 |
| 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. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - General Chat - True Color. |
New poll |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 3 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
NSNick Gohma IF ALL ELSE FAILS USE BOOZE                    Since: 11-17-05 From: Last post: 6467 days Last view: 6467 days |
| ||
| 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. | |||
|
||bass Administrator   Since: 11-17-05 From: Salem, Connecticut Last post: 6466 days Last view: 6465 days |
| ||
| 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 Gohma IF ALL ELSE FAILS USE BOOZE Since: 11-17-05 From: Last post: 6467 days Last view: 6467 days |
| ||
Yeah. I wish I had kept the article, as it might have said in it.  |
|||
Kutske Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6812 days Last view: 6812 days |
| ||
| 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* |
|||
Tarale    2710 Affected by 'Princess Bitch-Face Syndrome' ++++!! Persona non grata Since: 11-17-05 From: Adelaide, Australia Last post: 6465 days Last view: 6465 days |
| ||
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"  (edited by Tarale on 02-22-06 06:35 PM) |
|||
HyperHacker Star Mario Finally being paid to code in VB! If only I still enjoyed that. <_< Wii #7182 6487 4198 1828 Since: 11-18-05 From: Canada, w00t! My computer's specs, if anyone gives a damn. STOP TRUNCATING THIS >8^( Last post: 6465 days Last view: 6465 days |
| ||
| 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.) |
|||
|
||bass Administrator Since: 11-17-05 From: Salem, Connecticut Last post: 6466 days Last view: 6465 days |
| ||
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. (edited by ||bass on 02-24-06 05:57 PM) |
|||
|
NSNick Gohma IF ALL ELSE FAILS USE BOOZE Since: 11-17-05 From: Last post: 6467 days Last view: 6467 days |
| ||
Note to self: Don't piss ||bass off.
 |
|||
|
Xkeeper Took the board down in a blaze of glory, only to reveal how truly moronical ||bass is. Since: 11-17-05 From: Henderson, Nevada Last post: 6465 days Last view: 6465 days |
| ||
| [off-topic spam garbage deleted] | |||
Doppelganger 8DS  Since: 11-17-05 From: 65 00 20 00 65 00 1F 00 65 00 2F 00 Last post: 6465 days Last view: 6465 days |
| ||
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. |
|||
mattp Red Paratroopa Since: 03-04-06 Last post: 6729 days Last view: 6729 days |
| ||
... so how do people in the midwest see a blue sky? anyone seriously dumb enough to beleive that lost their right to life |
|||
|
HyperHacker Star Mario Finally being paid to code in VB! If only I still enjoyed that. <_< Wii #7182 6487 4198 1828 Since: 11-18-05 From: Canada, w00t! My computer's specs, if anyone gives a damn. STOP TRUNCATING THIS >8^( Last post: 6465 days Last view: 6465 days |
| ||
| I'd think it would become pretty obvious when you actually see the ocean and find that water, up close, is not blue. |
| Pages: 1 2 3 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - General Chat - True Color. |
| |
