Prove to me that the sky is blue.

true the sky and ocean both ain't blue it's a reflection.

 

To humans, the sky is blue. Simply because that is the way our eyes work. If you were to go to some distant planet where their eyes were formed and developed differently than ours, chances are, they'd see things a bit differently than we do. Dogs for example, they lack the ability to see certain colors, and other colors are a more dull version of what we see. The colors you see depend on the biological make-up of your eyes. If you change this, you will be seeing different versions of colors than a normal human. I've been curious since childhood about whether or not there are creatures out there that actually view the color spectrum differently than we do. The RGB combination theory works for humans, but what if an extraterrestrial creature looked at red, green, and blue, saw completely different colors, but then proceeded to tell you that with the 3 colors it sees, it can make any other color that they normally see. It's really up to your eyes if anything. Science just generally states things as they are to humans.

 

Yes - I agree. The RGB color model is based on how the human eye works. But the thing is, there are some humans who are tetrachromats - they have 4 different types of cones (which suggests their eyes are more developed than ours). These aren't 'different life forms' - they're still humans. They see colors differently than we do. Now, we can probably never know what they see - but do you think it's right to claim that the sky being blue is objective information when we know there are other people out there (with possibly more developed eyes) who see it differently?

I gave an example about super-tasters a few posts back. It helps to clarify what I mean

 

This isn't true at all, our perception of blue is the interaction of a certain wavelength of light with our optic nerve in short. The "information" that the color blue sends will be the same in any other part of the universe perhaps it looks different to different species but that is either because they are unable to read the information (color blind), or its rendered differently in their minds, but if its rendered differently they will still be able to decipher it from other colors the same as us, it will just won't be the same locally.

The sky is blue because of the scattering of light on the atmosphere, which is why it changes all different colors when the sun is dipping below the horizon making the angle greater and thus increasing the scattering of the lower frequency lights (reds oranges ECT).

I can mathematically prove it to you aswell, but its already been done in the 1800's here's something to read about it http://elib.dlr.de/76732/1/05.pdf

for the record DLR is the German NASA.

 

All I'm saying is perhaps that blue isn't how a tetrachromat would see it - someone with arguably better eyes than ours. Read this article, if you'd like: http://www.colourlovers.com/blog/2010/03/18/tetrachromacy-in-humans-you-may-have-super-color-vision

The woman in the article sees 10 colors in a rainbow, when in reality (or perhaps, not in reality), there are 7. What guarantees that she sees the sky the same shade of blue as we do? Perhaps that wavelength of light elicits a different type of color in her brain. Perhaps, the correct color.

Also, I suggest you read the 3rd article in the original post. It's really interesting.

 

to the mass majority the sky is perceived as blue. The end.

BLUE

 

It doesn't matter how anyone perceives colors locally, if they can discern the difference enough that the difference can be described remotely than its enough to say that they can identify the "color" because color is a relative term. The information from the light is the same regardless of any random factors you throw in.

Also saying that women see 10 colors when there are 7 in the rainbow means nothing, because they are likely describing the color in greater detail than a man would and seeing the "correct" color is a localized statement. The information transmitted from the wave is EXACTLY the same the local reception of the information is different.

If you intercept a random SSL packet you will get a ton of gibberish you would never understand, but if you have the correct cypher you will actually get a bunch of information you understand, whats the difference? The difference is nothing in the way it is sent, just as it is received so the difference is local which means nothing as the differences in colors are always the same regardless of local perception which is why the whole color system works within humanity.

The fact that you can explain a color to another person means that we must see each color relatively the same opposed to another other wise the system wouldn't work thus proving any article stating the contrary is nothing more than a misunderstanding of the system.

 

Exactly. Color is a relative term. The information from the light is exactly the same - correct. Now, how can we be sure that we objectively know that this information (in the case of the sky) is blue?

Yes, I'm not arguing whether reality exists or not - I briefed upon this in the original post I believe. The thing is, our interpretation of reality - how do we know it's correct?

Good example - let's use it for what I'm talking about now. A random SSL packet is sent to you. Let's assume, for the sake of this argument, I sent you the text 'Hello Annex'. In SSL protocol, let's say this becomes 'abcdef'.

