Guest guest Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 > Kate: "You are BLUE."Blue is our newest color.We have only been able to see it for the past ten thousand years or so. Rainbow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Re: > Blue is our newest color. > > > We have only been able to see it for the past ten thousand years or so. Uh ... how do we know this, exactly? Yours for better letters, Kate Gladstone Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest handwritingrepair@... http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair 325 South Manning Boulevard Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA telephone 518/482-6763 AND REMEMBER ... you can order books through my site! (Amazon.com link - I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 > Rainbow: "Blue is our newest color. We have only been able to see it for the past ten thousand years or so."> Kate: "Uh ... how do we know this, exactly?"Science?Intuition?Trust?Or, maybe any combination of the above.I have a photographic memory, combined with a passion for colors.I'm very busy at the moment, but I'll attempt to recall just where I read it.If you are more comfortable with not accepting this idea, feel free to delete it from your mind. Rainbow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 If you can't cite the source and give the site (of course) perhaps your sight got worse due to staying outside too long and dyeing of over-exposure > > > Rainbow: " Blue is our newest color. We have only been able to see > it for the past ten thousand years or so. " > > > Kate: " Uh ... how do we know this, exactly? " > > Science? > > Intuition? > > Trust? > > Or, maybe any combination of the above. > > I have a photographic memory, combined with a passion for colors. > > I'm very busy at the moment, but I'll attempt to recall just where I > read it. > > If you are more comfortable with not accepting this idea, feel free > to delete it from your mind. > > Rainbow > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2006 Report Share Posted March 11, 2006 On 10 Mar 2006 Kate Gladstone wrote: > > Blue is our newest color. > > We have only been able to see it for the past ten thousand > > years or so. > > Uh ... how do we know this, exactly? " One way, but not the only way " would be to identify the gene that permits blue vision. Then identify the structure of the gene, along with mutations. The mutations occur at a fairly standard rate, so it's fairly easy to identify. In the case of blue vision, I believe this predates humans, and is noted in Old World primates but not New World primates. There's also the issue of most humans being able to see blue, colourblindness notwithstanding. Loss of smell sensitivity occurred concurrently with tri-colour vision, because apparently smell is more critical with binary colour vision. Most birds see in four primary colours, the fourth being in the violet range. But the blues only go back about 100 or 150 years or so. Which suggests that the Missisippi Delta is a relatively recent land formation. - s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2006 Report Share Posted March 11, 2006 Re: > > Kate: " Uh ... how do we know this, exactly? " > > > [Rainbow:] Science? > > > Intuition? > > > Trust? ... When you can, please fill me in on the " science " part of it. I don't expect documentation on such subjective matters as intuition and trust. However, I do not regard intuition and trust (without science) as reliable guides about what other people - especially people who died 10,000+ years ago - could and could not do. I don't believe in doing to others - not even ten-thousand-years-dead others - what I would not want done to me ... and certainly I would not want to think of our descendants, ten thousand years from now, making ill-founded assumptions about us! (e.g., " Oh, people couldn't have couldn't have had reading/writing/arithmetic 'way back 10,000 years ago in the 21st century: trust me, I just KNOW they wouldn't have had the ability to! " ) I don't like making limiting statements about people living now (no matter how much " intuition and trust " could lead me into making limiting statements about others, I want to have *evidence* and not only my feelings). I believe that our ancestors, however remote, deserve (just like people living today) to have us evaluate them on the basis of evidence and not only on the basis of our feelings. > If you are more comfortable with not accepting this idea, feel free to delete it from your mind. I don't " accept " or " not accept " this idea. I await evidence. Not deleting an idea from one's mind does not mean accepting it either. Pictures of Krishna do, usually, show him blue. But some of them show him bluish-black. Krishna's name exists in Sanskrit as a color-word meaning either " dark-blue " or " certain shades of very dark gray or bluish-black " - blue other than dark-blue gets a different color-word (nila). Some languages have one word for " yellow " and for " light green " - some languages have one word for " light purple " and for " pink " - languages that " have no word for blue " have (as far as I know) always turned out either to actually use one word for " blue " and " green, " or to use one word for " blue " and " black. " Some languages (e.g., Russian) have different words for " light blue " and " other blue, " the way that English has different words for " pink " and " red. " The Russians consider us very strange for