Justin Ulysses Morse
July 2nd 03, 07:29 AM
This would all be great and applicable to an audio discussion if it
were true, but it's not. You may say that "680nm is red" but you won't
get a consensus on the topic. If you take a stack of say 50 color
samples ranging in tiny increments from yellow to orange and ask 100
different people to pick out "the red one" you will probably get about
5 or 10 different answers. Most of the responses will fall around the
two or three in the middle, but not all of them. Yes, I have actually
done this (with 20 people, not 100) and my idea of "red" was different
from the guy next to me. Not by much, but by enough to throw this
"objectivity" argument out the window. When you draw a picture of a
rainbow you only need six crayons but a real rainbow has an infinite
number of colors and there's no solid black line lithographed between
them.
ulysses
In article >, >
wrote:
> George Gleason > wrote:
>
> > once a standard is set , say RED is 680 then no matter what each person
> > sees they will always see the same thing when we get to 680
> > and it becomes moot what they are seeing as long as we both can agree that
> > 680 is 680
> > individual perception is less important than collective agreement on
> > standerdized, testable and repeatable concepts
>
> Yeah. that's the point exactly. If someone shines 680 and says,
> That's red. It doesn't matter what goes on in the person's brain.
> I mean inside my brain I may see a certain color I call "red"
> and another person may be perceiving a response to 680 that *I*
> would call "green", but it doesn't matter because they also
> would label the thing they see at 680 as "red". I can't know
> what's going on in their brain. I only know that when 680
> shines we both label what we see as "red".
>
> So the 680 as "red" is objective. What I actually experience
> is subjective and in a sense can't be known or compared.
>
> Benj
> (Of course it gets more interesting in the Near IR where
> some people can see "deep red" and others see "nothing".)
were true, but it's not. You may say that "680nm is red" but you won't
get a consensus on the topic. If you take a stack of say 50 color
samples ranging in tiny increments from yellow to orange and ask 100
different people to pick out "the red one" you will probably get about
5 or 10 different answers. Most of the responses will fall around the
two or three in the middle, but not all of them. Yes, I have actually
done this (with 20 people, not 100) and my idea of "red" was different
from the guy next to me. Not by much, but by enough to throw this
"objectivity" argument out the window. When you draw a picture of a
rainbow you only need six crayons but a real rainbow has an infinite
number of colors and there's no solid black line lithographed between
them.
ulysses
In article >, >
wrote:
> George Gleason > wrote:
>
> > once a standard is set , say RED is 680 then no matter what each person
> > sees they will always see the same thing when we get to 680
> > and it becomes moot what they are seeing as long as we both can agree that
> > 680 is 680
> > individual perception is less important than collective agreement on
> > standerdized, testable and repeatable concepts
>
> Yeah. that's the point exactly. If someone shines 680 and says,
> That's red. It doesn't matter what goes on in the person's brain.
> I mean inside my brain I may see a certain color I call "red"
> and another person may be perceiving a response to 680 that *I*
> would call "green", but it doesn't matter because they also
> would label the thing they see at 680 as "red". I can't know
> what's going on in their brain. I only know that when 680
> shines we both label what we see as "red".
>
> So the 680 as "red" is objective. What I actually experience
> is subjective and in a sense can't be known or compared.
>
> Benj
> (Of course it gets more interesting in the Near IR where
> some people can see "deep red" and others see "nothing".)