We have two different decipher programs. One of them has a few bugs and is prone to making mistakes. It decrypts 'abcdef' to be 'Hello Annie'. The other decipher program, however, decrypts it correctly to be 'Hello Annex'.

Now in this case, we know which one is the correct decipher program because we know the original information is 'Hello Annex', and this is objective. We also know one of the decipher programs has bugs, and is prone to making mistakes. For humans, we don't know if trichromats (what the majority of humans are) have eyes which perceive color with absolutely no mistakes, and we don't know what the original color of said wavelength is supposed to be.

Now, for the case of a certain wavelength, how can we know if our interpretation of it is the correct one? Similar to the faulty decipher, the majority of us humans could have faulty perception, and the tetrachromats could be correct. I gave the scenario in the original post to kind of emphasize on this point. Imagine you lived in a society where everyone was color blind, including yourself. Scientists would still say the wavelength of the sky is this, but we'd all agree to interpreting that wavelength as red (it's a very dramatic example - I don't think there are color blind people that actually see the sky as red, but you get the gist). The wavelength exists - I'm not denying that. The color of said wavelength, however, could be incorrect.

But not all people would agree. Should I just rule them out based on the majority?

I gave an example with super-tasters. I'll copy and paste what I said before:

"I'm sure you've heard of super-tasters. It's essentially the same thing. A minority of people are extremely sensitive to taste, and have the gene to taste 6-n-propylthiouracil, or PROP. Now, for a good portion of the population, PROP tastes like absolutely nothing. Hence, people would conclude that PROP is tasteless. However, for the super-tasters, PROP has an extremely bitter taste. Now, bitter can be subjective - for objective terms, does PROP have a taste, or does it not? Of course it does - a lot of us just can't perceive it.

The same can vaguely be applied to tetrachromats. Although we don't know exactly what they are seeing (as our eyes themselves are incapable of perceiving it), we know that they most likely are seeing more than we are, and perhaps, even different shades than we are. So how can we conclude that we are the right ones?"

Imagine you lived in a country where no one was a super-taster. Now, imagine you were given the substance PROP to taste. You would find it tasteless, your peers would find it tasteless, everyone around you would find it tasteless, etc. I'm not objecting whether PROP exists and whether the information it transmits is objective (similar to the wavelength of the sky), but I am objecting against the 'factual' claim we might make in such a scenario being that PROP is tasteless, when in reality, it is not - just some people cannot perceive its appropriate taste.

 

No, It wouldn't. Think Colorblind individuals...

 

I cannot prove that it is, but I have to ask you a few questions.

Do you believe in your eyes?
Do you have any beliefs?
Were those beliefs shutdown by another person?

But just know, thinking logically isn't always the best solution. I for one think the sky is blue because I see the color blue. Am I a fool? Maybe, but I trust my eyes ^^

 

Essentially my point.

Yes, but my question isn't really that philosophical. I'm not into these 'existence' debates, where I can't even prove that I exist.

1. For my eyes, I believe they exist because I can see them, feel them etc. I have evidence that they exist.

2. Yes, I have beliefs - but they tend to pertain to things that have never been seen by anyone. Otherwise, I don't really consider them beliefs. Using my computer monitor doesn't mean that I have 'faith' that it exists.

3. And finally, my beliefs have changed over time.

I just want to make the point, that when I talk about the theory of gravity, we don't use the word 'belief' - we consider this objective information. The same applies to when we talk about the color of the sky - we don't even argue that it's not blue.

 

Well by asking do you believe in your eyes, I meant do you trust them. They guide you everyday, they can show a variety of colors and they make your life a whole lot better.

Facts are beliefs and if you look up at the sky when it's not cloudy it's blue.

 

Math is undeniable:

Blue falls between 606 THz and 668 THz. You then take a spectrograph, much like the one used in many of the modern telescopes, separates out those spectrums. If a spectrograph measurement falls between the two previous values you have in fact proven the sky is blue.

Arguing subjectivity of colors is just arguing in a circle and will lead no where. I can prove that blue light is blue because it falls between the range of 606 THz and 668 THz.


