[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 855 B, 250x250, magenta.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4288641 No.4288641 [Reply] [Original]

A question occurred to me: when did magenta evolve?

When did humans begin to see magenta? Was it primarily an evolution of the brain or an evolution of the eye? What sort of abstract reasoning was required to conceive of it? Do other animals see it?

In case anyone's wondering what I'm talking about, magenta-- as in true magenta, not pink, which is light red-- does not correspond to a portion of the visible light spectrum like other colors do. Instead, in so far as I understand it, the color is actually an amalgam of other frequencies of light which the brain perceives as this color that exists between violet and red. Of course there is no such frequency of light, since light is a spectrum and not a wheel. For more information, consult your local Wikipedia.

>> No.4288717

Magenta is just light purple. If magenta light frequency doesn't exist, how is magenta light coming out of the surface of my computer screen?

>> No.4288728

>>4288717
It isn't. It's 50% blue and 50% red.

>> No.4288737

>>4288728

uh that makes purple dude, take an art class

>> No.4288743

Well this is as ludicrous as saying that our brain interprets colors differently and we all see different colors but simply label them the same thing. So when I see what you call blue, I would essentially be seeing what you call red, but we don't know that.. You're crazy op.

>> No.4288748

>>4288737
Look up HSV, RGB, and any other color models, then reread this thread.

>> No.4288769

>>4288748

why dont you just summarize it for me?

According to OP's logic yellow doesn't exist because it's a mix of green and red and cyan doesn't exist either

>> No.4288775

>>4288769
I was just going to link to the Wikipedia article on magenta but it turns out they don't even try to explain it, disappointingly. I can't think where I've seen it explained well before. For lack of anything else, have a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magenta#On_the_color_wheel

>> No.4288777

ITT people answering who don't know enough about the question to answer

>> No.4288779

Some people can see parts of the UV spectrum or IR spectrum, what's the big deal?

>> No.4288790

>>4288777
>ITT people answering who don't know enough about the question to answer
LOL. Welcome to /sci/. That's every thread.

>> No.4288808
File: 29 KB, 512x384, 1270983487861.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4288808

>>4288790

>> No.4288818

>>4288743
No, that's just pointless sophistry.
We avoid that discussion because it has no end and gets us nowhere.

>>4288748
it is one one of the color models, it isn't in another -- let it go, or just learn to specify whether you mean additive or not.
you were the wrong one for not specifying.

OP, our eyes are more sensitive to variations of some colors than others -- is that the direction you meant to ask about?
(because, obviously, asking about continuity between values on a continuous spectrum is just silly)

>> No.4288828

>>4288818
I think I made my questions pretty clear. Magenta is exceptional, as colors go, and I want to know if its perception correlates with an advanced degree of brain or eye development.

>> No.4288834

I'll just leave this here: http://www.biotele.com/magenta.html

>> No.4289144

/sci/ I am disappoint

>> No.4289174

>>4288834
Pretty much answers everything, actually. No joke. Good work /sci/, I'm proud of you.

>> No.4289195

OP, you're operating under the false assumption that the other colors are "real" in some way that magenta is not. ALL colors are artifacts of biology. We have three types of color receptors, with peak sensitivities at different wavelengths. Color is not wavelength but the ratio of stimulation between these receptors. That's why we can't distinguish between "green" light and a mixture of blue and yellow - because both situations result in the same ratio, and the ratio is what green really is.

Magenta is also just a ratio. It so happens that it's impossible to get this ratio from a single wavelength of light, but you pretty much never see a singly wavelength anyway, unless you look at lasers or something.

>> No.4289192

>>4289174
Actually that doesn't answer ANYTHING about the question I posed in the original post. And I'm the one that made the post you're quoting, after googling for it in exasperation over the ignorance of the other posters in this thread.

>> No.4289215

>>4289195
So you're saying that any eye capable of perceiving color should be able to perceive magenta? Because I don't think that's true. If you read the article linked earlier in this thread, the author asserts that the brain could simply pick green as a midway point between the two colors instead of inventing a new one. And I suspect that in an animal with a simpler optical cortex, it would do exactly that. Magenta IS exceptional as colors go, whether or not you want to call it "not real."

>> No.4290734

>>4289215
No more exceptional than any other colour that's made up of a mixture of other wavelengths, such as brown.

>> No.4290759

>>4290734

NOPE. Read the article. Brown can be produced by single wavelenght. Only magenta cannot be produced by single wavelenght. All other colors can.

>> No.4290768

>>4290759
None of the articles linked to in this thread suggest that brown can be produced by a single wavelength.

>> No.4290781

>>4290768
>>4290768

Dark 600 nm light = brown

>> No.4290795

>>4290781
>Dark light

Brown isn't produced by a single wavelength, it's produced by a single wavelength and this 'Darkness' property.