MOAR of these!

[Anonymous No.5860532]

This bothers me /sci/. Try to describe color without using its name. Like describe red to a blind man

[Anonymous No.5860540]

Or what does water taste like? sweet? sour? bitter?

[Anonymous No.5860537]

Or try naming a color that doesnt exist

[Anonymous No.5860543]

It is something you will never be able to enjoy. Weep from your useless eyes.

[Anonymous No.5860546]

Or what does red sound like?

[Anonymous No.5860550]

>>5860543
Sadly, they have no idea what they missing out.
http://www.you tube.com/watch?v=59YN8_lg6-U

[Anonymous No.5860548]

It's time to put down the weed or stop posting.

[Anonymous No.5860553]

Or try training your dog to bring you your red hat or their orange chew toy. They cant see those colors

[Anonymous No.5860560]

Or describing what water "feels" like. Is it hard? Gooey? Sticky? Spiky? Rough? Lumpy?

[Anonymous No.5860584]

Red is often associated with heat, passion, violence, etc.
That's the best way. Also, naming some things that have that color will let them make their own associations.

[Anonymous No.5860594]

>>5860548
Im not high. These things just amaze me how complicated they get to explain

[Anonymous No.5860596]

>>5860546
Longer wave length so most likely deeper than blue

[Anonymous No.5860607]

>>5860584
> passion, violence
lol ok mr.blindman, hear is what red looks like. When you make love or "passion" to your wife its red AND also when you hear the news about violence its ALL red. LOL

[Anonymous No.5860627]

There are two types of receptors in the human eye, rods and cones. The rods are more broadband, sensing light from about 420nm to about 650nm. The cones come in three types and . . .
And that, children, is how humans distinguish different wavelength bands of light.

[Anonymous No.5860637]

There are these things called photons. They have higher or lower energy. A particular range is detectable, meaning causes a sensory reaction, with the human visual system. Red is a translation of these photons into information that the brain can process. It, like other information in the brain, gets tied to meaning through myriad neuro-structures. But you didn't ask about the brain, so the explanation ends there.

NIGGER.

[Anonymous No.5860648]

>>5860637
NIGGER.
Ok niggger now explain why i can staple a quart of water to a GODDAM tree!?
NIGGER.

[Anonymous No.5860652]

relate the colors to general emotions or feelings. Red i.e. hot. Blue becomes wet, etc.

[Anonymous No.5860665]

Or what does air taste like?

[Anonymous No.5860673]

Or try touching the suns rays

[Anonymous No.5860682]

You fail to realize this is a limitation of language and not an issue of qualia.

Language isn't a perfect medium of communication, why can't anyone understand that.

[Anonymous No.5860688]

>>5860532
well mr. blind man, it's the color of blood, it has is and has been used extensively to show dominance, power and sexuality. It is also used extensively on street signs because it draws attention to it...
this color not only carries a mood but is also used as signal color in daily life....

[Anonymous No.5860694]

>red

700nm. There, done.

[Anonymous No.5860698]

I am color blind.
I have been judging others playing this game all my life.
I know colors by reputation, by how it affects you people emotionally.
Talking about wavelength is dumb; when you see red you don't see experience photons you experience passion and anger.
It's a question for /lit/, not /sci/.
To do it well you need poets, not asspies.

[Anonymous No.5860714]

>>5860698
>>I know colors by reputation, by how it affects you people emotionally.

don't forget that you can only define something by other terms/terms you already know

if you want a description of color in color terms, then it is only accessible if you know colors..

[Anonymous No.5860721]

>>5860682
Then lets settle then right NOW. If a blind man ask me to explain red, I would say, you see this fire? Come close and touch it. This IS how red looks like

[Anonymous No.5860729]

hue, saturation, luminance.

open up photoshop and you'll find more than one way to describe colors numerically.

[Anonymous No.5860737]

>>5860729
plus if you need to describe two or more colors you can simply specify their differences in percentages.

orange is less saturated then red. orange has more luminance than red. orange is 10º in difference to red.

you could even translate all these values to sound frequencies to experience the difference non-mathematically,

[Anonymous No.5860747]

>>5860721
And if someone wants to know what water taste like, we'll have to make up a new word for the taste of water, we'll called it "unsweetbitter" Its the opposite of sweet and bitter all in one word. Come on /sci/ wright this down, a genius is at work

[Anonymous No.5860755]

>>5860737
that still doesnt explain how to explain the colors to a colorblind person. if he cant see orange in the first place. 10º to what? black or white is all he/she sees. well only if he/she monochromacy not dichromacy, and anomalous trichromacy.

[Anonymous No.5860766]

>>5860747
You're still using words, which is still language.

[Anonymous No.5860782]

>>5860766
Yea, I know, but ive cum to the conclusion that the english language is stilling growing and it needs new words to explain these phenomenal situations

[Anonymous No.5860796]

>>5860755
oops. a degree of difference marks the hue of one color to another.

my point still stands. when multiple values of any one color are read (hue, saturation, luminance) they can be experienced in the same way a blind person can learn the range of silt, sand, pebbles, and rocks... a sea of qualities just need to be groked in unison. numbers can be converted to any other sense a person understands.

the names of colors are really just a shorthand and imply someone understands at least one other color on top of the primary subject.

colors can't be explained without many varied samples of their true identity, which has already been explained.

[Anonymous No.5860797]

>>5860782
It will never be good enough. We need to make an entirely new type of communication, like virtual wormholes between the virtual realities in peoples' minds.

[Anonymous No.5860809]

>>5860682
You're pointing fingers at language; But really, all forms of logic and notation has limited expressive power. You can only convey properties in terms of properties the recipient already understands, is already familiar with.

I would relate it to things that are traditionally red: Blood, fresh meat, strawberries, heat, rust, sand.

