liam.mccaffrey
|
| posted on 15/1/07 at 03:42 PM |
|
|
un-answerable question?
as i understand things, an object has a particular colour because it absorbs the light and only reflects back a particular wave length. e.g. an
orange absorbs all wavelengths apart from orange wavelength light, which it reflect back making the object appear orange coloured
So does this mean that when there is no light, nothing has colour?
[Edited on 15/1/07 by liam.mccaffrey]
Build Blog
Build Photo Album
|
|
|
|
|
tegwin
|
| posted on 15/1/07 at 03:47 PM |
|
|
If there is no light you wont be able to see it so it cant, by your deffinition, have colour....
It will still be coloured though....
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 15/1/07 at 03:48 PM |
|
|
colour is a human perception. Hence in the absence of light, an object has properties that would give it the appearance of colour if it was
illuminated, however an object doesnt have 'colour' as such anyway. 
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 15/1/07 at 03:49 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by tegwin
It will still be coloured though....
Or, to be precise, it will still have those physical properties that make it orange when the light is shining on it.
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 15/1/07 at 03:50 PM |
|
|
And the other question is - is the colour that I see as orange seen exactly the same way by other people?
|
|
|
macnab
|
| posted on 15/1/07 at 03:50 PM |
|
|
Really colour has no meaning without light…
Why on earth are you asking this?????
|
|
|
BenB
|
| posted on 15/1/07 at 03:52 PM |
|
|
Truly unanswerable.... bit like
-Schrodinger's cat?
or
-"If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody around does it make a sound?"
or my girlfriend's favorite
"If a man is alone in a forest and says something, if there's no woman around to hear it is he still wrong?"
although I prefer Voltaire's
"all the reasoning of a man cannot outweigh a single feeling of a woman"
[Edited on 15/1/07 by BenB]
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 15/1/07 at 03:52 PM |
|
|
that is too simplistic.
there is no such fundamental thing as colour, it is not lying out there to be discovered but colour is something used by humans to describe what we
see around us.
we cannot ever know that what one person sees as orange is seen as another colour (again colour are arbitrary terms) or not. people who are colour
blind will get collurs wrong..
also there is more than visible light, IR, UV etc: and an object can do the same things, absrob ort not, light in those frequencies so has another
"colour" for those eyes or devices that can detect the frequencies.
but to answer your question using your terms, the object still has colour just that there is no light in which to see it.
A way to think about it, is your locost a diffefrent colour when you trun off the garage light? (I suppose you could claim it is since you cannot see
it). but it still has a cololur, unfortuanltey you don't know what that colour is. 
|
|
|
macnab
|
| posted on 15/1/07 at 03:52 PM |
|
|
don't tell me you into quantum physics as well
|
|
|
tegwin
|
| posted on 15/1/07 at 03:56 PM |
|
|
Here is a good question...
How would you describe a colour to a blind person?
And you are right...chances are what you percieve as blue isnt what I see atall...
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 15/1/07 at 03:58 PM |
|
|
schrodingers cat is widely misunderstood. When he first proposed the idea, it was to illuminate a concept in quantum physics. He did it more to be
difficult. He never intended it to be taken seriously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat
as einstein wrote to schrodinger:
quote:
Nobody really doubts that the presence or absence of the cat is something independent of the act of observation.
[Edited on 15/1/07 by JoelP]
|
|
|
macnab
|
| posted on 15/1/07 at 03:58 PM |
|
|
Would there be any point. I doubt they could really grasp the concept in their head.
Real question is when a bind person thinks of something say an object, how does it appear in their head??
|
|
|
BenB
|
| posted on 15/1/07 at 04:01 PM |
|
|
Quantum physics doesn't work. Neither do complex numbers  Well, not in my brain anyway..... Nothing that can't be explained......
Young's double-slit experiment- just a fluke.....
Complementarity Principle- plain crazy......
I can feel my neurones oozing out of my ears already....
|
|
|
macnab
|
| posted on 15/1/07 at 04:02 PM |
|
|
It does have some meaning regarding how partials behave when faced with a choice of outcomes like in the slit experiments. All comes down to the old
wave particle duality problem.
|
|
|
macnab
|
| posted on 15/1/07 at 04:04 PM |
|
|
Which to be honest isn’t a problem at all. Just a misinterpretation of what’s happening.
Forget particles, there's no such thing
[Edited on 15/1/07 by macnab]
|
|
|
Hellfire
|
| posted on 15/1/07 at 04:07 PM |
|
|
Colour is a generic term for frequency we can see... hearing is a generic term for frequency we can hear.
Therefore, we cannot see or hear anything. We measure the comparible frequencies against each other using comparibly simple receptors. We dont just
sense sound using our ear canal and cavities, nor do we just see things through our eyes. We have rudimentary senses that combine all five (some say
six) senses. Therefore depending upon how good our receptors are gives us a different picture of what we are sensing, be it sound our vision.
Of course we all hear and see differently. So how do we compare smell...??
