I was thinking about how some people appreciated flowers more than others and how some animals can see different extremes of colours (into the ultra-violet etc) and I began to wonder, how do we know we all see clours the same? My red, might be another person’s blue for instance. The fact red seems warm is because that is the colour of fire, so if fire appeared the equivalent of blue, that would still seem a warm colour. Can my perception of colours be vastly different from somebody elses?
I realise that name’s of colours might cease to have meaning in this sort of talk and I apologise to those who like to spell colour: color. I’m sure you’ll cope…
well, this is hard to reply, am not quite sure how to go about it. Physically speaking blue is blue is blue, because all blue light will have the same wavelenght (or at least be extrmely close)
but of course the brain can do wierd things to impulses it receives. Probably most people with ‘normal’ brains see the exact same thing since we’re all built on the same base. I suppose it’s possible that if your brain is imbalanced somehow you might get your wires crossed and have your colors scrambled, although I’m not sure how this would work, it may not be possible. I don’t think they would ever know though. lol, I know why you saked this question
ok, new answer, it is almost definate that we all see the same thing (with the natural exception of color blind people) but it’s one of those things that no one can prove.
The question remains - “Who decides which wavelength represents blue?”
My father works as a Chemistry lecturer with African students in Cape Town, South Africa, and constantly encounters problems in the interpretation of acid-base indicator tests, where colour recognition is crucial. Many of the students label the Phenolphthalien endpoint - which is quite clearly bright pink - as “orange”. This may be related to language, as Xhosa (the local language) has identical words for both green and blue (lulthaza), with the meaning apparantly coming from the context. So it may be that the above example (pink/orange) could easily be described as “not-quite-red”.
Another issue is that of conditioning - we call orange what our parents told us as a child was orange, and they in turn are influenced by previous generations, etc…
Isn’t this kind of a moot point anyway? If you’re trained to call it red, it’s red. The only time it would ever come up is if someone’s personality were somehow transplanted directly into your brain.
Now this is an interesting question. May I expand on the
OP and ask ‘what is colour’.
It is easy (but unfortunately wrong) to associate a colour with a specific wavelength.
A more thorough description would be to tread the visible colours as a three-dimensional space spanned by the vectors Red, Green and Blue. This is the way colour is normally treated in printing etc. (Of course the actual coordinate system chosen is not important, it can be orthogonal as in CMY(K) (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow (andb lacK)), or polar as in HSV (Hue, Saturation and Value) ).
This does raises a few the very interesting questions:
What would be the natural base vectors for this colour
space?
Why only three base vectors (for humans at least)?
I find it very confusing that we can reproduce the entire rainbow using only three pigments. It’s a bit like being able to produce all the notes with a piano having only three keys, by modifying the strength. I believe that it is a fundamental limitation/feature built into our eyes, and this is where I’d like someone to explain how the eye works!
Are there any creatures able to perceive a colour space of more than three dimensions? Bees can supposedly see in UV, but I believe that they cannot discern other colours.
I apologize for any incoherences in the post; English is not my first language. (But, being European I too prefer the English spelling of color)
BTW, “subjective color” is a term sometimes used for the illusion of color that is induced by alternating black and white images. It’s an unfortunate term because it is confused with too many other contexts (discussions like this, for instance), but it is an interesting illusion.
Looking at the OP from a philosophical versus scientific perspective, the question nearly mirrors a question I originally conceived during a Physics course in high school. Everyone will identify the color “red” as “red”, because that’s what we’re taught (grimpixie touched on this). But the way each our minds perceives the color may be totally different…i.e., Suzy and I both see red when we look at a fire truck, but if I looked at the firetruck through her eyes, I would see something different (such as yellow) than the red I’ve come to know.
Did that make any sense at all? Anyway, what I’m trying to get at, is that I doubt there is any physical difference in the way individuals perceive color. But each of our brains may have a different representation of that color. Something like that.
Well, this is one area where I, personally, have no doubts. I don’t see color exactly like everyone else, having “color deficient vision”. So there are many shades of what you call “green” that I would describe as “blue” or “yellow” or “brown”. There are also a lot of greens we both would agree are green, too, but I’m pretty sure that we aren’t seeing the same green.
This probably also accounts for my like of very bright (saturated) colors, since it’s pastels I have the most problems with. Also, I like certain color combinations that aren’t, um, quite as popular with others, which probably has to do with our different perceptions.
I can pass all the standard color-blindness tests. However, when I have to separate black socks from dark navy blue socks, I have to either take them into sunlight or enlist my wife’s help. She sees subtle color differences better than I do. I gather (from asking friends) that perhaps women are better at color-shade questions than men are. Do any of you agree?
The only difference between genders is that women are often exposed to more colors because society lets them wear a greater variety of colors (at least in the U.S.)
I think if you take Joe X and Jane X off the street at random, they will distinguish colors almost exactly the same.
Yes, I agree with you. And its not just because I’m a gal. I find that most women can see more subtle shades of blue and green than men (I work in the design industry, so I deal with color on a daily basis). And more men are color blind than women. While 8% of men some level of of difficulty distinguishing color, only 0.5% of women experience it. (source)
I have always wondered about this. Like if I were able to crawl inside your head and look through your eyes would the color that you call red be the same color that I call red. I wish I knew.
From my knowledge of the human eye, and since I have asked myself the same question on many occasions I decided to post something here that may help.
Humans see colour by having rods and cones inside one’s eye. One of these (rod or cone) sits around the outside and picks up movement, the other in the middle is for detail (hence seeing things like lights and stars flicker out of the corner of your eye). The ones in the middle, as well are better at detecting colour and to transmit the signal there are different types of rod or cone (whichever it is, I can’t remember of hand) which respond to different wavelengths.
This is the part that makes me think all humans see in the colours: There are more of every green wavelength rod/cone in every persons eyes. This is due to evolution, what with lots of things, plants and trees, being green apparently.
Which kind of ties in the Gender difference: Since women have always been able to tell plants apart from each other easier than men, due to sitting in the cave cooking all day, then perhaps they can tell apart certain colours (or at least shades of green) in the same way.
I would guess that, although a higher percentage of men are color-blind, actual physical color recognition among normally sighted individuals isn’t different. Women are socialized in such a way as to make paying attention to color nomenclature much more important. There may still be a stigma operating for many of us which says that it’s “unmanly” to say that something is “fuchsia” instead of “purple”. Never mind that it’s a really different color than a concord grape, which is also “purple”.
For example, I’m a male and I believe I have excellent color perception (about the only quality of my vision that ISN’T subnormal, I might add). I remember my parents telling me that I learned to distinguish complex colors at a very early age, being able to identify something as “tan”, say, at an age when most kids are lucky to get “green” versus “red”. Nonetheless, if I’m in a bar with a bunch of guys, that car that drives by is “blue”, it ain’t “teal”. And if the guy next to me want to argue and say it’s “green”, “well ok, bluish-green, then”, and the subject gets dropped.
I really didn’t mean to get into a he/she debate. Sorry about that.
But I’m with PicklePea, we are all taught to call a red firetruck red, but we all might not see the same color.
To an extent I agree… like I said, I have often considered it. But I think physics and biology may have something else to say! It is something I’d like to know the answer to.