What is Digg?83 Comments
- hydroplane, on 05/14/2008, -4/+37Black then white are all I see in my infancy.
Red and yellow then came to be, reaching out to me.
Lets me see. - Ph0biA, on 05/14/2008, -5/+33I believe babies don't see colors... Have you ever met a racist baby? I rest my case...
- drewedman, on 05/14/2008, -1/+24It's weird to think that my blue could be someone elses green and we wouldn't be able to explain what it is either of us are looking at
- DeFex, on 05/14/2008, -0/+15who the hell sees 7 distinct bands? its a continuous fade through the spectrum.
- tEhKewleSt, on 05/14/2008, -0/+11 Boo ***** hoo.
Every single letter of the above statement is in a slightly different color - and you can't tell!
(points and laughs) - Modulo, on 05/14/2008, -0/+9with as much talking out of your ass as you just did, it's no wonder you call yourself stinkipete. For one thing, the so called 7 visible colours of the rainbow are a social linguistic contruct.. For another, the human eye is extremely deficient compared to birds in what we call the blue green portion of the spectrum. If we could see color the way that birds can, we would probably have 9 colours, Violet, Indigo, Blue, Teal, Green, Lime, Yellow, Orange and Red. Not to mention ultraviolet. Retard.
- ChzPlz, on 05/14/2008, -0/+8There are no hard color division lines in a rainbow - the colours fade into each other, with an infinite number of reddish-oranges, orangey-yellows, etc etc etc.
- kurupttek, on 05/14/2008, -0/+10Call me crazy but have always thought that and tried to explain it to someone but they didn't get it!
- c010rb1indusa, on 05/14/2008, -2/+10Screw babies, I'm colorblind, so what if they can't see color for the first 2 years of their life that they won't even remember. I can't see ***** for the rest of my life (unless stems cells come through for my cause). But other then that I'm pretty hopeless.
- inigomntoya, on 05/14/2008, -0/+7Green looks like urine in a toilet full of that 2000 flushes stuff.
- ileftfark, on 05/14/2008, -0/+7Interesting article, but a little too free-spirited. While there is much about perception we do not know, things like color are much more boring that the article would suggest. Given that we all have similar equipment (organs, brain, etc) and that equipment is functioning normally, the process of "seeing" light is really rather mechanical and mundane. If people's vision were drastically different, they would see different parts of the full spectrum of light, giving some the ability to see infra-red, and others to see ultra-violet. Sadly, we are all pretty much the same, and (blindness or color-blindness aside), we all see colors essentially the same way. Unless we just got some really good shrooms.
- thebigbradwolf, on 05/14/2008, -1/+6I like to think my blue is everyone's favorite color, they just have a different name for it.
- RealmDown, on 05/14/2008, -0/+5Sure I have. Al Sharpton comes to mind immediately.
- TheKorn2, on 05/14/2008, -0/+5THANK YOU! I was about to write the same thing!
I think the author needs to GO OUTSIDE and look at an *actual* rainbow once in a while, rather than experience everything through second life! - techobo, on 05/14/2008, -1/+8As far as I know, what I see as blue has a frequency interval of 670–610 THz. You might have a different word for blue, but we are both seeing the same thing.
Well, unless you are colour blind. - RealmDown, on 05/14/2008, -3/+9what marvelous sights
compulsively alluring
are those ***** for ME? - inigomntoya, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3And sense of smell is still there, I imagine?
"Hey, smell this brownie - teehee" - VinceNoir, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3Me too. In fact, I got into a heated argument with a friend about it in which we eventually just agreed to disagree. He couldn't believe that it's at all possible that what I look at and call blue might be his red. Since we'd both look at the same thing but see it completely differently and only have arbitrary terms to describe them, it stands to reason that my blue which he experiences as my red, but which he also calls blue might be completely different.
- apmtt, on 05/14/2008, -1/+5As below, so above and beyond, I imagine
Drawn beyond the lines of reason.
Push the envelope. watch it bend. - fezzasus, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3on further reading, it seems my answer has nothing to do with the article - The best comparison of this article is with a fine wine/scotch, you drink it, decide you like it but struggle to find specific flavours to pick out and mention. Someone else says that it has 'a hint of orange' and suddenly you notice the orange taste. It's the same with distinguishing colours - if you can name the colours, you can distinguish between them.
- priegog, on 05/14/2008, -1/+3Ba-dum psht
- karebu, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3it's quite likely that it's a different shade. in fact they are different for my eyes (L/R).
- ColorBlind, on 05/14/2008, -1/+5I'm color deficient - people try to play the "color game" with me all the time.
- kertong, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2Is it really 6? Roy G. Biv would be disappointed.