thinking of their " goluboy " and " sini " as just lighter and darker versions of one color. Many languages (e.g., most of the tribal languages in New Guinea " have only three color-words: " black " and " white " and " some other color. " But everyone's eyes (except color-blind people's eyes) turns out to have the same ability to see all the colors, no matter how we lump them together or split them apart. For instance, if you show a leaf and a flower-petal to tribesmen in New Guinea, and ask them what colors they see, they will tell you that these two objects both have the same color ... but if you ask them to match the leaf and the petal with pieces of yarn (give them a lot of different colors of yarn and ask them to find the ones that match these two objects) they will pick out the colors that actually do match the leaf and the petal: in their language, the leaf and the petal have the same color-name but they have different shades within that " same " color - just as two flowers we both call " red " can actually have different colors and therefore not match ... and we know the colors differ even if we don't choose to have a word for the difference. (For example, what English-speakers call " red hair " and " red wine " and " red roses " have three different colors. " Red hair " looks orange, and " red wine " looks almost black - the ancient Greeks in fact did call red wine " black wine. " And " white wine " certainly does not have the same color as " white skin " or " white paper. " But the fact we call such different colors " red " or " white " does not mean we cannot see the differences. Forgetting that words don't always say what we see has indeed led some people to assume that the ancients could not see colors ... in fact, one prime minister of England [ Ewart Gladstone!] actually wrote an academic paper arguing that the ancient Greeks had little or no color vision because, for instance their word for " black " included certain shades of what we would call dark red and deep red: e.g., wine and blood. An ancient Greek could of course have called W. E. Gladstone color-blind for speaking a language that calls pink skin " white " and calls orange hair " red. " ) As far as I can find out, color-blindness exists about equally in all peoples of the Earth, no matter how many or how few words for color their languages have ... and no form of color-blindness prevents seeing only the color blue without also preventing seeing other colors. (If there existed some form of just-not-blue color-blindness, then Rainbow's theory - that once upon a time our ancestors saw every color but blue - could have some basis, if it turned out that most of our ancestors had had such a form of color-blindness. However, s far as I know, no scientist has yet discovered and dissected any fossilized eyeballs ... ) Yours for better letters, Kate Gladstone Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest handwritingrepair@... http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair 325 South Manning Boulevard Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA telephone 518/482-6763 AND REMEMBER ... you can order books through my site! (Amazon.com link - I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2006 Report Share Posted March 11, 2006 On 11 Mar 2006 Kate Gladstone wrote: > Pictures of Krishna do, usually, show him blue. But some of them > show him bluish-black. I doubt those pictures are 10K years old (but they could be if they had really good cameras back then). I think the 10K is a error, with the real number being something like 1 million or 10 million. IIRC, Temple Grandin mentions this in Animals in Translation. - s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2006 Report Share Posted March 12, 2006 Kate, thanks for this detailed account of colors. You seem to be a lot more informed than that color class teacher I had. :-)' Since color has been my life most of my life, I have separate color names for just about every shade. I never think " there is a red " unless it happens to be primary red. I always in my mind make a distinction between orange-red, scarlet, crimson, grey-red, burgundy, russet, terracotta, salmon, warm pink, cool pink, violet-pink, greyish violet-pink etc etc. Same with green. To me there is 'primary' green, grass green, bottle green, dark green, emerald, grey-green; yellow-greens such as spring green, olive, moss, khaki; and blue-greens with varying degrees of blue, white and black to make sea green, dark blue-green, turquoise-green, celadon, mint, grey-blue-green and many more. Sometimes I also think of them in NCS code and think " oh, there's a nice 2010-B30G. " :-) That blue was the latest color we developed perception for is not Rainbow's invention. As I said, I heard it in color class and think I have read it in color books too. Most don't even bother explaining how this assumption was arrived at. I usually don't take ANY statement about something not observable today as proven fact. I tend to store it in my brain in the file for theories that COULD be true, but just could as well not be (that particular file contains about 90% of everything I have learned so far). :-) Inger Re: Blue Re: > > Kate: " Uh ... how do we know this, exactly? " > > > [Rainbow:] Science? > > > Intuition? > > > Trust? ... When you can, please fill me in on the " science " part of it. I don't expect documentation on such subjective matters as intuition and trust. However, I do not regard intuition and trust (without science) as reliable guides about what other people - especially people who died 10,000+ years ago - could and could not do. I don't believe in doing to others - not even ten-thousand-years-dead others - what I would not want done to me ... and certainly I would not want to think of our descendants, ten thousand years from now, making ill-founded assumptions about us! (e.g., " Oh, people couldn't have couldn't have had reading/writing/arithmetic 'way back 10,000 years ago in the 21st century: trust me, I just KNOW they wouldn't have had the ability to! " ) I don't like making limiting statements about people living now (no matter how much " intuition and trust " could lead me into making limiting statements about others, I want to have *evidence* and not only my feelings). I believe that our ancestors, however remote, deserve (just like people living today) to have us evaluate them on the basis of evidence and not only on the basis of our feelings. > If you are more comfortable with not accepting this idea, feel free to > delete it from your mind. I don't " accept " or " not accept " this idea. I await evidence. Not deleting an idea from one's mind does not mean accepting it either. Pictures of Krishna do, usually, show him blue. But some of them show him bluish-black. Krishna's name exists in Sanskrit as a color-word meaning either " dark-blue " or " certain shades of very dark gray or bluish-black " - blue other than dark-blue gets a different color-word (nila). Some languages have one word for " yellow " and for " light green " - some languages have one word for " light purple " and for " pink " - languages that " have no word for blue " have (as far as I know) always turned out either to actually use one word for " blue " and " green, " or to use one word for " blue " and " black. " Some languages (e.g., Russian) have different words for " light blue " and " other blue, " the way that English has different words for " pink " and " red. " The Russians consider us very strange for thinking of their " goluboy " and " sini " as just lighter and darker versions of one color. Many languages (e.g., most of the tribal languages in New Guinea " have only three color-words: " black " and " white " and " some other color. " But everyone's eyes (except color-blind people's eyes) turns out to have the same ability to see all the colors, no matter how we lump them together or split them apart. For instance, if you show a leaf and a flower-petal to tribesmen in New Guinea, and ask them what colors they see, they will tell you that these two objects both have the same color ... but if you ask them to match the leaf and the petal with pieces of yarn (give them a lot of different colors of yarn and ask them to find the ones that match these two objects) they will pick out the colors that actually do match the leaf and the petal: in their language, the leaf and the petal have the same color-name but they have different shades within that " same " color - just as two flowers we both call " red " can actually have different colors and therefore not match ... and we know the colors differ even if we don't choose to have a word for the difference. (For example, what English-speakers call " red hair " and " red wine " and " red roses " have three different colors. " Red hair " looks orange, and " red wine " looks almost black - the ancient Greeks in fact did call red wine " black wine. " And " white wine " certainly does not have the same color as " white skin " or " white paper. " But the fact we call such different colors " red " or " white " does not mean we cannot see the differences. Forgetting that words don't always say what we see has indeed led some people to assume that the ancients could not see colors ... in fact, one prime minister of England [ Ewart Gladstone!] actually wrote an academic paper arguing that the ancient Greeks had little or no color vision because, for instance their word for " black " included certain shades of what we would call dark red and deep red: e.g., wine and blood. An ancient Greek could of course have called W. E. Gladstone color-blind for speaking a language that calls pink skin " white " and calls orange hair " red. " ) As far as I can find out, color-blindness exists about equally in all peoples of the Earth, no matter how many or how few words for color their languages have ... and no form of color-blindness prevents seeing only the color blue without also preventing seeing other colors. (If there existed some form of just-not-blue color-blindness, then Rainbow's theory - that once upon a time our ancestors saw every color but blue - could have some basis, if it turned out that most of our ancestors had had such a form of color-blindness. However, s far as I know, no scientist has yet discovered and dissected any fossilized eyeballs ... ) Yours for better letters, Kate Gladstone Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest handwritingrepair@... http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair 325 South Manning Boulevard Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA telephone 518/482-6763 AND REMEMBER ... you can order books through my site! (Amazon.com link - I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold) FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and acceptance. Everyone is valued. Don't forget, there are links to other FAM sites on the Links page in the folder marked " Other FAM Sites. