My Therory on Colors (No scientific proof)

[Zyvo]

I was watching something the other day, and this scenario randomly popped in my head. I want to know if anyone Even Understands this:

Say Me and 2 other people are looking at this WORD.

I could say it's yellow.
P2 could say it's yellow.
and P3 could also say it's yellow.

But… P2's yellow (If I were looking through his eyes) could be what I would call green.
P3's Yellow could be my purple.

It could be the same in P2 and P3's perspective:
P3's yellow could be P2's red, and my yellow could be his orange.

This is because all you've ever known to be that color of yellow, is all you've ever known. All you've ever seen. And it would be impossible for someone to tell you otherwise.

Can man really tell what true Yellow is?

Is the sight of color just opinion?

This Brings about another question, What about Black and white?

Are these colors seen differently through your eyes then mine? or are these Actual colors?

Of course I cant see very well when everything is Black. But is what I see as Black your Blue?

Is there an actual scientific way to prove the actual TRUE color of RED?

If anyone Understands What I'm saying please post. Also please post whether you agree or disagree with me…

Or if you think I'm just CRAZY, I wont get mad, it's really an Odd question.

[Godlord]

It wouldn't matter actually, if that were the case.

Imagine if you had two persons looking at [this paintwork](http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:1801_Antoine-Jean_Gros_-_Bonaparte_on_the_Bridge_at_Arcole.jpg). We both know that he is wearing something black. Now imagine if for one person this black was "my" cyan. Wouldn't it look extremely odd and ugly then? I think it would.

Scientifically you can also prove that each colour _should_ (there are a few exceptions) be the same since we all have the very same system for recognising colours in the light spectrum (e.g. we all have cones for red, blue and green light and rods for monochrome light, thus we are unable to detect infra-red and UV as those wavelengths are extremely high and thus undetectable). There are a few cases when the colours are not the same and that is when you're colour blind. In such case the most common occurrence is that red is green and that green is red. In that case such a problem would be true, but someone who's aware of the fact that (s)he's colour blind is usually confused anyway when you ask him/her: "What colour is this?" Another case is that the educational stimuli were missing when (s)he was young, e.g. (s)he never learnt that bananas were yellow, oranges orange, etc. In that case you just have an identification problem, although that's usually uncommon. What is common though is that people might be lacking more advanced identification and with that I mean colours like turquoise, ochre, etc. those however can be _easily_ taught, with the exception that colours like turquoise are extremely confusing since that colour is both "green" and "blue".

Regards,
  Godlord.

[IceCream Tuesday]

My uncle is color blind, he can see only Yellow.

And I went to school with a girl who when she'd see a color. she actually saw the word.. So.. apparently everything was grey scale.. but every color was labeled or some crazy shit like that.

[Harris6310]

I was watching this documentary about people who have two senses lightly merged. So they could see what colours things tasted.

[xelander]

Colour as colour?

[Pryex]

Man, everybopdy on the planet has had this theory, when they were like 7, and opening their eyes to science.

But yeah I agree.

[Zyvo]

hmm… iterezfing.
(sofry cor mybax spellinv im trying to type on a touchscreen phone)

this brings me to another thlught. a scisngicic thedofy iz tbat ll dogs see in black and white.

what ic that's how the world really looks?

it  oulx very well be that our minds have created this false sense of  or to briten up our wod.

[Pryex]

What the fuck did you just say?

[Godlord]

I've seen bad shit on the internet, but you've just topped guruchan + imagechan + 2chan + 4chan + 7chan + 420chan + the millions of noobs on the internet.

Regards,
  Godlord.

[LRgamer]

@Zyvo:

> hmm… iterezfing.
> (sofry cor mybax spellinv im trying to type on a touchscreen phone)
>
> this brings me to another thlught. a scisngicic thedofy iz tbat ll dogs see in black and white.
>
> what ic that's how the world really looks?
>
> it  oulx very well be that our minds have created this false sense of  or to briten up our wod.

Hmm… interesting.
(Sorry for my bad spelling, I'm trying to type on a touch-screen phone.)

This brings me to another thought: a scientific theory is that dogs see in black and white.

What if that was how the world would really look like?

It would very well be that our minds have created this false sense of colour to brighten up our world.

[Godlord]

I don't think you bothered reading my reply at all. Like I said before we have rods and cones which identify specific wave lengths as colours, dogs have rods as well, but they obviously miss some cones, therefore they can only percept monochromous light. Colour perception only tells what light emission is present (for the cones and rods that we have), not what the world is supposed to look like. We only know what objects there are near us because we can either feel them or because we see their reflection of the light emission.

Regards,
  Godlord.

[Lukin]

@Zyvo:

> hmm… iterezfing.
> (sofry cor mybax spellinv im trying to type on a touchscreen phone)
>
> this brings me to another thlught. a scisngicic thedofy iz tbat ll dogs see in black and white.
>
> what ic that's how the world really looks?
>
> it  oulx very well be that our minds have created this false sense of  or to briten up our wod.

How would our minds then be able to separate what items will be what color? Like the sky is blue, none will have to tell us that, since that is what every person that can see, and will see. If it was our minds that were creating what colors stuff is, then the sky could be green, but that isn't the case now is it? :P

Im'a stick with what Godlord says since that is what I've learnt in school lol.

[Godlord]

> Im'a stick with what Godlord says since that is what I've learnt in school lol.

