[Golden Legacy]

Icy's post in another topic spurred me to create this one. This has always been something I've thought about. Do we all see the world in the same way? Are the colors that we see actually different for each person?

Is what you call "green" actually my "blue", for example?

What are your thoughts?

[Split Infinity]

...I wouldn't know where to start with that. >_>

[Ironsight]

Our eyes are all built the same.

[Golden Legacy]

The processing of wavelengths by the brain, and interpreting them into the images we see, may not (and is not) the same.

[Split Infinity]

Why would they be any different? I don't see the evolutionary sense.

I know what you mean, though.

[Golden Legacy]

I don't know if it would make things so substantially different that evolution wouldn't allow for it. It could be a unique trait for each individual, and it wouldn't change much - you would still "react" to the world based on how you see it.

If you're willing to put up with the scientific analysis, this explains why it is possible.

[Mallick]

We mens all see things different from women, I know that for sure. And men have a higher rate of being color-blind.

Proof: I'm sure you've called a color something and had a girl completely correct you on it. Mainly happens with blues/greens, browns/grays and blacks/blues.

[Toasty]

The only way I see it being possible is through colorblindness.

If you're colorblind to Red, then you'll see purple as blue, while I see it as purple.


I had an argument laid out, but then I remembered that even if someone sees what I call purple as physically being what I call red, they still call it purple themselves. Even though we're actually seeing what amounts to different colors, we still call these different colors by the same name.


Regardless, I read an article about "imaginary colors" some time ago already. I still say, though, that everyone (despite having brains that are made differently), sees the same colors as one another.

[Neo]

I see where you are coming from Riad, since I've asked myself the same questions a few times as well. That you may call "green" "green", and I also call it green, but the green I see, is actually "blue" for you. Not only have I pondered about this with colors, but also with objects -- yes this may sound strange. And then I'm not talking about a square turning into a circle.

But our minds process what it sees trough their eyes; and what if each brain is unique, and processes in it's own unique way. Patterns may be translated different, colors may be interpreted differently. This is of course all just speculation, but I have been thinking about such things for a while.

[Saturos S.]

Isn't this just the classic colour paradox? My biology teacher brought it up last year when we learning about neurological processes between the eye and the brain.

[Split Infinity]

Everybody agrees that yellow is a 'lightish' colour and violet is a 'darkish' colour no matter what shade they are, right? That has to mean something.

[Quacnar]

I've thought about this and talked to friends about it, but at the end of the day it seems unlikely to me.

[Toasty]

Split Infinity, on Jun 22 2009, 01:12 AM, said:

Everybody agrees that yellow is a 'lightish' colour and violet is a 'darkish' colour no matter what shade they are, right? That has to mean something.

But what if light to them is actually dark to you? What they physically see as light, you physically see as dark. But regardless, you've both been brought up to call them "dark".

But that's only assuming that everything they see is negatived compared to what you see. Though I assume the color paradox only applies to a "color shift", not exactly polar opposites.

Even then, you could view things as negative color wise (a flipped spectrum), but still see light and dark in the same way. You'd see yellow, and they'd see light purple.

[Lightning Star]

Actually, I was inspired to consider the realm of different interpretations by some research I did last year on the topic of Synesthesia.

Basically, it's a condition where people think certain numbers or letters have different colors, textures, shapes, or sometimes even people report having a taste in their mouth when they see, for instance, the letter B. It's been reported as a neurological condition, where the neurons between the senses get mixed up, though it doesn't seem to interfere with day to day living, so it isn't a "disease". I read a book about a girl who said that her friend's name was the color of "candy apple green"--people like these are called synesthetes.

But what if we, the ones who don't experience this, are the odd ones out. Just because we don't associate numbers with tastes, doesn't nescesarilly mean that we're normal. In fact, people who have this seem to find it makes life interesting and more pleasurable. If the synesthetes are normal, it would be impossible to define anything, because their interpretations are all different. (Although most seem to agree that the letter "O" is a shade of white.)

A little bit of info about this: http://www.wordquest...ynesthesia.html

[Toasty]

I hear shrooms give the same effect.

No seriously. Drugs can make you "smell with your eyes" and "see with your fingers"

[Lightning Star]

Yeah, except, these people are like, y'know, born with it. Which is an interesting point to note, though.

People who are lacking in something, usually a vitamin, take that supplement to achieve a -NORMAL- balance of nutrients in their bodies. If we have to take LSD to get that synesthesia affect, would that then mean that we, who have separate senses, are lacking and therefore aren't at the "normal" level? If such is the case, then how can we try to define what is the absolute, if we're lacking in our perception?

I love this kind of theological thinking. :P

[Someone Else]

G-DUB 3000, on Jun 20 2009, 10:54 PM, said:

We mens all see things different from women, I know that for sure. And men have a higher rate of being color-blind.

Proof: I'm sure you've called a color something and had a girl completely correct you on it. Mainly happens with blues/greens, browns/grays and blacks/blues.

From my experience this is correct. I try to avoid conversations about color(s) with teh wimenz

[Split Infinity]

What do you mean, higher rate? Isn't it exclusive to the Y chromosome?

[Lightning Star]

No, I remember hearing that in Psychology too.

I had an argument with a friend about the color of some tissue paper (I think) and she was saying that it was gold and I said it was orange. Then someone jumped in and called it Macaroni and Cheese yellow/orange and we shut up.


...But I still think it was orange.

[Split Infinity]

If you thought it was orange and she thought it was gold then... copper?

[kate]

I'm way too lazy to read this topic.

we all see colors slightly different, that's why we each have favorite colors. bada bing bada boom.