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2006 Report Share Posted March 12, 2006 I always think about the colour lilac. I like lilac, but there are different shades of it - some can be cold lilac, having more blue in it and other shades of lilac are more warmer, having more red in them. Lilac is not just lilac :-) > > Kate, > > thanks for this detailed account of colors. You seem to be a lot more > informed than that color class teacher I had. :-)' > > Since color has been my life most of my life, I have separate color names > for just about every shade. I never think " there is a red " unless it happens > to be primary red. I always in my mind make a distinction between > orange-red, scarlet, crimson, grey-red, burgundy, russet, terracotta, > salmon, warm pink, cool pink, violet-pink, greyish violet-pink etc etc. > > Same with green. To me there is 'primary' green, grass green, bottle green, > dark green, emerald, grey-green; yellow-greens such as spring green, olive, > moss, khaki; and blue-greens with varying degrees of blue, white and black > to make sea green, dark blue-green, turquoise-green, celadon, mint, > grey-blue-green and many more. > > Sometimes I also think of them in NCS code and think " oh, there's a nice > 2010-B30G. " :-) > > That blue was the latest color we developed perception for is not Rainbow's > invention. As I said, I heard it in color class and think I have read it in > color books too. Most don't even bother explaining how this assumption was > arrived at. > > I usually don't take ANY statement about something not observable today as > proven fact. I tend to store it in my brain in the file for theories that > COULD be true, but just could as well not be (that particular file contains > about 90% of everything I have learned so far). :-) > > Inger > > > > > Re: Blue > > > Re: > > > > > Kate: " Uh ... how do we know this, exactly? " > > > > > > [Rainbow:] Science? > > > > > > Intuition? > > > > > > Trust? ... > > When you can, please fill me in on the " science " part of it. > > I don't expect documentation on such subjective matters as intuition and > trust. > However, I do not regard intuition and trust (without science) as > reliable guides about what other people - especially people who died > 10,000+ years ago - could and could not do. > I don't believe in doing to others - not even > ten-thousand-years-dead others - what I would not want done to me ... > and certainly I would not want to think of our descendants, ten > thousand years from now, making ill-founded assumptions about us! > (e.g., " Oh, people couldn't have couldn't have had > reading/writing/arithmetic 'way back 10,000 years ago in the 21st > century: trust me, I just KNOW they wouldn't have had the ability > to! " ) > > I don't like making limiting statements about people living now (no > matter how much " intuition and trust " could lead me into making > limiting statements about others, I want to have *evidence* and not > only my feelings). I believe that our ancestors, however remote, > deserve (just like people living today) to have us evaluate them on > the basis of evidence and not only on the basis of our feelings. > > > If you are more comfortable with not accepting this idea, feel free to > > delete it from your mind. > > I don't " accept " or " not accept " this idea. I await evidence. Not > deleting an idea from one's mind does not mean accepting it either. > > Pictures of Krishna do, usually, show him blue. But some of them show > him bluish-black. Krishna's name exists in Sanskrit as a color-word > meaning either " dark-blue " or " certain shades of very dark gray or > bluish-black " - blue other than dark-blue gets a different color- word > (nila). > > Some languages have one word for " yellow " and for " light green " - some > languages have one word for " light purple " and for " pink " - languages > that " have no word for blue " have (as far as I know) always turned out > either to actually use one word for " blue " and " green, " or to use one > word for " blue " and " black. " > > Some languages (e.g., Russian) have different words for " light blue " > and " other blue, " the way that English has different words for " pink " > and " red. " The Russians consider us very strange for thinking of their > " goluboy " and " sini " as just lighter and darker versions of one color. > > Many languages (e.g., most of the tribal languages in New Guinea " have > only three color-words: " black " and " white " and " some other color. " > > But everyone's eyes (except color-blind people's eyes) turns out to > have the same ability to see all the colors, no matter how we lump > them together or split them apart. For instance, if you show a leaf > and a flower-petal to tribesmen in New Guinea, and ask them what > colors they see, they will tell you that these two objects both have > the same color ... but if you ask them to match the leaf and the petal > with pieces of yarn (give them a lot of different colors of yarn and > ask them to find the ones that match these two objects) they will pick > out the colors that actually do match the leaf and the petal: in their > language, the leaf and the petal have the same color-name but they > have different shades within that " same " color - just as two flowers > we both call " red " can actually have different colors and therefore > not match ... and we know the colors differ even if we don't choose to > have a word for the difference. > (For example, what English-speakers call " red hair " and " red > wine " and " red roses " have three different colors. " Red hair " looks > orange, and " red wine " looks almost black - the ancient Greeks in fact > did call red wine " black wine. " And " white wine " certainly does not > have the same color as " white skin " or " white paper. " But the fact we > call such different colors " red " or " white " does not mean we cannot > see the differences. Forgetting that words don't always say what we > see has indeed led some people to assume that the ancients could not > see colors ... in fact, one prime minister of England [ Ewart > Gladstone!] actually wrote an academic paper arguing that the ancient > Greeks had little or no color vision because, for instance their word > for " black " included certain shades of what we would call dark red and > deep red: e.g., wine and blood. An ancient Greek could of course have > called W. E. Gladstone color-blind for speaking a language that calls > pink skin " white " and calls orange hair " red. " ) > > As far as I can find out, color-blindness exists about equally > in all peoples of the Earth, no matter how many or how few words for > color their languages have ... and no form of color-blindness prevents > seeing only the color blue without also preventing seeing other > colors. (If there existed some form of just-not-blue color- blindness, > then Rainbow's theory - that once upon a time our ancestors saw every > color but blue - could have some basis, if it turned out that most of > our ancestors had had such a form of color-blindness. However, s far > as I know, no scientist has yet discovered and dissected any > fossilized eyeballs ... ) > > > Yours for better letters, > Kate Gladstone > Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest > handwritingrepair@... > http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair > 325 South Manning Boulevard > Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA > telephone 518/482-6763 > AND REMEMBER ... > you can order books through my site! > (Amazon.com link - > I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold) > > > FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and > acceptance. Everyone is valued. > > Don't forget, there are links to other FAM sites on the Links page in the > folder marked " Other FAM Sites. " > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2006 Report Share Posted March 12, 2006 Precisely! It can also be more or less greyish. I find it very annoying that there is not a word for each and every nuance. And even more that the words we do have for some colors have come to mean something other than what color the item it's named after really has. Real indigo pigment, for example, is NOT violet-blue, though it can seem like it in its darkest shades. Real rubies are usually more pink than what we call " ruby red. " Salmon is more muted orange than salmon pink, unless you cook it first. Also depends on if they add red dye to its diet. :-( Inger Re: Blue > > > Re: > > > > > Kate: " Uh ... how do we know this, exactly? " > > > > > > [Rainbow:] Science? > > > > > > Intuition? > > > > > > Trust? ... > > When you can, please fill me in on the " science " part of it. > > I don't expect documentation on such subjective matters as intuition and > trust. > However, I do not regard intuition and trust (without science) as > reliable guides about what other people - especially people who died > 10,000+ years ago - could and could not do. > I don't believe in doing to others - not even > ten-thousand-years-dead others - what I would not want done to me ... > and certainly I would not want to think of our descendants, ten > thousand years from now, making ill-founded assumptions about us! > (e.g., " Oh, people couldn't have couldn't have had > reading/writing/arithmetic 'way back 10,000 years ago in the 21st > century: trust me, I just KNOW they wouldn't have had the ability > to! " ) > > I don't like making limiting statements about people living now (no > matter how much " intuition and trust " could lead me into making > limiting statements about others, I want to have *evidence* and not > only my feelings). I believe that our ancestors, however remote, > deserve (just like people living today) to have us evaluate them on > the basis of evidence and not only on the basis of our feelings. > > > If you are more comfortable with not accepting this idea, feel free to > > delete it from your mind. > > I don't " accept " or " not accept " this idea. I await evidence. Not > deleting an idea from one's mind does not mean accepting it either. > > Pictures of Krishna do, usually, show him blue. But some of them show > him bluish-black. Krishna's name exists in Sanskrit as a color-word > meaning either " dark-blue " or " certain shades of very dark gray or > bluish-black " - blue other than dark-blue gets a different color- word > (nila). > > Some languages have one word for " yellow " and for " light green " - some > languages have one word for " light purple " and for " pink " - languages > that " have no word for blue " have (as far as I know) always turned out > either to actually use one word for " blue " and " green, " or to use one > word for " blue " and " black. " > > Some languages (e.g., Russian) have different words for " light blue " > and " other blue, " the way that English has different words for " pink " > and " red. " The Russians consider us very strange for thinking of their > " goluboy " and " sini " as just lighter and darker