Funnily enough I never learnt that at school. I figured all that out on my own during a bus trip to school. e.g. I categorised objects into three groups: absorbing (anything that transforms light waves or particles into another matter or antimatter), emitting (anything that transforms energy or whatever into light waves or particles) and reflecting (cetera). Then I also thought about the fact that there are different wave lengths (e.g. IR is usually about 850nm), so we could only percept a specific range of wave lengths (in the case of humans, that would be grayscale and RGB or perhaps RGV). Since most objects either reflect or emit light with a wave length we can actually see, we can see those objects. Since we can't see IR-light for instance, we can never see if an IR LED works or not, but since that object reflects the other wave lengths, we can actually see the actual LED itself.

Regards,
  Godlord.

[LRgamer]

I now have an idea for a flux capacitor.

Black panels to absorb the 1.21 GW to unleash upon a vehicle, such a a Ferrari, so that you can use quantum superposition to change from dimension. (Fu-ck Schrodinger's Cat.)

And then…

WORLD DOMINATION.

Okay, just replace the gigawatt with a more potent amount of power...

Damn it, the possibilities are infinite!

[Microwave]

I don't see why anyone is attempting to argue the way we see light. As godlord has established already is proven scientific fact, not a theory. We have an extremely good understanding off how the body takes vision and light to turn it into an image.

[Lukin]

I wonder in how many megapixels we see… Since the eye is supposed to be the most complicated thing in the world I've heard.

[Godlord]

@Lukin:

> I wonder in how many megapixels we see… Since the eye is supposed to be the most complicated thing in the world I've heard.

Hence why the eyes don't work with (mega)pixels but with waves and particles. Pixels are small rectangular objects.

Regards,
  Godlord.

[ddunit]

@Godlord:

> > Im'a stick with what Godlord says since that is what I've learnt in school lol.
>
> Funnily enough I never learnt that at school. I figured all that out on my own during a bus trip to school. e.g. I categorised objects into three groups: absorbing (anything that transforms light waves or particles into another matter or antimatter), emitting (anything that transforms energy or whatever into light waves or particles) and reflecting (cetera). Then I also thought about the fact that there are different wave lengths (e.g. IR is usually about 850nm), so we could only percept a specific range of wave lengths (in the case of humans, that would be grayscale and RGB or perhaps RGV). Since most objects either reflect or emit light with a wave length we can actually see, we can see those objects. Since we can't see IR-light for instance, we can never see if an IR LED works or not, but since that object reflects the other wave lengths, we can actually see the actual LED itself.
>
> Regards,
>   Godlord.

Can you count the amount of brain you fucked up after we read this?

[Lukin]

Yeah, but still, if we made a camera see as good as we do, I wonder what that one would have then.
Here's a interesting video about the eye. :o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eGpWW6scsg (for you religious people, the title doesn't have anything to do with the video)

[Zyvo]

Godlord, I've read your statements.

And I believe many of you on here have a one way look at this. Your not looking at it through different perspectives.

I know, and learned, about the cone thing. I'm just saying that the Whole perspective on colors and all that is just theory.

No one can really look through the eyes of another to tell if what they see as blue is your green.

Also, with video cameras, Cameras only take a picture of the light that we already see, so it would make the same photo of what we would see in the world.

What I'm saying is that if you think about it the world could be any different color then we are used to. However all you've ever seen and know is Opinion through someone else's eyes.

[gaming ace]

I've pondered this before, but I also think about this.. Some species of animals can only see certain colors. Lets say there is a monkey that can only see red and blue. He cannot see green. To this monkey, the color green does not exist. It is unimaginable and uncomprehend-able to the monkey.

What if we were like the monkey, in the sense that that there was a color we couldn't see or comprehend. Thats as far as my brain goes  XD . Would that be possible?

[Admiral Refuge]

@Mike:

> I've pondered this before, but I also think about this.. Some species of animals can only see certain colors. Lets say there is a monkey that can only see red and blue. He cannot see green. To this monkey, the color green does not exist. It is unimaginable and uncomprehend-able to the monkey.
>
> What if we were like the monkey, in the sense that that there was a color we couldn't see or comprehend. Thats as far as my brain goes  XD . Would that be possible?

Actually, that could be possible in the sense that other animals are able to perceive more of the visible light spectrum then we could.

[Godlord]

@Zyvo:

> Godlord, I've read your statements.
>
> And I believe many of you on here have a one way look at this. Your not looking at it through different perspectives.
>
> I know, and learned, about the cone thing. I'm just saying that the Whole perspective on colors and all that is just theory.
>
> No one can really look through the eyes of another to tell if what they see as blue is your green.

One way look? I think your problem here is that you want to be different. We simply don't need to look through the eyes of another entity to know what they see. We simply dissect the eye, figure out what these eyes have in common and how they interpret wave lengths. That's called science. What you're currently having is some belief, which is religion. Either prove it or leave it.

@Mike:

> I've pondered this before, but I also think about this.. Some species of animals can only see certain colors. Lets say there is a monkey that can only see red and blue. He cannot see green. To this monkey, the color green does not exist. It is unimaginable and uncomprehend-able to the monkey.
>
> What if we were like the monkey, in the sense that that there was a color we couldn't see or comprehend. Thats as far as my brain goes  XD . Would that be possible?

Yes, that's entirely possible. Since an entity might be missing some cones or red and therefore they may not be able to percept some wave lengths.

Regards,
  Godlord.

[ddunit]

What if since we can't see some specific kinds of colors, our mind tells us it's another color?

[Godlord]

@Ddunit:

> What if since we can't see some specific kinds of colors, our mind tells us it's another color?

Since our eyes can't percept it, our mind won't even know about them. Hence why IR and UV are actually "invisible".

Regards,
  Godlord.