How can colors be objective...

How can colors be objective? How do we know everybody's blue is the same blue or they're actually all different but we just all agree one specific wavelength is blue and no matter what it looks like to you it's blue?

Other urls found in this thread:

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2976405/Could-ancestors-blue-Ancient-civilisations-didn-t-perceive-colour-didn-t-word-say-scientists.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Because we know we all have the same nerves and whatnot in our eyeballs.

Yes, that may be true, bot how exactly do you know that your blue isn't my red, and we just call it blue? although the nerves are generally the same, can you honestly tell me that they are all EXACTLY the same? light blue to you might just be white to me.

Colors are defined by wavelength, not appearance.

We don't but it doesn't matter. Your brain makes up how you perceive the color, but I think it's likely that they're all pretty close from one person to the next.

Because too many industries rely on colors' accuracy to make subjective judgments about it.

Cause rods and cones aren't subjective. And furthermore, even if you had some issue with your cones, you are still referring to blue as a specific wavelength region so it doesn't have any bearing on what you perceive. You will understand the same color for that impirical data as you always would. If people saw different colors, and things were related being my blue and your blue were the same, then neither of us could ever be able to recreate a blue. Ever. It physically and linguistically does not make sense to call a wavelength a different perception.

IT wouldn't matter anyways because they are all relative to each other, so even if my blue isn't EXACTLY your blue, it is still the same difference relative to your red, etc.

like language, it's an agreed upon set of conventions based on common references - in this case associated with physical properties associated with EM wavelengths

our perceptions of these colors and how we piece together the world around us may very well be radically different, but through testing and comparison we can find that the underlying properties are consistent and useful as a baseline set of references

as our technology and ability to communicate improves in depth and specificity, and perhaps in accuracy in conveying interpretive or perceptive concepts, we might reach further distinctions, but the physical world and its properties as best as we can measure them will remain

i'm not talking about the actual colors themselves, but more the interpretation of them. i'm not OP btw, but we know that people who are colorblind don't see colors the same way a normal person would, isn't it also possible that it could be a separate interpretation of color entirely?

...

Colors are scene differently depending on the types of cones in your eye. People who are color blind or color deficient can't see some colors or the color they see is shifted. But that is not typical of a normal human eye. We also see specific colors wavelength and the wavelength is determined by specific energy transfers in the molecules making up said object. So any variation in color perception is extremely limited when talking about the typical human eye

Cones and rods... Just so you don't sound so retarded next time

You would have to be brought up saying red is blue for that kinda of stuff to happen. Color labels or language is learned

But how is your argument valid? It's still the same scale. How do you know that color blindness exists? Because it's a simple concept of being less able to receive light at those frequencies.

Asked the same question in elementary school. Teacher looked at me like a retard. Not bragging or anything just seems wierd to have this just now go through your head and have it start actual discussion. We can't see into another's unique subjective experience. Kinda like asking if that guy next to you is actually experiencing life or if the wheels spinning but the hamster is long gone. So ya Toatally possible. But really hard to prove or disprove. If you can know if someone is actually seeing the same blue as you its going to take a lot smarter mother fucker than I to figure it out.

You lost any credibility in your statement by using scene and not seen.

Yea well my phones autocorrect is gay

based on the very specific criteria you're looking at, ignoring the fact that the wavelengths are well defined and that for people with all the same cones and rods, looking ONLY at whether our brains interpret colors in the same way is a question that won't be answerable, at least not with current technology.
is basically right, it doesn't matter and it's armchair stoner philosophy to wonder about. If you want to sit around thinking about things that are unknowable, think about the vastness of the universe beyond what we can observe with light or quantum physics. Your particular question not only doesn't have an answer, it's not worth your time wondering about it either

>and that for people with all the same cones and rods,
I kind of fucked up this sentence, meant to say that for people with the same cones and rods there's no reason to think that the colors are different. It would be crazy to think that, for two non-colorblind people seeing the same wavelength with the same cones and rods, they both say "I see blue" but what one thinks of as blue is really orange, he just calls it blue because he has been conditioned to all his life.

For a more productive use of your time, why not wonder why we can't observe both the speed and position of an electron at the same time? Or why observing the path an electron takes through a double-slit experiment collapses it's wave function and stops the interference pattern?

It's funny you bring up the color blue, because there where a few african tribes that due to language and lack of a word for each of the colors can not tell the difference between blue and green. There's been several studies about this issue and even the show through the wormhole touched on it.

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2976405/Could-ancestors-blue-Ancient-civilisations-didn-t-perceive-colour-didn-t-word-say-scientists.html

The basic jest of the studies show that we can only persevere colors as our brain decodes them and what is blue for one person may not be blue for another. Also all the machines that we built that can see color only persevere the color as the creator of the machine does.

I couldn't disagree with your statement of "doesn't have an answer" more. Color, as another user put it, is defined by wavelength. That is a physical property of a photon, just like gravity is a physical property of mass. Is there a reason behind it? Yes, we just don't know it yet. However, the point remains that those wavelengths are a known scale, that has been proven time and time again. For another user to perceive something entirely for the same wavelength of light means two things. One, that their photoreceptors are genetically different or physically degraded in some way. We have seen this in rare occasion but discretion sciences are fucking phenomenal these days and they have not linked any common differences from one user's cones to another. There could be deeper physical differences that we can't measure yet, but we'll get the technology. Second, these different perceptions of color could mean another dimension of light. The brain has different interpretations of this dimension and as such starts to drastically enough shift "color" perception. More of this may be known when we understand fully the duality of a photon being both a wave and a particle.

Either way, don't you dare tell me their isn't an answer for something in the world, user. Don't be an American Christian trump supporter who believes in creationism.

What type of autism do you have?

>why not wonder why we can't observe both the speed and position of an electron at the same time?
Heisenbergs uncertainty principle shows that if you know a particles momentum you need to use more than one point. To know its position it must be at one point and thus not moving. Pretty simple
>Or why observing the path an electron takes through a double-slit experiment collapses it's wave function and stops the interference pattern?
Looking at it causing the probably wave to collapse into a real observed event

Option 3 would be that the photoreceptors are fine, but the brains interpreration of the signal and subsequent perception is nontypical. Either due to brain damage or some exotic difference in the brain chemistry.