Color perception

[Ca.]

Turquoise laces on white tennis.

 

[Mari]

What?? Pink and white? Okay now I have to find the post you are talking about.

I was referring to post here

Btw, I also saw this notorious dress - in link above is link to article posted in Sun magazine an at the bottom is the image of the dress.
In that picture the dress is actually white/gold but I COULD SWEAR that yesterday it was blue/golden-brown.
I´m at the computer now, yesterday I was at my phone.
I went now on my phone and it is still blue/golden-brown in the post but when you open the picture from the post - it turns to be white/gold.

It has to do with the screen quality and light...

Reminds me of Laura's grandma's advice from the Wave: "Don't believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see!"

Exactly!!!!

 

[Saman]

I was referring to post here

Btw, I also saw this notorious dress - in link above is link to article posted in Sun magazine an at the bottom is the image of the dress.
In that picture the dress is actually white/gold but I COULD SWEAR that yesterday it was blue/golden-brown.
I´m at the computer now, yesterday I was at my phone.
I went now on my phone and it is still blue/golden-brown in the post but when you open the picture from the post - it turns to be white/gold.

It has to do with the screen quality and light...


Exactly!!!!

Yeah I found that post by Seek10 and Approaching Infinity, and then the post about the dress as well. I too saw it as blue and golden-brown if I remember correctly, but I didn't pay close attention to it. Well that was several hours ago. Gonna check again right now here thanks to Gandalf's post to image of the dress.

Well, if I remember correctly, I see it has the same as before, but I now I notice very faint tinges of golden brown mixed/overlaid with some parts of the blue here and there as well. And for type of blue shade, if was going to use the table of shades of blue here, it would be approximately between a Maya blue and a Sky Blue shade. Hmm, I wonder why I see this very faint tinge color-effect in both the shoe and the dress. My right eye is tiny bit more blurry than my left eye due to having slightly asymmetrical eyes, but the colors look the same in one eye or the other if I cover each of them in turn.

I guess I will perhaps look into it a bit more later. Night.

 

[mrtn]

The following short explanatory video is interesting, but I still can't see white laces anyway.

Yesterday I was solid on gray/cyan. Now today I watched this video and now I see the pink/white shoe . What made this possible is to imagine that the light in the room is cyan.

 

[Keit]

It's an interesting phenomenon, because for those seeing grey/blue variations, technically they're seeing what is in front of them, but missing the fact that the shoe itself is pink/white and the lighting is just off. But those seeing pink/white are automatically correcting the image without seeing that the lighting of the picture is actually displaying different colors than they are 'seeing'.

Ok, and what about the situation when you see patches of the original color? I am assuming that whoever made this "less red" filter applied it to the entire image, and not only particular parts? If so, why some of us manage to see both colors?

I also tried to test the idea that "it depends on the monitor settings", and played with the settings, trying to change the modes, or playing with the RPG scale, removing or adding the red-green-blue, and nothing changed. I could still see turquoise laces and grey shoes with pink patches.

Only when I changed from RPG to YPbPr the laces became kind of white, and the pink got more pronounced and in larger patches. But then, apparently other people were able to see "pink shoe and white laces" right away, and without any changes to the monitor, so we can't really say that it has to do with the monitor settings.

I looked for a possible explanation and found the following video:

But this video still doesn't give an explanation what exactly is happening. I looked on the forum and it led to several interesting connections and thoughts that are not exactly related to the "color perception", but to "perception of reality" in general, so I appologize for a bunch of.

First, there is this Laura's post in the Keto thread, where she cites a paper about " tetrachromatic" people, and the possible connection with food sensitivities.

Researchers suspect, though, that some people see even more. Living among us are people with four cones, who might experience a range of colors invisible to the rest. It’s possible these so-called tetrachromats see a hundred million colors, with each familiar hue fracturing into a hundred more subtle shades for which there are no names, no paint swatches. And because perceiving color is a personal experience, they would have no way of knowing they see far beyond what we consider the limits of human vision.

The above is only a small quote, and I advise to read the entire article. Fascinating stuff! And then Laura adds:

Now, the reason I bring this up is that we noticed that those of us here in the house who seemed to have the ability to name way more colors also seemed to be way sensitive to stevia. How do you test such a thing? Well, obviously, it is subjective to a great extent, but it was actually because some of us can look at two colors side by side and say they are NOT the same while another can look at them and say that they are the same. Then, we you do a color break-down on the computer, you find that the one that can see a difference is right: there are very subtle differences which the computer can identify by pixel counts/chromatic things. And yes, those of us who seem to have this ability have male relatives who are color blind.

So, anyway, there we were talking about this ability to see more colors, very subtle gradations, in fact, along with the hypersensitivity to certain kinds of tastes. That reminded us of something that we read in one of the many diet books we've reviewed about "supertasters".

