No matter if your red is different, we all come to the same means of agreeing that its red. IMO this debate is pretty pointless :/
No, you're not seeing my point. While your point IS valid, it's just we normally say barf is disgusting. So what a horrible looking variety of colors is to me, could be something that you really like if we all have a different look on colors.
.... Seriously you don't get, and if you think it's pointless just stop posting. This is not about the apple is blue or red. It is that Red might look differently to different people.
Light always reflect the same way from objects, and our eyes all work the same. So... We all see the same color. Green is not Red to others. Green is Green to others.
Light is the same, are eyes are the same, but we think, perceive, and do things differently. Your comment really isn't applicable to here especially since that was the first thing someone said on this thread.
I read the first page... So yea, erm. I guess I'll read the rest. *Runs away* EDIT: Ok I read the rest, erm yes. This thread is a paradox and can't be answered. Why do we bother debating this paradox, we don't know what "red" is to others then. We don't know what anything is to others then... Basically it is like defining to a blind man who has never seen anything in his life what the color red is. There is no way.
Colors are all the same, it is just our perception of them that differs. Red is still red whatever anyone says, but someone might call red green. So here is a test. State what color you associate with these: Red Purple Blue Green Yellow Orange BTW apples can be green as well.
@ Radiant Philosophical debates are not invalid because they cannot be answered. If that were the case then we'd never advance as humans. @Noklu statements without proof are not fact, so dont state it as such heres an example tests seen millions of times on the internet increase experimenter bias and thus make it truly impossible to see the real outcome. see what i did? I'm on the verge of locking this thread because everyone's running around in circles. back up your ****ing statements with evidence of some sort, or at least information we can google if we feel we need to do so. and stop stating your words as fact. my argument was that, an argument, not pure fact, its my view on the subject backed up with logical words and modern evidence, do the ****ing same my god.
Sure they might be repeating their ideas and some people are stating their thoughts as facts but We can share an opinion, or a question that'll blow our mind here. We can still debate in this thread. There are over a hundred threads here that make no freakin sense well at least this ones got an ok purpose/idea. Ill cut the talk. Just take ur mouse away from that lock option. Peace brutha, one love
no I'm not. I realize why you want to keep this "safe" but the fact is, the thread is going to **** and im trying to keep it on track as it is a good topic. anywho, no more discussing this, on topic from now on...feel free to message me if you feel like it needs more talkingishness
It doesn't matter, people can still see this colors differently. You put the name as the color but their name for their color is still the same. This is what one person could see. Purple Here is what others can see Purple Purple
Technically everybody in the world has basis of thinking. So what you are believe in purple can be green to someone else yes, but the universal perspective purple is purple. In conclusion: Stop, arguing color is color.
quoting as fact...STOP. provide evidence...my god...the ignorance in this thread is pissing me off. and its a debate...A DEBATE sharp...thats like saying "dont post on the forums"
Thank for the compliment but as for the stop arguing i meant as you said provide some coherent logic to support instead of incoherent babbling of "I'm right, just because I am!"
OK I've got some new ideas regarding the "Perception of Colour" debate. I'm actually almost going to be arguing against what I've been trying to proove this whole time, lol, U-Turn FTW! This whole time I've been trying to show how it COULD be possible that we perceive colours differently, i.e. my purple could look like this and your purple could like like this and there's no way of knowing if this is true because we both call it purple. So I've been thinking, bringing some actual science into this, and therefore being able to maybe proove some of this stuff. The main components of colour in light are Red, Green, and Blue. Any other colour, or "hue", is a combination of those colours added together. These are called "Additive Primaries" and it's how light works, it's also how our eyes work. This means that, in reality, the only way for our perceptions of colour to be different are if our brain mixed up the Red, Green, and Blue components of light. So one cannot see this when, in reality, it is this because you're mixing up a combination of primary colours with an individual primary colour. If, for arguments sake, you did see this when, in reality, it is this then that would be a fundamental mix up that could be identified because there would HAVE to be a knock on effect to other colours that could be spotted. ... if you don't quite understand that, let me explain with a real-life example. People that are colourblind can only be colour blind in one of the primary colours because they're the only individual type of receptors in the eye. We have receptors that detect Red, Green, and Blue only, our brain then uses that info to get all the colours. So a colourblind person could have a problem with his red receptors for instance, this is actually called "Protanopia". So, basically, if there's any imbalance in the ablility to detect a primary colour then it has a knock on effect on the different "hues". For the example above it would effect red, orange, and yellow (causing them to appear almost identical) and also between lavender, violet, and purple (they would all look like blue). That's why we can detect people that are colourblind. So what that leaves us is actually 6 possible combinations of colour perception difference, and that would be these: 1. Red, Green, Blue 2. Red, Green, Blue 3. Red, Green, Blue 4. Red, Green, Blue 5. Red, Green, Blue 6. Red, Green, Blue Obviously the word indicates what we identify the colour as, and the actual colour itself being what we see. So what we actually see is always the top line of that list, but what other could potentially be seeing, relative to us, are any of the other 5 combinations. Naturally those colours have a knock on effect to the different "hues", but in a way that is relative to each other and not neccessary for me to go into detail about. ... So I've narrowed down just how "differently" we could "see" colours, at a fundamental level. HOWEVER! Take a look at these 6 images... Now the top one is the way you will see the image, the other 5 are how the picture could look to someone else if their perceptions were different than yours (i.e. the red green and blue components mixed differently). Those pictures are of a "High-Visibility" Jacket, a jacket that allows you to see people better at night. Now if you study them closely you should come to the conclusion that the 2nd one appears the most visable. (try your best to ignore the glaring white lines of the jacket XD). The last image may come a close second. The reason for this is that blue is the most visable colour against a dark background, followed by green and, lastly, red. Conversly red is the most visable colour against a white background (that's why an ambulance is a white background with a red cross) followed by green, then blue. Now if you didn't see the colours the same as everyone else then you might start believing that perhaps the third picture had a brighter looking jacket, or the fifth. In which case you'd be wrong, and you would indeed be seeing different colours to the rest of us. Side Note: The original image is actually the top one and is green. For some reason green is used for high-visibility jackets. I think it's because the sky is blue and so when it's nighttime the sky is not really black it's dark blue, and a shade of blue against another shade of blue is going to be less visible, so green is the next best option. ... So, in conclusion, we must all be seeing all the colours exactly the same way, because if we didn't, then some things would look more visable than others to different people due to the differences of visablilty between primary colours against a black or white background caused by their wavelengths. [/thread] XD
lulz. Green and blue create yellow. Common misconception. Primary color - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Primary Colors
ive been thinking something similar for a few years. heres my thought: that everybody sees different things; so i may be looking at an xbox controller, and someone else looks exactly where im looking and sees a ps3 controller. so we always see 100% different things, and then hear different things and see the entire world differently. look at it like this, ill keep using the xbox/ps3 thing. so in my world, i grab it and ask my friend if he wants to play. in his world, he grabs it and asks me if i want to play. we both say yes, but everything is different. i may say "lets play halo 3 so i can pown ur ass" in my world, but he will hear "i am gay". you see what im saying? its a little odd, but it is my theory that we all see and hear different things. thus what i am currently typing is useless because the only people who will read it the same way im typing it is me. thus, everyone would have different alternate realities; but for all i know there is only my world and no one elses. but then it is still imposible to know for sure. so basically the ultimate theory behind my wall of text is very simple: there is no ultimate truth or reality. everything you know is not even happening. there is nothing, there always has been nothing, and there always has been nothing save abstract thoughts. pretty deep for me if you know me........ ps: im a jew not atheist