Do We Live In A Colorful World?

[Nazgûl Killer]

This is a question that has been bugging me for quite some time, but only until recently when I acquired more knowledge of the subject I realized that this is not a question easily answered and the theories around it seem endless.

So, here we go.

Studying radiation (Both in school and in free time) and light spectrum, one of the most basic knowledge of light physics is that an object is colored... Let's say red... Because it 'swallows' all other light frequencies and returns the wave length of of the red color back to our eyes.
Same is true to any other color.

So, basically, because we see that exact wave frequency that object appears red to us, however, if someone is color blind he sees that as some other color (Let's say green), meaning that color is pretty much in the eye of the beholder.

I've been talking about this with my chemistry teacher (Studying radiation) and she says that yes, color is pretty much subjective, and let's assume for a moment that the color red you see is not the color red everyone else sees, but you would still interpret it as the color red because that's exactly what you've been taught since birth - And you associate the color you see with red even though it might as well not be.

So, basically, since color is subjective it, it also means that quite possibly, the world around us is either completely black or completely white, we only see those special wave lengths and our brain translates them into colors. So, my question is:

What does the true world look like? Since color is subjective, there must be a reality out there and the real colors of the world have to be out there, since it's impossible there is no real color out there because, despite being subjective, everything must be real - Like beauty, it is of course in the eye of the beholder but the object that is deemed beautiful or ugly does exist and does look a certain way - So, what do you think are the real colors? The colors we see, black and white, completely black, completely white, or, hell, anything else for that matter. Gentlemen, to your battle stations, it's debate time.

(This is pretty much a philosophical question but I felt it didn't fit in the philosophy section, and I'm not sure if it's really a question, it's more me presenting my opinion and want you guys to debate a tad bit, along with me of course, whether it's true or not and so on)

[Manco]

True colors will just be numerical values of the wavelengths, since every observant (including machines) can only interpret it to its own abilities.

Somewhat related to this is that not all human cultures know the same amount of colours, for example certain jungle tribes only know one blue (that of the sky) and literally can't see the difference between sky blue and maroon, simply because they've nevr come in contact with it. On the other hand they can differentiate between far more kinds of greens that we, urban westerners, can.

[Caliph]

Ignoring people who are color blind who are clearly in the minority for a moment; focusing on a group a colors for example: red, burgandy, scarlet and maroon. These colors aren't the same color but you'll find a census between most people that these colors are closely 'related'. They are all different hues of RED, except maybe for maroon.

I had the same thought you had about colors being 'real' a while back but the fact that people can see how certain colors are related and how others are polar opposites makes me think that colors ARE real. So our eyes were designed to differentiate the colors that we do; maybe some animals have enhanced vision or even poorer and those animals get to see more OR less accordingly.

[the_mango55]

What does the true world look like? Since color is subjective, there must be a reality out there and the real colors of the world have to be out there, since it's impossible there is no real color out there because, despite being subjective, everything must be real - Like beauty, it is of course in the eye of the beholder but the object that is deemed beautiful or ugly does exist and does look a certain way - So, what do you think are the real colors? The colors we see, black and white, completely black, completely white, or, hell, anything else for that matter.

Color is real, in a sense, because light is real, but what it looks like can subjective. Of course what we see as color is still just our brain and eyes interpreting the light so that we can process it and get information about our surroundings. Color probably looks different to other animals, especially things with eyes that develop differently than our own.

It's like trying to imagine what ultraviolet light "looks like." We can only imagine what it might look like, but we would likely be wrong because we can't see it.

[Nazgûl Killer]

That's exactly my point. We can only imagine it, which makes it all the more fun to debate/theorize about it

[Ratbag]

That's exactly my point. We can only imagine it, which makes it all the more fun to debate/theorize about it

LSD has been know to trigger new colors so it's just a case of being restricted by ones own brain.

[the_mango55]

When I was younger I used to imagine that everyone has the same "favorite color" and that if your favorite color was red and my favorite color was green, they would actually look the same in our mind.

[Gordon Freynman]

What does the true world look like? Since color is subjective, there must be a reality out there and the real colors of the world have to be out there, since it's impossible there is no real color out there because, despite being subjective, everything must be real - Like beauty, it is of course in the eye of the beholder but the object that is deemed beautiful or ugly does exist and does look a certain way - So, what do you think are the real colors? The colors we see, black and white, completely black, completely white, or, hell, anything else for that matter. Gentlemen, to your battle stations, it's debate time.

