Thread: Color Interpretation?

More of a question than anything else...

Do you think it's possible that colors are interpreted differently by different sets of eyes? For example if the green I know and recognize as green displays the shade of what I would view as blue in your eyes and vice versa, but we would never know that the two colors were different because we have always acknowledged the colors green and blue as the way we alone view them.

Another example if the first didn't make sense:

Both X and Y are viewing what they know to be the color red.
Person X sees what person Y would call the color blue, but calls it red because that is the shade that person X associates with red.
Person Y sees what person X would call the color green, but calls it red because that is the shade that person Y associates with red.
Both are viewing two completely different shades of color yet both call it red because in their minds the name of the color before them is red.

I'm not sure what, if any, effects would come from knowing the answer to this question. Maybe just something to think about

No. Because the wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum for each color is known and nearly everyone agrees that when they see light from 625–740 nm, they're looking at red. When they see light in the 380–440 nm range, it's violet.

It isn't the color of the light that is important, its the wavelength and frequency.

It is interesting, however, that some cultures ignore subtle differences in colors because of language limitations. If a language has no word for teal or aquamarine, they're likely to be simply called blue or green depending upon the hue.

But since this is a thread about color, here's a cool link that allows you to quickly view colors by name and even get the html code: http://www.artistic-designers.com/bkgds/colorchart.html

Hmmm...

Skinwalker I think you mis-understood the question.

I pondered this one myself many years ago...

you are right in that a certain 'set' of sensors will percieve a particular wavelength, BUT that will ONLY send a signal to the brain that a particular wavelength is present/has been detected. How the brain interprets, and what 'color' it assigns to that signal is unknown - What I see as red - you may see as green others may see as blue - BUT for each of us the signal will have come through the same set of sensors.

The answer is (I feel) we do not know, There is no possible way but if you look at genetics which gives us physical and mental similarities it is probable we all see the 'same' color (whatever that is) when we perceive light at a particular frequency - in the same way that our hands are all the same basic shape.

Is that a question you thought of by yourself, or was it prompted by somebody else?

As long as the wavelengths and frequencies are interpreted from individual to individual consistently -we all use the word "blue" for the blue wavelengths, what difference would it make whether or not I perceive blue in the same manner you do.

Indeed, I concede readily that there are many who are more sensitive to hues and tints than others, as well as those that simply cannot interpret certain wavelengths because of varied degrees of color blindness.

In the end, we all agree that 625–740 nm is a shade of red and we're able to all stop at the appropriate time at traffic lights.

The question was "Do you think it's possible". I believe it is possible BUT, for the reason I quote (genetic similarity) unlikely.

EDIT Woops! I just noticed he asked about pairs of eyes (not brains) - in which case Skin's original answer was correct.

Mea culpe!

I agree with you on that.

Originally Posted by billco

The question was "Do you think it's possible". I believe it is possible BUT, for the reason I quote (genetic similarity) unlikely.

EDIT Woops! I just noticed he asked about pairs of eyes (not brains) - in which case Skin's original answer was correct.

Mea culpe!

sorry about the "pairs of eyes"...just a figure of speech.

The interpretation by the brain is what I really meant.
Billco understood and explained more adeptly what I was trying to say

Originally Posted by Aryl7

Originally Posted by billco

The question was "Do you think it's possible". I believe it is possible BUT, for the reason I quote (genetic similarity) unlikely.

EDIT Woops! I just noticed he asked about pairs of eyes (not brains) - in which case Skin's original answer was correct.

Mea culpe!

sorry about the "pairs of eyes"...just a figure of speech.

The interpretation by the brain is what I really meant.
Billco understood and explained more adeptly what I was trying to say

So at the end of the day do you agree that it is unlikely for the reason I explained (ie other similarities). ?

Originally Posted by billco

Originally Posted by Aryl7

Originally Posted by billco

The question was "Do you think it's possible". I believe it is possible BUT, for the reason I quote (genetic similarity) unlikely.

