No Subject

["Steven M. Belknap" <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>]

lojbab cusku di'e

>in a JL issue a few years back).  In which they basically proved that colors
>are discerned psychologicall by comparison with an architype, and NOT by being
>compared for "moreness".  They are LESS DIFFERENT from the archetype than
>some culturally/language-depndent boundary with adjacent colors in the semantic
>field.
>
>This was confirmed by bilogical evidence that the pure colors are recognized
>by being closest to the triggering frequencies of the detecting cones and rods
>in our eyes.

This implies that color *could* (not *must*, *could*!!) be defined by an
external, objective standard, which would be potentially quantifiable on an
interval or ratio scale in intensity and purity. Some people, of course,
are missing certain types of cones. Also, in some animal species, there is
variation among individuals as to the protein sequence of some of the
photosensitive proteins in the cones, so that perception of say <blanu>
would be different for different individuals. I don't know if this is true
for humans.

co'o mi'e. la stivn.


Steven M. Belknap, M.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Medicine
University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria

email: sbelknap@uic.edu
Voice: 309/671-3403
Fax:   309/671-8413