I found this, and it is tangently relative. http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2649

 

It doesn't actually matter anything you wrote because you again FAIL to see the point. If there are bugs in the SSL decipher program everything would STILL BE THE SAME RELATIVELY, you can still manually understand the information sent because the differences in the received information IS THE EXACT SAME NO MATTER WHAT THE LOCAL PERCEPTION IS.

I'll just quote this statement you made which is more than enough to prove how you really don't understand what you are talking about:

Now let me tell you what you actually said:

The wavelength of said wavelength, however, could be incorrect.

Color is a human interpretation of the phenomenon you experience when certain wavelength electromagnetic radiation interacts with your ocular system. I don't care what you call it blue will always be blue regardless of the name, because blue is 450–495 nm electromagnetic radiation. Local experience DOESN'T MATTER because everyone can visibly discern what blue is from the other spectrum of colors, with those having faulty ocular system being an exception and even still many faulty ocular systems can detect the difference between the majority of colors.

Not all people would agree that the fact that you can explain a color that someone isn't familiar with to another person indicates that color is therefore relatively the same because not all people have the ability to induct such reasoning in their mind.

Tasting and eyesight are COMPLETELY different, if you have more tastebuds it allows you to discern softer tastes among other things, which makes sense. How do you even think that having more tetrachromats would make you see the real color? It doesn't work like that, you can discern different colors better meaning if you were to put small differences in two paintings then someone with more would be able to discern the differences better than someone with less, it doesn't mean that they will start calling violets blues ECT.

We are seeing more light that we are lead on to believe, we just are unable to detect infrared and ultraviolet light ECT, it doesn't matter nor do shades matter when you are talking about colors because a shade is just an extremely specific color, also again LOCALIZED COLOR DOESN'T MATTER AS LONG AS YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPLAIN IT RELATIVELY.

Your claim makes no sense because again taste and eyesight are nothing alike. Blue is blue because relatively 1000s of generations of people have called it blue, everyone can discern blue when put with all the other colors, so therefore the blue I see is the blue everyone else sees. To further object that point is pure nonsense.

 

The sky is not blue. I am color blind so what if the color I actually saw was the real color of the sky and what you're seeing is wrong? You cant prove this because air has no color and space is black (or lack of color) so why would anyone try and fight over the fact that they think the sky is blue? Is water blue too? No h20 has no color it's the properties around it that give it color. Same goes with the sky

 

I understand what you're saying - this point has been brought up numerous times in this thread but please, imagine that you lived in a color blind society. Everyone was color blind - including scientists. You would have defined your color spectrum differently. Between 606 THz and 668 THz would have the definition 'insert color that majority of the society sees' rather than 'blue'. Now, all of a sudden, a new life form (for argument's sake) sees your definition of the color spectrum, and disagrees with it based on their own. Who is correct?

Also, we're talking about the sky here. The sky isn't just one wavelength - it's a multitude of wavelengths which happen to elicit 'blue' in our brains after an entire neurological summation process. This is similar to concluding that the Sun emits white light. The Sun emits all wavelengths of light, which elicits the color 'white' in our brains.

I'm arguing that, as trichromats, we know that we are excluding certain wavelengths which could very well elicit colors in our brains. Tetrachromats, on the other hand, are able to perceive these wavelengths, which would completely change the entire summation process, hence possibly leading to a different color in the brain.

What can't you understand about this? I am not arguing that the information is changing in nature. But what you're not understanding is that in nature, all we have (as Emperor_Nero hinted) is an objective measurement, but no absolute qualitative association with this measurement.

I'm arguing about our PERCEPTION of this information being wrong. We see blue in the sky - we conclude that the summation of wavelengths in the sky corresponds to blue but a tetrachromat, for example, could see orange, or a billion other colors in the sky (for argument's sake). A tetrachromat has arguably more developed eyes. Why is our definition correct? Why is it that the sky is only blue?

