 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in General Chat. |
| User | Post |
| HyperHacker Posts: 1414/5072 |
I'd think it would become pretty obvious when you actually see the ocean and find that water, up close, is not blue. |
| mattp Posts: 32/174 |
... so how do people in the midwest see a blue sky? anyone seriously dumb enough to beleive that lost their right to life |
| Doppelganger Posts: 158/300 |
Originally posted by Snow Tomato I've actually thought about this ALOT lately, since I was thinking before how the brain is basicall the same makeup for everyone, but it percieves things different, like maybe someone can hear a certain frequency better than another person (Although I don't think thisi s possible its an example) because everyone's perception is different, so why not color? Everyone has different color preferences, so why not? No one would be able to prove it wrong since they couldn't change their perception of the colors. |
| Xkeeper Posts: 1575/5653 |
[off-topic spam garbage deleted] |
| NSNick Posts: 651/2228 |
Note to self: Don't piss ||bass off.
  |
| ||bass Posts: 217/594 |
Originally posted by KutskeAtleast you admit it's near impossible to determine tone over text. It's good because you totally misunderstood my tone. I assume this goes back in reference to post #59862. Understand, if I'm posting at all, that usually means I'm in a good mood. I'm just generally an unpleasent pain in the ass. If I was upset enough to blow a fuse, I'd be doing things like blocking port 80 on the board server. |
| HyperHacker Posts: 1191/5072 |
The Wikipedia article is interesting, but it seems to be more about people with defective eyes, who know they're seeing things different than other people. What I'm talking about is someone who sees just fine, but perceives it differently. That is if two people were to look at the same image, they'd see the same thing, but the images rendered in their brains would in fact be different. This is certainly unlikely, but it's an interesting thought.
(And for that matter, someone who didn't know they were colourblind could very well begin to mis-name colours, though they'd be corrected quickly by those with fully-functioning eyes.) |
| Tarale Posts: 530/2713 |
Originally posted by Kutske Was joke. See overuse of winking smiley faces (  ) Observational humor 
That said, I do distinctly remember my Nanna and my Mother having a heated discussion about whether something was "mauve" or "lavender" before Grandpa came along and told us all it was "purple"  |
| Kutske Posts: 162/171 |
Wow. In one post's time I went from the bystanding and inquisitive host to the enemigo más grande. Intepreting "tone of voice" is difficult with just text, but regardeless, Bass seems like he's about to bust several gaskets, then go on a shooting rampage in his school/workplace/postaloffice. *makes soothing hand gestures* Easy. Easy...
Tommathy: Well, obviously color, defined as "the interpretation of wavelengths by the eye" can only exist if there are, well, eyes. I'm still not quite so sure why that's profound. It's sort of like saying that speech, defined as "the interpretation of sound by the brain" only exists if we have brains... Except that light is naturally occuring and a fundamental part of what we know as "the yooneeverse," while speech is not naturally occuring or integral to the universe itself. My point was that "color" is arbitrary, it's only extant in our specific viewpoint, as humans. Long wavelengths of light aren't somehow intrinsically "bluer" than short ones, that's just the way we percieve them, the even greater point being that I realize the nonsensical nature of "true color" just like the idea of a "third gender" (by means of a z-chromosome or something). Which, in an even grander scale is a gripe of mine about sciencenazis, the "factinistaz" bringing topics like this down to an abysmal and depressing level. To the average browser of the forum, someone sees a topic like this and thinks, "Hmm, yeah, what would that be like?" Such as Catfish's first post and Skydude's first post. To certain...other groups and individuals, the thought is, "Sorry, no, factually impossible." The problem I have with this second viewpoint is twofold... 1) "Gee, ya think?" Uh yeah, I realize that it's ridiculous and scientifically unfounded, but unlike most people in the world, I haven't violently raped on the filthy concrete of the seedy back alley of a low-class porno shop, sadistically tortured for months and years on end at so-called "Black Sites" and then finally brutally murdered and chopped into tiny little pieces that are furthermore burnt, strapped to bombs and scattered into the farthest reaches of the universe my sense of wonder and curiosity in some desperate attempt to seem adult, mature, smart or something similar. I don't listen to Steven Hawking so I can memorize everything he said, and then regurgitate it at a later place and time to impress those around me (lest of all people, anoynmous passersby on the internet), I listen to him and people like him to absorb knowledge, discover a new viewpoint and subsequently speculate, because I enjoy doing so, not because I want to be right and not even necessarily because I'm interested in finding the absolute truth of the matter. 