Metaphysics of Color

It is delightful when one encounters a new and deeply interesting aspect of something common. I have just encountered the following, although I was aquainted with additive and substractive aspects of color, which I was exploring at the time.

As I read this I began to see alignments with some metaphysical abstractions, particularly, but not only, in relation to the varieties of inner perceptions and experiencing of the "colors" of varying philosophies, religions and spiritual understandings.

I will refrain from expanding too much at present, (there is actually a lot of "connections I see), but wondering if anyone else sees something here and would care to reflect on?

One point for me that arises is the nature of the "real" mentioned in the final quoted statement. It apparently means the "actual" colors we use. But there is also a whole discussion in metaphysical philosophy as what is 'real'. I ask myself which are the 'real' primary colors? The ones that produce the limited set or the unseen ones that produce all derivative colors?
Fascinating.

>>>
"Many historical "color theorists" have assumed that three "pure" primary colors can mix all possible colors, and that any failure of specific paints or inks to match this ideal performance is due to the impurity or imperfection of the colorants.

In reality, only imaginary "primary colors" used in colorimetry can "mix" or quantify all visible (perceptually possible) colors; but to do this, these imaginary primaries are defined as lying outside the range of visible colors; i.e., they cannot be seen.

Any three real "primary" colors of light, paint or ink can mix only a limited range of colors, called a gamut, which is always smaller (contains fewer colors) than the full range of colors humans can perceive."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_theory
(Paragraphing inserted)

Originally posted by Taoman
It is delightful when one encounters a new and deeply interesting aspect of something common. I have just encountered the following, although I was aquainted with additive and substractive aspects of color, which I was exploring at the time.

As I read this I began to see alignments with some metaphysical abstractions, particularly, but not only, in relatio ...[text shortened]... ource: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_theory
(Paragraphing inserted)

Here is a short blurb on an article I read in Scientific American a long time ago:

Land's 2 color process.

http://www.greatreality.com/Color2Color.htm

It must be noted that when mixing colours, what we are talking about is not a physical phenomenon of two colours resulting in a new one, but rather all about how the human eye interprets combinations of wave lengths. The Human eye has three sensors each of which detect a range of wavelengths and work together to report a final 'colour' to the brain.

Colour, the brain and the importance of language, excerpt from a very nice BBC documentary about colour "Do you see what I see?":
YouTube

Originally posted by sonhouse
Here is a short blurb on an article I read in Scientific American a long time ago:

Land's 2 color process.

http://www.greatreality.com/Color2Color.htm

It closes with,

"We still have more questions than answers". Yep.

The plot thickens. Not sure what t means but its another new bit to me.
Thanks.

Originally posted by Palynka
Colour, the brain and the importance of language, excerpt from a very nice BBC documentary about colour "Do you see what I see?":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg3YJr84azQ

This reminds me of some early encounter of explorers with indigenous people who were first encountering sailing ships (can't remmeber where but may have been here in Australia). The explorers were pointing out sailing ships on the horizon, clearly visible, but the indigenous people could not distinguish anything, for a considerable time. They saw some difficult to see "birds" in the distance.
Not directly related to color per se, but, like your link, underlines to me something of the way in which we may expereince our "reality" can be strongly be influenced by our culture, developed expectations and language.
This extends I expect well beyond color and its perception.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It must be noted that when mixing colours, what we are talking about is not a physical phenomenon of two colours resulting in a new one, but rather all about how the human eye interprets combinations of wave lengths. The Human eye has three sensors each of which detect a range of wavelengths and work together to report a final 'colour' to the brain.

Yes, color is actually a construct of the mind interpreting frequencies.
What a tree is in itself is real enough, but ultimately there is no way for us to know it except through our data reconstructng brains. What we see and experience in all our senses are mental reconstructions of, at base, frequency data conveyed by our cellular sensors.

Color is not inherent in grass and leaves in themselves but something arsisng from our mental interaction with what is "out there". The basis of green arising in our mind is there in the leaves, but not the color green itself.

How far does this go? We touch and feel the leaf. The touch also is a mental reconstruction of sensations of pressure and other sensors in our skin. This appears less complex than color perception and more direct, but different people have different experiences of touch/pain sensation also. Again frequency based in transmission to the brain.

To me this means allowing for blurred edges of our compared "realities".

