> On 2011-09-18 02:51, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Almost impossible to say. None of us have a "name" for colors that
>> contain both red and green in them, because, except for some situations
>> where you cause over-saturation, and some people "briefly" see a
>> confusing color that they normally don't, the processing basically robs
>> us of that range of colors. Some people, have four types of receptors,
>> so can see more colors, sort of, than we can, but without the "language"
>> to go with it, there is no way to process that into something tangible,
>> unless, by shear chance, a situation arose where someone "needed" to see
>> the differences, which is bloody unlikely. Otherwise, short of testing
>> it, there is no way to say precisely, save that it ranges from "not able
>> to see that color" to "everything is shifted slightly, so they don't see
>> some slice of the color range as clearly. I have no idea if certain
>> genetic forms produce a wider, or narrower, range, but that is likely,
>> so it could be shifted, or missing things on one end of the spectrum, or
>> the other, or both, etc.
>
> It occurs to me, however, a potential way to quantify the data. We have
> the ability to emit very specific wavelengths of light. We can,
> therefore, use a definite reference 'red', 'green', and 'blue', and
> calibrate a filtered sensor to each. This being done, we can use a very
> fine checkerboard pattern of the colours plus white, alternating with a
> pigment made by /mixing/ the colour plus white, thence other
> combinations. This would produce the baseline.
>
>  From here, it's a matter of detecting at the optic nerve what data gets
> sent on to the brain.

Been done, about 20 years ago...

>
> *whips out some nano-wires and a scalpel*
>
> Who's game? XD

If you take the signal just out of the eye and compare it to just after 
the optical nerve, you'll notice a significant difference. Don't forget 
that that nerve DOES have processing ability and do process the visual 
stream.

Post a reply to this message