/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16120861
Perception of redness is emergent effect happenning due to neural activity of your brain and until we get precise mind reading from brainwaves using some kind of AI model to interpret patterns its unknowable

>>16120901
Suppose such mind reading technology exists. You and your friend are plugged into a mind reading machine made by Google. You see the world from his perspective and witness that indeed his red is your blue. "Great, finally we solved this mystery!" you think. Since it was a fun experience you two try to repeat it. But this time you use a mind reading machine produced by Amazon. Surprisingly, this time his red is your yellow. Oh no, that means one of the two machines must be wrong! How do we find out which one is wrong?

>>16120861
It must be, otherwise colorblind people wouldn't have so much difficulty.

>>16120983
>Suppose such mind reading technology exists.
But it doesn't.
>You and your friend are plugged into a mind reading machine made by Google.
But I'm not.
>You see the world from his perspective
But that's not possible.

>>16120993
>But I did eat breakfast!

>>16120901
already done on cats

>>16120983
honestly?, you don't

>>16120983
Maybe you see the same colors but when his neural activity is mapped onto your brain it gets interpreted wrong because your brains are unique and don't have identical neural pathways.

Yes but red is not quantifiable only it's relation can be quantified. It's relation to other things is what we assign a number to.

>>16120861
I'm thinking yes, because we all run on same type of machine/structure. there should be a reason for why they would be mixed up in various people, apart from hardware defects as it were.

My red is redder than yours

>>16120993
>It must be, otherwise colorblind people wouldn't have so much difficulty.
This is the answer. Next question.

Magenta deserves the title of "color that lives rent-free in your brain" because that's literally what it is.

>>16121233
Explain.

>>16121246
63 secs explanation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9dqJRyk0YM

>>16121322
>there's no such thing as pink light
>pink is a combination of two different colors of light
I find this unconvincing. That's like saying there's no such thing as green paint because you make it by mixing yellow and blue paints.

>>16120861
Nope

>>16121345
you detect the green photons tho, not the yellow and blue paints.

>>16121345
The thing is... pigment and light are different. More then:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPPYGJjKVco
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRuPF6JtWdw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NzVmtbPOrM
enjoy a nice journey of learning

No. My computer is better than yours.

>>16121358
Serious question, why can't we measure the wavelength of magenta light? If you shine red and blue light together, shouldn't they interfere with each other in a measurable way?

>>16121322
That's wrong, though, all light is colourless, colour is an arbitrary construct of your mind, it is not a physical property, if you want pink light just do the same trick your body does and run it through a filter which outputs a pink appearance

>>16120901
i don't think that will prove the subjective qualia are the same though? just that the same thing has been observed. how consciousness imagines that data cannot be read from that

>>16121414
we should be able to see new colors

>>16121448
You can if you evolve your senses to respond to stimuli with a different output

>>16121494
yeah something like that, but we should be able to feed new info to brain via bionic eyes (Neuralink type chips). not sure if the brain will adapt to a new type of signal and give it a random color or something. that's what I'm curious about.

>>16120861
There is obviously no proof but I'd think that is interpreted fairly similarly between people of same ethnic group(who have many other similar characteristics). Also think that while we don't know if people see colors the same way, we can at least agree that most people have the same interpretation of black color (or in other words lack of any light), so if there is one color that everyone sees the same way, it likely that the way each of us sees other colors are fairly similar.

>>16121512
I doubt it can be anything beyond the scope of what your brain is capable of generating, you are limited by your physiology

>>16121517
100 billion neurons is a lot of neurons. but I agree we might be missing higher level strucures which are formed for all colors we see. I have no clue how red is encoded. hence the curiosity, we feed new type of usable info, does the brain fartout or comes up with new structure to define new color for that new usable information? because it's sort of chicken and egg issue. we have current eyes because brain is color limited, or brain formed structures to account for whatever eyes sent in?
I tend to think the brain can form new neural connections for it, because it seems to do that for a bunch of things.

probs lol

>>16121411
there is no wavelenght of magenta light. If you shine red and blue light together, you can measure red and blue light. Photons don't change wavelenght/color

>>16121414
thats a different conversation. We are clearly talking about the subjective perception of colout, not about its philosophical existance

>>16121525
If the red and blue light didn't interfere with each other in any way then we'd see a dot matrix of individual red and blue photons instead of seeing a different color as a mixture of the two. If they interfere with each other, why can't we measure that interference and define the newly produced wavelength?

