What Makes Light and Color Unique in Our Perception?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the nature of light and color perception, emphasizing that these are subjective experiences rather than inherent properties of the external world. Participants explore why human and animal vision has evolved to detect a limited range of electromagnetic radiation, specifically visible light, which is abundant in sunlight. The conversation highlights that visible light offers a balance of energy that is useful for biological processes without causing damage, unlike ultraviolet or infrared wavelengths. The evolutionary advantage of detecting visible light is linked to its prevalence in the environment and its optimal signal-to-noise ratio for effective vision. Overall, the consensus is that life has adapted to utilize the most advantageous part of the electromagnetic spectrum for survival.
  • #61
Furyan5 said:
We don't actually see light, we see because of light. Our brain doesn't create a visual representation of light itself, for us to perceive. The brain interprets light into sensations such as colors and brightness. It's this we perceive. It's through colors and brightness that we perceive objects. The contrast from its surrounding colors and brightness.
Well, we "see light" in the sense that photons themselves hit photosensors and trigger a response.
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #62
Furyan5 said:
Are you talking about emotional responses to colors? Or understanding what colors are and how we see them?
Everything in our minds is 'emotional' to some extent. Everything we experience is subjective. We invented Mathematics as a way of communicating in a very formal way and we have agreed on the syntax and 'meanings' it carries. But when we try to communicate any of our sensations to another individual, we are limited to our language or to real life examples (eg red is like strawberries and coke bottles - no use for someone who has seen neither).
We 'understand' (a dodgy word in most contexts and even more so in psychology) that colours can be mimicked and measured up to a point so we can sort of reverse engineer human colour vision. whether or not that involves understanding of the process is questionable. Colour is only really in our heads. Outside of our heads, we can only use a model that can predict reasonably well what colour a human will assign to a given spectral mix on a screen.
 
  • #63
ZapperZ said:
OK, one more time:

1. "Color" is a human invention. It is a sloppy and ambiguous way of characterizing EM radiation.

2. "Wavelength" and "frequency" of EM radiation are more direct, clear, and definitely less ambiguous. So why aren't you including the discussion of different types of EM radiation using such characterizations rather than just using "colors"? It is why I asked if you are only restricting yourself to using the human eye as the sole light detector.

Is this clearer now?

Zz.

The thread is not about whether we detect light or not. Everyone agrees that we detect certain wavelengths. The thread is about whether we perceive light or not. Is the detection of light by the eye called seeing when all other visual perception occurs in the visual cortex. Is detecting light, seeing or only a part of the process which results in seeing. Opinions seem to differ, so I'm seeking clarity, with an explanation, why people believe one or the other.
 
  • #64
The human eye is not a spectrometer and our appreciation of the spectrum of the light we see is only based on a very crude analysis. Only three basic broadband analysis filters have been identified but our vision system makes good use of that data and context to come up with a highly data reduced measure. It's good enough for us to have survived ok and that's all that evolution needs to provide us with.
There is a lot of very sloppy terminology around - even on PF - which refers to the 'wavelength of colours'. I am always surprised that the basics of tristimulus colour vision seem to be too much for many otherwise bright people to take on board.
 
  • #65
russ_watters said:
I'm sorry, but this just doesn't seem very meaningful to me. In order for things to interact (except perhaps in QM), they have to be co-located. So what? Or is that the whole point?
Answered in #64
 
  • #66
Furyan5 said:
The thread is not about whether we detect light or not. Everyone agrees that we detect certain wavelengths. The thread is about whether we perceive light or not. Is the detection of light by the eye called seeing when all other visual perception occurs in the visual cortex. Is detecting light, seeing or only a part of the process which results in seeing. Opinions seem to differ, so I'm seeking clarity, with an explanation, why people believe one or the other.

This does not sound like a physics question. It is more physiological, biological.

Zz.
 
  • #67
Thanks to everyone for participating. This thread is slowly going off-topic, so it is closed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 207 ·
7
Replies
207
Views
12K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K