versions of one color. > > Many languages (e.g., most of the tribal languages in New Guinea " have > only three color-words: " black " and " white " and " some other color. " > > But everyone's eyes (except color-blind people's eyes) turns out to > have the same ability to see all the colors, no matter how we lump > them together or split them apart. For instance, if you show a leaf > and a flower-petal to tribesmen in New Guinea, and ask them what > colors they see, they will tell you that these two objects both have > the same color ... but if you ask them to match the leaf and the petal > with pieces of yarn (give them a lot of different colors of yarn and > ask them to find the ones that match these two objects) they will pick > out the colors that actually do match the leaf and the petal: in their > language, the leaf and the petal have the same color-name but they > have different shades within that " same " color - just as two flowers > we both call " red " can actually have different colors and therefore > not match ... and we know the colors differ even if we don't choose to > have a word for the difference. > (For example, what English-speakers call " red hair " and " red > wine " and " red roses " have three different colors. " Red hair " looks > orange, and " red wine " looks almost black - the ancient Greeks in fact > did call red wine " black wine. " And " white wine " certainly does not > have the same color as " white skin " or " white paper. " But the fact we > call such different colors " red " or " white " does not mean we cannot > see the differences. Forgetting that words don't always say what we > see has indeed led some people to assume that the ancients could not > see colors ... in fact, one prime minister of England [ Ewart > Gladstone!] actually wrote an academic paper arguing that the ancient > Greeks had little or no color vision because, for instance their word > for " black " included certain shades of what we would call dark red and > deep red: e.g., wine and blood. An ancient Greek could of course have > called W. E. Gladstone color-blind for speaking a language that calls > pink skin " white " and calls orange hair " red. " ) > > As far as I can find out, color-blindness exists about equally > in all peoples of the Earth, no matter how many or how few words for > color their languages have ... and no form of color-blindness prevents > seeing only the color blue without also preventing seeing other > colors. (If there existed some form of just-not-blue color- blindness, > then Rainbow's theory - that once upon a time our ancestors saw every > color but blue - could have some basis, if it turned out that most of > our ancestors had had such a form of color-blindness. However, s far > as I know, no scientist has yet discovered and dissected any > fossilized eyeballs ... ) > > > Yours for better letters, > Kate Gladstone > Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest > handwritingrepair@... > http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair > 325 South Manning Boulevard > Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA > telephone 518/482-6763 > AND REMEMBER ... > you can order books through my site! > (Amazon.com link - > I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold) > > > FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and > acceptance. Everyone is valued. > > Don't forget, there are links to other FAM sites on the Links page in the > folder marked " Other FAM Sites. " > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 I don't know if animals have anything to do with it, or if this is at all relevant but I know for sure that my dog could see red and blue (and possibly purple)--the opposite ends of the spectrum, but only those colors and not green, yellow or orange. > > > > Blue is our newest color. > > > > We have only been able to see it for the past ten thousand > > > years or so. > > > > Uh ... how do we know this, exactly? > > " One way, but not the only way " would be to identify the gene > that permits blue vision. Then identify the structure of the > gene, along with mutations. The mutations occur at a fairly > standard rate, so it's fairly easy to identify. > > In the case of blue vision, I believe this predates humans, and > is noted in Old World primates but not New World primates. > There's also the issue of most humans being able to see blue, > colourblindness notwithstanding. > > Loss of smell sensitivity occurred concurrently with tri-colour > vision, because apparently smell is more critical with binary > colour vision. Most birds see in four primary colours, the > fourth being in the violet range. > > But the blues only go back about 100 or 150 years or so. Which > suggests that the Missisippi Delta is a relatively recent land > formation. > > - s > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 I don't know if animals have anything to do with it, or if this is at all relevant but I know for sure that my dog could see red and blue (and possibly purple)--the opposite ends of the spectrum, but only those colors and not green, yellow or orange. > > > > Blue is our newest color. > > > > We have only been able to see it for the past ten thousand > > > years or so. > > > > Uh ... how do we know this, exactly? > > " One way, but not the only way " would be to identify the gene > that permits blue vision. Then identify the structure of the > gene, along with mutations. The mutations occur at a fairly > standard