?

Log in

Tue, Jan. 28th, 2031, 07:43 pm
pseudotopic

This entry will be left hanging on top of this journal. Kindly comment to it for offtopic and such. All comments will be screened.
web trackerIf you wish them to stay screened, please specify so, since if I might unscreen them at my discretion later if I don't see anything I think is confidential otherwise.

Thank you for understanding.

Thu, Oct. 11th, 2007 11:08 pm (UTC)
mme_n_b: Re: Reality vs Perception

"People drew the colors of rainbow in bands before there was Newton"
Don't say it to me, say it to Talash :)

"Every person will see R(ed),G(reen),B(lue) as the major color groups"
Some people (quite a few) see only two of these. Usually Red and Blue. It's genetic.

"you're asking them what THEY REMEMBER they see"
Actually, I'm asking them what they remember usually seeing.


"measures how well people remember what they actually saw, and then how many adjectives they have in their vocabulary to express what they remember"
If a person sees only one band they will not use two adjectives to describe it. If they see a red-type band they will not use a blue-type adjective to describe it. No one sees pink and calls it "indigo and celadon". You can be pretty sure that the number of the bands and their affiliations, for lack of a better word, are accurate.

"And I think the major part of this argument is the misunderstanding of the word "SEE"."
Which is why I keep pushing the words "perceive" and "remember seeing". There's a difference between that and "seeing" itself.

"If you put different people (Chinese, Indian, Russians, Africans, Australians, even throw some monkeys in for a good measure), and point to a rainbow, they will all call out same/similar colors if you point to a point on a rainbow, so obviously they'll see the SAME RAINBOW"
This is a non-argument, since in answering the survey they did the exact opposite. If someone perceives black, and someone else perceives white, pink, and green you cannot say that at any point they perceive the same thing.

"Nobody will argue if there's brown in there or not, it either IS brown or it's NOT"
There is no brown in there. That we already established a dozen posts ago. The thing we're discussing now is that some people _perceive_ brown, even though it's not there.






Thu, Oct. 11th, 2007 11:18 pm (UTC)
talash: Re: Reality vs Perception

"People drew the colors of rainbow in bands before there was Newton"

Don't say it to me, say it to Talash :)

I never said they didn't. If you re-read my post above, what I say is that Newton was the first person to conduct a scientific study of color and his model is based on rigorous measurements, as opposed to earlier models, which are based on perception only.

Thu, Oct. 11th, 2007 11:45 pm (UTC)
talash: Re: Reality vs Perception

This is a non-argument, since in answering the survey they did the exact opposite. If someone perceives black, and someone else perceives white, pink, and green you cannot say that at any point they perceive the same thing.

memory and perception are not the same and your survey is more a test of what people REMEMBER, since there is no rainbow right before them and even if there is a rainbow right before them it is a test for what names of colors are commonly used in their LANGUAGE. also, if there if a dark green which someone sees and thinks of as "black" this does not necessarily mean that he and the man who names the color as "dark green" see differently, but only that they name differently.
(Deleted comment)

Fri, Oct. 12th, 2007 12:22 am (UTC)
talash: Re: Reality vs Perception

*standing applause*.
(Deleted comment)

Fri, Oct. 12th, 2007 02:06 am (UTC)
talash: Re: Reality vs Perception

You just expressed my opinion better than I.
(Deleted comment)

Fri, Oct. 12th, 2007 03:54 pm (UTC)
mme_n_b: Re: Correction of analogy:

"But as far as your study goes, it has very little to do with the rainbow (if anything at all)."
Well - duh! Like I haven't been explaining this for two days now?

"Similarwise you can argue that Northern people are more sensitive to blue shades and southern people are more sensitive to red shades (probably true to a very small degree)."
Actually, hungry people are more sensitive to blue and fed people to red.

"So if all those people want to mark black and white as a part of the spectrum, well it's just plain wrong."

I wrote a really long answer to this one, involving Chinese people with long purple wings, which this correction made unnecessary. You got the point precisely right: what interests me is what kind of people draw "weird humans", and what kind of "weird humans" they draw, e. g. "do all fiftyish black male accountants draw stick figures with five legs?"
(Deleted comment)

Fri, Oct. 12th, 2007 08:58 pm (UTC)
mme_n_b: Re: Correction of analogy:

They do. It's not actually that way. It's an infinity of ways. Or, rather, it has the potential to be perceived in an infinity of ways. But (for instance) if you know that there's nothing between blue and purple you may not notice the extra fifty shades of blue, and your experience will be poorer.

Fri, Oct. 12th, 2007 11:48 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous): Re: Correction of analogy:

Define "NOT KNOW". Doesn't know what? The name of the color? Or the eye is physically incapable of seeing the color? What is "knowing a color"?

Sat, Oct. 13th, 2007 07:20 am (UTC)
mme_n_b: Re: Correction of analogy:

Well, I wasn't the one who brought up knowing the name of the color. Personally, I think that every respondent knew enough to name or describe the colors they saw.

Wed, Oct. 17th, 2007 08:15 am (UTC)
talash: Re: Correction of analogy:

#FF0000 is red, but so is #FE0000 and #FA0000 and so on and so forth. I can distinguish between them, but the name for all of them is still "red". There might be a few synonyms for darker or brighter shades, but clearly there are more colors the eye can distinguish than there are names for them.

Wed, Oct. 17th, 2007 03:35 pm (UTC)
mme_n_b: Re: Correction of analogy:

Yes, that's why I allow qualifiers :) There is nothing in nature that cannot be expressed.