Quote:
Originally posted by h.u.r.r.i.c.a.n.e
no no no no
you're getting there but you need a deeper understanding.
You're right - due to basic physical biology, humans see MOST colors as the same.
Like, the ATRL logo is red. No one is arguing with me.
Biblio is blue.
Ahh is yellow.
However, we are NOT all the same, and our retinas are DIFFERENT due to genetics and use patterns.
BECAUSE of that, there are SOME colors in the world that are harder for the human eye to intepret exactly; so different people will see the color different.
Color is WAY more complex than "oh that color is blue to me and that color I know as yellow."
Ambient lighting plays a big part of it too. If you've ever had physics you've probably heard of subtractive and addition color mixing where colors look different under different shades of lighting.
|
Okay no, you're really not getting what I'm saying - I'm saying that the differences in our perception are entirely negligible, and what we're ACTUALLY arguing about is a case of terminology and how we are taught to give names or identification to color.
Monte's dark white joke is like, the KEY to what I'm saying. We both perceive this:
in almost exactly the same way. It's how we verbalize and identify this perception that differs and causes confusion. I know that the colors around it will alter our perception and I know the physics that you're talking, but what I'm saying is that if we both look at the same photo, the only thing that's really different is how we think about the color based on how others have taught us. You logically know that white can appear darker, even bluish, because of shade. I logically know that black can appear gold because of light exposure. This is where the argument happens - whether it's actually what we see, this or that
and now I'm lost and rambling but I'm pretty sure we're just not on the same page with what we're actually arguing about so
this is so weird 
