People will keep saying it's about fruit detection but I believe there's more to it than that.

>>16721929 (OP)
It's the wavelengths of light that's available on the surface of the planet. It's why the world is irradiated with color, and why the eye evolved to see that color.

>>16721929 (OP)
>but I believe there's more to it than that.
Well yeah. There always is with these sorts of things.

Green indicates foliage. Probably a good place to find food and water. Go there.
Red is the color of many edible fruits, but many toxic ones too. It's also the color of blood. Not only that, it's the color of an engorged, aroused pussy. Stop what you're doing and pay attention.
Blue is the color of the sky in the day. Hence why blue light regulates (or disregulates) our circadian rhythm.

But really, though, it's probably 90% just visual contrast. Better color detection renders certain forms of camouflage less effective.

>>16721929 (OP)

Overcoming predator camouflage.

how do you know that your red is the same as my red?

>>16722102
we're the same species, monkey

>>16721929 (OP)
There is no why, it just happened.

>>16722102
Color blind people find out eventually you can test for tetrachromacy, if your subcountious experimence of red would differ we would notice sooner or later. Same for sound. If not we figure it out sooner or later. Proof is people who will notice that thier perception is off

>>16722174
those tests only measure behavioral or physiological responses to stimuli, not the felt experience

>>16722174
Colorblindness and tetrachromacy are abnormalities in the range of colors you can experience, not the subjective experience of those colors. If the way I saw red were the same as the way you saw blue, but we could both saw what we call red in the same frequency band, we would be pointing at the same thing and calling it the same thing.

>>16722102
There is zero evidence that anyone other than yourself experiences anything at all. As such talking about the experience of redness is not useful of even meaningful.

colors exist because they must

>>16721929 (OP)
"why" is not a question in evolutionary biology
why is an anthropomorphism of the evolutionary process, there is no such thing as why
things arent done for reasons, they just are done
the real question is "how"? and how did we evolve to see colors then? we evolved color cones because humans who could see colors slightly better had more access to food or noticed predators better and thus survived and had kids more, this process continued for hundreds of millions of years until the feature became more intensified and we could see colors.

>>16721929 (OP)
Stfu

>>16721929 (OP)
It's pretty unclear what you're even asking.

>>16721929 (OP)
Why did we evolve to have fragile meat instead of being strong and robust stone-based lifeforms? Retard.

>>16721929 (OP)
>it's about fruit detection
lmfao, what a simplistic reductionist pile of shit, but not more retarded than op that merely thought "but I believe there's more to it than that."
tl;dr: brainlet

More data and information is encoded in color that can be transferred more rapidly telling of danger, mating, shelter, food faster and more selections than just black and white and greys.

The Why is because it is favorable in every category except the requirements of more energy to build and reproduce a much more complex eye. But the chance to find the food requirements is fulfilled rapidly.
Its a very good cost per quick payoff reward mutation, as well as long term.
Forward facing predator eyes.
Eye lids
Focus.
Left/right, up/down range of gimbal tilt motion in the eye sockets, that is set in a head with up/down, left/right gimbal tilt motion, set on a body with left/right, forward backwards, up/down gimbal movement.

>>16722102
what if my white people are your black people, and your black people are my white people

>>16721929 (OP)
evolution is fake ffs

>>16721929 (OP)
color = information

retard here. how do we know for certain that animals can only see a small spectrum of colors? is it possible animals see more colors than us and we can't tell?

>>16725647
speculation =/= facts
much of science is speculation

>>16725647
Looking at their cone cells and seeing what frequency of light they respond to.
There's also more speculative routes like how jumping spiders supposedly see certain color ranges as an alteration of depth perception based on the shape of their eyes.
Behavioral studies seem to show they respond to these color ranges even though they don't have the cones for them but who knows how their brain actually interprets it?

Isn’t light universally spreading. Wouldn’t it be unavoidable that lifeforms with the ability to parse light would be able to see color?

>>16722589
Yeah but it’s a safe assumption that it’s not that. Even if you believe in simulation logic, it’s possible you’re not the only one in the simulation experiencing it. Even if 99.99% of the human race isn’t truly self aware, it’s possible there are others.

>>16726006
Color perception has little to do with the nature of light itself and more to do with having the biological mechanisms to perceive and interpret it.
Radio waves are light in the most pedantic sense yet our eyes have no way to perceive them. And without red cone cells we'd see yellow as as more intense green.

>>16726098
>And without red cone cells we'd see yellow as as more intense green.
Without red cone cells we wouldn't be able to perceive yellow at all since it require red cone activation to be perceived.

>>16726140
Correct, hence me saying you'd perceive it as a more intense green.
The green cone would activate and there'd be no red cone to perceive it as anything other than green.