- Scynet, on 05/14/2008, -1/+5Yeah but how does the brain know what color it's supposed to show to the conscious mind when the eyes see "blue", since it's just all about wave lenghts... maybe it's showing a wrong color? And what's color anyway, since seeing only means detecting varying wavelengths? Why is the difference between wavelenghts shown as this bizarre, abstract "color"?
Try to explain someone what green looks like without showing them an example or referring to other colors. - tEhKewleSt, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2Yes...yes they do.
- loquax, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3Its a good thing you can taste correctly....
- bmerkl, on 05/14/2008, -0/+6what do you see?
http://wiki.chainofthoughts.com/dt/en/Spectrum - TheKorn2, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2But that could simply be an artifact of the tools kids are given to draw with! (crayons)
- intangible, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2In yer head perceiving yur colorz?
- inactive, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2Screw babies?
OGC - seraph741, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2in Tool we trust
- praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2Oh, god. Why did I know this would be the first comment?
- leetleo, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
- inigomntoya, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2a hell of a lot of red!
- timusca, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2Same problem here... no one understands wtf I'm trying to say. Even an optometrist.
- lpse2000, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1I can see colors being perceived by one's brain differently than another's brain, but not physical attributes. When someone paints a picture of someone sitting down, they paint it as you see it don't they?
- techobo, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Somewhere my colour teacher from art college is very angry at me for not being able to respond to your post. haha. I'll try and figure out a response for you in a bit.
- Scynet, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Yeah but you already compared green to other colors (color of urine and that stuff). Try not to do that: not too easy. :)
- techobo, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2Ok, so lets go with the camera example. If the video camera is damaged and it sees red as more greenish then you could compare it with damage to the retina, optic nerve, or higher brain areas, which is the cause of colour blindness. So if you had no damage to the retina, optic nerve or higher brain areas, you could say that you should see the same as everyone else. No? I think this was my disclaimer at the end of my post.
But, if we use your second example, even though one might say you are hairless, they are still wrong. Right? Just because they think people are hairless doesn't mean they are right. If you tell them to take a good look at their arm, they will understand that there is hair even though it did not match their preconceived mental picture.
With all that being said. Please don't take my post as a flame, I just want to have a discussion. I just want to understand your argument. :) - lpse2000, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Our DNA intelligently manipulated itself so that we would develop perception of color in order to determine ripe from unripe fruit?
- ileftfark, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Hence my "equipment functioning normally" disclaimer. A "normal" person will see the same thing as another "normal" person. Psychotics and drug-induced alternate realities need not apply.
- neko, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2I think the only way to clarify this would be:
Do we see colours differently? No, pretty much the same frequencies get registered.
Do we perceive colours differently? Probably. But there's no way to prove it without getting inside your head. - eanbowman, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1I've always "seen" it as a continuous fade... I never recall only percieving 6, 7 or any other number of bands. :/
The whole concept of it as bands comes from culture for me. *shrug* - makkaveli19, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1AHH i hate that. people look at me like in insane. thanks guys, you made me feel alot better
- VinceNoir, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2You're looking at it the wrong way (no pun intended). It's a question of perception. The way the brain translates what it's given can vary quite a lot between people. Colors are just the start of it. In fact I would suggest that some people see giant walking chickens when they look at other people. Complete with feathers. But because they've assigned arbitrary terms to the beings they see, they call them human just as you or I do. But frankly, my human, might be your dog. My perception of walking on all four legs might be your perception of walking on two legs, or delivering the mail.
With that way of thinking in mind, take this single sentence and parse it more flexibly:
"See Spot run".
Most westerners have been conditioned to picture a black dog named spot running on the sidewalk of a suburban street. But, it's entirely possible and completely likely that my "Spot" that I'm seeing looks like your Jenna Jameson. And it's also possible that the activity of "running" as I perceive it, might be your perception of piloting a plane over the Bermuda Triangle. That would go a long way to explaining why some people screw their dogs. (Not you of course) Hopefully I've brought some clarity to the discussion. - Ikulus, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1I see bands.
- VinceNoir, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Well... I wasn't meaning to imply a damaged eye. I was meaning to imply a different perception altogether. Someone looks at something that you think of as red and (if you could see with their mind's eye) you would instead see what you think of yellow. They wouldn't be wrong, they would just be perceiving things differently.
As far as hair goes, well... your definition of hairless in your experience means "without hair". But to someone else, it would also mean that, except that they would perceive a hairy arm as hairless. Q.E.D. - Tanath, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1http://www.easytranslators.com/movies/files/babest ...
-
Show 51 - 83 of 83 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 