Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Actually, this sort of answers an age old question I had. Is it possible that what I see as blue the same as what you see as blue? And the answer is, it's very possible, because brains be wack, yo!

My internal monologues are also a bit strange.

You mean the fact that Mr Burns hair is blue?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

All colors appear the same to people without vision disorders because "color" is a light wavelength that is measurable and quantifiable.

[hops]

I wasn't around when the forum got hit, but I would imagine my reaction would be "meh" as well.

It's partly a WTF and a sad how early I lost my innocence.Maybe that's why I'm a sexual deviant, too. (No, I don't mean being gay. I mean being really horny.)

That's a condition generally referred to as "baseline humanity". Most people are extraordinarily horny in their teens and early twenties. Not all, of course, but a substantial majority.

Well, I guess in my environment, people my age are usually not very horny because they play sports, and New Zealanders are weirdly charismatic with the opposite sex so I guess they would be getting enough without having to resort to experimentation.

[penguinofhonor]

.

[Sergarr]

All colors appear the same to people without vision disorders because "color" is a light wavelength that is measurable and quantifiable.

A combination of yellow and blue colors can appear as a green color to you, even though there's no actual "green wavelength" in it.
You don't actually observe any wavelengths when you're looking at something. You can only observe the excitations of various light-sensitive cells in your eyes, and then you can try to extrapolate that "if those group of cells excitate in this way, then it must be that color" - and different people extrapolate in a different way.

[Tawa]

Aaargh. That frickin' dress. It was the only thing people at my school talked about from first period to ninth. Heck, googling "dress" blots out the Wikipedia article for "dress" with results for the thing.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

All colors appear the same to people without vision disorders because "color" is a light wavelength that is measurable and quantifiable.

But the way our brain interprets each color is arbitrary, and I don't think we've discovered the mechanism that determines that.

It isn't arbitrary, human biology is mostly consistent. Human genetic data is ~90% identical between all people. There is no reason to dive into this unknowable philosophical hair-spliting about ultimate perception.

All colors appear the same to people without vision disorders because "color" is a light wavelength that is measurable and quantifiable.

A combination of yellow and blue colors can appear as a green color to you, even though there's no actual "green wavelength" in it.
You don't actually observe any wavelengths when you're looking at something. You can only observe the excitations of various light-sensitive cells in your eyes, and then you can try to extrapolate that "if those group of cells excitate in this way, then it must be that color" - and different people extrapolate in a different way.

It's functionally the same. Even if the light-sensing cells are being tricked by changes and contamination of light wavelength, they are still arriving at one of a given set of conclusions when informing you of something's color.

[Sergarr]

All colors appear the same to people without vision disorders because "color" is a light wavelength that is measurable and quantifiable.

But the way our brain interprets each color is arbitrary, and I don't think we've discovered the mechanism that determines that.

It isn't arbitrary, human biology is mostly consistent. Human genetic data is ~90% identical between all people. There is no reason to dive into this unknowable philosophical hair-spliting about ultimate perception.

All colors appear the same to people without vision disorders because "color" is a light wavelength that is measurable and quantifiable.

A combination of yellow and blue colors can appear as a green color to you, even though there's no actual "green wavelength" in it.
You don't actually observe any wavelengths when you're looking at something. You can only observe the excitations of various light-sensitive cells in your eyes, and then you can try to extrapolate that "if those group of cells excitate in this way, then it must be that color" - and different people extrapolate in a different way.

It's functionally the same. Even if the light-sensing cells are being tricked by changes and contamination of light wavelength, they are still arriving at one of a given set of conclusions when informing you of something's color.

And these sets of conclusions can be wrong, as seen by how more than half the people on the Internet identify the colors of the dress as white and gold.

And I find it funny how you try to evade the question of "what perception actually is" by assuming that half the people on the Internet are color blind.

[Avis-Mergulus]

Okay, color is a cultural convention. I know because my language, and, by extension, culture treats "blue" and "light blue" as two distinct colors. If a person in whose language the color blue is absent observed the damn dress, he might as well have declared it green. Or something. There is no universally accepted down-to-the-wavelength definition of "blue", because such a definition cannot exist. Because "blue" is not an universal concept. If for certain scientific applications "blue" has wavelenghts between x and y, that doesn't mean that applies to all other areas of life.

Quite another thing is that between individuals with the same color paradigm (as in this case) observed color is usually the same. But color is by no means universal.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

This isn't about the fucking dress, jesus christ. The dress is just an egregious example of a famous optical illusion. The direction and angle you look at the picture from messes up your light compensation process and can cause it to appear white-gold. The blue gets washed out and the black becomes light reflective.

The dress is blue-black, for the record. Actually and factually, and if it were seen in a better photo this wouldn't have happened.

[Avis-Mergulus]

The dress is blue-black, for the record. Actually and factually, and if it were seen in a better photo this wouldn't have happened.

For you, perhaps. For me it's goluboe - black, quite independently of lighting. Wavelengths are factual. Assigning names to wavelength bands is relative.

[Ddynamo]

Even one of Zicit's posts on Kong was three words.

"Blue and Black"- Zicit.

I wonder what he's talking about.....

[Spehss _]

Mormons came by unexpectedly in ~30 degree weather to spread the word of mormon stuff. Me being me, caught in an unexpected situation requiring me to talk to people, it was an awkward couple minutes before I shooed them off. Ugh. Probably could've handled that better.

[timferius]

Mormons came by unexpectedly in ~30 degree weather to spread the word of mormon stuff. Me being me, caught in an unexpected situation requiring me to talk to people, it was an awkward couple minutes before I shooed them off. Ugh. Probably could've handled that better.

It get's better in time with practice. In fact yesterday, I shooed away someone asking if I'd "locked in my hydro rates blah blah wakka wakka" in about 10 seconds flat. "nope, sorry, don't wanna discuss, bai" *door shut*.
Reminds me of the time my poor brother got stuck talking to the Jehova's witnesses for approx. 30 minutes.

[Bauglir]

Even one of Zicit's posts on Kong was three words.

"Blue and Black"- Zicit.

I wonder what he's talking about.....

Really? That's... that's actually kind of impressive. It's one of the funnier things I've heard today, because that poster saying it implies it's as monstrous as the shock image spam. There's an interesting juxtaposition - one of the best things about this day for me exists directly because of one of the worst.