Originally posted by Taoman
This reminds me of some early encounter of explorers with indigenous people who were first encountering sailing ships (can't remmeber where but may have been here in Australia). The explorers were pointing out sailing ships on the horizon, clearly visible, but the indigenous people could not distinguish anything, for a considerable time. They saw some diffic ...[text shortened]... ed expectations and language.
This extends I expect well beyond color and its perception.

It's incredibly how much of information our brain uses to interpret visual input. Anyone has experience something like you mention in one form or another. It's like it's much easier to "read" a written sign that is far away when you know what's written there. The brain simply reconstructs around what we would expect making us see farther away.

I was still shocked at how different the colors seem to me. Intuitively, I find it easier to accept the boats/text example than a color that is so close that little reconstructing "seems" (feels?) required intuitively. And yet...

Originally posted by Taoman
Color is not inherent in grass and leaves in themselves but something arsisng from our mental interaction with what is "out there". The basis of green arising in our mind is there in the leaves, but not the color green itself.

But we often confuse the difference between what we perceive, and what is actually being radiated or reflected by an object. For example, when we see purple, it may be that light in the purple wavelength is entering our eye, but it could also mean that a combination of other wavelengths is entering our eye. Our eye is not able to differentiate. It only has three sensors and reports back on how much each sensor is stimulated. A colour-blind person has only two sensors (or less) and sees something different. The primary colors are different for a colour-blind person who only needs two primary colours to make up the rainbow. Some birds have four color sensors and thus can differentiate more than we can and also need four primary colours in their paint set (and on their monitors).
....reading Wikipedia....
And now I have found out that "Papilio butterflies possess six types of photoreceptors and may have pentachromatic vision".

Good thread.

Vision is such a profound sense; the eye is actually an extension of the brain and it is true that the outside world is not as we "see" it - it's as we perceive it.

Originally posted by Taoman
Yes, color is actually a construct of the mind interpreting frequencies.
What a tree is in itself is real enough, but ultimately there is no way for us to know it except through our data reconstructng brains. What we see and experience in all our senses are mental reconstructions of, at base, frequency data conveyed by our cellular sensors.

Color is not ...[text shortened]... on to the brain.

To me this means allowing for blurred edges of our compared "realities".

Don't we have a wonderfully creative God to have given us these senses?
It is a shame some people have lost their sense to determine color.
I guess the evolutionists would have to say they have just not evolved
their color sensors yet.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Don't we have a wonderfully creative God to have given us these senses?
It is a shame some people have lost their sense to determine color.
I guess the evolutionists would have to say they have just not evolved
their color sensors yet.

No, some genetic or environmental problem causes less cones and rods and they end up not seeing colors or restricted colors.

The army loves color blind people, it turns out they compensate for the lack of color by being able to discriminate shades of gray a whole lot better than normal people.

They use this ability to spot camouflage in an enemy position that can't be seen by people with color vision. The sensitivity to shades of gray makes camo stick out like a sore thumb to the color blind.

Originally posted by sonhouse
No, some genetic or environmental problem causes less cones and rods and they end up not seeing colors or restricted colors.

The army loves color blind people, it turns out they compensate for the lack of color by being able to discriminate shades of gray a whole lot better than normal people.

They use this ability to spot camouflage in an enemy posi ...[text shortened]... . The sensitivity to shades of gray makes camo stick out like a sore thumb to the color blind.

Practically everything else the evolutionist does explain it in a way that
supports evolution even though it is easier to lose old information than
gain new information. On another thread I was given a link to a site
on the evolution of a woodpecker. They saw the woodpecker that was
pecking on the ground for his food as one that had not evolved enough
to peck in trees for his food. The creationist would see it as a woodpecker
that had lost information that made him unable to peck in trees for his
food. A difference in viewpoints.

Originally posted by Taoman
Yes, color is actually a construct of the mind interpreting frequencies.
What a tree is in itself is real enough, but ultimately there is no way for us to know it except through our data reconstructng brains. What we see and experience in all our senses are mental reconstructions of, at base, frequency data conveyed by our cellular sensors.

Color is not ...[text shortened]... on to the brain.

To me this means allowing for blurred edges of our compared "realities".

twhithead says that the colour sensors report to the 'Brain' whereas you say that 'Mind' is involved. The scientists deny the existence of 'Mind'. Philosophers affirm otherwise. There seems to be no meeting ground between the two.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
The scientists deny the existence of 'Mind'.

Scientists do not deny the existence of the 'Mind'.
There is even a magazine called "Scientific American MIND" that has scientific articles about the Mind.