Steve
|
|
|
Wadders
|
| posted on 15/1/07 at 04:10 PM |
|
|
We don't actually 'smell' anything, we taste it.
Think about that next time you enter the sh#thouse 
Originally posted by Hellfire
Colour is a generic term for frequency we can see... hearing is a generic term for frequency we can hear.
Therefore, we cannot see or hear anything. We measure the comparible frequencies against each other using comparibly simple receptors. We dont just
sense sound using our ear canal and cavities, nor do we just see things through our eyes. We have rudimentary senses that combine all five (some say
six) senses. Therefore depending upon how good our receptors are gives us a different picture of what we are sensing, be it sound our vision.
Of course we all hear and see differently. So how do we compare smell...??
Steve
[Edited on 15/1/07 by Wadders]
|
|
|
jlparsons
|
| posted on 15/1/07 at 04:11 PM |
|
|
Or more importantly;
If a man says something in a forest, and there is no woman there to hear him, is he still wrong?
Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead is purely coincidental. Some assembly required. Batteries not included. Contents may settle during
shipment. Use only as directed. No other warranty expressed or implied. Do not use while operating a motor vehicle or heavy equipment. Subject to
approval, terms and conditions apply. Apply only to affected area. For recreational use only. All models over 18 years of age. No user-serviceable
parts inside. Subject to change. As seen on TV. One size fits all. May contain nuts. Slippery when wet. For office use only. Edited for television.
Keep cool; process promptly.
|
|
|
BenB
|
| posted on 15/1/07 at 04:13 PM |
|
|
Surely explaining a colour to a blind person is not so difficult. You're only explaining your perception of the occurance to that person ie what
response that colour creates in you.
Perception is a bizarre one. One of the stumbling blocks with artificial retinas is that you have to use them early before the ability to learn new
perceptions finishes. Mice grown in cages with horizontal lines only loose the ability to perceive vertical lines etc etc.... Similarly giving a blind
person artifical retinas when they're 20-30 would be not so beneficial. They'd probably be good on faces (different perception centre-
hence newborns get quite handy with faces quickly) but for day to day stuff not much cop....
The other bizarre was is in people whose L hemisphere of the brain doesn't communicate with the R (usually surgically induced). Get them to
close their eyes and put something in their and though they'll describe it they won't be able to perceive it or name it, let them open
their eyes and they'll perceive and recognize it straight away)...
|
|
|
jlparsons
|
| posted on 15/1/07 at 04:13 PM |
|
|
Humans have 9 defined senses by the way, can you guess them all?
Ie 9 difference cellular systems to gather information on our environment.
Sight, taste, smell, touch and hearing are only 5 of them.
Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead is purely coincidental. Some assembly required. Batteries not included. Contents may settle during
shipment. Use only as directed. No other warranty expressed or implied. Do not use while operating a motor vehicle or heavy equipment. Subject to
approval, terms and conditions apply. Apply only to affected area. For recreational use only. All models over 18 years of age. No user-serviceable
parts inside. Subject to change. As seen on TV. One size fits all. May contain nuts. Slippery when wet. For office use only. Edited for television.
Keep cool; process promptly.
|
|
|
macnab
|
| posted on 15/1/07 at 04:14 PM |
|
|
Remember we're all based on the same ‘mechanics’ I therefore would not expect to much off a difference.
Things like preferences for certain tastes or colours are more subjective and not the same thing as how stimuli are first received.
More those are learnt or pre-programmed responses
[Edited on 15/1/07 by macnab]
|
|
|
BenB
|
| posted on 15/1/07 at 04:18 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wadders
We don't actually 'smell' anything, we taste it.
Not true... We don't taste much- we smell it!!!! Your tongue has four different sensors (five if you believe the MSG thing). Your nose does the
actually "tasting"... Why does food taste so bland when your nose is blocked?? People who destroy their olfactory cranial nerve (sense of
smell to you and me) have a lifetime of tasteless living... Good for chilli eating competitions though....
|
|
|
macnab
|
| posted on 15/1/07 at 04:21 PM |
|
|
he he Liams buggered off.
firestarter!
|
|
|
Wadders
|
| posted on 15/1/07 at 04:21 PM |
|
|
I stand corrected 
Originally posted by BenB
quote:
Originally posted by Wadders
We don't actually 'smell' anything, we taste it.
Not true... We don't taste much- we smell it!!!! Your tongue has four different sensors (five if you believe the MSG thing). Your nose does the
actually "tasting"... Why does food taste so bland when your nose is blocked?? People who destroy their olfactory cranial nerve (sense of
smell to you and me) have a lifetime of tasteless living... Good for chilli eating competitions though....
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 15/1/07 at 04:23 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BenB
People who destroy their olfactory cranial nerve (sense of smell to you and me) have a lifetime of tasteless living... Good for chilli eating
competitions though....
is that true? eating chilis and other hot food isn't just the taste/burning but it involves sweating so there is some physical reaction type
stuff going on.
it would be nice to detroy the nerves at the other end
|
|
|
