Prove to me that the sky is blue.

No it doesn't and also because you actually don't understand dog's that see a single color between whatever range see MULTIPLE SHADES THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO DIFFERENTIATE FROM OTHER SHADES AND THUS THEY ARE ABLE TO RECOGNIZE WHAT "COLOR" IS WHAT.

You go on about tetrachromats but you just sound like a complete toolbag because you don't know what you are talking about, the sky is blue because of the scattering of light, it will be blue (or whatever an alien race calls blue) for anything and everything that comes here because the light scatters based on the composition of our atmosphere. UV and IR and all other radiation WILL NOT affect the color of the sky because it either is deflected or passes through the atmosphere it is not scattered.

Also you don't understand how colorblindness works. Instead of seeing "blue" you essentially see a different shade of grey. Its like watching color TV, but sub in the black and white equivalent for blue instead of seeing blue, it doesn't actually really matter because people with colorblindness can still identify the color they are blind to in most circumstances.

So basically color at a local level doesn't matter because:
1) color as a system wouldn't work if the local information was significantly different from person to person.
2) colorblind people can still Identify colors they are blind too in most scenarios.
3) we can teach wild animals to identify colors even through huge communications barriers.

You haven't refuted the point that the sky is blue because of the scattering of colors (because you cant this is mathematically and scientifically PROVEN)
You also haven't refuted anything to do with localized color mattering you instead just go on and on about useless garbage that is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the topic and thus concede the points.

 

This is just childish.

Oh my. Those multiple shades - do they happen at the cutoff ranges where a new color appears to us humans on our visual spectrum? Are they able to even discern those different shades at 'the appropriate time'? Don't forget, to the naked human eye, shade X of green and shade Y of green may look exactly the same. I gave an article of this in my initial post which you can test for yourself.

The answer is no. If you're going to say that 'even if our human eye cannot discern the shades, it doesn't mean they don't exist', then that means that there are an infinite amount of shades for each color, as 450.0 nm is a shade, 450.1 nm is a shade, 450.01 is a shade, etc. that we're missing out on. How can our visual spectrum be absolute then?

If you're going to speak about shades, then I doubt that we all see the sky the EXACT same shade of blue.

Can you answer this question? Do you think a tetrachromat sees more shades of color than we do? If I were you, I wouldn't answer 'no', because it's already scientifically known that your average human sees around 10 million colors, and a tetrachromat around 100 million. This means that we, as humans, are generalizing shades - so, how can our visual spectrum be an absolute fact?

You just cannot understand. All the scattering of light shows is that a certain range of wavelengths exists for the sky. Scattering of light allows the lower wavelengths of the visual spectrum to disperse in the sky - which happen to be blue. But these aren't always a single wavelength. Today could by wavelength X, tomorrow wavelength Y. My point, which I've stated numerous times, is that perhaps the difference between X and Y (which is small indeed) is enough for a tetrachromat to, in fact, see a different color (or shade, for your sake) than blue. Perhaps their range of blue is much smaller than ours - and, similar to how dogs 'generalize' color, we are doing the same. Again, look at the rainbow - you see 7 colors, a tetrachromat sees 10. Explain (you continue to ignore this).

Looks like you don't understand how color blindness works. Color blindness is not necessarily black and white vision. In any case, as I've stated numerous times, I have used the color blind example to open the debate. There are no actual instances of color blindness where people mistake blue for red, and I acknowledged this. It was a scenario, and if you read my posts in this thread, you would've seen that this has already been addressed.

I have now given the example of a tetrachromat which is nowhere near color blind. I have also given the example of a dog which cannot discern shades as we do. This is the entire concept of 'generalizing' colors. Dogs generalize in comparison to our visual spectrum - and perhaps we generalize when compared to a tetrachromat's visual spectrum. Unless you're willing to argue that all of us are right (including the dog, which is completely silly), then you should acknowledge that perhaps our visual spectrum is incorrect.

In any case, let's speak about people with black and white vision. A normal person sees 10 million different colors (shades included). Do you think a person with black and white vision sees 10 million different shades of grey? Of course not (some would argue that they only see 256 different shades). So, when the shade of a certain color changes for us, a person with black and white vision may still be seeing the exact same shade of grey. This poses a big problem to your argument.

1) Yes, it wouldn't work as a system, but that's off the point. We're talking about whether it's an absolute fact or not - not if it's convenient.

2) What about tetrachromats? They see more shades of color (or perhaps, even an entirely different color) in a defined wavelength range we have given for a certain color X. Who's right - us, or them?

3) Annex, you claimed that discerning different colors should be UNIVERSAL if colors were absolute. Don't forget, I'm arguing that our definition of colors is not necessarily absolute. I have already refuted this point, and it's simple to refute. Take Person X, and Dog Y. Assume Person X has normal vision (trichromat), and Dog Y can speak. Here are the visual spectra for both: http://www.mikeettner.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/dog-vision-color-spectrum-compared-to-man2.jpg

I'm the experimenter. I show to both specimens light of wavelength 650 nm. The person says the color he/she sees is red, and the dog says beige. Okay, that's fine, they see different colors. You argue, however, that when a new color shows up in the human's 'perfect' visual spectrum, the dog should be able to discern a different color as well (irregardless if this color is different than what the person sees).

Now here's where I refute that. I show light of wavelength 550 nm now. The person now says he/she sees yellow. The dog, however, still claims the color is beige. What does this mean? It means that your claim earlier is completely false. If you fail to acknowledge this, all you're doing is being close minded.

You simply said that the dog should be able to discern that this is a different color when this may NOT be the case. Even if the shade is different, the difference could be so subtle that the dog cannot discern it. Shade X and shade Y of beige may look EXACTLY the same. I have given an article on shades in the initial post, which can demonstrate this to you. Please read it - it's the third article.

You haven't really read my posts then. Please Annex, how many times have I told you that the scattering of light only proves that the sky can harbor a certain range of wavelengths? Would you like me to quote the numerous times that I've said that I'm not arguing about the wavelengths - rather, I'm arguing about the colors?

Also, I've stated that the initial post is an opening to the entire argument of whether our definition of colors is an absolute fact. I don't even know how to make you understand this. I'll try to make it as clear as possible below.

Blue is defined in our visual spectrum as approximately 450-495 nm. I know the different shades of blue exist in this range - for us. Now a tetrachromat's range for blue may be, for example, 450-475 nm, and from 475-495 nm, there is a completely different color which a tetrachromat would never say is blue. That would mean that even if we see a different shade of blue in that range, IT'S STILL BLUE. And for a tetrachromat, IT'S NOT BLUE. It's a completely different color. What does that mean?

If it makes you feel better to say this, be my guest. The argument is still there, and you've done nothing to refute it.

You ramble about the scattering of light, which is completely irrelevant to what I'm talking about. Funnily enough, you do so in a 'smart' scientific manner, and then accuse me of using 'copy pasted' terms to sound smart.

You claim that animals will be able to discern different colors exactly the same as we are able to, when I've given an example that refutes this.

You claim that if there exists a different shade, then we are 'discerning a different color', which is complete nonsense, because sometimes two shades of a certain color are so close that we cannot even discern the difference between them (450 nm and 450.1 nm of light, for example). Let me ask you a question Annex - how many shades of a color exist? Theoretically, the answer is infinity. But if that's the case, then how come humans can only see 10 million different colors?