EDIT Woops! I just noticed he asked about pairs of eyes (not brains) - in which case Skin's original answer was correct.

Mea culpe!

sorry about the "pairs of eyes"...just a figure of speech.

The interpretation by the brain is what I really meant.
Billco understood and explained more adeptly what I was trying to say

So at the end of the day do you agree that it is unlikely for the reason I explained (ie other similarities). ?

Yea, I agree, it makes sense. Just didn't take the time to think it through that way. About your earlier question...it was a question of thought by myself

Hey... I've thought the same thing at times. Interesting to have at least a semi-mildly satisfactory answer :-D.

Oh... and why is this in the Pseudoscience forum? It has a rather scientific answer, and the question seemed valid enough :?.

But, it doesn't bother me I guess.




Night all,
J0N

The majority of the population agrees on color matching (black matches with everything, etc..), and if the Original Post was true for everyone, I think the majority of population would not agree on color matching.

Originally Posted by Osiris

The majority of the population agrees on color matching (black matches with everything, etc..), and if the Original Post was true for everyone, I think the majority of population would not agree on color matching.

One could say that since not everybody agrees[on color matching] then maybe some do indeed have their 'wires' crossed. Oh, and black/white are not perceived by the same sensor type as colours.

Originally Posted by billco

Originally Posted by Osiris

The majority of the population agrees on color matching (black matches with everything, etc..), and if the Original Post was true for everyone, I think the majority of population would not agree on color matching.

One could say that since not everybody agrees[on color matching] then maybe some do indeed have their 'wires' crossed. Oh, and black/white are not perceived by the same sensor type as colours.

wait... are you suggesting that black/white would not be perceived as colors by an individual? why are we assumming this? ... or did I misunderstand you?

Cones perceive color(s)
Rods operate at low light levels. At normal levels rods are saturated.
WHat we are talking about here is what 'color' your brain generates when it receives a signal saying that the light is of the longer wavelength ie that named red. If that does not make sense you will have to go back and read the whole thread.

if i take my fist and hit you in the eye, what color will it have afterwards?

Originally Posted by Zelos

if i take my fist and hit you in the eye, what color will it have afterwards?

Do you still beat up your mother?

Yes or no!

what mother? I am god therefor i have allways existed

Excuse my brief skimming of the previous messages. I am new to this forum. But I believe I have an answer for you. A definate answer which has to do with the composition of color. I had pondered this question a few years back as well and never came to a conclusion until I happened on this message string tonight. Here's our answer:

If I see blue as blue, and you see blue as green, you will be shown that my blue is blue because as we all know, yellow + blue = green. Add yellow to your "blue" and you will not see your "green".

The math of the primary colors will show the truth of it. The relationship of the colors amongt themselves proves them to be as we all see them except for the few unfortunate colorblind people who we can identify with simple tests.
Color triangulation if you will.

The matter of whether or not we see colors as differently depending on the individual is totally unapplicable to any sort of scientific finding today. I'm not saying that it won't be important in the future, but the important aspects of color are just to know the different ones, and see them distinctly...now you could not see them distinctly (colorblind), but that is a well-known thing...

nomenclature doesn't imply anything about the nature of the whatever, but in the case of color I am inclined to say that the nomenclature is more important for all practical reasons than how each color is precieved.

-Ajain

Originally Posted by Zelos

what mother? I am god therefor i have allways existed

Now tell me about your early life, what happy memories do you have?

We detect specific wavelengths of light depending on the 4, YES 4! types of cone cells we have in our retina. 2 variants of red, green and blue. The way the cones are triggered depends on specific ranges of wavlength and this doesn't vary, so long as there are no mutations in the protein or variations in the attachment point of the chromophore (retinal, the molecule that detects light) and rhodopsin (the molecule that surrounds the chromophore, retinal).

Everything else being equal, the signals from the cones that are interpreted in the brain can vary. There's a medical condition in which different stimuli can produce the effect of "seeing colour", called synesthasia. For example, someone might get a prick on the finger, or hear a specific sound and the brain will actually cause the person to see a specific colour. The visual center of the brain is a complex structure and we might not all interpret the same stimuli in the same way.

