Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto
Colours, as we see them, are simply interpretations of particular wavelengths of light by our eyes and brains.
|
Once again, no. There are colour-perceptions that cannot be generated by any particular wavelength of light.
Colours are
interpritation of certain
sets of wavelengths of light, in particular visual environments, by our eyes and brains.
This might be a technical point, but it does matter.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Mepthisto
In other words, the existence of light is dependent upon its observation (ie, its interpretation) by conscious beings.
|
This is no more true that 'the existance of the chair is dependant upon its observation'.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MuadDib
Consider this, there is a significant portion of color blind individuals out there. Of those that are color blind there are multiple types but those with achromacy see the world in various shades of gray. While they do not see color they are able to perfectly differentiate colors from other colors. Since they would always learn that a certain shade of gray is red and another shade is green then how could we possibly detect this form of color blindness.
|
Huh? People who can only see shades of grey cannot differentiate some colours from certain other colours.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto
However, my question is do colours exist in and of themselves? Were there no people to see tomatoes, would they still be red?
|
There are definitions of the term 'red' and 'be' that would make "Where there no people to see tomatoes, would they still be red?" true, and others that would make it false.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MuadDib
Red, for example, is the name we give to a certain wavelength reflected off certain objects.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CSfilm
To me "the propery of red" is "the property that causes the reflection of light in the 610 - 659THertz range"
|
False, The single-frequency colour fallacy, yet again.
The human eye and brain can't percieve wavelengths. They can percieve how some pigments respond to various wavelengths. Pure wavelengths have a perceptual colour, but the perceptual colour is not determined by a range of wavelengths.
Light in that range implies the light is red. Red light is not defined by that range.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CSfilm
(They would also have no reason to cut-up the spectrum so very finely into 'red', 'blue', 'yellow' etc. "visible" light would be no different from the rest of the elctromagnetic spectrum, and we only cut that up into very broad terms; gamma rays, x-rays, micro-waves, radio-waves, etc.)
|
If those alien bat-people where to live on Earth for a period of time, they might start breaking down the 'visible' spectrum into smaller chunks. There is a reason why life sees using the 'visible' spectrum, and frequencies around it, on Earth.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by anleja
*edit* I love "colour" compared to "color." I'd use it, but I think it would be seen as a bit pretentious, considering I'm from urban West Michigan.
|
Speaking correct English is allowed no matter where you are from! So relish in colour, honour, cheque, centre, cigarette, omelette, cauldron, defence, aesthetic (beautiful word!), archaeology, manoeuvre, enroll, travelling (those yummy double-Ls) and grey!