rate, so it's fairly easy to identify. > > In the case of blue vision, I believe this predates humans, and > is noted in Old World primates but not New World primates. > There's also the issue of most humans being able to see blue, > colourblindness notwithstanding. > > Loss of smell sensitivity occurred concurrently with tri-colour > vision, because apparently smell is more critical with binary > colour vision. Most birds see in four primary colours, the > fourth being in the violet range. > > But the blues only go back about 100 or 150 years or so. Which > suggests that the Missisippi Delta is a relatively recent land > formation. > > - s > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 > If a Hindu god or goddess (or someone looking like one of the > Hindu gods/goddesses) ever arrives on Earth and poses for photographs, > let me know. > > ASAP. > > ;-) > That's funny! > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 Kate: >> Pictures of Krishna do, usually, show him blue. But some of them >> show him bluish-black. Stan: > I doubt those pictures are 10K years old (but they could be if they had really good cameras back then). > I think the 10K is a error, with the real number being something like 1 million or 10 million. What pictures are we talking about here? And why do you suspect an earlier date? (I too suspect some things are older than their " official date. " ) > IIRC, Temple Grandin mentions this in Animals in Translation. I've still not gotten very far in it. What does IIRC mean? Inger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 " IIRC " means " if I recall correctly. " Yours for better letters, Kate Gladstone Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest handwritingrepair@... http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair 325 South Manning Boulevard Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA telephone 518/482-6763 AND REMEMBER ... you can order books through my site! (Amazon.com link - I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 > " IIRC " means " if I recall correctly. " Thanks, Kate. :-) Inger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 > " IIRC " means " if I recall correctly. " Thanks, Kate. :-) Inger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 Re: > ... I'd like each tiny variation in color to have a name. ... Well, so would I. Either of us, and most other folks with autism/Asperger's, would have understood a boy named Ireneo Funes, in the famous short story " Funes the Memorious " by Borges (1899 - 1986) - www.bridgewater.edu/~atrupe/GEC101/Funes.html - one of the best-known literary portrayals of " one of us " ... " ... Bernardo unexpectedly yelled to him: 'What's the time, Ireneo?' Without looking up, without stopping, Ireneo replied: 'In ten minutes it will be eight o'clock, child Bernardo Francisco.' ... the boy .... was a certain Ireneo Funes, renowned for a number of eccentricities, such as that of having nothing to do with people and of always knowing the time, like a watch. ... We, in a glance, perceive three wine glasses on the table; Funes saw all the shoots, clusters, and grapes of the vine. He remembered the shapes of the clouds in the south at dawn on the 30th of April of 1882, and he could compare them in his recollection with the marbled grain in the design of a leather-bound book which he had seen only once, and with the lines in the spray which an oar raised in the Rio Negro on the eve of the battle of the Quebracho. ... A circumference on a blackboard, a rectangular triangle, a rhomb, are forms which we can fully intuit; the same held true with Ireneo for the tempestuous mane of a stallion, a herd of cattle in a pass, the ever-changing flame or the innumerable ash, the many faces of a dead man during the course of a protracted wake. He could perceive I do not know how many stars in the sky. ... Funes not only remembered every leaf on every tree of every wood, but even every one of the times he had perceived or imagined it. ... It was not only difficult for him to understand that the generic term dog embraced so many unlike specimens of differing sizes and different forms; he was disturbed by the fact that a dog at three-fourteen (seen in profile) should have the same name as the dog at three-fifteen (seen from the front). ... Ireneo Funes died in 1889, of a pulmonary congestion. " .... which puts him well before mercury in vaccines. (Borges always claimed that he had based " Funes the Memorious " on a real person that older members of his family had told him about, who had died before Borges' birth in 1899) Yours for better letters, Kate Gladstone Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest handwritingrepair@... http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair 325 South Manning Boulevard Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA telephone 518/482-6763 AND REMEMBER ... you can order books through my site! (Amazon.com link - I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 Re: > ... I'd like each tiny variation in color to have a name. ... Well, so would I. Either of us, and most other folks with autism/Asperger's, would have understood a boy named Ireneo Funes, in the famous short story " Funes the Memorious " by Borges (1899 - 1986) - www.bridgewater.edu/~atrupe/GEC101/Funes.html - one of the best-known literary portrayals of " one of us " ... " ... Bernardo unexpectedly yelled to him: 'What's the time, Ireneo?' Without looking up, without stopping, Ireneo