We only see colors because light (photons) enters our eyes and interacts with certain cells in the back of the eye, which the brain then interprets based on the wavelength of the light wave. There really is no such thing as color outside of our view of the world, only different wavelengths. The difference between yellow and blue is no different than the difference between x-rays and gamma rays (ignoring magnitudes).

BUT...in the visible light spectrum, we have defined the range of wavelengths for each of the fundamental colors, i.e. green has a wavelength range between 495-570 nanometers. See the rest here.

That being said, color is still entirely subjective. If our eyes had evolved in another way, or if the majority of people were color blind, we might of defined color wavelengths entirely different.

So what does the true world look like? Again, it is entirely subjective, but when you really boil down to it, it's nothing more than endless amounts of tiny point particles (or strings if that gets you off) interacting in ever increasing complexity. We just happen to be able to sense some of those particles, which our brains interpret in a unique fashion that gives us our view of the world.

[Phier]

Most mammals live in a black and white world.
Some insects live in an ultraviolet world.
Some birds see colors we do not.

Color is subjective, and this is more philosophy than science. I live in a colorful world, my color blind friend in college (completely) did not.

[Angrychris]

I like how you mixed science with a philosophical question.

[Helm]

"What does the true world look like?"

It looks like whatever an organism with eyes and a brain which processes the raw data makes it look like.

[PacSubCom]

Colours are labels of different frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. "Red" light, "Radar" light, "Roentgen" light.

We live in a colourful world because electromagnetic radiation has such frequencies, no matter whether your sensor can or cannot detect them, or how it detects them.

[Helm]

Dogs only see in black and white but smell is their main sense. They would ask what the world smells like not what it looks like.

[Elfdude]

This seems like it's more something for the debate and philosophy forum. Color in science has a numerical value.

It doesn't matter if someone looking through my eyes sees blue when I look at red or visa versa because as long as we both understand (regardless of the perception) that via consensus this color is red whatever errors induced by our mind or personal irregularities won't matter. The only exception of course is people who're color blind who see the world vastly different than those with color vision.

It's pretty likely that most healthy people see color pretty statically though. IIRC the frequency of the color corresponds to the frequency of the optic nerve's impulses.

Dogs only see in black and white but smell is their main sense. They would ask what the world smells like not what it looks like.

Dogs are dichromats i.e they see the same as a person with typical color blindness. Most animals are dichromats. Color blindness is very different than seeing in black and white.

[Helm]

I thought dogs only had rods but no cones in their eyes, without cones you won't see colour, but the cones only work if you have a certain amount of light. You won't see any colour in a darkened room once your eyes have adjusted to it just various shades of grey and no fine detail, you can't read for instance. That's what dogs would see normally.

[Elfdude]

I thought dogs only had rods but no cones in their eyes, without cones you won't see colour, but the cones only work if you have a certain amount of light. You won't see any colour in a darkened room once your eyes have adjusted to it just various shades of grey and no fine detail, you can't read for instance. That's what dogs would see normally.

No. Most mammals are dichromats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog

[♔Goodguy1066♔]

You misspelled colour.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

To the OP,

How colour is named is irrelevant. The "association" we are taught since birth would still be called otherwise, but that's a matter of semantics and language; I'm not one who tries to uncover hidden relativistic agendas, but I sense one here. Whether or not you call "red" as "red", or as "car", or "plane", is irrelevant, and fact is, if it has been inferred by the human senses before, then it will surely be defined by giving it a name or by other forms.

Now, as to what consists the so-called "True World of Colors" is very dubious. You're looking either for a way to broaden your sense of color artificially, like certain color machines do, or you're looking for an abstract apparel that reduces the world into a set of well defined mechanical "rays" which can only be conceptually and mathematically inferred and played with. That I believe, is the domain of physics, which is rather concerned with building abstract air castles behind the behind the things that to look at the things as they are - that's why we cannot empirically attest what light "is" as much what gravity "is" but rather portray it as a mental picture which is suitable to us, and even an anthropomorphism of epic scale.

Quite simply stating, you're probably looking for an electromagnetic diagram, not "color".

[MaximiIian]

however, if someone is color blind he sees that as some other color (Let's say green), meaning that color is pretty much in the eye of the beholder.

Pretty much. I'm red-green colourblind, and greens often look like browns, blues, or yellows depending on the shade, and often blend with reds and browns.
Colour is a subjective thing, simply because not everyone sees colour the same way.

[Killerbee]

I have a question, forigive me my ignorance if you think it's stupid.

In an Image Editor, we use RGB values, which represents colors. but I assume these are the same for everyone ? Or is even there a difference ?