Originally Posted by TaO!

We detect specific wavelengths of light depending on the 4, YES 4! types of cone cells we have in our retina. 2 variants of red, green and blue. The way the cones are triggered depends on specific ranges of wavlength and this doesn't vary, so long as there are no mutations in the protein or variations in the attachment point of the chromophore (retinal, the molecule that detects light) and rhodopsin (the molecule that surrounds the chromophore, retinal).

Everything else being equal, the signals from the cones that are interpreted in the brain can vary. There's a medical condition in which different stimuli can produce the effect of "seeing colour", called synesthasia. For example, someone might get a prick on the finger, or hear a specific sound and the brain will actually cause the person to see a specific colour. The visual center of the brain is a complex structure and we might not all interpret the same stimuli in the same way.

I'll not argue on how many types of cones, other than to say 3 types were the norm when I studied it 'Color Television Theory, Hutson, 1971 p 12' "The behaviour of the eye is consistent with there being three types of cones only." later it goes on to say there is 'some indication of overlapping. If you can point to a reputable source I will be happy to update.

AS I said earlier we all[or at least most] perceive a sensation when a particular cone is stimuletd - it is impossible to tell if we all percieve it in the same way, the best evidence [that we do], perhaps the only evidence is, that there are so many similarities between us which we can agree on that it is higly probable that we do. Another question on the same lines might be: 'Do we all perceive the same 'amount' of color as others?. Imagine setting the color saturation control on a wide variety of T.V's to say 30% they would all show different levels of color.

Wow, I used to think about this exact same question when I was younger.

We all have the same cone cells which respond to the same frequencies of visible light but the actual image we 'see' is constructed in the brain on the basis of these visual signals. Whats to say that how the brain of person A chose to represent red is the same 'mental colour' as my brain chose to assign to green? I used to imagine how crazy the world would look if colours were inverted like this. Maybe the person sat next to me experiences the world like a photonegative, but to him this is normal. It used to make me think if this would influence peoples colour-coordination when dressing. Maybe red and green stripes looks great to someone else because the colours are represented different in their mind.

These questions also occured to me when reading about synthesia (the stimulation of cells of the visual cortex by non-visual stimuli like sound or taste). When people who are synthesiacs (is that a word? synthetics?) are brought together and asked for example what 'colour' a particular sound is they generally give different answers, as if the routing of the auditory neurons to the colour-generating cells in the visual cortex was chosen at random when first set up. If this occurs in synthesia maybe colours are assigned randomly to each cones sensory neurons during brain development

Well color is determined by the cones and rods of the eye. They respond differently to different wavelengths of light. The brain then decodes this and produces a "color"

I supposed since there is nothing inherently "red" about red, or "green" about green, since they are simply different wavelengths, that the shade one sees the color may differ. We know that all humans with normally functioning vision agree on colors, but there is reason to question wether a red rose looks EXACTLY the same, to two different people. They would both agree it was red, but to one it may appear more towards the blue end, and one more toward the red end of the spectrum.

Very good question as we know that color is simply a creation of the mind.

The same debate might also to the sense of smell,
Perhaps one man's rose is another man's bucket of 5h1T in sight as well as smell! :wink:

Sorry to drag a fascinating topic down but I believe science should have some real humour injected as opposed those more 'moderate' who think they inject humour! 8)

Originally Posted by billco

If you can point to a reputable source I will be happy to update.

Brian C. Verrelli and Sarah A. Tishkoff. Signatures of Selection and Gene Conversion Associated with Human Color Vision Variation. The American Journal of Human Genetics, volume 75 (2004), pages 363–375.

In vitro analyses have shown that OPN1LW replacement SNPs significantly shift lmax into the “red-orange” visual spectrum (Asenjo et al. 1994; Sharpe et al. 1998; Carroll et al. 2002). As a result of random X inactivation, red and red-orange pigments are expressed in females
heterozygous for different OPN1LW haplotypes and enable discrimination among colors in the red-orange spectrum, compared with expression in homozygous individuals (Jameson et al. 2001).

