Colorification

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eucharisted
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Eucharisted

Guest
We know how colors exist. But, do we know why colors exist? Science doesn’t have an answer, so what dose philosophy say?
 
See, what we call the “visible spectrum” is really a very narrow band in a much larger spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. It is visible because our eyes have cells called “cones” in the retina that are sensitive to these wavelengths—in the range of about 400–700nm—to varying degrees. Some of the cones are sensitive to longer wavelengths, some to medium wavelengths, and others to shorter wavelengths. These wavelengths correspond to (roughly) what we call red, green, and blue light, and form the basis of the RGB color model used by digital images, TVs, flat panels, and more.
Electromagnetic spectrum

As visible light enters the eye and strikes the cone cells, the cells send electrical signals along the optic nerve to the brain. This is how our body “senses” light. Our brain interprets those three separate sensations to produce the perception that we call “color.”

So back to this rumor that magenta somehow isn’t a color. Elliott’s thesis centers on the argument that magenta appears nowhere on the spectrum of visible light, so it therefore isn’t a “real” color. If you look at a standard CIE chromaticity diagram, which maps wavelengths of light according to human perception, you’ll note that every point along the curve corresponds to a single wavelength of light. Magenta, as it were, lies along what’s commonly called the “pink-purple line” that runs across the bottom. All colors along this line* do not exist as single wavelengths* so things like pink and magenta are quite literally all in your head. More than that though, all points inside the “color bag” above that line do not exist as single wavelengths, either. So anything not specifically on the edge of the curved graphic are formed from a mixture of wavelengths being processed by your brain.

The truth is, no color actually exists outside of our brain’s perception of it. Everything we call a color—and there are a lot more than what comes in your box of Crayolas—only exists in our heads. We define color in terms of how our brains process the stimuli produced by a mix of wavelengths in the range of 400–700nm hitting specialized cells in our eyes—“one, or any mixture, of the constituents into which light can be separated in a spectrum or rainbow,” says the OED.
 
liquidpele said:
See, what we call the “visible spectrum” is really a very narrow band in a much larger spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. It is visible because our eyes have cells called “cones” in the retina that are sensitive to these wavelengths—in the range of about 400–700nm—to varying degrees. Some of the cones are sensitive to longer wavelengths, some to medium wavelengths, and others to shorter wavelengths. These wavelengths correspond to (roughly) what we call red, green, and blue light, and form the basis of the RGB color model used by digital images, TVs, flat panels, and more.
Electromagnetic spectrum

http://static.arstechnica.com/EM_spectrum.pnghttp://static.arstechnica.com/EM_spectrum.png
This chart shows the range of EM radiation, and the narrow band we call visible light within it.

As visible light enters the eye and strikes the cone cells, the cells send electrical signals along the optic nerve to the brain. This is how our body “senses” light. Our brain interprets those three separate sensations to produce the perception that we call “color.”

So back to this rumor that magenta somehow isn’t a color. Elliott’s thesis centers on the argument that magenta appears nowhere on the spectrum of visible light, so it therefore isn’t a “real” color. If you look at a standard CIE chromaticity diagram, which maps wavelengths of light according to human perception, you’ll note that every point along the curve corresponds to a single wavelength of light. Magenta, as it were, lies along what’s commonly called the “pink-purple line” that runs across the bottom. All colors along this line do not exist as single wavelengths. But, all points inside the “color bag” above that line do not exist as single wavelengths, either.
CIE chromaticity diagram

http://static.arstechnica.com/cie_color_bag.png
The CIE 1931 color space chromaticity diagram. The outer curved boundary is the spectral (or monochromatic) properties of light, with wavelengths shown in nanometers.

The truth is, no color actually exists outside of our brain’s perception of it. Everything we call a color—and there are a lot more than what comes in your box of Crayolas—only exists in our heads. We define color in terms of how our brains process the stimuli produced by a mix of wavelengths in the range of 400–700nm hitting specialized cells in our eyes—“one, or any mixture, of the constituents into which light can be separated in a spectrum or rainbow,” says the OED. Elliot’s article might be better titled, “Magenta is not a single wavelength of electromagnetic radiation in the ‘visible’ spectrum, but our brain perceives it anyway.”
Click to expand...
I know how color exists. I know that it exists. This thread is about why color exists.
 
Eucharisted said:
I know how color exists. I know that it exists. This thread is about why color exists.
Click to expand...
And my point is that it doesn’t exist, it’s all in your head.
If you’re asking “why did God make colors” then I’ll let someone else make something up. :rolleyes:
 
liquidpele said:
And my point is that it doesn’t exist, it’s all in your head.
If you’re asking “why did God make colors” then I’ll let someone else make something up. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You might as well say that ideas don’t exist because they are in your head!
In fact neither colours, ideas, decisions, reasons, theories, plans, or emotions are in your head but in your mind…
 
tonyrey said:
You might as well say that ideas don’t exist because they are in your head!
In fact neither colours, ideas, decisions, reasons, theories, plans, or emotions are in your head but in your mind…
Click to expand...
Okay, there is another thread on that particular topic, but I don’t think it answers his question anyway.
 
Eucharisted said:
We know how colors exist. But, do we know why colors exist? Science doesn’t have an answer, so what dose philosophy say?
Click to expand...
It’s presumptive to assume there is a why as opposed to just a how. This is one of the most profound and fundamental mistakes we can make in thinking about the world – assuming there is a ‘why’ as opposed to ‘how’. There may indeed be a ‘why’, but we don’t know that up front, so when we reason about the world, we take care to allow for hows that don’t have whys. Assuming a “why” must exist is a powerful catalyst for superstition and magical thinking.

-TS
 
Touchstone said:
It’s presumptive to assume there is a why as opposed to just a how. This is one of the most profound and fundamental mistakes we can make in thinking about the world – assuming there is a ‘why’ as opposed to ‘how’. There may indeed be a ‘why’, but we don’t know that up front, so when we reason about the world, we take care to allow for hows that don’t have whys. Assuming a “why” must exist is a powerful catalyst for superstition and magical thinking.

-TS
Click to expand...
Cop out. Next time, just say “I don’t know.”
 
Eucharisted said:
Cop out. Next time, just say “I don’t know.”
Click to expand...
No, I think you misunderstood. Saying “I don’t know” makes the same mistake in reasoning you are making – it assumes there is something to know in that regard. There may not be any “why” to discover at all. So “I don’t know” indicates there is a why, when we’ve not got warrant at the beginning so assert that there is, or must be a why.

“I don’t know” in answer to that just supports your superstition, insofar as it confirms there must be a ‘why’ to know.

-TS
 
Touchstone said:
No, I think you misunderstood. Saying “I don’t know” makes the same mistake in reasoning you are making – it assumes there is something to know in that regard. There may not be any “why” to discover at all. So “I don’t know” indicates there is a why, when we’ve not got warrant at the beginning so assert that there is, or must be a why.

“I don’t know” in answer to that just supports your superstition, insofar as it confirms there must be a ‘why’ to know.

-TS
Click to expand...
Uncharitable post has been reported.
 
liquidpele said:
tonyrey You might as well say that ideas don’t exist because they are in your head!
In fact neither colours, ideas, decisions, reasons, theories, plans, or emotions are in your head but in your mind…
Okay, there is another thread on that particular topic, but I don’t think it answers his question anyway.
Click to expand...
It goes a long way to answering his question because it disproves the notion that colours are not real and exist only in our imagination… They are not necessary for survival and confirm the objective beauty of a universe designed by God…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top