>>16121531
they don't interfere, they affect your eye detector cells. the mix of those two types of signals makes your brain show you magenta.
same is true for yellow and cyan. and if we'd get dedicated receptors for them, bananas and cyan waters would have those new colors, which would be weird af.

>>16121525
>there is no wavelenght of magenta light
There is no wavelength of coloured light, you're applying arbitrary, subjective properties to things which don't have them

>>16121532
>eyes only have red, blue, and green cones
>yellow, cyan, and magenta are perceived based pairs of cones discretely and simultaneously detecting red/green, blue/green, and red/blue light respectively
>yellow and cyan light are said to exist discretely on the spectrum of light as their own wavelengths even though we don't have cones that can detect either of those colors discretely
>magenta just doesn't exist at all, it's a total illusion, it's "just" the combination of red and blue cones firing together
>but also cyan is just the combination of green and blue cones firing together
>but also yellow is just the combination of red and green cones firing together
>but cyan and yellow light exist discretely and magenta is pure illusion
I promise I'm not trolling, this shit just doesn't add up at all. If we follow the logic that all colors only exist as expressions of red, green, and blue cones firing off when they detect red, green, and blue light in varying amounts and the wavelengths DO NOT INTERFERE and are ALWAYS DISCRETE then we should declare cyan and yellow light to be illusions just the same as magenta, shouldn't we? Why does magenta have no space on the color spectrum while cyan and yellow do, even though all 3 are produced by the exact same process of 2 cone colors firing simultaneously?
I understand what the premise is meant to be and why magenta is considered illusory, but the logic that tells us magenta is illusory should tell us cyan and yellow are just as illusory and the spectrum of visible light should only actually have 3 colors on it.

>>16121541
all colors are illusion, they are data representation. our eyes are the cheapest way to detect all colors with three types of receptors. the loss in detail is minimal, mistaking green+red for yellow, isn't putting pressure on selecting those who can make the distinction.
if there were two basic food sources that had opposite effect, one perfectly useful as food the other instant death, and one was yellow one was reflecting green+red, and looked identical, we'd have a good reason to be able to tell them apart. eyes with 3 detectors are good enough and most importantly "cheap"

>>16121541
I've been saying this the whole time and everybody ignored me each time I said, Yellow and Cyan are literally just as fake as Magenta is, it's basically just two cones being triggered simultaneously, they are illusions.
I also base it upon this that the real primary colors are indeed Red, Green, and Blue, every other model is based upon misconceptions

The thing is, colors also have relations to eachother and to concepts/emotions.
While you can't technically experience someone else's qualia, the odds that everyone independently imagines completely different colors but everyone's personal colors hold the same dense set of properties is just improbable to the point its obviously not true.

>>16121553
Cones don't pick up single wavelengths, they operate on a spectrum

>>16121551
That doesn't answer the question of why we declare yellow a discrete color despite our inability to perceive it independently of red and green. If yellow has its own discrete wavelength and we don't have a receptor to pick that up then it shouldn't register at all except when both red and green are discretely present for us to detect simultaneously and "mix" in our brain. The color chart should have three sections: blue, green, and red, and we should be marveling at how our brains "invent" yellow and cyan, but we don't. Why?

>>16121541
Why are you thinking about it as some linear continuum if you understand? It's not a two-point extension, it's a three-point triangular extension and you don't need to go "through" green on the wavelength number line to draw a line between 'red' and 'blue'. This is how colors are expressed on palettes by default.

The potentially mindbreaking part is that if our eyes also had cones to detect Yellow light and Cyan light discriminately, our brain would invent two new "Magentas" as the result of the new mixtures that could be possible, for example, the normal Magenta is invented when we see long wavelengths and short wavelengths simultaneously, so a color between Red and Blue, but our brain knows that it isn't green so it invents a new color instead, and now since we also have Yellow cones and Cyan cones, if we were to detect Yellow wavelengths and Cyan wavelengths simultaneously, we would also perceive a new color that is the mixture of both but that isn't recognized as "green" and thus be an entirely different color.
You get the gist?