Originally Posted by TaO!

Originally Posted by billco

If you can point to a reputable source I will be happy to update.

Brian C. Verrelli and Sarah A. Tishkoff. Signatures of Selection and Gene Conversion Associated with Human Color Vision Variation. The American Journal of Human Genetics, volume 75 (2004), pages 363–375.

In vitro analyses have shown that OPN1LW replacement SNPs significantly shift lmax into the “red-orange” visual spectrum (Asenjo et al. 1994; Sharpe et al. 1998; Carroll et al. 2002). As a result of random X inactivation, red and red-orange pigments are expressed in females
heterozygous for different OPN1LW haplotypes and enable discrimination among colors in the red-orange spectrum, compared with expression in homozygous individuals (Jameson et al. 2001).

Very well, it is now "There are various cones to percieve the different colors"

I am nearly sure that people who are not affected by dyschromatopsia, percieve the same way colors. (I take for granted that people without daltonsim and alike, all agree that all colors correspond to the same spectral range : something normal if we consider is that we parents and teachers told our children, what is blue, what is black, what is white ....).

So for me the first point do not worth debating : it's an evidence.The interesting question is : is the mental image of colors of my neighboor is the same as mine.
If we were telepath, and able to read in someone else mind, I am nearly sure that we will see the same colors.

My Fist point to back this is that all people percieve the same way hot and cold colors. Every people will said that blue is cold and orange yellow red : hot colors. This is right for any culture at any time. If someone suffer of a particular dyschromatopsia, he lose this feeling. Red is no more hot for him, he do not make a difference with green.

In an other note, all people react the same way to salt/sugar. If you put salt on the tongue of any baby they will react the same way : burk !
If we put sugar on their tongue they will all react the same way. This reaction have nothing to do with education, it's an intinsctive one.

The way we percieve colors, do not change with the time. Luckily, otherwise we will forgot how to name correctly the colors, if our mental image changed.

Originally Posted by Powerdoc

I am nearly sure that people who are not affected by dyschromatopsia, percieve the same way colors. (I take for granted that people without daltonsim and alike, all agree that all colors correspond to the same spectral range : something normal if we consider is that we parents and teachers told our children, what is blue, what is black, what is white ....).

So for me the first point do not worth debating : it's an evidence.The interesting question is : is the mental image of colors of my neighboor is the same as mine.
If we were telepath, and able to read in someone else mind, I am nearly sure that we will see the same colors.

My Fist point to back this is that all people percieve the same way hot and cold colors. Every people will said that blue is cold and orange yellow red : hot colors. This is right for any culture at any time. If someone suffer of a particular dyschromatopsia, he lose this feeling. Red is no more hot for him, he do not make a difference with green.

In an other note, all people react the same way to salt/sugar. If you put salt on the tongue of any baby they will react the same way : burk !
If we put sugar on their tongue they will all react the same way. This reaction have nothing to do with education, it's an intinsctive one.

The way we percieve colors, do not change with the time. Luckily, otherwise we will forgot how to name correctly the colors, if our mental image changed.

It was very early on in the debate that the original poster realised his mistake (eyes instead of brain) - I think the consensus is that since we are similar in so many ways we can agree on, there is a strong probability the brain assigns 'colors' to the signals recieved from the various cones in the same way in us all.

Powerdoc, you are guilty of not reading the whole thead before you commented - This means you are clearly human! :wink:

"To err is human, to fuck it all up is divine!"

I have had the same question and I think it is all a matter of perception. I do think it is impossible to answer.

Also, I think it would be more complicated than just one person seeing red as blue. In fact I tihnk that would be highly improbable. I think it would be more like the colors one person sees are completely incomprehensible to another person. Does that make sense? If it were as simple as one person seeing blue instead of red it would make the whole electromagnetic spectrum thing a bit funny. The way the colors fade in and out of eachother and all. But, who knows.

