception too? If you are moving from the source at a different velocity, you would measure a very different value for wavelength due to the doppler effect... Hmm?

 

[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.