Blue

Not sure if I remember this correctly but OP may be onto sonething, seen as Homer himself describes various objects and things in his stories as having colours which are weird. He talks about purple honey and sheep and a lot more strange stuff.
And remarkably, "blue" almost does not appear in his long ass epics

No concept? How about they had no distinction. They could obviously see blue, they knew blue was a color, they just thought of it as a shade of green.
Also, who the fuck are these "ancient people"? Are you saying everyone on earth had no clue blue was a color until some magic date in the ADs? Jesus, think before you post something please.

Strange that in ancient texts Poseidon is always said to have black hair like the sea, instead of blue. I always thought twf since when is the sea black?

>almost does not appear

so it does appear

go take a swim in the middle of the Mediterranean and tell me what color it is

fuck, if the greeks lived in germany they'd say his shits were like the sea

>No concept? How about they had no distinction.

What distinction are YOU making?

>They could obviously see blue, they knew blue was a color, they just thought of it as a shade of green.

No, that's not obvious. The way we perceive color is heavily influenced by our concepts of color. e.g. people whose first language has more words for different shades of green can literally distinguish them when you or I would be unable to notice a difference. It goes deep into how our brains work and categorize ideas and process stimuli. We *literally* see the world differently than ancient Greeks.

>Also, who the fuck are these "ancient people"? Are you saying everyone on earth had no clue blue was a color until some magic date in the ADs? Jesus, think before you post something please

Hurr durr, no. But the development of most languages follow similar paths, in terms of acquiring words for "basic" colors. Blue is usually last.

This

When did you retards last see the sea?
It's fucking green, the blue is literally sky reflected

>blue is literally sky reflected

Bullshit. Water always appears blue when in largue quantities, pic related is an indoor pool.

Its the opposite, the sky is reflecting the blue of the ocean

The oceans even look blue from space

>Blue is usually last.
Wrong.
>Berlin and Kay identified eleven possible basic color categories: white, black, red, green, yellow, blue, brown, purple, pink, orange, and gray.
>Berlin and Kay also found that, in languages with fewer than the maximum eleven color categories, the colors followed a specific evolutionary pattern. This pattern is as follows:
>All languages contain terms for black and white.
>If a language contains three terms, then it contains a term for red.
>If a language contains four terms, then it contains a term for either green or yellow (but not both).
>If a language contains five terms, then it contains terms for both green and yellow.
>If a language contains six terms, then it contains a term for blue.
>If a language contains seven terms, then it contains a term for brown.
>If a language contains eight or more terms, then it contains terms for purple, pink, orange, and/or gray.

you're all wrong, the ocean and sky are sad because they never touch which is why they're blue. when you force them together they turn bright red, yellow, or white, but the only technology we have to do that are nuclear explosives

I can't tell if you guys are genuine retards or just trolls. Nothing is reflecting anything.

Glad you posted that, cbf myself
Literally right now tbqh

Kek

What's so funny?

t. How can reflection be real if my eyes aren't real?

literally everything reflects

if it didnt you couldn't see a fucking thing

Cuck.

>What distinction are YOU making?
That blue and green are not perceived as distinct colors in many cultures?

>The way we perceive color is heavily influenced by our concepts of color. e.g. people whose first language has more words for different shades of green can literally distinguish them when you or I would be unable to notice a difference. It goes deep into how our brains work and categorize ideas and process stimuli. We *literally* see the world differently than ancient Greeks.
That's entirely bullshit. Color shade distinction is not some cultural phenomenon. An Ancient Greek could tell me that (x) shade of blue is different than (y) shade of green. Believing otherwise is some pseudoscience bs.
>Hurr durr, no.
Then specify a fucking group of people. ALL ancient people are not the same, and saying "ancient people" creates a very generalized and uncecinct argument.

Blue was the absence of color, like a bland sky.

>Color shade distinction is not some cultural phenomenon
The effect can be overstated, but culture definitely influences how humans perceive color. For example, we tend to categorize pink as its own color despite just being a shade of red, and Russian speakers will categorize two similar shades of light blue as different because they have different words for them while speakers of other languages will often categorize them as the same. This is in addition to an ancient lack of reliable color dyes that made creating hard distinctions both difficult and unnecessary.

Yes, I understand that many cultures did and do categorize colors differently (green/blue, pink/red) however, claiming that because of this different categorization people could not SEE the difference in shade is asinine. Hope I'm making sense

Blue appears 50 times in the Old Testament. (Strong's Concordance)
Green appears 37 times.
Yellow 4
Orange Nope
Red 47
Scarlet 46
Purple 39

White 49
Black 15
Gray 6
Pink Nope
Brown 4

(me)
Golden 53
The world "color" does not appear in the Bible.

>pic not related

>if this was ancient times blue boards could not exist
The world that could have been

Imagine Veeky Forums, but with porn lads

Breaks my heart, truly

You are making sense, but I think the guy you're arguing with is too far stuck up his own ass to notice that his display of knowledge is completely useless to the discussion.