>>16121556
LLMs showed some associations between certain words and concepts. neurons might do that shit depending on whatever, something.
>>16121553
they are and they aren't, they are "fake" in the sense of how they are detected. but they have an ultimately unique signal, even if made from other signals initially. like the binaural thingie, creates a new phantom frequency that has the value of the difference between the frequencies in each ear. get 100Hz in left ear, 180Hz in right ear, your brain will perceive another 80Hz on top of the two. a sort of negative space or whatever. The frequency is fake but also real because you perceive it, so it is real for your mental experience.

>>16121560
>That doesn't answer the question of why we declare yellow a discrete color despite our inability to perceive it independently of red and green.
simply because you can ALSO detect yellow photons, even if detection is more complicated mechanism/trick of using hardware, it's still detection, you can see bananas and that's the real part of it. I think it's a hardware limitation, cyan and yellow are real and fake at the same time, and could use two new colors to tell them apart from fake ones, but magenta is fully fake, there's no single photon to ever be detected separately from blue and red

>>16121563
>you don't need to go "through" green on the wavelength number line to draw a line between 'red' and 'blue'.
I understand that. I don't think you understood what I was trying to say, though, because I didn't say such a thing anywhere in that post. If we only have RGB cones, and magenta is "fake" because it's "only R+B" then why is yellow "real" even though it's "only R+G"? Why do we consider yellow a discrete color with its own wavelength when we only perceive it as R+G?

>>16121560
Not him but hard disagree. The brain "invents" all the colors. Cyan is no more real or fake than red.
You can already imagine your brain creating a color for you in response to many red cones having different signal strengths. Now imagine your brain creating a color in response to all the cones.
That's what you're always doing even when you see red. Red is just a case where blue and green are returning really low values. You're still processing all of them to return a color.

>>16121575
Disagree, Red, Green, and Blue are the most solid of the colors since they are the base primaries that our cones are built upon, Yellow, Cyan are less real but have measurable wavelengths somehow, Magenta is the most unreal

>>16121570
But there can't be a "yellow photon" without that photon traveling at a particular wavelength, right? So when you shine green light and red light at each other, they should interfere and alter the wavelength, right? Just like all waves interfere with each other. Why can't the same be said of magenta being a result of the interference between red and blue light?

>>16121573
I'm not saying magenta is fake. And why magenta schizopost, why not attack the 'color' black and white?

A bit of an iffy question but does Magenta emit higher energy than Green? It has the low energy of Red but is also boosted up by the high energy of Blue.

>>16121581
>And why magenta schizopost, why not attack the 'color' black and white?
Because magenta is the topic at hand, but I resent it being called schizoposting. I just think that the model is flawed and has weird contradictions that can't seem to be reconciled. Magenta, cyan, and yellow need to all be "fake" colors or all be "real" colors, it makes no sense for any one of them to be "fake" while the others are "real." Magenta can only be "fake" if red and blue light are incapable of interfering with each other to create new wavelengths, and yet yellow and cyan can only be "real" if such interference does happen normally.

>>16121578
they don't. if you need laser light for a certain experiment, with yellow wavelength, if you use red+green lasers mixed together you thing will fail. the energy of green + red photons together is higher than a single yellow photon's.

>>16120861
Yes, because red is defined by a certain wavelength that is measurable. What is termed "red" is already codified in our lexicon, it is society's name for the wavelength perceived. Red is red, if you don't see red then you have a mutation which isn't shared with the majority.

>>16121594
dude they don't fucking interfere to create a new thing. doesn't make energetic sense. you cannot exchange two red and blue photons for a yellow photon, that doesn't add up as energy levels.

>>16121599
>ou cannot exchange two red and blue photons for a yellow photon,
I mean red and green. red and blue don't have a single photon equivalent color, magenta has no "real" part, yellow and cyan do. even if also "fake"

>>16121576
There are wavelengths, they hit cones, stuff happens, then you imagine colors.
The colors are not the wavelengths, they are not your cones. They are an output of some neural function that reads an input from the cones that read wavelengths.
The function us a layer of abstraction - the light itself or the mechanisms of your eyes sont actually have anything to do with the color you see. Its an arbitrary mapping of physical signals to mental signals.
Consider that you can still see colors in your dreams when you're not physically seeing any correlated lights.

That's why red light isnt any more real than magenta light. Its not like red cones make red, and your brain makes magenta. No, your brain makes all the colors. The magenta thing is just a big misunderstanding of the original function.

