There’s an infinite number colours you can generate by mixing the 3 primary ones in different quanities. Get some paints together and try it for yourself.
My personal pick for the next colour is Blurple: a yellowish-bluey mauve.
Try to be a bit more specific in your question next time.
That’s not totally accurate, there most certainly are colours you can’t obtain by mixing paints.
I guess what im saying is, getting another colour with out mixing the primary or secondary colours, a whole new characteristic. Is it possible?
That’s totally rightjovan. I was thinking in terms of coloured light at the time. Thanks for picking that up.
I believe that many birds and reptiles can see UV light (due to a fourth color receptor), and that their perception of color would be much more vivid and varied.
I suppose we could genetically engineer a human to possess these receptors someday…
Snakes can see near IR, IIRC (tee hee!).
I vote for another hyphen. As in “the colour you picked for the carpet is ugly. So… blue-green-lukewarm”.
Perception of colour occurs in the brain; colours are nothing more than convenient labels that our visual system applies to certain visual stimuli.
If we were able to percieve a broader spectrum, it would not necessarily result in us seeing any new colours at all - it would just as likely be the case that the existing perceptive colour range would be ‘stretched’ to cover the required range.
Unless the eye contained an additional, brand new type of cone cell, in which case there would be more than three primary colours and mixing them might result in what would be (to us, although of course we’d not be able to see it) a totally novel colour.
there are supposedly some people actually do have an extra type of cone (they are called tetrachromats), but apparently hard scientific data on this is sparse at best.
Quite aside from that though, is the hoary old issue of whether any of us are actually perceiving the same thing when we look at a given colour; certainly it cat be confirmed that the basic structure of the visual system is similar from individual to individual, but as to the similarity of the visual ‘software’ that actually renders colour in our minds - it’s still a question for philosophers at the moment.
There’s another recent thread that covers this.
Colours are possibly cyclical, so the spectrum theortically cyclces through the colours like music through the notes.
You can’t generate all colours from three primary colours, the amount of colours you can generate are dependent on how well you choose your three primary colours, though you can generate all colours if you are allowed to used ‘negative’ amounts of your three primary colours.
Still, theoretically at least you can generate an infinite amount of colours from three primary colours.
*replace ‘amount of colours’ with ‘range of colors’.
What is Light Urple?
New colours would be generated by electro, drug, or physical stimulatin of the visual cortex. Such perception of colours could not be achieved through the normal opperation of the visual cortex, and so would have no analog to actual electromagnetic waves.
May I nominate Unicorn Pink as a name for one of the (probably drug induced) colours.
Genegineering is unnecessary on this one, as it’s already been done.
In the 1930’s.
During the 30’s, there were experiments in England to find an implantable plastic cornea.
These experiments were only so-so sucessful, due to breakdowns in the plastics, and a high rate of rejection by the body. Their use was therefore discontinued.
But a few did work, and they had an odd by-product: they enabled the patient to see into the near ultraviolet range of the spectrum.
These individuals were used in WW2 as coast watchers, as they had slightly superior night vision, and because the German Navy used UV signaling devices.
So, if you want to take the chance, and if you’re ready to trust 70-year-old surgical supplies and an unsafe procedure performed by a surgeon unethical enough to do this on a whim–gp for it!
I cite the volume Future War as my source, and no I don’t mean the short story collection of the same name.
Correction-- actual source is
War in 2080: The Future of Military Technology
by David Langford