2) "You Win the Topic!" Really, it seems like that's all a person is after when they pull a sciencenazi routine; being right so they can somehow feel satisfied that they've "won" the topic and made fools of all other posters. It seems egomaniacal and somehow really, profoundly sad. I equate this to people who post one-liners in every topic on the front page in an effort to increase Postcount, as if such a ridiculous thing had any real value. I mean, just because one person is "right," does that mean the topic should be closed? It seems like that's what those types of people want -- to close all topics that don't meet their...ahem, prestigious and high standards, which I equate with a sadistic Dungeon Master who wants to control all aspects of his players PC's or someone who creates a play-by-email RPG just to make a superpowerful character and pwn everybody else. In short, there's a thick and obvious line between enlightening other people as to the factual nature of a subject, and being a raging sciencenazi. And yes, I am going to use that term over and over again until it's drilled far enough into people's skulls and they're so sick of it that I can simply call sciencenaziing and the guilty parties will leave the vicinity simply to avoid hearing it. Erm, reading it. Tommathy: That's true of even red, blue, and green. Not everyone thinks of blue as 0000FF, they recognize a range of light in that spectrum as blue. True, but "red" is a generic term that could apply to all shades in it's hue, while teal is not a generic term that could apply to all shades in it's hue. My point was just that Itallian recognizes cyan as a generic color term in the way we recognize green and yellow as generic "overcolors," if you will, but we don't. Just making conversation. Tommathy: Also, at some point in the development of language and the history of the English, it must've been important to distinguish between something that is red and something that is pink as opposed to the difference between something that is vertegris and something that is olive. That seems plausible, so then I wonder why the Itallians would have needed to distinguish between blue and cyan and not most other languages, or why English has always had a very clear distinction between green and blue, while most other languages group the two colors into one category (see wikipedia articles on ao and grue). Tommathy: Under what possible conditions would *added* color exist, and why in all Creation would we have the ability to perceive this added content? You, too, seem as though at some point within the near future, you shall most likely incur upon your person and/or quite possibly your gasket a quandary and/or problem, wherein the undesirable effect that results is that the afforementioned gasket ceases it's normal and proper functionality. I was poking fun, yeesh. You know, "You can't prove that bigfoot doesn't exist." ||bass: NO! No no no no no. In proving that, you would disprove 100+ years of accepted science. Optics doesn't work that way. A red giant might make things look more reddish, etc, but that's as far as physics says it can go. Hey pal, I listened to a (literally) fourteen year old boy go on for roughly two hundred posts on another board about his "theory" on how all matter is simply condensed forms of light, rather than unique and seperate forms of matter, discounting probably 1000+ years of accepted science in the process, and nobody bitched one bit because he was having fun with himself and several other topics were brought up in the process, topics ranging from politics to ethics, philosophy to art. Top that, then I'll green-light sciencenaziing for the entire rest of this topic. The ENTIRE rest, not just the partial rest. Until then, a-shush. \\bass: In other news, that wiki article says the military uses color blind people as snipers. That RULES. Why does it not surprise me that you're the military-enthusiast type? .bass//SIGN: PS: Kutske, nice going TOTALLY MISUNDERSTANDING what Hyperhacker was trying to say about concious perception. That link has absoloutly NOTHING in it to address what he asked. Pwa? Quoth Hyper Hacker, "I've also thought about people percieving different colours, like that what one person sees as red may not be what someone else sees, but they both call it red." Quoth the link I...liked to, "Color blindness is not the swapping of colors in the observer's eyes. Grass is never red, stop signs never green. Distinguishing a Granny Smith from a Braeburn is not a problem. The