This reminded me of a recent interview Joe Rogan had with Andrew Huberman, a neuroscientist, particularly the part where he explains that now it's understood that our eyes are actually part of the brain. That they are literally our window to the brain.

You can watch the following short snipet from the interview, or just begin watching from the min 4:00 when he talks about it. ,But I recommend to watch the entire 12 min clip, because Huberman also talks about a simple test if someone is hypnotizable or not.

And him mentioning the topic of hypnotizability led me to strobe lights, and how the C's mentioned that strobe lights can be "hypnotic openers" that "disguise the craft".

Q: (L) If you encounter a strobe while driving, or you are sitting in front of your television, then the suggestions can be put into you better because of this hypnotically opened state? Is that it?

A: Yes.

And there is this excerpt:

Q: (L) Along the lines of some of the things that I have been working on recently, I'd like to ask if there's any more information you can give to us about the hypnotic-opener- strobe effect, and what it is preventing us from seeing. Is this one of the things that keeps us from expanding into the next density, in terms of awareness?

A: Not related to that. You see, the souls that are affected by all these "cloaking" techniques are vibrating on a low level anyway. The point is to block those who are blockable.

Q: (T) We're not blockable? (L) Is there anything we can do to avoid this blocking? (T) We're not being blocked...

A: You are not blockable.

So there are these ideas that we all may perceive reality in a different way, perhaps depending on our genetic make-up, FRV, or other inner states. For example, being primed or exposed to a certain material prior to that.

Huberman also explains how activation of a sympathetic system, or a state of high-arousal can limit our perception and sight.

And it led me to the following excerpt:

It's interesting because when you do mushrooms there are those amazing "hallucinations". But if I understand correctly, it's just a shift of focus from inward to outward...

A: Synesthesia.

Q: (L) That's making connections between different parts of the brain that aren't ordinarily connected, like when you smell a number, feel a number... So it just kind of crisscrosses everything; lets everything flow in and all the inputs are jumbled and that seems like a “spiritual experience” to ignorant people.

(Joe) Part of it I think is that all of that stuff that you're processing that you've selectively filtered in your daily life, you're actually seeing all the stuff that's in your brain.

(L) It's the stuff that's going on all the time.

(Joe) It's like rummaging through your garbage.

(Pierre) Yeah, you filter far less those external stimuli.

(L) And not just external, but internal. What's going on in your brain, like your whole neural sheet, your ears, your eyes... They're all taking in all kinds of stuff and it’s all being processed in different parts of the brain all the time, and most of it is just filed without being brought to conscious attention.

(Joe) And you're set up to only process that amount of information that helps you to function properly in the world.

(L) And people who are depressed narrow that focus even more to just those things that they ruminate on over and over again; their own “take” on everything dominated by programs.

(Pierre) Yes.

(Andromeda) They block out everything else.

(L) So, in general, for some people it would be a helpful therapy, but not something that one would repeat for bogus spiritual experiences. Is that the bottom line?

A: Yes

Interestingly enough, there is this recent research:

There has been a lot of recent interest in the use of psychedelic drugs to treat depression. A new study from McGill suggests that, in the right context, some people may experience psychedelic-like effects from placebos alone. The researchers reported some of the strongest placebo effects (these are effects from "fake" medication) on consciousness in the literature relating to psychedelic drugs. Indeed, 61% of the participants in the experiment reported some effect after consuming the placebo.

And so we can see that in some cases we ourselves "regulate" our own inner states and have the ability to shift our perception to see things differently. This actually matches with what some people wrote on the thread, that one day they saw the shoes being grey and turquoise, and now see it as pink and white.

It could be as a result of self-suggestion and then a sort of "brain rearrangement", or it could be something else. It's also possible that those who are not "externally hypnotizable" can still modify and influence their inner state. And who knows what kind of other influences could be involved.

 

[Ant22]

The explanation was the following:
When the right hemisphere dominates you see pink and white.
A dominating left hemisphere makes you see turquoise and grey.

I read that on Facebook too. But they didn't explain the process or the science behind it so I'm not sure I take their word for it. I'd be curious to know what specific process is responsible for the fact that people see the same colours differently.

I also wonder if a similar process is responsible for the fact that men and women see colours differently. Or rather that women seem to notice a wider spectrum of shades. 'Seem to' is key here becuase I actually get the impression men notice the shades, they just don't care that much about them and cannot usually name them with fancy names. What to a woman is cerise pink, rose pink and baby pink, for an average man is just different types of pink and they will use the label 'pink' to refer to them.

But maybe I'm just overly inquisitive

 

[Tauriel]

But they didn't explain the process or the science behind it so I'm not sure I take their word for it.

