Intertesting research, but it is not a colour. It is a human’s visual sensation created by giving the brain unusual inputs. If you take the same light and measure it spectrum, it is not new.
Did you know we only experience pink as our red and blue cell receptors being stimulated at the same time? There is no pink wavelength.
exocortex@discuss.tchncs.de
on 02 May 06:37
nextcollapse
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.
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
on 02 May 13:17
collapse
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.
The whole point was that there is physical combination of wavelengths that induces pink sensation but there is none for this new olo, this is why i think it is not a property of light but purely a human sensation.
agent_nycto@lemmy.world
on 02 May 05:13
nextcollapse
Ok but it’s a new experience that no one has had before. The only reason why the set of electromagnetic wavelengths is special is because it’s part of the human experience. So seeing something outside of that normal perception is arguably seeing a new color.
JackbyDev@programming.dev
on 02 May 08:43
nextcollapse
You say that, but Magenta is similar. It’s a unique reaction in our perception to two different wavelengths of light combining. Magenta is not in the rainbow.
The whole point was that there is physical combination of wavelengths that induces pink sensation but there is none for this new olo, this is why i think it is not a property of light but purely a human sensation.
JackbyDev@programming.dev
on 02 May 13:10
collapse
Yeah, that’s the entire point I’m making. In the same way magenta is not a single wavelength but a side effect of our perception, olo is an effect of stimulating individual types of cone cells instead of the eye as a whole.
Color is mostly a biological sensation. In low light, humans lose color acuity because rods are activated more than cones. Objects reflect the same wavelengths, but our cones can’t activate due to low energy. Does this mean color fades in low light? It depends on the physiology of the perceiver.
Humans have three color receptors peak-sensitive to red, green, and blue. Dogs have only two: yellow and blue. This means they can’t distinguish certain wavelengths. To dogs and colorblind humans, red and green look the same because their receptors are activated similarly. Color isn’t just a property of light; it’s a biological perceptual experience.
codexarcanum@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 02 May 14:08
collapse
Objects don’t “have” colors either, if we’re being pedantic. They reflect/absorb/transmit/emit different combinations of wavelengths. So “pink” objects just reflect some wavelengths that we classify as in the range of “red” and “blue”. Color is an interaction between emission, detection, and the brain’s interpretation.
Its not even a unique trick. The ears combine various wavelengths of air vibrations to create sound, with combinations of pure waves merging into distinct timbres (sometimes called “tonal color”).
threaded - newest
I wonder if this will be more available in my lifetime.
thanks Valve
huh?
Valve not releasing HL3, I was half asleep and I suck please ignore
Happens to the best of us.
Bruh, a new color dropped before GTA 6??
It’s GTA 6 the new HL 3?
Wow quite a super interesting read.
The doors of perception can be opened to many different avenues.
I’m so jealous.
I wonder if it’s quite like anti-red
Stare at the center of a bright red circle for like 30 seconds,
Then look away at a white surface.
It looks like what those people in the article describe, especially in the “holy shit I’ve never seen that before” feeling.
Intertesting research, but it is not a colour. It is a human’s visual sensation created by giving the brain unusual inputs. If you take the same light and measure it spectrum, it is not new.
Did you know we only experience pink as our red and blue cell receptors being stimulated at the same time? There is no pink wavelength.
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.
I saw the following meme the other day on that topic which I found amazing:
<img alt="shrimps have more cones because they’re dumb" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/8e6efce9-5187-452d-b4c4-be95897909b0.jpeg">
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!
What are you referring to as linear? AFAIK human perception is very much non-linear, which is why we have color spaces like OKLAB.
The whole point was that there is physical combination of wavelengths that induces pink sensation but there is none for this new olo, this is why i think it is not a property of light but purely a human sensation.
.
Ok but it’s a new experience that no one has had before. The only reason why the set of electromagnetic wavelengths is special is because it’s part of the human experience. So seeing something outside of that normal perception is arguably seeing a new color.
You say that, but Magenta is similar. It’s a unique reaction in our perception to two different wavelengths of light combining. Magenta is not in the rainbow.
The whole point was that there is physical combination of wavelengths that induces pink sensation but there is none for this new olo, this is why i think it is not a property of light but purely a human sensation.
Yeah, that’s the entire point I’m making. In the same way magenta is not a single wavelength but a side effect of our perception, olo is an effect of stimulating individual types of cone cells instead of the eye as a whole.
Color is mostly a biological sensation. In low light, humans lose color acuity because rods are activated more than cones. Objects reflect the same wavelengths, but our cones can’t activate due to low energy. Does this mean color fades in low light? It depends on the physiology of the perceiver.
Humans have three color receptors peak-sensitive to red, green, and blue. Dogs have only two: yellow and blue. This means they can’t distinguish certain wavelengths. To dogs and colorblind humans, red and green look the same because their receptors are activated similarly. Color isn’t just a property of light; it’s a biological perceptual experience.
Objects don’t “have” colors either, if we’re being pedantic. They reflect/absorb/transmit/emit different combinations of wavelengths. So “pink” objects just reflect some wavelengths that we classify as in the range of “red” and “blue”. Color is an interaction between emission, detection, and the brain’s interpretation.
Its not even a unique trick. The ears combine various wavelengths of air vibrations to create sound, with combinations of pure waves merging into distinct timbres (sometimes called “tonal color”).
So Octarine, basically.
See also Brand-new colour created by tricking human eyes with laser - News - nature.com.
There’s a Lovecraft story about this exact thing. It doesn’t end well.