Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
November 29, 2012
Link

Statistics

Replies: 47

A very Interesting thought

:iconsylor41:
sylor41 Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Okay, so i was thinking today, about why there aren't any new colors.
(You might think this belongs in the nerd section at first, it doesn't.)

Now, for those who didn't do science, it is because of the visible spectrum. That is, all the colors that the eye can see. However there are several other parts of the invisible spectrum we cannot see ("roughly 80%"). Now the only possible way to see these is to get new eyes (probably synthetic).

Ok, let us assume you have new eyes that can see the ENTIRE spectrum, that includes air and every other thing on the planet. There would be so much you could see that you wouldn't be able to see anything (mainly because of the air, as it would have color).
OR
You might die of brain overload.

Now my main point: Seeing too much can make you blind

Thank you for reading my thought :).

If you didn't:

TL:DR Seeing too much can make you blind.
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconder-freishutz:
der-freishutz Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
we see as much as we need to, the rest we find through science, and all the rest through faith.
Reply
:iconblack-allison:
Black-Allison Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2012
We only see what we need. So until evolution decides it's a good thing to be able to see gamma rays not much we can do there and not much point. Would be interesting if a thousand generations down everyone has synethesia.
Reply
:iconsylor41:
sylor41 Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
yeah...evolution...
Reply
:icondavidscript:
DavidScript Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
You do realize that if we're capable of seeing gamma rays and whatnot, our eyes would still follow the Roy G. Biv layout.
Reply
:iconsylor41:
sylor41 Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I agree with you, my point was that we would be blind from seeing too much (radio waves e.t.c.)
The color thing is a whole different matter, to see new colors we would need entirely new eyes that work differently and perceive things differently.
Reply
:icondavidscript:
DavidScript Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Ah, sorry, I misread everything.
Reply
:iconhotelchelseanights:
HotelChelseaNights Featured By Owner Dec 3, 2012
if this is a philosophy section why is every thing being shot down with theory?
Reply
:icondavidscript:
DavidScript Featured By Owner Dec 3, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I hope you're being facetious :B
Reply
:iconsiantjudas:
siantjudas Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2012   Digital Artist
I saw a rainbow once...does that count?
Reply
:iconsylor41:
sylor41 Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
lol, not really.
A rainbow is a well explained natural phenomenon; (i've seen one too :) )
Reply
:iconsiantjudas:
siantjudas Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2012   Digital Artist
But it's like all the colors at the same time.
Reply
:iconsylor41:
sylor41 Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I see your point, however I was relating everything to vision.
That is, what if we could see all the radio-waves in the air and all the invisible gases and maybe the air itself?
Reply
:iconsiantjudas:
siantjudas Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2012   Digital Artist
I can see the air, I thought it was normal.
Reply
:iconsylor41:
sylor41 Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
lol, sure you can ;) (subject seems to be off his meds..)
Reply
:iconhotelchelseanights:
HotelChelseaNights Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012
"Studies have shown that we can see about 1000 levels of light-dark, 100 levels of red-green, and 100 levels of yellow-blue for a single viewing condition in a laboratory. This means that
the total number of colors we can see is about 1000 x 100 x 100 = 10,000,000
(10 million). A computer displays about 16.8 million colors to display an image"

Imagining seeing that many make my mind feel blind. I think that in order to see that many colors you really have to be inspecting the image, in that case we may only see a particular range of colors and shade at one time, and if the image is viewed as a whole our mind then has a reference of colors to insert into the periphery? I don't know if you would die, but I think you may be right about brain over load and blindness, even if only temporarily, until the brain reboots.
I would to like to know how it is possible, if black, being the absences of color, can only created (by us) by mixing colors? We just don't see in total darkness. And why, if the former about black is true, when I pour water on my clothes, does it not stain them black?
Reply
:iconmatthewmatters:
MatthewMatters Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2012  Professional General Artist
:icondoublefacepalmplz:
Reply
:iconsylor41:
sylor41 Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Well, for starters, black is not the absence of color, darkness is.
Our minds just choose to represent darkness as being black...
Reply
:iconmatthewmatters:
MatthewMatters Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2012  Professional General Artist
:iconfacepalmplz:
Reply
:iconsylor41:
sylor41 Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
wut now? No essays please
Reply
:iconmatthewmatters:
MatthewMatters Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2012  Professional General Artist
Don't even consider thinking about science if you aren't ready to read shit.

We perceive things black because they reflect a low amount of light. This essentially means that they are dark. Black = darkness.
Reply
:iconsylor41:
sylor41 Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Ok, lets back up a bit here. First of all, I stated in the beginning of this thread that I was thinking about it from a PHILOSOPHICAL standpoint.
If I wanted to talk physics, I would have posted it in the general nerdiness section , not the PHILOSOPHY section.