Also, what are you saying at the end? That the differences would be the same among all members - hence the information we're perceiving is objective? Who cares if its relatively the same among the human population? The sky being 'inset color here' could be the same among a color blind population - does that mean this is objective information? No. This is not what I mean by objective information. I'm talking about absolute information. Pure facts in NATURE. Phenomena that exist outside the human mind. The only objective information that we have is that the sky contains a set of wavelengths. But to say that the sky being blue is objective (as I've defined it) is not correct.

You clearly do not understand my point then. This is a false interpretation of what I've said. Let me quote something I've said before:

"Yes, I'm not arguing whether reality exists or not - I briefed upon this in the original post I believe. The thing is, our interpretation of reality - how do we know it's correct?"

I'm not arguing that the wavelength is different for different people. I'm arguing whether our INTERPRETATION of said wavelength IS THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION. Color is a QUALITATIVE entity and you have just made it equivalent to a QUANTITATIVE entity (wavelength - a number, a measurement). All my examples still corroborate this point that you continue to dodge.

You're assuming that the sky emits a single wavelength into our eyes? This is wrong. There are many wavelengths that reach our eyes - it is our receptors which first channel out the ones our brain cannot perceive. The wavelengths then excite their corresponding cones within our eyes, and this elicits a visual color based on the electrical signals sent from our cones to the brain. There is essentially a 'mixing' process that happens as all 3 different types of cones in our eyes are excited. Read on how cone cells work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell

If you don't want to read, a very simple example to understand the 'mixing' process is to consider the Sun. We would say that the Sun emits white light. However, it actually emits all wavelengths of light. It is just that the excitation of most of the cones in our eyes elicits the white color we see in our brain.

We already know we're ruling out a range of wavelengths that exist in the sky as our eyes cannot perceive them. How do we know that these wavelengths do not transmit color in a tetrachromat? If they did, it would affect the blue color of the sky dearly.

We defined this specific range to be blue based on the majority (a fallacy, in any case). I again ask for you to assume you lived in a color blind society, where EVERYONE is color blind. Note that in such a society, you would not consider yourself to have a disorder, or to have a 'faulty ocular system'. Have you ever considered that perhaps your ocular system is faulty? Maybe the tetrachromats have the better ocular system. Yet, if they were to say that the sky wasn't blue, surely you'd laugh.

Open your mind to the tetrachromats. To them, the average human is color blind. Yet we probably would ignore them (or laugh) when they say 'the sky isn't blue'. Why is that? They have arguably more developed eyes than ours - they're probably interpreting reality better than we are. Why must our interpretation be the correct one?

It's simple - I believe that seeing more wavelengths would allow us to make a better judgement of reality, similar to how having more tastebuds would allow us to taste something which would otherwise be considered 'tasteless'. I will give an analogy of this at the bottom of this post. We already know that our eyes channel out a good amount of wavelengths. If our eyes were able to deliver these wavelengths as electrical signals to our brain, don't you think it would affect the overall color we see in the sky?

Also, a tetrachromat has the definition of a being with 4 different types of cones. Similar to how a super-taster is someone with a significantly higher amount of tastebuds, a tetrachromat has one more different type of cone receptor than we do. It makes a difference because in the end, the final electrical signal that reaches our brain is based on the summation of excitatory and inhibitory responses. Another cone receptor being excited would affect this. It's simple biology.

I don't believe you read the article. Another important point we're missing is that there could be OTHER colors in the sky that we're missing out upon because our eyes are less developed than a tetrachromat's eyes. A good example of this is shown in one of the articles. They show a flower which is completely yellow to our eyes. However, a tetrachromat is able to discern different colors within said flower. Colors that we're missing out on. To call the flower completely yellow is incorrect. We've essentially 'generalized' it to be yellow. I'll touch upon this in the final sentences of the below paragraph.

Furthermore, the sky doesn't emit a single wavelength. Let's assume, for argument's sake, that it only delivers wavelengths in the 'blue' range (although it doesn't - those are the only wavelengths it emits in the VISIBLE spectrum). It emits many which could be close to each other. However, it's these small differences which our less developed eyes are unable to discern. A tetrachromat may be capable of doing so. A good example of this is the rainbow - they see 10 colors, we see 7. Essentially, for some range of wavelengths, you can assume that our brain is generalizing the colors. Here's a very dramatic example which should clarify my point: http://www.mikeettner.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/dog-vision-color-spectrum-compared-to-man2.jpg

You can see in the above picture the visual spectrum of a dog, and of a human. Now, not only does the dog see the 'wrong' color, but it also generalizes that same color for a large set of wavelengths. How do we know that the set of wavelengths defined for blue (for humans) isn't missing any colors in-between?