color impaired do not learn to call red "green" and vice versa." That pertains quite exactly to what he said. And this comes after Skydude (err, "Flying Fish" -- why does everyone change their username on every third day, anyway?) said, quoth, "What I've always wondered, however, is if the colors I'm seeing are the same as the ones you're seeing. If we see a yellow ball, we will both call it "yellow"...but perhaps the signals my brain gets perceive it as what you would class as another color, but that particular color we both have been taught it "yellow"..." And Snow Trout quoth'd, "Another thing my friend told me. It's definatly like proven wrong... but it's weird to think about. Say the way I saw red, was the way you see blue. Like, everyones colors were different colors. Everything would look normal and natural to that person. Like a purple sky. And there'd be no way to tell with words... because the color that is truely blue.. would be called purple by that person. Like, what if everyone saw different colors." Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. It's probably my fault though; somehow, I think that few people read any of my posts in their entirety, because of their sheer size. Regardeless, the link had utmost relevance to what Hyper Macker and numerous others said. *sassy z-snap* NSNick: On the topic of color, I read an article a while back noting that women can see more shades of color than men, perhaps a remnant of our hunter-gatherer days, when they would usually pick berries, where seeing different shades would tell the difference between poisonous and non-poisonous berries. The way I read it was that women carry in their genes the (generally-recessive) trait of tetrachromacy, which would allow them to see colors with greater distinction. Although I also read that men and women see color differently inherently, however I suspect this theory may be largely based on social, rather than scientific factors. You know, the whole macho addage, "Champagne, bubblegum and tuna are foods, not colors." Which is generally made in an effort to point out some inferior feminine tendancy or quality, which in itself is a social construct as well. Tarale: Well, us girls certainly seem to use more names for colors *dies standing* |
| NSNick Posts: 630/2228 |
Yeah. I wish I had kept the article, as it might have said in it.  |
| ||bass Posts: 215/594 |
I'm curious as to how much of that is actually vision-related and how much of it is guys just not knowing/giving a shit about the difference. |
| NSNick Posts: 627/2228 |
I believe more easily differentiate between different shades. Like, as Taryn pointed out, women will see lilac, lavender, and mauve, and guys will just see light purple. |
| Tarale Posts: 528/2713 |
Originally posted by ||bassOriginally posted by NSNickDo you mean see more shades, or more easily differentiate between different shades? I assume you mean the latter even though you said the former. It's a small almost semantic difference but the latter sounds very plausable while a very literal interpretation of the former would mean quite a bit of accepted biology was wrong. Well, us girls certainly seem to use more names for colors
I've yet to hear a bloke debate the difference between mauve, lavender and lilac. Most blokes call it "purple" |
| ||bass Posts: 213/594 |
Originally posted by NSNickDo you mean see more shades, or more easily differentiate between different shades? I assume you mean the latter even though you said the former. It's a small almost semantic difference but the latter sounds very plausable while a very literal interpretation of the former would mean quite a bit of accepted biology was wrong. |
| NSNick Posts: 618/2228 |
On the topic of color, I read an article a while back noting that women can see more shades of color than men, perhaps a remnant of our hunter-gatherer days, when they would usually pick berries, where seeing different shades would tell the difference between poisonous and non-poisonous berries.
It was interesting. |
| ||bass Posts: 212/594 |
Originally posted by KutskeNO! No no no no no. In proving that, you would disprove 100+ years of accepted science. Optics doesn't work that way. A red giant might make things look more reddish, etc, but that's as far as physics says it can go. In other news, that wiki article says the military uses color blind people as snipers. That RULES. PS: Kutske, nice going TOTALLY MISUNDERSTANDING what Hyperhacker was trying to say about concious perception. That link has absoloutly NOTHING in it to address what he asked. |
| Tommathy Posts: 154/339 |
Well, obviously color, defined as "the interpretation of wavelengths by the eye" can only exist if there are, well, eyes. I'm still not quite so sure why that's profound. It's sort of like saying that speech, defined as "the interpretation of sound by the brain" only exists if we have brains...