>could not SEE the difference in shade is asinine
Not necessarily, the language you grew up with influences the sounds you are capable of distinguishing

No, let the meme die.

Why is a distinction between green and blue even important?

Can you distinguish the greens in pic related? It's only until you define 'blue' and 'green' and then compare the 2 most varying colours do they actually look 'different'.

...

Homer was a supposedly blind man as well.

Yes, necessarily. Your physiology and my physiology are completely the same, our ears, eyes and brains can roughly detect and distinguish the same things. The only difference is in how we developed, but you put too much emphasize on the difference due to development. Yes, a Chinese will have a harder time hearing the difference between the L and R but give him a few weeks of training and he'll be able to distinguish between them just as well as you can.

The difference between blue and green is big enough to logically conclude that the greeks could 'see' blue. Like you can see the difference between dark green and light green but you will call both of them green.

it's like you guys think scholars haven't debated this already

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity_and_the_color_naming_debate

Lenneberg and Roberts presented their paper The Denotata of Color Terms[8] at the Linguistic Society of America in 1953. In this paper they reported their findings on color recall in Zuni speakers. Zuni has one color term for yellow and orange, and Lenneberg and Roberts' study reported that Zuni speakers encountered greater difficulty in color recall for these colors than English speakers, who have available terms to distinguish them. Brown and Lenneberg attributed this effect to the property of codability.

Linguistic codability is the ease with which people can name things and the effects of naming on cognition and behavior.[9]

If you're asking why we have the words to differentiate between them? It's because they're different. There is no higher importance to the differentiation, we just like to be able to explain to each other what color something is. Sadly we can't waste our time on memorizing dozens shades of green, the efforts outweighs the practicality. Maybe one day we will do so, just like at some point the greeks started to differentiate between green and blue. We can still see that one box of green is not the same as the other.

>Linguistic codability is the ease with which people can name things and the effects of naming on cognition and behavior.

Linguistic codability is cancerous as fuck. There is only one sentence in that whole article worthy of looking into.

>Drawing on Nietzsche's ideas of perspectivism Alfred Korzybski developed the theory of general semantics that has been compared to Whorf's notions of linguistic relativity.[16] Though influential in their own right, this work has not been influential in the debate on linguistic relativity, which has tended to center on the American paradigm exemplified by Sapir and Whorf.

>Sadly we can't waste our time on memorizing dozens shades of green

You think it's a waste of time differentiating between shades of green but not green and blue? Even when it's literally been proven to be a fruitless endeavour?

it's pretty obvious as well

a dude that has practiced calling out the difference and a dude that has never needed to tell the difference naturally the first guy is better at it

Not that user, but there was a study with the same green boxes with a tribe in africa who had a different blue/green line, and they could all pick the odd box out immediately.

>We can still see that one box of green is not the same as the other.

In general, we can't until we're shown the solution.

Yes, because learning dozens of shades of green would take up a lot more time than differentiating between a total of 20 colours at best.

I can't tell what color bordeaux should look like, but give me a bit of time to practice and ill be able to call it out in a line of red and purple. But I'm not a home decorator so the skill is useless to me and i'll never learn it. However the difference between green and blue is ingrained in our society and I would run into issues not knowing it.

Evidently the more colours we can name the more practical it would be, but the rewards are just not high enough.

I initially thought that it was a scale and the shade slightly changed clockwise, i thought so because the first and last ones look different to me. Showing that I could see the difference, no doubt in my mind that with a bit of practice i'd be able to spot it every time. The color distinction in my language doesn't go further than light and dark green.

>Not that user, but there was a study with the same green boxes with a tribe in africa who had a different blue/green line

They were the Himba, if I remember corrrectly.

i.e. the greatest tribe in the world.

>Evidently the more colours we can name the more practical it would be, but the rewards are just not high enough.
You still haven't given evidence to explain this reasoning.

It's subjective, that's fine. It's not objective reasoning though.

>Yes, because learning dozens of shades of green would take up a lot more time than differentiating between a total of 20 colours at best.
Kek, literally why? It could be seen as an evolutionary trait. Surely you don't think they have these kids in classrooms teaching the difference between green shades? I mean they are taught somewhere but it's an innate trait, probably because it's been accepted knowledge among the tribe for so long, that's one of the more curious aspects of colour differentiation.

>i thought so because the first and last ones look different to me. Showing that I could see the difference,
Kek.

That's literally the point. The image below shows that there is only 3 shades in that image. So no, you couldn't tell the difference to the point where you thought they were all different.

>no doubt in my mind that with a bit of practice i'd be able to spot it every time
Again, literally the point.

Black
then
white are
all I see
in my infancy
red and yellow then came to be
reaching out to me.
lets me see.