replied: 'In ten minutes it will be eight o'clock, child Bernardo Francisco.' ... the boy .... was a certain Ireneo Funes, renowned for a number of eccentricities, such as that of having nothing to do with people and of always knowing the time, like a watch. ... We, in a glance, perceive three wine glasses on the table; Funes saw all the shoots, clusters, and grapes of the vine. He remembered the shapes of the clouds in the south at dawn on the 30th of April of 1882, and he could compare them in his recollection with the marbled grain in the design of a leather-bound book which he had seen only once, and with the lines in the spray which an oar raised in the Rio Negro on the eve of the battle of the Quebracho. ... A circumference on a blackboard, a rectangular triangle, a rhomb, are forms which we can fully intuit; the same held true with Ireneo for the tempestuous mane of a stallion, a herd of cattle in a pass, the ever-changing flame or the innumerable ash, the many faces of a dead man during the course of a protracted wake. He could perceive I do not know how many stars in the sky. ... Funes not only remembered every leaf on every tree of every wood, but even every one of the times he had perceived or imagined it. ... It was not only difficult for him to understand that the generic term dog embraced so many unlike specimens of differing sizes and different forms; he was disturbed by the fact that a dog at three-fourteen (seen in profile) should have the same name as the dog at three-fifteen (seen from the front). ... Ireneo Funes died in 1889, of a pulmonary congestion. " .... which puts him well before mercury in vaccines. (Borges always claimed that he had based " Funes the Memorious " on a real person that older members of his family had told him about, who had died before Borges' birth in 1899) Yours for better letters, Kate Gladstone Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest handwritingrepair@... http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair 325 South Manning Boulevard Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA telephone 518/482-6763 AND REMEMBER ... you can order books through my site! (Amazon.com link - I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2006 Report Share Posted March 14, 2006 Thanks, Rainbow. To me, " 10,000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000,000 " makes a big difference. Re: > It's all relative Relative to what, as you see it? Yours for better letters, Kate Gladstone Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest handwritingrepair@... http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair 325 South Manning Boulevard Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA telephone 518/482-6763 AND REMEMBER ... you can order books through my site! (Amazon.com link - I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2006 Report Share Posted March 14, 2006 > Kate: "Thanks, Rainbow. To me, "10,000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000,000" makes a big difference."000h! Rainbow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2006 Report Share Posted March 14, 2006 Just out of curiosity, what does " blue " mean to you, numbers and puns aside? Raven > > > Kate: " Thanks, Rainbow. To me, " 10,000 or 100,000 or > 1,000,000,000 " makes a big difference. " > > 000h! > > Rainbow > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2006 Report Share Posted March 14, 2006 Re: > Just out of curiosity, what does " blue " mean to you, numbers and puns > aside? 4550 -> 4920 Angstroms. Yours for better letters, Kate Gladstone Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest handwritingrepair@... http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair 325 South Manning Boulevard Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA telephone 518/482-6763 AND REMEMBER ... you can order books through my site! (Amazon.com link - I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2006 Report Share Posted March 14, 2006 On 14 Mar 2006 Kate Gladstone wrote: > > Just out of curiosity, what does " blue " mean to you, numbers > > and puns aside? > > 4550 -> 4920 Angstroms. Yep. Maybe also the meaning in Blues music. I don't know if singing the Reds would have suggested a different connotation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2006 Report Share Posted March 14, 2006 > Raven: "Just out of curiosity, what does "blue" mean to you...."From "The Rainbow Book":"Blue marks the entrance to the spiritual realm - a world removed from the dense plane in which we are free to wander to infinitudes as deep as the sea, as distant as the end of the sky. Blue whispers to us of the infinite possibilities at our command. Blue is the window to a higher understanding and a spiritual overview."Additionally/Also:Blue tends to lower blood pressure and pulse rate. It is a restful and sedate color. In blue surroundings time is underestimated and weights are judged as being lighter.In two dimensions, blue has a psychological effect of a circle.A light sky blue suggests the illimitable together with a rare quality of allurement.Blue looks fresh and clean.Blue light stimulates plant growth. Blue light increases the number of flowers on strawberry plants and the vitamin C content of parsley. Blue light will positively affect the movement of chloroplasts in the cells of plant leaves.Is this what you had in mind, Raven? Shall I go on and on? Rainbow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.