[Lightning Star]

So if all our interpretations are slightly different, how do we define a standard? D:


ITS A GIANT CIRCLE! D:

[kate]

slightly different. green is green but what green is is slightly different to each person.

if you mean standard as what people would call a pure green, i think you find that too varies from person to person.

[Split Infinity]

Computer screen green.

[Mallick]

Split Infinity, on Jun 24 2009, 10:05 PM, said:

What do you mean, higher rate? Isn't it exclusive to the Y chromosome?

Women can be color-blind.

[Toasty]

Icy, on Jun 24 2009, 10:10 PM, said:

No, I remember hearing that in Psychology too.

I had an argument with a friend about the color of some tissue paper (I think) and she was saying that it was gold and I said it was orange. Then someone jumped in and called it Macaroni and Cheese yellow/orange and we shut up.
...But I still think it was orange.

Could just be opinion.

If it was a guy, I'd say he was partially colorblind.

One of my eyes tends to see things in a redder hue than the other, for example. Through one eye, a light red car looks light red, but through the other, it looks like it's just plain red.

[Caael]

Rods and cones.

That is all.

[kate]

tru dat caael lol.

for real though, computer screen green is decided by the programmers. And there's not going to be a huge difference. you're not going to have one person seeing lime green as forest green and another person seeing it as yellow. It's just a little different in the brain's interpretation, which mostly has to do with us liking the color.

[Split Infinity]

Screen green is when all phosphors but G are turned off. There's only one across all computers, the programmers don't decide on it.

[Lightning Star]

Caael, on Jun 25 2009, 06:24 PM, said:

Rods and cones.

That is all.

Well, Rods and Cones are responsible for allowing you to see things (Sensation). The visual cortex in the brain is what is responsible for interpreting what is being seen (Perception). It is the brain which is responsible for interpreting what we see, and that's where we run into trouble, because our brains are not all the same.

_{THIS is why I want to be a neurologist} -_-

Edit:

kate, on Jun 25 2009, 07:10 PM, said:

It's just a little different in the brain's interpretation, which mostly has to do with us liking the color.

EXACTLY! :joy: I feel like a giddy teacher whose pupil finally understands something. But not quite. Since you're not my pupil, and you posted before me XD

[I'm Always BROKE]

Yes I think we do. Colors are basically just light reflections. Can't imagine that our pupils would all absorb that light in a different way... Which would be crazy, cause then there would be people who would see colors different with their left eye and their right eye.

And aren't computer screens BLUE? o_o

[Nosferatu]

You and your stupid bright pink text.

[Golden Legacy]

Diddy Kong, on Jun 30 2009, 10:34 AM, said:

Yes I think we do. Colors are basically just light reflections. Can't imagine that our pupils would all absorb that light in a different way... Which would be crazy, cause then there would be people who would see colors different with their left eye and their right eye.

You're right that the wavelength of colors going into the eyes are the same for everyone. It is the brain that actually processes these signals into the images you see, so that same 'light reflection' might be interpreted differently by each person's brain.

At least, that is what is being debated.

[Legolastom]

Diddy Kong, on Jun 30 2009, 03:34 PM, said:

Yes I think we do. Colors are basically just light reflections. Can't imagine that our pupils would all absorb that light in a different way... Which would be crazy, cause then there would be people who would see colors different with their left eye and their right eye.

You brain not your eye, your eye sees **** its your brain that makes the picture.

[Toasty]

Diddy Kong, on Jun 30 2009, 07:34 AM, said:

And aren't computer screens BLUE? o_o

Split was talking about a certain color.

rgb (0,255,0) is "Computer screen green" because the green phosphors/sub pixels, and only those, are given max illumination.

There's also computer screen blue and red as well. rgb (0,0,255) and rgb (255,0,0) respectively.

[Golden Legacy]

Nice example that demonstrates the role our brains play in sight.

http://www.mrscience...e-illusion.html

[Toasty]

Now that I think about it, if people do see colors differently, I'm sure that there would be more arguments over which colors are primary and whatnot.

Think of it like this:

One man sees red, and considers it a primary color. The other person, even though he actually agrees that the physical Red is a primary color, he calls that physical red violet, and sees what the other man calls red as being physically orange.

So the first man sees red and violet, and the second man sees orange and red

The first man sees the first color as red, and considers it primary. Even though the second man calls that color red, he sees it as orange and thus says that it's not.

The second man then proposes that "violet" be a primary color (he sees this "Violet" as being red). The first man says that it's not, because violet does not look like a primary color to him.


Also, think of this: Red, Green, and Blue light can be used in an additive form (two primary colors mixed together creates a lighter color, subtractive would make a darker color, as if mixing paint) to create the secondary colors Cyan, Magenta, and Yellow.

This is called the RGB color space. The RGB color space does not produce the same range of color gamut as the CMYK color space, for example.

Now lets say someone sees red green and blue as purple, green, and orange respectively.

This new "PGO" color space does not have the same range of color gamut as the RGB space does.

However, this poses a problem. If someone sees colors differently than someone else (like in the previous example), then there would be discrepancies. They should be able to make the same range of color with their PGO color space as someone else could with their RGB color space. But that is just physically impossible.


If such a thing were true, then there would be numerous "strange" color spaces in use by printers and monitors and whatnot, because surely some people would consider a picture printed with the CMYK color space to look funny, despite the fact that they were brought up to call "Red" what they see of as violet.

[Split Infinity]

Even though I understand everything you just said, tl;dr.

Nice find GL.

[Toasty]

Yeah, I mean, holy ****. No matter how long and hard you look at it, unless your face is plastered to the screen, you can't even tell.

[Split Infinity]

It works the same way as the Benday dots in comic books; the two colours blend into each other to form a median. The difference here is that the lines are big enough to separate the two colours, even though they still blend a little.