Spectra is shorthand for "spectral distributions", and refers to the distributions of intensities of light as a function of frequency across a band of frequencies. Color refers to a component of vision. Colors are distinct from spectra in that vision is not capable of measuring spectra in any animal's vision; for any animal capable of color vision, there will always be "metamers"... distinct spectra that map to the same color.Spectra and colors...
What's the difference? — creativesoul
Then why tell me?Critically speaking, you're committing a few fallacies, but I do not want to focus upon that. — creativesoul
Sorry, but no.Is this close to being in line with what you're saying?
No, the term does not have a "range of frequencies" that it picks out; it has a "set of spectra" (an "equivalence class of spectra" if you will). Suppose your monitor's RGB components were monochromatic... and R emitted at 700nm, G at 545nm, and B at 435nm. Suppose also that you have a 570nm LED; when lit, that LED would emit light that you would see as yellow. You could also produce that same color (close enough) using your RGB monitor. But when you look at at your RGB monitor, you are not seeing 570nm light; you are seeing light composed of 700nm photons and 545nm photons. Photon frequencies never blend; a photon at a frequency is a photon at that frequency from the time it's emitted to the time it's absorbed, regardless of what other photons are present (for the same reason, you don't get an AM radio station at 570 kHz by putting up a tower at 545kHz and another at 700kHz).how you've arrived at the notion that no other animals can distinguish the spectra that we call "red" regardless of the vagueness and/or lack of precision that that term carries along with it. The term does have a corresponding range of frequencies that it picks out.
Critically speaking, you're committing a few fallacies, but I do not want to focus upon that.
— creativesoul
Then why tell me? — InPitzotl
...for any animal capable of color vision, there will always be "metamers"... distinct spectra that map to the same color. — InPitzotl
You're explicitly being evasive; okay.It may become relevant. — creativesoul
No. I'm saying that no other animal perceives the set spectra that we call "red" as the same color.Are you saying that no other animal perceives any of the sets of spectra that we call "red"?
I'm saying that no other animal perceives the equivalance class of spectra that we call "red" as the same color. — InPitzotl
It may become relevant.
— creativesoul
You're explicitly being evasive; okay. — InPitzotl
Can they perceive the class of spectra? — creativesoul
...no other animal perceives the set spectra that we call "red" as the same color. — InPitzotl
Why would it? Aren't we supposed to be talking about what colors are? If RG and Y are both yellow, they're both yellow.I'm wondering if it makes any sense to drop off the "as the same color" portion. — creativesoul
You need not go to other animals; deuteranopes (that mode of red/green colorblind) can see the class of spectra that we call red. They can't distinguish that color from the color we call green, but they can see the same class of spectra.Can other animals perceive the class of spectra that we call "red"? — creativesoul
Can other animals perceive the class of spectra that we call "red"?
— creativesoul
You need not go to other animals... — InPitzotl
Yes, but, this is getting ridiculous. You're treating this like a chat forum. Why don't you just go think about things, and come back in a bit? Or suggest an actual chat forum to talk on?Yes. Right? — creativesoul
...this is getting ridiculous. — InPitzotl
There's a box of 96 crayons here. I can not only see every crayon in this box; I see every crayon in this box as a color. A deuteranope (red/green colorblind person) can also see every crayon in this box; not only that, he sees every crayon in this box as a color. By your argument, a red/green colorblind person should be seeing red and green. Is that what you want to say, or do you want to rethink that?Other animals can perceive the class of spectra that we've named "red". "Red" is the name we've bestowed upon a certain class of spectra. The name of a thing is not the thing. "Red" is not red. Red is a certain class of spectra. Other animals can perceive that certain class of spectra. Other animals can perceive red. — creativesoul
There's a box of 96 crayons here. I can not only see every crayon in this box; I see every crayon in this box as a color. A deuteranope (red/green colorblind person) can also see every crayon in this box; not only that, he sees every crayon in this box as a color. By your argument, a red/green colorblind person should be seeing red and green. Is that what you want to say, or do you want to rethink that? — InPitzotl
...okay, then you need to learn what these words mean, so that when when you read what I write you're interpreting it correctly, and so that when you write something using those words it means what you say... so that when you write something, I know what you mean.That is not what I want to say, nor do I want or need to rethink what I've said — creativesoul
"Spectra" is plural, first off. We're talking about particular spectral distributions; since we're using "spectra" as a shorthand for the plural, you can call each of these a "spectrum". So take this box of 96 crayons here. There is a red crayon; it reflects a spectral distribution, which means that there's light from wavelengths (say) 360nm to 830nm being reflected with particular intensities at particular wavelengths.Seeing a spectra "as a color" is to have already named that spectra, and to have already categorized that name as a color. — creativesoul
But that phrase doesn't mean anything useful. The term class refers to just a grouping; taking spectral distributions and putting it into a box (label not needed; just boxing). This isn't just a nit pick; we need to be able to talk about classes like this if we want to talk about whether other entities see the same colors we do, because the thing we are talking about has to allow us to transport one "class" to what another entity sees.One can see a class of spectra without ever having given it a name.