>>16726156
>The green cone would activate and there'd be no red cone to perceive it as anything other than green.
Uhhhh the blue cone cell would still remain, so the option for cyan stay intact.

>>16726159
Depends how loose your definition of yellow is I suppose.

>>16726098
>Color perception has little to do with the nature of light itself
Nonsense.
E=h*f
h = 6.626×10−34J⋅s
1eV=1.6×10−19J
E=f×4.1357×10−15eV

Example: Red has a wavelength of 650 nm, a frequency of 460 THz, or a photon energy E=460×4.1357×10−15≈1.9eV

Red is approximately 1.6–2.1 eV
Green is approximately 2.4–2.8 eV
Blue is approximately 2.8–3.1 eV

Color isn't some subjective variable. Its the objective level of energy imparted by a photon upon an electron in an atom or molecule.

>>16726197
Sooo do that mean this color is simultaneously low energy and high energy but paradoxically lack a middle energy level?

>>16726197
Nobody's denying the existence of emf. What is ostensibly subjective is at what frequency the electromagnetic radiation shifts from one color to another. That's dependant on subjective interpretation and the cumulative sensitivity of the cone cells in your retina which may vary from person to person.

No. Color is not an objective feature of electromagnetic radiation. It is an experience created by your biological reaction to that radiation.

>>16722102
It likely is not
>>16722357
Some studies suggest that tetrachromatic eyes aren't too rare. Most studies that tried to find tetrachromats only tested female relatives of colorblind people, but newer studies found 4th cones in some male eye donors so those older studies might have been selecting participants based on wrong assumptions.

>>16726200
>the color out of space is a girly color
Grim

>>16721929 (OP)
>but I believe there's more to it than that.
who cares about what you think mate, lmfao?

>>16722174
You are misunderstanding the question, its about qualia

>>16726140
>>16726156
>>16726159
>>16726162
Color is the difference of activation of all 3 cones together, the cones themselves aren't equal to colors. For example, color blind people who lack the M or L cone don't just lose red or green, they really can only differentiate between blueish and not-blueish.

>>16726197
Almost all colors aren't pure spectral colors.

>>16726293
Eh. It's not quite so simple, and definitely more complex than I was illustrating. I was just making the point that "color" is not an intrinsic property of light.

>>16722102
how do u know that when i stroke my dick, i dont actually feel what you would call terrible pain, but actually to me that feels nice? answer: you dont fuck know that, ididot

>>16726263
>girly
You're the one who ascribe that quality to it though

>>16721929 (OP)
this board needs mods so bad I literally can not even

>>16726263
some girls are quite stellar

>>16726389
That would involve banning 80% of users so no sane person would be willing to do it
What we need is to remove /pol/ and ban retards who try to force its topics on other boards

>>16726278
>Faglia
>>>/x/

>>16726008
Subjective experience is outside what can be observed, something which cannot be observed is equivalent to not existing at all. If you dig through another persons head you will not find any "redness" anywhere inside there, there will be physical brain states corresponding to red, but the subjective experience of "redness" does not exist. This also applies to your own brain, if you examine your own brain you will not find "redness" in there. There is a hard boundary between your subjective mind and the rest of the universes which you can observe with your senses.

>>16726980
>everyone is a zombie because there's no scientific experiment to prove anyone else is conscious
>>>/x/

>>16722102
You red and my red are completely different. The only thing we can agree on are that it's red. Other than that, might as well be blue or even yellow.

>>16727230
We don't even really know if the way you perceive color isn't the way I perceive flavor.

>>16727233
Your red tastes funny.

>>16727230
>>16727233
>>16727239
see >>16722103

>>16722103
>>16727625
That's not the micdrop you think it is.

>>16722103
>>16727625
Is cilantro soapy or green?

>>16721929 (OP)
Its the information we can sense that is coherent in shapes geometrically with constraints to our scale, and also composition, we can't see outside of this because it wouldn't be precise on the low end, and wouldn't be safe on the high end of the energy, imagine focusing ionizing energy onto your cells.

>>16721929 (OP)
Posts like this are why I can't take this board seriously anymore

>>16722102
We have similar brains and the same detectors (cones in the retina), which had to be picked up by our common ancestors so they could properly survive. Had the colours been different across members of the same species, they wouldn't properly interact.
Of course, colourblind people exist, but those are just deficiencies in the cones or brain.

>>16729475
retarded pic, there are no yellow cones and cyan cones

>>16729475
>We have similar brains and the same detectors (cones in the retina), which had to be picked up by our common ancestors so they could properly survive. Had the colours been different across members of the same species, they wouldn't properly interact.
If your "red" feels like my "green" but we both call it "red" and act appropriately (e.g., stopping at a red signal), evolution wouldn’t detect or penalize this difference. The physical detectors and brain processes could be identical but our felt experiences could be different