How are you sure that ultraviolet/infrared do not elicit colors within our brains that we are unaware of because we're unable to detect these wavelengths? How are you sure that such wavelengths do not 'mix' together to elicit a completely different color in our brains? What if the sky was filled with wavelengths that we cannot discern which could affect its color?

Local perception and explaining relatively mean nothing for trying to determine the absolute truth. Let's go back to the SSL decipher programs. Assume you didn't know that the information being transmitted was 'Hello Annex'. Now, assume that all SSL decipher programs were of the 'faulty' type (although, you wouldn't know they were faulty). If all SSL decipher programs decrypted 'Hello Annex' to be 'Hello Annie', does that mean they're correct?

History means nothing for trying to determine what is absolutely true.

Furthermore, I'm not talking about taste in subjective terms - I'm talking about it in objective terms. As in, does something have a taste, or not. PROP has absolutely no taste for a lot of people. To super-tasters, it does have a taste. I'm not talking about the intensity of taste. Just if it has a taste.

I'm just talking about the color that you see in the sky. I know that it's just air, water is transparent, etc.

Someone might argue that a color blind person has less developed eyes than the average human. But tetrachromats arguably have more developed eyes. Surely we'd dismiss their claims if they were to say that the sky wasn't blue.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I need everyone to understand something. We have 4 ways of knowing - perception and reasoning are included here. This is the theory of knowledge. Our perception limits itself to a certain set of wavelengths. That doesn't mean that our reasoning cannot visualize the other wavelengths as some sort of 'color' in our brain. We just can't get those wavelengths to enter our brain in the first place. Tetrachromats, however, can, and they see colors differently than we do. They are essentially taking more information from nature than we are - their conclusions should have more integrity. Yet surely we'd laugh if they were to say that the sky isn't blue.

Wouldn't you say an HD camera records video more realistically than a webcam? Why is this? It simply starts with the HD camera's hardware gathering more information from reality than the webcam's. The analogy can be applied to tetrachromats (the HD camera) and trichromats (the webcam).

 

You COMPLETELY MISSED THE POINT AGAIN. Blue is blue anywhere in the universe no matter what the hell you call it. Based on our ability AND the ability for us to make certain intelligent animals discern colors means colors are THEREFORE universal. Localized perceptions of colors are IRRELEVANT if as a group you can discern the difference between colors that are close, the name of the color is also irrelevant because it likely has to do with history which is irrelevant in this case. Also a new species wouldn't come along and say that your name for the certain wavelength of light is wrong, because that is honestly one of the stupidest statements you can make. It would be like saying that your actual full name is wrong.

Do you not know of light scattering? The sky is blue because mostly blue light is scattered from it based on the structure of our atmosphere. Its also why when the sun is very near the horizon the sky turns all different colors because the longer wavelengths are now being scattered more than blue. This has been proven forever ago, and also if we were to talk to another intelligent race and described the suns light as white, they would say what do you mean (because white is a name) and we would finish with the sum of our visible spectrum.

Which actually doesn't matter because color on a localized scale doesn't matter. Also they don't "exclude" certain wavelengths, our whole optical system does. Anything smaller or bigger than our visible spectrum doesn't get directed at the optic nerve when passing through the lens. UV and such will literally go through our skin and completely pass the entire system, and bigger such as microwaves are absorbed in the lens and which is why microwaves can cause cataracts.

What you can't understand is that it DOESN'T MATTER, Color is the ability to discern between the different wavelengths of visible light. If we can describe a color to a person who has never seen the color and they can then have a fairly close interpretation of what it should look like AND we have the ability to teach animals like Dolphins and Chimpanzees what basic colors are then the differences in the colors must be universal. What one man sees is irrelevant if everyone else has the same difference between colors anyways, which is why the whole system works. You try to sound scientific by copying and pasting terms, but you stumble on the most basic concepts (also you light especially visible light is discussed based on wavelength not by frequency).

