Fact is we are nothing but brains absorbing the necessary information around, which is needed to survive. Did you know that something as fundamental as colors are as much a cultural phenomenon as everything else?
In this mind-boggling video, the channel Vsauce2 digs into the invention and story of the color blue. It is easy to assume we already knew or talked about blue since the beginning of time. After all, there are plenty of blue things in nature. Animals, flowers, eyes, water, and even the sky all shows the color blue from time to time. However, what if I told you the sky was once green? Throughout history and relative to the given culture the use, need and thereby the perception of color have changed drastically. In some cultures, there are even several names for what we in the west would just categorize as blue.
With a master in educational philosophy, suffering from mild deuteranopia, one of my biggest interests is human perception. How do we as humans sense and interpret the world around us. What is down to our genes and what is shaped through culture? Can you even make such a distinction?
Whether we consider our photography artistic or artisan color is a basic part of our work and something we are forced to deal with. However, when we decide to color grade our photography or video it can be perceived completely different relative to both individuals and culture.
Check out the video and let me hear your thoughts.
I read about this recently, was very interesting. Some cultures have no words to separate some colours. I can't for the life of me think where I read it.
I don't know what you read, but the seminal study is Berlin & Kay's (1969) book Basic Color Terms.
And then also their 2011 follow up: The World Color Survey
Just remembered, it was an audio book on Audible. Free one by Stephen Fry. 'Fry's English Delight'
Haven't watched the video yet but in Japan, they refer to the green traffic light as blue. Not because they look the same but because "aka, ki, ao" (red, yellow, blue) rolls off the tongue easier than "aka, ki, midori" (red, yellow, green). :-)
Engaged to a Japanese girl, and have been there a few times now, can confirm "light is blue, let's go" ... this little thing kinda blew my mind, reminded of the Hendrix song, and wondered if that's where he got it (doubtful, but maybe...). Poetic even.
Even though I've been married to a Japanese woman for several years and been to Japan many times, I've never actually heard anyone say that. We typically take the train, subway or taxi.
Fascinating video, thank you for sharing it. It certainly also feeds well into why the graphic presentation of black / white / red is so powerful. Also reminds me of how orange used to be simply "red-brown".
"Fact is we are nothing but brains..."
I'm not seeing the relevance of this claim to the rest of the article. I'm also not being nitpicky; you're passing a fairly controversial and largely unpopular theory in the philosophy of mind as "fact." None of your comments regarding perception depend upon, or even presuppose, a materialist or physicalist theory of mind.
I understand the need to capture your reader's attention from the very first line. But from one philosopher to another, I think a bit of humility is in order if you're going to begin your piece with such a bombastic claim.
My instictive reaction is 'but the neocortex', quickly followed by 'the only reason we exist at all as organisms is to transfer our DNA'.
This is very much correct. We are, rather, embodied minds and our embodiment is a defining piece of cognition and experience of the world.
See George Lakoff & Mark John's /Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind And Its Challenge To Western Thought./
In psychology and cognitive science, a schema (plural schemata or schemas) describes a pattern of thought or behavior that organizes categories of information and the relationships among them.[1] It can also be described as a mental structure of preconceived ideas, a framework representing some aspect of the world, or a system of organizing and perceiving new information.[2]Schemata influence attention and the absorption of new knowledge: people are more likely to notice things that fit into their schema, while re-interpreting contradictions to the schema as exceptions or distorting them to fit. Schemata have a tendency to remain unchanged, even in the face of contradictory information. Schemata can help in understanding the world and the rapidly changing environment.[3] People can organize new perceptions into schemata quickly as most situations do not require complex thought when using schema, since automatic thought is all that is required.[3]
People use schemata to organize current knowledge and provide a framework for future understanding. Examples of schemata include academic rubrics, social schemas, stereotypes, social roles, scripts, worldviews, and archetypes. In Piaget's theory of development, children construct a series of schemata, based on the interactions they experience, to help them understand the world.[4]
From the outside, psychology and cognitive science looks like a way for some folks to hide the same ignorance the rest of us have the humility to admit. I'm sure it looks different from the inside. ;-)
You mean striving to understand the most complex subject matter imaginable is hiding ignorance?
Whatever helps you sleep.
So you couldn't understand a simple sentence or figure out the winking smiley face indicates a joke but you're striving to "understand the most complex subject matter imaginable"? And if psychology and/or cognitive science addresses the most complex subject matter you can imagine, you should work on your imagination. ;-) <- See? There it is again! :-)
Finally, I sleep fine, thank you. Hard work and a clean conscience! :-)
Imagine that I still don't find you amusing.