Jesus a tool fag

It's so obvious that I didn't think I'd have to point out 'evidence' that being able to differentiate between colours is practical. Simple things like pointing out objects in our vision or explaining what colour car you want. Being able to point out a million shades of green is obviously not that useful since you can't explain them to anyone else, neither are there many situations where the need would arise. The gap between blue and green is big enough to warrant some practical use every now and then. Could we do without the differentiation? Sure I don't see why not. But apparently somewhere along the line it became important to do so.

I'm glad we all agree then that the ancient greeks could indeed see the difference between blue and green.

He was literally referencing this phenomenon with those lyrics

brown people probably have a gene that makes blue look like a shade of green or something

Thanks, I felt kind of bad leaving it that vague.

thats wild, you gotta explain this one for me mate

>It's so obvious that I didn't think I'd have to point out 'evidence' that being able to differentiate between colours is practical

If it were so fucking obvious it should be pretty dam easy to prove, no?

> Simple things like pointing out objects in our vision or explaining what colour car you want.
No importance, at all, when talking about colour theory and colour identification, especially among ancient peoples.

Tribes had a obsession with colour, their whole lives revolved around colour, but only certain colours.

>Being able to point out a million shades of green is obviously not that useful since you can't explain them to anyone else, neither are there many situations where the need would arise.
This is different from differentiating between green and blue how?

>The gap between blue and green is big enough to warrant some practical use every now and then.
You understand since there are tribes who still exist today who did not differentiate between green and blue this is completely objectively wrong?

>Could we do without the differentiation? Sure I don't see why not. But apparently somewhere along the line it became important to do so.
Well no, we don't ALL do it, and therein lies the point.

Your culture is not the worlds culture.

????????

Well now I've got some bad news for you little buddy

>No importance, at all, when talking about colour theory and colour identification, especially among ancient peoples.

Ill expand upon this, we use colour because we can. It doesn't mean we HAVE to. Things are always able to be described past their colour otherwise being a blind man would be literal hell.

And slavs have a special gene that lets them tell goluboy from siniy, but when they move to America it gets disabled because, epigenetics? Or the Atlantic Ocean causes very specific genetic mutations?

Culture seems like a much better explanation.

>mfw i realize that OP is the greatest troll on this website

to add more.

Sorry making this hard to reply in one post see this. , soon colours and their identification will be of no relevance at all past the pure subjective beauty of it.

>In general semantics, it is always possible to give a description of empirical facts, but such descriptions remain just that—descriptions—which necessarily leave out many aspects of the objective, microscopic, and submicroscopic events they describe. According to general semantics, language, natural or otherwise (including the language called 'mathematics') can be used to describe the taste of an orange, but one cannot give the taste of the orange using language alone. According to general semantics, the content of all knowledge is structure, so that language (in general) and science and mathematics (in particular) can provide people with a structural 'map' of empirical facts, but there can be no 'identity', only structural similarity, between the language (map) and the empirical facts as lived through and observed by people as humans-in-environments (including doctrinal and linguistic environments).

>We *literally* see the world differently than ancient Greeks.

Nope. Daniel Dennett addresses this kind of idea and why its wrong. Evolution/natural selection would eliminate different people perceiving the world in such a radically different way. For example if everyone saw colors differently - if my experience of green was your experience of red, and this was true of everyone or common in our species, then we wouldn't be able to color code dangers in our environment.

We're biological beings.

VERY WAIZ PEEPUL. MUD ON OUR HEADS 2 KEEP KOOL

>then we wouldn't be able to color code dangers in our environment
Why? As long as each individual has a consistent internal experience from the a given stimulus it doesnt actually matter what that experience is. Danger is associated with light at wavelengths around 650nm, even if my red looks like your blue we are both getting the same consistent signal

That example has nothing to do with culture influencing how people process colour. If anything, it suggests language would be important in processing colour, since the important thing is being able to recognize easily the colour someone else is describing.

Just tell me the answer you want to hear because clearly you have no intention of trying to understand what I'm saying.

There are tribes who never reached the iron age, by your logic this means that smelting iron has no practical use and arguing that it does is completely and objectively wrong.

I completely understand that some cultures never found a use in seeing a difference between blue and green, but frankly yours and mine did and I'm arguing that apparently we found a use for doing so otherwise we would have never done it or it would have fallen into obscurity.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue here, all you seem to want to do is counter anything I say.

sensing color has nothing to do with language, color is a sense object of the eye and its associated brain tissue

Sensing is distinct from experiencing. Sensory data is fed into the brain which processes it builds an experience. Things that cant be conceptualized can be ignored or merged into other things that can be conceptualized

>posting a picture of a pool.

I'm talking about experiencing. Colors aren't sounds, sounds aren't tacticle sensations, tactile sensations aren't smells. Mental perceptions/thoughts aren't colors. Those are objects of the eye.

Lapis Lazuli.

The eye doesnt experience colours, the brain does. The eye recieves data and transmits it, the experience of colour is something created in the brain