Of course they aren't. That's the point. Talking about "seeing spectra" underspecifies what it means to say they are seeing colors. The colors the snapper sees is defined not by what spectra it can see, but by what spectra the snapper can distinguish versus what it cannot distinguish. Non-distinguishability is same-coloredness; distinguishability is different-coloredness. The banana and the crayon are to us the same color because they are in the same equivalence class of spectra based on what colors we distinguish.So, seeing a spectra and seeing a spectra as a color are not equivalent processes.
No, if it were about assigning words to the spectra, we can't talk about snappers seeing color, because snappers don't use words. And they don't use words to distinguish spectra either... they use their snapper eyes. Furthermore, they don't use their snapper eyes "to distinguish spectra", because that's not the "purpose" of what they're doing. They're just using their snapper eyes to see what things look like... snappers couldn't care less about spectra, they just care that things look the same or different. It's just that their snapper eyes in and of themselves distinguish or not spectra of particular types.One cannot see red or green as colors however, unless one has used the names "red" and "green" as a means for distinguishing between the two spectra bearing the namesakes.
That's like saying that if I take a black and white photo of this box of crayons, then it's a color photo, because "taking a color photo is the exact same thing as taking a photo of things we call colored".Seeing red is the exact same thing as seeing the spectra we've named "red". — creativesoul
What do you mean "the two spectra"? There are many spectra that are red, and many spectra that are green.Distinguishing between the two spectra is not necessary for seeing both. — creativesoul
Yes to (a). Not really to (b); that helps, but it's unnecessary. No to (c); it doesn't matter if you call the color "red", "rojo", "vermelho", or "aka"; what matters is that whatever label you're applying to it, it is the particular equivalence class of spectra that we have labeled red.Seeing them as the colors we've named "red" and "green" requires (a) seeing them as distinct to each other, (b) having similar biological structures as us, and (c) having already used the terms "red" and "green" to pick them out to the exclusion of all else. — creativesoul
Correct; (d) is also a key requirement.Seeing them as distinct is not equal to seeing them as colors. — creativesoul
Actually, that's what I'm doing. You're confusing seeing a color with seeing a thing that has a color. Just because I call something red, and Joe sees it, doesn't mean Joe is seeing the color red. It just means Joe is seeing something and I see that it's red. We can't say that Joe sees the color until he sees the color, not just the thing that has the color.I'm pointing out the equivocation problems with seeing/perceiving and seeing/perceiving "as a color" — creativesoul
Seeing red is the exact same thing as seeing the spectra we've named "red".
— creativesoul
That's like saying that if I take a black and white photo of this box of crayons, then it's a color photo, because "taking a color photo is the exact same thing as taking a photo of things we call colored". — InPitzotl
Only to people who do not understand that spectra exist in their entirety prior to our naming and describing them. — creativesoul
Color refers to a component of vision. Colors are distinct from spectra in that vision is not capable of measuring spectra in any animal's vision; for any animal capable of color vision, there will always be "metamers"... distinct spectra that map to the same color.
Seeing red requires seeing the color red, because red is a color. Seeing a thing we've named red only requires seeing a thing that we have named red, not seeing its color. — InPitzotl
"Red" is a human word, so it refers to a human group. — InPitzotl
What do you mean "the two spectra"? There are many spectra that are red, and many spectra that are green. — InPitzotl
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.