Where do colors come from

[GAL]

From The Fourth Dimension by Rudolph Steiner.

"How do we acquire knowledge about objects through our senses? We see a color, without eyes we would not perceive it. Physicists tell us that what is out there in space is not a color but purely spatial movement patterns that enter the eye and are then picked up by the visual nerve and conveyed to the brain, where the perception of the color red, for example, comes about. Next we may wonder whether the color red is present when the sensation is not.

We could not percive red if we had no eyes or the sound of bells ringing if we had no ears. All of our sensations deepend on movement patterns that are transformed by our psycho-physical apparatus. The issue becomes even more complicated, however, when we ask where that unique quality "red" is located- is it on the object we perceive, or is it a vibrational process ? A set of movements that originates outside us enters the eye and continues into the brain itself. Wherever you look, you find vibrational processes and nerve processes, but not the color red. You also will not find it by studying the eye itself. It is neither outside us or in the brain. Red exists only when we ourselves as subject, intercept these movements".

O.K. so this is pretty similar to the "if a tree falls and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?" debate but is it that simple?

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
From The Fourth Dimension by Rudolph Steiner.

"How do we acquire knowledge about objects through our senses? We see a color, without eyes we would not perceive it. Physicists tell us that what is out there in space is not a color but purely spatial movement patterns that enter the eye and are then picked up by the visual nerve and conveyed to the brain, where the perception of the color red, for example, comes about. Next we may wonder whether the color red is present when the sensation is not.

We could not percive red if we had no eyes or the sound of bells ringing if we had no ears. All of our sensations deepend on movement patterns that are transformed by our psycho-physical apparatus. The issue becomes even more complicated, however, when we ask where that unique quality "red" is located- is it on the object we perceive, or is it a vibrational process ? A set of movements that originates outside us enters the eye and continues into the brain itself. Wherever you look, you find vibrational processes and nerve processes, but not the color red. You also will not find it by studying the eye itself. It is neither outside us or in the brain. Red exists only when we ourselves as subject, intercept these movements".

O.K. so this is pretty similar to the "if a tree falls and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?" debate but is it that simple?

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I missing something here, the color red exists in physics, right? The wavelength of the light.

The interesting question is what if what you see as red, i see see as blue, but since we were both taught it's "red", how will we ever know?

[GAL]

I've already thought about that exact same scenario. As we can describe the color to each other I'm pretty sure we see the same color.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From The Fourth Dimension by Rudolph Steiner.

"How do we acquire knowledge about objects through our senses? We see a color, without eyes we would not perceive it. Physicists tell us that what is out there in space is not a color but purely spatial movement patterns that enter the eye and are then picked up by the visual nerve and conveyed to the brain, where the perception of the color red, for example, comes about. Next we may wonder whether the color red is present when the sensation is not.

We could not percive red if we had no eyes or the sound of bells ringing if we had no ears. All of our sensations deepend on movement patterns that are transformed by our psycho-physical apparatus. The issue becomes even more complicated, however, when we ask where that unique quality "red" is located- is it on the object we perceive, or is it a vibrational process ? A set of movements that originates outside us enters the eye and continues into the brain itself. Wherever you look, you find vibrational processes and nerve processes, but not the color red. You also will not find it by studying the eye itself. It is neither outside us or in the brain. Red exists only when we ourselves as subject, intercept these movements".

O.K. so this is pretty similar to the "if a tree falls and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?" debate but is it that simple?

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I missing something here, the color red exists in physics, right? The wavelength of the light.

The interesting question is what if what you see as red, i see see as blue, but since we were both taught it's "red", how will we ever know?

[/ QUOTE ]
There is no red in physics. Nothing in physics says anything about colour.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I've already thought about that exact same scenario. As we can describe the color to each other I'm pretty sure we see the same color.

[/ QUOTE ]
How on earth can you describe the colour to each other???

maybe this color thing isn't just a mispelling of colour.

chez

[soko]

I don't know about you guys but I see via the microwavelength spectrum where colors range from quantaqualia to silagrandose

[carlo]

Think there is some possibility for misunderstanding here. Steiner is not saying this is his idea of color but the logical outcome of modern scientific/philosophical thought where it might try to find the source of color. It isn't clear to me -is some of the paragraph left out? Page ,please in "The Fourth Dimension".

A better approach to color would be his oft repeated statement of Goethe "Colors are the deeds and sufferings of light".

The second paragraph is confusing and seems to be his presentation of the logical outcome of Kantian thinking,e.g. "is it possible to know the "thing in itself?"".

carlo

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">The interesting question is what if what you see as red, i see see as blue, but since we were both taught it's "red", how will we ever know? </font>

Exactly!

[FortunaMaximus]

Consensual hallucinations?

It took me awhile to swallow the explanation of how they diagnosed color-blindness.

I mean, someone grows up, gets told something's green, he figures it's green when it's blue to him. So forth. Turned out to be much more disappointing than that. LOL

[DougShrapnel]

Darkness and Brightness? Clearly, we could not have "White" and "Black" mixed up? The rest of the colors should follow in a similar vein.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no red in physics. Nothing in physics says anything about colour.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

True, we know it isn't in any wavelength because we can see colour where no change in wavelength has occured, etc. Since we paint it in from within, the source may not relate to the perception at all in any given situation.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Darkness and Brightness? Clearly, we could not have "White" and "Black" mixed up? The rest of the colors should follow in a similar vein.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't see how that helps.

If I tell you how bright someting I'm looking at is, can you tell me which colour it is?

I think brightness is just to do with how many photons and maybe how coherent they are (depends what you mean by brightness).

chez

[LadyWrestler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From The Fourth Dimension by Rudolph Steiner.

"How do we acquire knowledge about objects through our senses? We see a color, without eyes we would not perceive it. Physicists tell us that what is out there in space is not a color but purely spatial movement patterns that enter the eye and are then picked up by the visual nerve and conveyed to the brain, where the perception of the color red, for example, comes about. Next we may wonder whether the color red is present when the sensation is not.

We could not percive red if we had no eyes or the sound of bells ringing if we had no ears. All of our sensations deepend on movement patterns that are transformed by our psycho-physical apparatus. The issue becomes even more complicated, however, when we ask where that unique quality "red" is located- is it on the object we perceive, or is it a vibrational process ? A set of movements that originates outside us enters the eye and continues into the brain itself. Wherever you look, you find vibrational processes and nerve processes, but not the color red. You also will not find it by studying the eye itself. It is neither outside us or in the brain. Red exists only when we ourselves as subject, intercept these movements".

O.K. so this is pretty similar to the "if a tree falls and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?" debate but is it that simple?

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I missing something here, the color red exists in physics, right? The wavelength of the light.

The interesting question is what if what you see as red, i see see as blue, but since we were both taught it's "red", how will we ever know?

[/ QUOTE ]

And when people have red - green color blindness, do they see red as green, green as red, or both as something else?

[FortunaMaximus]

Wiki - Color Blindness/Self-diagnostic test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness)

Wow. Good question. Apparently the correct answer = it depends.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
If I tell you how bright someting I'm looking at is, can you tell me which colour it is?


[/ QUOTE ] I could at a minimum narrow it done to 3 colors, using RGB values. I am assuming that it would be possible to describe a color as it's distance form white on a single scale.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I tell you how bright someting I'm looking at is, can you tell me which colour it is?


[/ QUOTE ] I could at a minimum narrow it done to 3 colors, using RGB values. I am assuming that it would be possible to describe a color as it's distance form white on a single scale.

[/ QUOTE ]
Distance from white would just be a measure of coherence. the more coherent the light the less white it is - not going to tell you anything about colour.

chez