• exocortex@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    Captain Obvious would like to chime in: (sorry 😅)

    Every color that we see is created by different types of receptors being stimulated together. A linear combination of three of these types. Arguably there isn’t really a wavelength that only stimulates one type of receptor exclusively as their absorbtion areas overlap - so it isn’t even that precise to call one receptor the “green” receptor as it sees a continuum of wavelength (of which a lot are also detected by the (so-called) “red” receptor.

    It’s a little egg-and-hen-problem with the naming here.a way out of it would be to only speak about spectra if it’s in the physical realm and color of its in the percetral realm.

    • wkk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      I saw the following meme the other day on that topic which I found amazing:

      shrimps have more cones because they're dumb

      On the other hand I hope my point was clear about pink being perceived as a color when it doesn’t exist as a singular wavelength on the electromagnetic spectrum: something the person I was responding to was seemingly arguing that it then invalidates what we might call a “color”. By his logic “pink” shouldn’t be considered a color, which I disagree with!

    • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Every color that we see is created by different types of receptors being stimulated together. A linear combination of three of these types.

      What are you referring to as linear? AFAIK human perception is very much non-linear, which is why we have color spaces like OKLAB.