Originally Posted by billco

Originally Posted by Powerdoc

I am nearly sure that people who are not affected by dyschromatopsia, percieve the same way colors. (I take for granted that people without daltonsim and alike, all agree that all colors correspond to the same spectral range : something normal if we consider is that we parents and teachers told our children, what is blue, what is black, what is white ....).

So for me the first point do not worth debating : it's an evidence.The interesting question is : is the mental image of colors of my neighboor is the same as mine.
If we were telepath, and able to read in someone else mind, I am nearly sure that we will see the same colors.

My Fist point to back this is that all people percieve the same way hot and cold colors. Every people will said that blue is cold and orange yellow red : hot colors. This is right for any culture at any time. If someone suffer of a particular dyschromatopsia, he lose this feeling. Red is no more hot for him, he do not make a difference with green.

In an other note, all people react the same way to salt/sugar. If you put salt on the tongue of any baby they will react the same way : burk !
If we put sugar on their tongue they will all react the same way. This reaction have nothing to do with education, it's an intinsctive one.

The way we percieve colors, do not change with the time. Luckily, otherwise we will forgot how to name correctly the colors, if our mental image changed.

It was very early on in the debate that the original poster realised his mistake (eyes instead of brain) - I think the consensus is that since we are similar in so many ways we can agree on, there is a strong probability the brain assigns 'colors' to the signals recieved from the various cones in the same way in us all.

Powerdoc, you are guilty of not reading the whole thead before you commented - This means you are clearly human! :wink:

"To err is human, to fuck it all up is divine!"

I must admit, that I am lazy

And I agree with your point of vue. There is too much similarities, for having a personal way of seing colors.

An other argument, is that if each people have a different way of seing colors at brain level, we will have problems with secondary colors. Colors like brown, purple are mental constructions, due to the mix of stimuli coming from differents type of cones. If each different brain, have a different internal representation of a color, I doubt that people can share the concept of brown, fuschia ...I also doubt that people will share the concept of black and white.
For everypeople too much light equal white, and absolute darkness is dark. Absolute darkness do not stimulate at all the rod and cones : no signal send to the brain (no activity) .Absolute light in the contrary will send many signals to the brain and we will be able to monitorate this activty (EEG, PET scan ...)

Not to stray too far of topic, but I've been wondering lately how we see in 3D. Whether this is due to structure of the eye or construction of the image by the brain is driving me crazy. The most common answer I hear is that 3D vision is a result of binocular vision but this can not be completely true because I still see in 3D with one eye closed. Anyone have any insight?

You acctually don't see 3D with one closed eye. You see like a video camera would. Have you ever wondered how stunt men hit each other in the movies. It is because a camera is a single lens that sees 2D. The actors can miss eachother by feet and it still looks like they are hitting eachother. 2D means you see verticle and horizontal on a flat plane. You can still notice layering but you can't tell how far apart the layers are. There is the illusion of 3D because the brain will try to reason. It will estimate and, unless you are consciously aware of what it is doing, things will appear more 3D than they really are.

One eye sees verticle and horizontal on a flat plane. The other eye sees the same thing but, the crossing of the two eyes allows for the third demension to come into view (depth).

Yes, I have done some stunt man work. Try this: Make a cross with your index fingers in front of your face. Keep your fingers about an inch or so apart. Close one eye. You will notice that there is no way to know how far apart they are (Besides the fact that your brain monitors the position of your joints but, that does not have to do with your eyes). Now open the other eye and you will notice you can see more depth between your fingers. Try using each eye by its self. Notice it looks like the verticle finger is changing places each time. When both eyes are open you see both these places at once and that is the 3rd dimesion kicking in.


Does this help?

P.S.
Don't try this while driving.

I've thought about the idea that by brain is creating the illusion so I've tried it by walking into a new room with one eye closed or in new locations where the brain doesn't have a prior reference point to fall back on. The results are the same. You can even compare the quality of the image with an image that you see on a tv screen and there is a huge difference. Think of people who have vision in only one eye. Their depth perception is not as good as everyone else but they still see in 3D. I think it must go deeper than the simple explanation.