As for the nomenclature of color: " (Crayola's teal is different from a paint manufacturer's teal is different from a cell phone skin's teal is different from teal as defined in html, etc.)" That's true of even red, blue, and green. Not everyone thinks of blue as 0000FF, they recognize a range of light in that spectrum as blue. Also, at some point in the development of language and the history of the English, it must've been important to distinguish between something that is red and something that is pink as opposed to the difference between something that is vertegris and something that is olive. "Of course, you can't exactly prove that until a human stands on the surface of another planet in another solar system with his pack of Crayolas and draws a picture, noting discrepencies between what he sees when he draws, and the names of the crayons he's using." Under what possible conditions would *added* color exist, and why in all Creation would we have the ability to perceive this added content? |
| Kutske Posts: 154/171 |
Tommathy: Also, what do you mean by "...that grass isn't really green and blood isn't really red..."? The *definition* of color is the wavelengths of light that are emitted/reflected from an object. Nothing has some sort of *intrinsic* color out on which we're missing. What I mean is, color only exists insofar as visual perception exists. Color is merely the interpretation by our eyes of different wavelengths of light. It's like, a light particle doesn't have some intrinsic trait to it which we can call "color;" what we know as color is just our perception of that light. If humans didn't have eyeballs and we were studying the concept of light, we would never attribute something called "color" to it because color only exists in our perception of light. It's like how we associate fire with heat, when in actuality, it's what's burning that's giving off the heat -- what we know as "fire" is merely visible gas produced by the object which is burning. I dunno, maybe I'm not making sense to you, but I'm making sense to me. Tommathy: Also, english does have a color for light blue: cerulean, cyan, teal, cornflower, aquamarine, or turquoise. Cerulean, cyan and such are all names for specific colors, and the color names themselves are up to interpretation (Crayola's teal is different from a paint manufacturer's teal is different from a cell phone skin's teal is different from teal as defined in html, etc.) What I mean is that we recognize maroon, red and pink as distinct colors while in reality, they're merely variations of red, while at the same time, we don't give unique variation names to shades of green -- apart from, of course, invented colors used by paint/crayon/etc. manufacturers. To English speakers, cyan is light blue but pink isn't light red, and brown isn't dark orange. *shrugs* Makes sense to me. Tommathy: Indeed, there is no star so *specific* in its radiation that it completely leaves out or adds certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. Of course, you can't exactly prove that until a human stands on the surface of another planet in another solar system with his pack of Crayolas and draws a picture, noting discrepencies between what he sees when he draws, and the names of the crayons he's using. HyperMackerel: I can always tell when a TV is on, even if it's showing a black screen, because I can hear the high-pitched whine it makes; most TVs have a low refresh rate. This brings up an interesting point. See, all my life I've noticed that I can tell whether a television is on, even if the screen is blank, the sound is muted, I can't see the light it's casting and I'm in another room. I've always wondered why that is. I can also tell whether a light is on without seeing it, even if I'm totally deprived of sight. Now, while we mostly interpret sound waves with our ears and lightwaves with our eyes, that doesn't mean that sound and lightwaves only affect our eyes and ears. My hypothesis is that the human epidermis can detect sound and lightwaves to some degree, even in the absence of sight or hearing. Of course, I have no scientific knowledge with which to base this hypothesis on, but it makes sense to me. I know, at least, that when I sense that a light is on even though I can't see it, it's because I can feel the light on my skin. Not the heat from the light, I can feel the light itself. But maybe I'm just crazy, because I also claim to be able to predict the weather in my general area for up to the next twelve hours simply by smelling the air outside. HyperMackerel: I've also thought about people percieving different colours, like that what one person sees as red may not be what someone else sees, but they both call it red. Really, the only way you could know is to tap into someone's brain and actually see what they see, or inject an image directly into their brain. Dagnabbit, ya varmint, read this. That's fully and utterly untrue, it's physically impossible. Bass Pipes: That machine is really stupid. I can't belive something like that is legal in the UK. Talk about a barbaric country. Damn. Yeah, those dang Brits are so barbaric, what with their corporal punishment and their glorification of nationalistic-driven war. Oh wait... |
| Alastor Posts: 3381/8204 |
I would be amazingly surprised if that article isn't satirical. It just sounds so fake. Especially the acronym. |
| Ailure Posts: 888/2602 |
It affects quite some young adults too probably, and maybe even a few rare middle-age men and women with perfect ears.
It should be outlawed. It's not effective anyway, they used thoose to scare away rats from plantations and it worked at first but the rats got used to it. |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. | |