I agree and take it with a grain of salt. And it would be indeed interesting to know why people see the picture differently on the same screen.

 

[Mari]

It matters also the display.

I.e. I took this test now twice:
1. from my laptop and I´ve got 27 out of 36 correct.
2. from my iPhone and I´ve got 31 out of 36 correct

So we have multiple factors here: the display, the shades, the illumination and, of course, the person´s ability to distinguish colors.....

 

[Wandering Star]

I see pinkish grey and aquamarine. I think like a couple others have mentioned this is like one of those visual optical illusions. The mind can critically correct what it sees based on what it knows "should" be there. In this case, what should be there are white and pink:

Latest optical illusion sees a shoe appear pink and white AND grey and green

A SHOE is dividing opinion on the internet with no one managing to agree what colour it is. In scenes reminiscent of The Dress argument back in 2015, a pair of trainers are causing a storm online. …

www.thesun.co.uk

It's like when you're wearing blueblockers or any color-tinted glasses. White things may look orange, or blue, etc. But you "know" they're white based on the contrast you habitually see using ordinary vision under optimal lighting conditions.

My son has a red bicycle.

Sometimes I go with him along a path and on this path there is an area where the only illumination comes from a streetlight that emits an orange light close to red.

Well, the first day we passed by that place, my son was amazed. The bike was suddenly metallic gray. Its strong red color was gone and it was now metallic gray.

If I did not have the opportunity to see my son's bicycle in a different light than this road, the bicycle would be metallic gray and I would have no opportunity to know the truth, except for the desire to know and the study of colors. Which color overrides another and eventually, I could deduce the "real" color of the bike.

Maybe I could find out the truth, but ...

However, I would still see the metallic gray bicycle.

So...

What we see or perceive may not be "the truth."

Maybe there are things around us that we don't see?

 

[mrtn]

Here are samples of some areas of the image. Left column is magnified, right column is average color of those pixels.
Looking at the bare colors it's more difficult to see pink or white as when looking at the actual 'scene' (shoe, lighting)

 

[mrtn]

I.e. I took this test now twice:
1. from my laptop and I´ve got 27 out of 36 correct.
2. from my iPhone and I´ve got 31 out of 36 correct

That was interesting. I got 32 correct. The 4 wrong answers where all for finding the odd color out of 4.

 

[seek10]

I.e. I took this test now twice:

I took the above test I got 28 out of 36 after removing all the filters of the monitor ( blue light filters etc.). In the test, I didn't see some letters in the first attempt, but when scanned limiting the focus to the shorter region, I can see the letters.

I have a new monitor with lot of gaming modes and I changed the mode to see the effect. In one mode I can see the lace as a blue instead of the usual bluish-green. I have seen many times these color differences due to sunlight intensity, angles, shades, color lights etc.

TetraChromacy is an interesting subject. It looks genetics and adaptability/nueroplasticity also play a role in to it.

Tetrachromacy is the condition of possessing four independent channels for conveying color information, or possessing four types of cone cell in the eye. Organisms with tetrachromacy are called tetrachromats.

In tetrachromatic organisms, the sensory color space is four-dimensional, meaning that to match the sensory effect of arbitrarily chosen spectra of light within their visible spectrum requires mixtures of at least four primary colors.

Tetrachromacy is demonstrated among several species of bird, fish, amphibian, reptile, insect and some mammals. It was the normal condition of most mammals in the past; a genetic change made the majority of species of this class eventually lose two of their four cones.

 

[Renaissance]

It's an interesting phenomenon, because for those seeing grey/blue variations, technically they're seeing what is in front of them, but missing the fact that the shoe itself is pink/white and the lighting is just off. But those seeing pink/white are automatically correcting the image without seeing that the lighting of the picture is actually displaying different colors than they are 'seeing'.

Fwiw, I saw pink before knowing the shoe was actually pink. Or are you saying something different?

It matters also the display.

I.e. I took this test now twice:
1. from my laptop and I´ve got 27 out of 36 correct.
2. from my iPhone and I´ve got 31 out of 36 correct

So we have multiple factors here: the display, the shades, the illumination and, of course, the person´s ability to distinguish colors.....

Initially, I got 31 out of 36. I answered a few of the questions using hunches more than being certain. When I looked at the answers after the test, I saw the things I had missed in 3 of my wrong answers (they threw in a few tricks!) but I couldn't see the answer at all in the remaining 2.

 

[Ophiuchus]

I took that test but look... I do see a rectangle in the right picture, don't you?
They say I got it wrong and the rectangle is in the left picture.

 

[mrtn]

I took that test but look... I do see a rectangle in the right picture, don't you?
They say I got it wrong and the rectangle is in the left picture.

The rectangle in the right isn't really gray, more like a purple tone. But there is a gray one in the bottom left of the left image. Very hard to see though!