Originally Posted by scanner36

I've thought about the idea that by brain is creating the illusion so I've tried it by walking into a new room with one eye closed or in new locations where the brain doesn't have a prior reference point to fall back on. The results are the same. You can even compare the quality of the image with an image that you see on a tv screen and there is a huge difference. Think of people who have vision in only one eye. Their depth perception is not as good as everyone else but they still see in 3D. I think it must go deeper than the simple explanation.

The reason you can walk into a room[as you state] is that your brain not only 'sees' the image but it has other data to go on.
1) The focus 'feedback' from your eye will give an indication of distance.
2) Your 'experience' of similar scenes.
3) Moving your head with only monocular vision will give your brain the extra information it requires.

If you go and look at the full moon how far away would you guess it is?
since your eyes lose 'focus' at about 100 Metres{I think] everthing over that distance appears at the eye's equivalent of 'infinite focus'

These very things allow species 'with an eye on each side of the head' interpret their environment

Any Comment Doc?

When you look at something your eye, very quickly, shifts back and forth. You don't see what your eyes take in, you see a projection of the compiled information your brain thinks is important. If you saw what your eye saw you would be very dissy. Also, you can draw 3D pictures or watch 3D TV or play 3D video games but, they aren't really 3D. It just appears that way. You have to understand. You take in loads of information. As your eyes are moving side to side (unconsciously) to focus on things, as you turn your head, as you see shadows, all of these plus more are tools your brain uses to create its projection. You don't actually see light; your eye capture light and your brain creates the best image it can with it.

Originally Posted by billco

Originally Posted by scanner36

I've thought about the idea that by brain is creating the illusion so I've tried it by walking into a new room with one eye closed or in new locations where the brain doesn't have a prior reference point to fall back on. The results are the same. You can even compare the quality of the image with an image that you see on a tv screen and there is a huge difference. Think of people who have vision in only one eye. Their depth perception is not as good as everyone else but they still see in 3D. I think it must go deeper than the simple explanation.

The reason you can walk into a room[as you state] is that your brain not only 'sees' the image but it has other data to go on.
1) The focus 'feedback' from your eye will give an indication of distance.
2) Your 'experience' of similar scenes.
3) Moving your head with only monocular vision will give your brain the extra information it requires.

If you go and look at the full moon how far away would you guess it is?
since your eyes lose 'focus' at about 100 Metres{I think] everthing over that distance appears at the eye's equivalent of 'infinite focus'

These very things allow species 'with an eye on each side of the head' interpret their environment

Any Comment Doc?

No I only see good arguments here.

The stereoscopic vision is not mandatory for moving in the 3D world, but give you an advantage each time you want to catch something.

The concept of the constantly moving eye is very interesting. I hadn't heard that before. I visualized the data in the form of a 3D matrix produced by different cone heights or something to that effect but I can see where constant (or near constant) movement might generate the same information for the brain to interpret. Thanks for the info, the 3D question won't be keeping me up late at night anymore.

It's not that it is always moving but, it does alot. Usually when you are trying to focus on something.

Originally Posted by scanner36

The concept of the constantly moving eye is very interesting. I hadn't heard that before. I visualized the data in the form of a 3D matrix produced by different cone heights or something to that effect but I can see where constant (or near constant) movement might generate the same information for the brain to interpret. Thanks for the info, the 3D question won't be keeping me up late at night anymore.

Think about it, it's the same way probes take 3d pics of planetary bodies, 'click' 'move' 'click'

Try it, keep your head perfectly still, looking out of one eye for about 10 seconds, (you can move your eyes) do this in a room where nothing is moving. everything looks 'flat' - now take a step forward and wow! your brain 'builds' the 3-d model.


Have a look at this link there is some great 3-d street art
http://www.european-street-painting....r%20taipei.htm