Which doesn't really tell you what colour is, but what is commonly associated with it. But that you already know: There's some property of surfaces that cannot be felt by touch but only seen by the seeing. That much is trivial, and the rest is physics.

[Anonymous No.5860820]

Best I can do is say color is to sight what pitch is to sound. Not absolute pitch, but musical pitch (C D E F G A B) -- it doesn't just go from high to low, it wraps around

[Anonymous No.5860833]

>>5860532
Light which activates the long wavelength cone cells in the human eye. 650 nanometer if the light is a single wavelength. The color of iron rust, thus blood, thus war and passion.

>>5860537
The color of light with the wavelength of a millionth of a planck length.

>>5860540
Pure water has no taste.

>>5860546
I don't know, but it depends on what absorbs the light, and how it lands on what surface, etc. When it's absorbed, its momentum is imparted on phonons - sound quanta - so it should produce a true sound.

>>5860560
Wet and flowy.

>>5860665
Depends on the context. Often not at all.

>>5860673
If you're in them, that's what you're doing.

>>5860698
Check your privilege.

Or, more extensively, "passion and war and heat" is a useful association if you're looking at art, but it's utterly useless when you want to explain a photographer's dark room or any physical phonomenon involving the color red. It may "speak to you more", but only because you're interested more in social interaction than in understanding the world around you. To call the latter aspergers is retarded.

[Anonymous No.5860836]

>>5860537
Gred

[Anonymous No.5860845]

An electrical engineer could build a simple amplifier to boast the value of a color video signal into something you can feel... though it would take some getting used to the many buzzing feels.

[Anonymous No.5860896]

>>5860833
I never considered my two-bit disability privilege but it does uniquely qualify me to be in this conversation.
Naturally, over the years I have had many different types of people ask me and tell me about color. The ones who paint a picture with emotion offer some enlightenment. The opposite kind like my own engineer father think they can cure my rods and cones by explaining things or just don't believe it's real or something.
Look, I hang here more than any other board but on this subject somehow sciency types are uniformly annoyingly stupid.

[Anonymous No.5860898]

>>5860896
>>5860584

Red isn't intrinsically tied to any emotion, though. Maybe red feels hot because hot things tend to glow red, and violent because blood is red. These associations still won't mean anything to a blind person.

[Anonymous No.5860921]

>>5860898

>confirmed for never dropping lsd

[Anonymous No.5860928]

>>5860898

Well it's not that red per say has some metaphysical value of "FEAR VIOLENCE". It just happens that in our evolutionary development, reacting to red colors with anxiety, fear, and avoidance had a usage value superior to running to them with open arms.

>>5860921
And yeah, taking psychedelics does open you up to generally dulled emotions.

[Anonymous No.5860930]

This bothers me /sci/. Try to describe magnetism without using its name. Like describe north to a man without magnetoception.

[Anonymous No.5860933]

Op, describe a coordinate without using an axis., justcribe a system without using any axis, contrive a realism without a subjective, dilute a subjective without using a boundry describe a directio n"; as a correlation.

Again

Formulate a rejection without a want, give length to something that's infinite, try a drug without a reaction, give roundness to something that is sharp; shed a tear. As there is nothing more sharp.

[Anonymous No.5860938]

>>5860896
The privilege is your blind certainty that humanity is better than objectivity - your impression that it's objectively more enlightening to learn about the color of anger and passion than about the color of rust, low angular deflection, weak photo-electric effects and supergiant stars. It's not your position as a colorblind person which makes your arrogance, it's your certainty as an emotion and qualia obsessed human that what you experience is all that is worth knowing.

There is nothing in a 650 nm photon which prescribes anger. It is anger which is red, not red which is anger. Our description is testable, applicable to you as a person (you can scan for 650nm photons wheb you're colorblind. You can't scan for photons which stimulate anger or passion), objective and universal, and *we're* the ones who are limited in scope? There is not an organism in the universe which could not immediately understand 650nm photons, or the weighted integrand given by L-type cones.

[Anonymous No.5860950]

>>5860928
You forgot lust. Red light districts, the red cocks of combs, red makeup on cheeks, etc.

A red face implies heat, shame, anger, lust, or more generally activity of the sympathetic nervous system.

Also, I've never felt anxiety or fear at the color red. I don't avoid it, and from its use in the animal kingdom, it appears most animals do not avoid it either.

[Anonymous No.5860979]

>>5860782
You know jack shit about language.

[Anonymous No.5861014]

>>5860933
Again

I am describing a society an individual a construct unrestrained in shackles that it simply enjoys jingling an essence of identity of the likes of script that could not be contested in its variety of nature and when seen as with another do they simply contrive eachother to be at contrite odds of consistant negotiation by no standard of any superior, a delapitation of nonidenticate progress by the means of simply means alone and we regularily look to compare ourselves, not to, but as such. Disjointed to a point of nondisclosure with dilusions of being grey, naivities of worship of identities they could not be fathomed by any length set or group of words, sections of endearment so lavishly accused of being consistant that they are given their own standard, something away from worship and fear, things guilding themselves on horizons of which we prefer blindness to in the means of prefering the fact of a diluded individuality of overly grossed self worth of our own perception of them, of uncared nature of being simply by the fact that they are being... they speak.

Again

They are things that break all valves, they apply to the ends of meeting no seal and by a standard of observation constantly demand more, but that standard is on of embraced movement, that they imply a respect of themselves that they portray that they might be other and extend a flex of neccessity that the means of their existance is not so mcuh as it is portrayed as much as it is the standard of negotiation; now this is merely but the point of where they are... they are close.

One more just because the Colbert pic gave me a chuckle along side the post.

What is a song mid air? How does a fragment have a nature?