Then the topic is irrelevant because our perception is irrelevant, blue is still going to be the same difference from violet as long as you are able to perceive the two. Also a tetrachromats wouldn't see billions of other colors, it would see blue, because again blue is the vast majority being scattered base on the composition of our atmosphere and the angle the light is coming from. Again stumbling on simple topics that have been known about for centuries no surprise.

It is completely objective information because all light has a certain wavelength, we assign whatever we see whatever name. Also the sky is blue and that is objective not because of what we see, but because the wavelength of light for blue that comes at whatever angles from just over 0 to just before 180 will be scattered among all molecules in the sky and the vast majority of the rest of the light will pass through the atmosphere unaffected.

No I am not dodging your point, your point is irrelevant because

a) its impossible to know or prove
b) localized interpretation doesn't matter if the information is still transmittable
c) Your examples prove nothing other than that you seem to not understand what the scattering of light is.

I won't even bother to respond to the rest because you don't know what the scattering of light is which has been known about for centuries and any further discussion with you is futile as you are ignorant of scientific facts.

 

Is ths debate still happening..?
Seriously snoop, you've had all your questions answered. Why bother to reword and reask them?

Firthermore, did color even matter in this debate?
Your main question is based on who gets to decide what, and confusing everybody with colors, people on islands and people with enhanced vision was totally unnecessary.

And Annex, why even bother, you know that you're wasting time with a debate that's going in circles.

No seriously, it's always back to point A with the question, "who gets to decide?" with reworded or newer, unnecessary examples.

 

I've had similar debates several times and the conclusion is often quite simple:
Everybody with standard eyesight perceives colors from a certain potion of the electromagnetic spectrum, from 380nm to 760nm

The sky, due to light scattering among other things, has a range of colors depending on the weather n shit, but the accepted value is 474–476nm mixed with white light.

That wavelength is interpreted by the brain relative to other frequencies. It honestly doesn't matter if we can all interpret 474-476nm the same way as long as the ratios of this wavelength to those of other colors are identical

As long as we both agree that the colors come in a certain order it doesn't matter what we see the order as. The interpretation is second to the actual objective numbers we receive, and the subjective portion is utterly irrelevant. If I can identify the difference between blue and orange, and you can identify the difference between blue and orange, we are able to effectively communicate.


I've added an image to help understand.
If I see the colors on the left as red and green, and you see the colors on the right as red and green, as long as the ratio is the same, it doesn't matter
However, if my red and green are perceived by you as two shades of blue, we have a serious issue. Your green is more similar to your red than my green is similar to my red. They are not equal anymore

 

Localized perception doesn't matter? Perhaps you should finish reading my old post.

A tetrachromat can discern blue and possibly discern other colors in the sky. Read the articles I give you before you debate. The sky could be a multitude of colors - we could essentially be generalizing it to be blue. If you can prove that the sky is a single wavelength at ALL TIMES (during the day), and not just a few wavelengths which fall into our defined range of blue, I'll say that it's one color. But it's not.

Also, perhaps you should read more of what I say instead of ignoring me. I gave a picture where I spoke about 'generalizing' colors. It refutes your entire 'if we're able to discern different colors the same way then we're speaking facts' argument completely. More on this soon.

This is irrelevant. Light scattering is just proving that there is a certain range of wavelengths in the sky which, for the 1000th time, I'VE NEVER DOUBTED.

Also you're completely missing the point. This isn't about language. What I call white doesn't matter to what someone else calls whatever. I said this before in this thread - if you were to take a mental image of Person X, and a mental image of Person Y, load both images into a computer, would the color of the sky be EXACTLY the same?

Wow Annex.