>>16121599
>>16121601
I guess at this point we're running into the classic "is light a particle or a wave" problem. To me, it seems that if colors are defined by wavelengths then those waves should be able to interfere with each other, but the counterargument is that light is a particle and the photons as particles have colors that have nothing to do with waves or wavelengths. At this point I feel like it's just an impasse that can't be explained under current models.

>>16121568
>they have an ultimately unique signal
And you can arbitrarily assign any "colour" you want to those signals

>thanks for coming down to the station today, I understand this must be difficult for you
>yes, well you've been very brave so far. Listen, we have prepared a lineup of suspects.
>*He motions*
>The screen slowly lights up
>Alright mr Anon, if you would, please point out which of these suspects is fraudulent
>It's okay, take your time, they can't see us
>*He grins, chuckling under his breath*
>But you can see them, can't you?

>>16121608
our brains already did, yellow and cyan and magenta. at the cost of not telling yellow and cyan photons apart from the mixes for each. it's just a technicality which costs us very little, there's not much real world use in telling apart cyan from green and blue photons. evolution is cheap that way.

>>16121200

I have the reddest red, allah wills it.

>>16121608
>you can
ah and also no, you can't really. "it happened" that way, for reasons, but you can't assign at will. but we may be able to, with tech. and understanding the whole neuron magic recipes

>>16121625
>you can't really.
What do you think false colour imaging is, all electromagnetic waves are made of the same thing and are colourless, you're implying that a certain wavelength doesn't have a certain colour just because your limited brain perceives it differently, which brings us back to square one, because different organisms perceive sifferent wavelengths in different ways, according to some beings there is no such thing as yellow light, even though you would claim there is. If you want to see light in different colours, all you have to do is look at them differently, that's ultimately what it boils down to.

>>16121630
>you're implying that a certain wavelength doesn't have a certain colour just because your limited brain perceives it differently
think if we saw down in UV-C and up to green only, our brains wouldn't have used red for say green? wavelengths don't have colors, our brain uses colors for the wavelengths our eyes detect. some insect might see blue where our red is. until we decode the colors from neuron arrangement and firing pattern, or however colors are encoded.

also let's not forget violet, which is an even more retarded color. has both a photon and a mix of photons, just that the mix is blue + a bit of red. not equal parts. so can't be made out of just two photons, you need something like 5 blue and 1 red or whatever I just pulled it out of my ass.

>>16121568
>LLMs showed some associations between words and concepts
Damn.. you're onto something here. If LLMs can pass color blindness tests, and supposing that LLMs dont experience qualia as we do (they dont), then something is wrong in my argument.

>>16121642
>wavelengths don't have colors, our brain uses colors for the wavelengths our eyes detect
That's what I'm saying, it is erroneous to say that a certain colour of light doesn't exist, because any colour assigned to any wavelength of em radiation is completely subjective and arbitrary depending on what you use as your measuring stick, human perception doesn't see any specific wavelength as magenta, that doesn't mean any of those wavelengths can't be magenta

>>16121653
I take this statement back, it doesnt matter.
A colorblind person doesnt experience color-related qualia as I do, and doesn't experience the same color-to-color associations or emotions in response to color.
But they could go pixel by pixel in a digital image and tell you what the number in a colorblindness test is.
There's still a strong set of associations in perception of color that are unlikely to be carried over by pure chance from person to person - its easier to assume everyone just sees the same color.

>>16121659
clearly all the colors our brains shows us are real in the sense we can tell them apart. it just so happens that we can detect red green and blue and they have no mix of photons that will show them. these work more like measurement gear and less like human brain graphics. seem "most real" of colors. you get half fake colors, like yellow and cyan (and violet), and full fake colors, like magenta and white.

actually come to think of it, in a more practical sense, magenta is pretty fucking honest for being just a ghost. I mean think about it, there's no mistaking it for anything. magenta clearly means blue+red.
where yellow and cyan and violet can be lying pieces of shit.

>>16120861
Probably not.

>>16121669
I want you to close your eyes and imagine red.

>>16121669
All colours are "fake", there is no physical reason why your brain couldn't assign white colour to 532nm, in fact if you want to experience this just do acid, you can perceive all wavelengths as the exact same colour if you want to, because it's an arbitrary construct and has no physical basis

>>16121723
I kind of agree that we may be able to see new colors, if we get the extra info somehow. but I'm going off simple logic here, intuitively I clearly have no idea how that would work/look like. strange thing to think of a new color.
brain seems to be able to asign color to single wavelengths, two wavelengths, 3 wavelengths, and also an uneven mix of two. mf seems like it pull a lot of tricks. why not get a new color for some 20/40/40 mix of some wavelengths? does that come from ...need?

