erick28z Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Galileo believed that things like color, texture, odor ect only exist in our consciousness and are created by our sensory organs. He also felt this applied to heat, as it doesn't exist but is merely felt. Are these beliefs still endorsed by the scientific community today or have they played a part in modern science? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 If that's what Galileo though he has been shown wrong. Odor exists as molecules of some composition. Texture exists as a mechanical arrangement of matherial. Color exists as different wavelengths of emitted or reflected light. Heat exists as energy transfer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekan Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I suppose "texture" and "heat" can be said to objectively exist. Especially heat, which as Swanson says, is energy transfer. Such transfers make the Sun work, and if they didn't, we'd all be frozen to death. But colour - surely that's only a subjective impression. Generated by our human eyes and brains. Which have evolved to distinguish wavelengths into "colours" such as "RED" and "GREEN". But this distinction doesn't exist for a Daltonian, or indeed any blind person. So wasn't Galileo right at least about colour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 We associate color with wavelength, and there is an objective difference between the light that comprises any two colors of the spectrum. You are talking about an individual's perception of color, but that's not the only thing at play here, i.e. it is not only our senses that make this difference. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekan Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 We associate color with wavelength Don't you mean, we associate wavelength with colour? The wavelength is objective and actually exists. The colour is a mere subjective product of the visual processing bits of the human brain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Don't you mean, we associate wavelength with colour? The wavelength is objective and actually exists. The colour is a mere subjective product of the visual processing bits of the human brain. My point is that there is an actual difference in the light. The difference is not created only in our consciousness/senses, which is what the OP asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekan Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Well of course there's an actual difference in the wavelengths of light. No-one's disputing that. I'm saying that colours are a subjective impression which the wavelength differences give rise to in our brains! Gosh, this is hard work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Galileo believed that things like color, texture, odor ect only exist in our consciousness and are created by our sensory organs. He also felt this applied to heat, as it doesn't exist but is merely felt. Are these beliefs still endorsed by the scientific community today or have they played a part in modern science? The tree falling in the forest still creates the sensory stimulation that receptors like ears and eyes and noses can detect, even if those detectors aren't present. The molecules that surround an object that find their way into your nose so you can detect them with your olfactory sense don't exist only in your consciousness, they're really there. If heat doesn't exist but requires a tactile element in order to be felt, why does non-conscious iron react to heat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Well of course there's an actual difference in the wavelengths of light. No-one's disputing that. I'm saying that colours are a subjective impression which the wavelength differences give rise to in our brains! Gosh, this is hard work. I'm not disputing this. I'm just answering the question in the OP (are color differences solely due to our senses; the answer is no). You're answering a different question (is color an inherent property of the light, or something like that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekan Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 No, Swansont, "colour" differences are solely due to our senses. If you reflect a little, you'll see that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pears Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 It depends how you define those words 'colour', 'texture' etc. If you define them as the experience then yes they only exist in our consciousness. If you define them as the phenomena which cause those experiences then they exist as objective physical reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) Actually you should study colour receptors more thoroughly. The RGB scheme in colour cameras, television and projectors is no accident. It stems from the fact that not only our eyes, but the eyes of pretty well all life that has eyes, works in the same way. Eyes have triplets of receptors, each single receptor sensitive to one of the primary triplet colours, just as in colour cameras. Yes we have copied nature. And the colours chosen are no accident either, they correspond to available pigment photchemical reactions. Perhaps a biologist could chip in here as I only know the outline details. Edited January 7, 2014 by studiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 No, Swansont, "colour" differences are solely due to our senses. If you reflect a little, you'll see that. No, for that to be true the properties of the photons can't matter. I'm quite sure that if I see a bunch of 550 nm photons, I will not perceive them as different colors. They will all be green to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 No, for that to be true the properties of the photons can't matter. I'm quite sure that if I see a bunch of 550 nm photons, I will not perceive them as different colors. They will all be green to me. Well you might - but the majority of the population will not. Colour perception depends hugely on surrounding colours and shades Column two and column three are the same colour of green btw - I can post the screenshots of GIMP colour picker if required, or you can just cover the surroundings and they will suddenly be obviously the same 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Well you might - but the majority of the population will not. Colour perception depends hugely on surrounding colours and shades Colour Perception.png Column two and column three are the same colour of green btw - I can post the screenshots of GIMP colour picker if required, or you can just cover the surroundings and they will suddenly be obviously the same True, but again this is answering a different question. I am not claiming that perception isn't present. The OP asked if it is 100% perception, and it's not. That doesn't mean it's 0% perception; this isn't a binary case, and I don't think I implied that it was. All I've said is that there are actual, quantifiable difference between photons, which is sufficient to show the OP to be wrong. Anything beyond that is a different argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidivad Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Galileo believed that things like color, texture, odor ect only exist in our consciousness and are created by our sensory organs. He also felt this applied to heat, as it doesn't exist but is merely felt. Are these beliefs still endorsed by the scientific community today or have they played a part in modern science? he would be correct... but this does not mean that you cannot figure out what causes this sensation. the effect is clearly due to the motion of particles. Edited January 10, 2014 by davidivad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now