1. I didn't copy and paste anything. You can prove this with Google. Go ahead.
2. Emperor_Nero mentioned frequencies, not me. And there's nothing wrong with speaking about them. Stop trying to make me appear 'dumb' by telling me I know nothing of science.
3. You're claiming that color is our ability to discern between different wavelength ranges. You claim that it MUST BE UNIVERSAL. Great - this will be easy to refute. Look at this image you ignored: http://www.mikeettner.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/dog-vision-color-spectrum-compared-to-man2.jpg

I'm going to use your own definition of colors to completely refute your point now:

"Color is the ability to discern between the different wavelengths of visible light."

You claim that all animals should be able to discern colors just like we do - for certain ranges of wavelengths there exists a certain type of color, and this MUST be universal for it to be considered a fact. Here comes a counter-example.

A dog can't discern the colors like we do. Perhaps you shouldn't have ignored me when I posted this: http://www.mikeettner.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/dog-vision-color-spectrum-compared-to-man2.jpg

For approximately 500-700 nm, the dog sees a single color - beige. However, for a human, there exists 4 different colors - red, orange, yellow, and green. So, what's wrong? The dog isn't discerning colors as we are. That refutes what you said earlier - that differences in color MUST BE UNIVERSAL.

Now, a dog's eyes are less developed than ours. But guess what? Our eyes are less developed than a tetrachromat's and they see 10 colors in a rainbow - not 7. Are we missing out some colors?

Why don't you answer this question for me - how many colors are in a rainbow? I'd really like to hear your response. If you say 7, a tetrachromat will say 10. What gives? They're discerning colors differently than me! So, who's right?

Oh come on. We define that blue exists for a certain range, and that violet exists for another range. What tells you that certain colors don't exist in-between those ranges? Again, look at the example of a dog's visual spectrum.

How many times do I have to speak about the wavelength? Tell me what the wavelength of the sky is. In fact, measure it for me, and I'll AGREE WITH YOU. Tell me what the color of the sky is. I may not agree with you. If a tetrachromat can discern more colors than we can, what makes me say with 100% confidence that the wavelength of the sky doesn't fall into a different range other than blue for a tetrachromat's visual spectrum? Maybe the range of blue colors is very small and specific for a tetrachromat. After all, you explained that our eyes can only perceive a certain range of wavelengths. That only gives the tetrachromats a limited visual spectrum to fill up with 100 million colors - 10 times the amount we can discern.

1. It's impossible to know or prove - yet you claim it's a universal fact. Note I gave my definition of objective earlier. I'm not talking about 'void of emotions'. I'm talking about an absolute fact that exists outside of the mind. If you believe it's a universal fact, you should have some method of proving it. Even if that's empirical proof. You already gave a hypothetical situation before that utilizes empirical proof.
2. Localized interpretation DOES matter. I gave an example about this later in my post that you ignored (no surprise).
3. Your explanations just show how you continue to ignore points that I make, such as the fact that our eyes could be 'generalizing' wavelengths. You should read my entire post first, then comment point by point. Or did we read it - but had nothing to say?

The way the sky attains a certain wavelength is irrelevant to the entire debate because I've said numerous times that I believe the measurement of the wavelength of the sky is completely factual information. It's quantitative information, and I'm debating about the qualitative aspect. So stop telling me that I don't know how light scatters. You've explained twice how it happens in your post and frankly, all you're doing is wasting space.

That's the spirit.

They haven't.

Yes. If you're saying it doesn't matter I'm assuming that you believe color isn't a fact.

And has that question been answered?

------------------------------------------------

Yes Noam, I understand your point (it's essentially the same as what Annex is saying), but I don't believe the ratios are the same - in fact, they are not the same. We can determine the visual spectra of other beings, and a lot of the times, they overlap with certain color ranges that we have. So while red might change to blue for you, it may still be orange for me. I gave a picture of this that Annex ignored. Take a look: http://www.mikeettner.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/dog-vision-color-spectrum-compared-to-man2.jpg

I'll explain the picture here. For approximately 500-700 nm, the dog sees a single color - beige. However, for a human, there exists 4 different colors - red, orange, yellow, and green.

I think this answers your question. Now, you can argue that a dog's eyes are not well developed, and hence, are most likely deviating from reality - and I'd agree. However, a tetrachromat's eyes are arguably more developed, and, for example, they see 10 colors in a rainbow, whilst the average human sees 7.