I do it to amuse myself. Ridiculing the intelligentsia is fun.
My original reply was intended as a mild joke about the length of his comment. Sure, it could have been taken as offensive but the winking smiley face indicated I was joking. I attempted to follow up with a mild rebuke but still in jest. After that, I told him to go fuck himself! Now, you can go fuck yourself too!
Maybe you should see your high school English teacher and ask for your money back!?
I just can't stand the fact nobody can take a joke anymore.
You thought that was ignorant? I can see how it may have come out derogatory (nasty is a strong word) but I don't think it indicated knowledge or ignorance.
And I'm not your honey! Why do some homosexuals try to use "gay" talk to aggravate people? You do that at times. It's not funny. But it wouldn't be so bad if you added a winking smiley face. :-)
P.S. Please fix the spelling of "psychologist". It really bothers me. I'm a little OCD about stuff like that.
I ignored it because it wasn't interesting to me due to being so obvious. A lot of times, psychologists, people who study cognitive science, et. al. package easily recognizable phenomena in lexicon and present it as some new thing. It's not. There are, however, a lot of principles in cognitive science that *are* interesting to me, precisely because they're not so obvious. I once had a debate with a fellow employee regarding marketing materials. He wanted to ask clients what they liked to see in a proposal. I said we should spend the time creating materials, proven (by people who study cognitive science) to induce the action we desired, i.e. giving us the contract. Unfortunately, he was a vice president in the company and my direct boss. ;-)
My comment regarding your use of "honey" wasn't based on your being homosexual but rather, your desire to use it in an attempt to (I think) make me feel uncomfortable. It didn't. It just annoys me when people use such tactics to gain an advantage in some way. Also, in truth, I'm a bit envious. I can't imagine (I tried) anything I could say that might have the same effect on you! :-(
No. I ignored it because it would be obvious to anyone, presented in common terminology and worded more simply. If I understood it better than anyone else, it's because of my education and background which is not a reflection of any quality of mine.
I have no delusions and, yes, I noticed what you did.
So are you delusional or not? Either way, you are.
Since you didn't think his comment was obvious, I was concerned you wouldn't know I noticed your dig had I not informed you.
I never said I wasn't a prick. I try to stop but people like you won't let me. Not homosexuals; arrogant know-it-alls.
Well, this was fun but I have to go to bed. it is VERY late where I live.
The human brain has approximately 100 billion neurons, and approximately 100 trillion neuronal connections. Behaviors are almost inevitably multiply determined; each of those factors being quite complex on their own. And you think this stuff is easy
Dude...
I didn't say it was easy. It's just not the most complex system imaginable but I suppose that depends on one's imagination.
Dude?? I am way too old to be referred to as a dude.
:-)
"It's just not the most complex system imaginable..."
What, in your expert opinion as an old man who's washed up?
Let's see, I've studied science (math, chem, physics); aerospace engineering; law; and now I'm studying psych. So, although I have spent WAY too much time in university, I probably have some idea.
Since I'm washed up, even were I an expert (I'm not), you'll likely be disinterested in my opinion but: physics.
BTW, I try to re-read my comments before clicking the "POST" button to avoid simple errors like sentence fragments.
So that's where we are? You're going to go for grammar, on posts on social media.
And no, physics is not hard, unless you are at the bleeding edge.
*slow clap* stop wasting my time now.
That wasn't a dig. It was a tip. :-/
If you want to limit physics to the less complex areas, it's fair to do the same thing with cognitive studies.
I'm not wasting your time. If reading my comments is a waste of your time, stop reading. I should have stopped reading your original comment rather than getting annoyed that it didn't go anywhere. That's on me.
What part of "I studied science (math, chem, phys)" was unclear? Did I stutter?
I don't understand what you're replying to. I read that statement and it was very clear although you didn't state to what level you studied any particular subject. You can't really compare someone who studies multiple fields (you and me) to someone who dedicates their life to only one.
Judging from your constant long term presentation and interactions in here, I suspect you over estimate your own understanding.
You really aren't that interesting. I'm done with you.
I don't much like the fact that you seem to think that your ignorance is funny.
ignorance of what?
"My original reply was intended as a mild joke about the length of his comment."
Wait, wut?! It's two short paragraphs.
I have the attention span of a hamster. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Wow, that was very interesting and I appreciate how well it was put together.