Now since you don't understand my ACTUAL point, I will explain. (By the way, I just realized you are a shining example of my actual point).
I said that seeing too much can make you blind; I meant that if you are too smart for your own good you may miss out on some things, simpler things

Please go to this link after you read [link]
Reply
:iconmatthewmatters:
MatthewMatters Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2012  Professional General Artist
:iconfacepalmplz: Well no-one else seems to have got your silly little metaphor either. Then again, that'd be a first anyhow: a bad scientific thesis recognized as a philosophical metaphor just because it's the philosophy section. If anything it just makes one's thesis seem ever worse.
Reply
:iconsylor41:
sylor41 Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Ok, thank you for your correspondence, I would ask that you not correspond again.
Again, thanks ;)
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconkahlanamnell123:
KahlanAmnell123 Featured By Owner Nov 30, 2012
thats a good point.
Reply
:iconhotelchelseanights:
HotelChelseaNights Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012
Sounds good.
Reply
:iconwolfyspice:
WolfySpice Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012  Hobbyist Artist
I disagree. We have plenty of instruments to enable us to detect phenomena beyond our perception and translate it into something we can understand. There's only blindness through lack of understanding.

Think of it like sheet music. Others might see a mess of dots. I don't see; I hear the music as I read. It all comes down to understanding.
Reply
:iconsylor41:
sylor41 Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I see your point, however I was relating everything to vision.
That is, what if we could see all the radio-waves in the air and all the invisible gases and maybe the air itself?
Reply
:icongvcspecks:
gvcspecks Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012
the title was deceiving.
Reply
:iconsylor41:
sylor41 Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Sorry about that then :)
Reply
:iconalzebetha:
alzebetha Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012
+1
Reply
:iconwwwjam:
wwwjam Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012  Student Digital Artist
With eyes that can see all manner of the spectrum of light, you wouldn't be able to function in the life that's made for the limited perception. Green lights might end up being tie-dye for all we know. That'd be a joy. "Honey, the light's green." 'It is? I thought it was Purplish Cyan.'
Reply
:iconwitwitch:
witwitch Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012  Student Writer
Humans also have partial heat vision. Fire = heat = accelerated particles.
Reply
:iconkittythenekoalien:
KittyTheNekoAlien Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Air isn't part of the light spectrum.
Now that out of the way, there are some animals like bees that can see ultraviolet light, and as a result, certain flowers that look just plain yellow to us look like they have red patterns to bees, which I think is pretty fucking awesome. Outside of UV light though, they should look like how we see them.
Knowing that, depending on the mixes of light waves we get can alter what everything looks like, and could possibly obstruct our vision even. For example, what if certain common waves (like microwaves) came out looking pitch black? They'd be really annoying to use, maybe even making an entire microwave over hard to use. So if you are cooking something like soup and it's about to boil over, or accidentally forget to remove tinfoil from something and it starts sparking, we could get some trouble.
But it seems like it'd be very alien if we could see light like that...
Reply
:iconsylor41:
sylor41 Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I see what you are saying.

Ok, excluding air, then the main threat to our vision would probable be radio waves because they are literally everywhere.

Also, the last part of my post was meant to be philosophical

"Now my main point: Seeing too much can make you blind"

Thank you for your reply :D
Reply
:iconmatthewmatters:
MatthewMatters Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012  Professional General Artist
Eh. We have different senses to sense different wave lengths. For example, heat and light are really just the same thing.

Now here's a more exciting thought, as your's is actually just kind of shitty unrealistic and unlikely speculation with nothing to back it up:

Imagine you knew a guy called John. Both of you are looking at a yellow lego brick, but in reality what John perceives as yellow is your red. Due to how we humans develop, you would never know. There's a very existing yet ridiculously unrealistic chance that everyone sees everything in a different color, especially as being a similar effect is seen with those who are color blind.
Reply
:iconsylor41:
sylor41 Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
First of all, I already knew that (your example), and how is my thought unrealistic?.

I've thought somewhat to length about this and only way I can think to ascertain that we see the same colors is the emotions we attach to certain colors. I would like to hear your opinion about this.

Thank you for your reply :)
Reply
:iconmatthewmatters:
MatthewMatters Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012  Professional General Artist
Seeing the whole spectrum would not clog our vision. Though I mean with the modern radiowaves it might be like living under a constant lens flare but still. And brain overload? Nope. You don't get "brain overload" by just using your eyes, nor is there a single recorded case of "death from brain overload". It would be like normal vision, just with more information.

Emotion attachments are not natural but learnt. Today blue is considered the boy's color and pink the girl's but before WW2 it was the other way around: the change was made when the Nazi started tagging gay folks with pink on the concentration camps. Every affiliation of emotion is always learnt, like smell memory.
Reply
:iconsylor41:
sylor41 Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Interesting analysis, wish I had a professional here to theorize, but what are you going to do.

Thank you for replying. I appreciate your comment.

Although, it wasn't meant to be taken too literally.
I did, after all, post it in the philosophy section.

:handshake:
Reply
:iconmatthewmatters:
MatthewMatters Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012  Professional General Artist
It's not an analysis, it's a fact of psychology :P Assuming you're talking about the affiliated emotions that is.
Reply
:iconsylor41:
sylor41 Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
lol ok, you win :winner:
Reply
:iconsylor41:
sylor41 Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
bump..
Reply
:iconsylor41:
sylor41 Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
im sorry, wont happen again
Reply
Add a Comment: