Testing the water

Mar 10, 2006 10:03

Consider the following propositions ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 32

mylastchance March 10 2006, 15:21:25 UTC
What do *you* think?

Reply

paulhope March 10 2006, 21:11:16 UTC
Yes, not really, and no. But I don't intend to defend those views in this post.

Reply

paulhope March 10 2006, 21:12:34 UTC
Actually, let me ammend that.

Yes, but only with a lot of stipulations; not really; no.

Reply


dies___irae March 10 2006, 15:30:24 UTC
1. yes
2. yes
3. yes

While it is clearly the case that we may or may not know precisely what color something is depending upon different eyes percieving it, it is possible to know that it cannot be both one thing as well as its opposite (green and red being complimentary colors, the opposite ends of the color wheel etc.)

Reply


mrslant March 10 2006, 15:34:52 UTC
True by definition, therefore yes, yes and yes.

Reply

jnietzsche333 March 10 2006, 15:43:38 UTC
Tautology! I always forget that word...

Reply


epictetus_rex March 10 2006, 16:01:53 UTC
What the hell's with all the "yes" answers?

Objects simultaneously appear to be different colours all the time... our focused visual field captures a certain area, which can easily vary in colour. The fact that our rational minds tend to reconstruct memories in simpler terms shouldn't lead us to think we can't see two different colours at once... we are constantly seeing different colours. How could you read the text on this page if you couldn't instantly distinguish the black from the white?

As for the second proposition, no, it doesn't seem like humans can see things outside the visual spectrum, and if you define the spectrum for any given organism as "what that organism can see", then it'll always be true. But as mentioned above, it's a tautology, and is certainly false if only restricted to the human visual spectrum.

Reply

airstrip March 10 2006, 16:49:33 UTC
Yay!

Reply

thisisnotsteve March 10 2006, 17:18:33 UTC
it's physically impossible to see a reddish green or a yellowish blue. this is what's called the opponent process theory of color vision. the reason for this is that one type of neuron is responsible for our perception of both red and green, and those perceptions correlate with the neuron being either in an excitaroy state or an inhibitory state.

it's easy enough too see. stare at a red object for awhile and then look at a white piece of paper.

Reply

epictetus_rex March 10 2006, 17:22:53 UTC
Right, a single neuron can't be in both states at the same time. It also goes without saying that a single photoreceptor in our eyes can't see more than one colour at a time. But we have hundreds of millions of each operating at any given time... obviously they aren't all in the same state/recieving the same information.

Reply


ragnarok20 March 10 2006, 16:17:25 UTC
Duality - "What looks like red to me might be what green looks like to you."

Reply

thisisnotsteve March 10 2006, 17:18:48 UTC
nope

Reply

ragnarok20 March 10 2006, 17:19:32 UTC
Sorry, that's the subjectivist argument for duality.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up