Skip to main content
22 events
when toggle format what by license comment
May 29, 2014 at 4:42 history tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackPhilosophy/status/471874265902768128
May 8, 2014 at 0:36 comment added senderle This isn't quite an answer, but are you familiar with Hume's "missing shade of blue"?
May 7, 2014 at 21:35 comment added Dave There is the idea of "minimal perceptible colour difference" in the psychology community, which gives a measure to the granularity of colour perception.
May 7, 2014 at 9:56 comment added Hunan Rostomyan @MoziburUllah Of course you are... :)
May 7, 2014 at 9:39 comment added Mozibur Ullah @Rostomyan: it looks like I'm on the other side of that debate ;).
May 7, 2014 at 9:37 comment added Hunan Rostomyan @MoziburUllah Thanks. Your responses to me and iphigenie, as well as the title change helped. I'm on the Dennett/Quine side of things as regards qualia, but this is not the place for my prejudices. I'll retract my vote. Hopefully it will generate useful content.
May 7, 2014 at 9:36 comment added alanf I agree that this is not a physics question or an optics question since this does not cover the way the information about the eye is processed by the brain. You might argue that it's a biology question or computation question but the fact that you have to argue about it suggests that it does involve philosophy.
May 7, 2014 at 9:33 history edited Mozibur Ullah CC BY-SA 3.0
edited title
May 7, 2014 at 9:32 comment added Mozibur Ullah @Iphigenie: In what way am I asking a physics question? My title question might be a bit confusing, essentially it should be understood as asking how many colours are there for us. I left that part out as a rhetorical device - but it seems to have caused confusion instead. I'll amend it.
May 7, 2014 at 9:29 comment added Mozibur Ullah @Rostomyan:Well, it is in one perspective; but I'm asking about the sensation of the colour red, not about say its wave-length and its impact on our retina. Essentially I'm asking about subjective character of red, not its objective character as physics. Are you claiming that there is no such distinction?
May 7, 2014 at 9:28 comment added iphigenie You're asking a physics question, then you try to make the link to qualia and bat-ness, though I don't get the link, because you're seemingly asking about the existence of colours, not about colours for us, I'm not sure how this is relevant, and I don't see how to answer your question, besides with physical explanations.
May 7, 2014 at 9:22 comment added Hunan Rostomyan @MoziburUllah I meant that if you had asked "how many colors do humans see?", for example, the answer would have to come from people who understand the physics of light, not from people who philosophize about colors. Does that not seem right?
May 7, 2014 at 9:19 answer added alanf timeline score: 3
May 7, 2014 at 9:15 comment added Mozibur Ullah @Rostomyan: You mean that dogs or cats can see colours that we can't, and these colours are not represented to them, through the primary colours of red, green & blue?
May 7, 2014 at 9:11 history edited Mozibur Ullah CC BY-SA 3.0
added 937 characters in body
May 7, 2014 at 9:07 comment added Hunan Rostomyan Not sure what exactly the main question is. The question in the title, once the appropriate qualification is made (once it's relativized to humans or dogs or cats, for example), turns into an optics question.
May 7, 2014 at 9:00 comment added user3164 Possibly related: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_color or en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_color
May 7, 2014 at 8:57 history edited Mozibur Ullah CC BY-SA 3.0
added 937 characters in body
May 7, 2014 at 8:55 review Close votes
May 11, 2014 at 19:27
May 7, 2014 at 8:37 comment added Mozibur Ullah @iphigenie:in what way?
May 7, 2014 at 8:37 comment added iphigenie This question appears to be off-topic.
May 7, 2014 at 8:36 history asked Mozibur Ullah CC BY-SA 3.0