>>16121723
5 - police! That's a bad number
2 - sex
3 - fun

>>16121741
I don't think it comes down to extra information, rather the construct of the mind seemingly assigns certain qualities to objects based on some yet to be understood logic/mechanism, which can't be explained by any type of measurement or linguistic expression, I think a better question is where do these qualities come from and what mechanism dictates their appearance/behaviour.

>>16121787
>I don't think it comes down to extra information,
the brain clearly uses the information it gets. if some informational channel becomes useless it goes away. so new information could "force" things.
now for a more serious question, what would cyan + yellow (true) light look like? white? since it tickles all three receptors? imagine how retarded that is. white with two wavelengths.

>>16121817
>the brain clearly uses the information it gets
Yes, but the output of specific colour doesn't seem to be inherently tied or related to it, why is one "red" and another "blue" has no apparent logic behind it, so it's not like you couldn't perceive these as any other outlandish colour
>what would cyan + yellow (true) light look like? white?
No, green, the cmyk system is just the inverse of rgb

>>16121820
>green
that's the thing, it is for paint, but don't think it is for light. you shouldn't get any primary color by a mix of other photons, RGB should have no combinations of other photons.

>>16121824 me
or it may look like some white light + some green? green receptors would be stimulated by both cyan and yellow

>>16121824
>you shouldn't get any primary color by a mix of other photons
But all wavelengths are divisible, everything is a composite of something

I think cyan+yellow photons should look like some washed out green light, or like white + green, because green cones would be excited by both cyan and yellow.
but moving cyan lower towards green and yellow towards orange theoretically you would get white light when all three receptors are equally stimulated. which would mean white light with only two wavelengths. that would be interesting.
can anyone knowing his lasers chime in on this? am I retarded?

>>16121966
>but moving cyan lower towards green and yellow towards orange
I meant moving cyan lower towards blue

I used green half as much as the other color, and got picrel. closest wavelengths would be 461nm and 617nm.
would two leds/lasers of those wavelengths(ish) make "fake white" light?

>>16120861
yes

>>16121525
>>16121233
oh boy its psued hour
>>16121345
gimme 5 minutes to rig up my spectrometer so I can utterly shit on this guy because I can assure you magenta actually does exist on the spectrum, faggot mcgees pictures are just hilariously misleading

>>16122077
What's its wavelength then?

>>16121525
look at this dumb chart, and then look at a real specturm

UV is pink, its magenta and literally not a dark retarded purple, its literally adjacent to purple, hence why it exists at all and its always in combination with cyan and yellow.

the world has more options than RGB, expand your mind and stop watching faggot youtubers

>>16122087
humans can't see UV light, and when we see pink it's not UV wavelengths....there's no single wavelength of light humans can see as pink....

>>16122087
>UV is pink, its magenta and literally not a dark retarded purple
I played enough with 405nm lasers to know you are full of shit. it's exactly violet not magenta.
I also have blue and red lasers, they make a nice magenta, which is so fucking different to 405nm violet.

That's how it works, it's not that hard to understand, autistic retards.

>>16122173
>That's how it works
for the human vision gamut*

is it valid to call yellow the anti-blue color, magenta the anti-green color, and cyan the anti-red color?

>>16122188
Yea they are basically the bane of those colors (they absorb them)

>>16120861
Subjective experience does not exist as part of the external physical world. As such asking such questions is meaningless since we can only meaningfully talk about things that exist in the external reality we all share.

>>16122271
>Subjective experience does not exist as part of the external physical world
Then you wouldn't exist, as you are part of the external physical world

>>16122274
My brain exists as part of the physical world. But nowhere inside my brain will you find redness, or any other subjective experience. And note, a physical brain state representing the experience of redness, is not the same as the actual experience of redness.

>>16122233

>>16122282
>nowhere inside my brain will you find redness, or any other subjective experience
Subjective experience is an attribute of reality, your body is merely a means to induce it

>>16120993
>But I did eat breakfast
Holy shit, man.

>>16122282
>But nowhere inside my brain will you find redness
what ze fuck does this mean tho? why are you clinging to this shit phrase, what exactly are you protecting anon?