Why is it necessary for humans to see colors?

File: Medjuvrsje.jpg (426KB, 2048x1356px) Image search: [Google]

426KB, 2048x1356px

>>3225163
cus the colors are pretty anon

>>3225163

Because colors mean things. If you see read stuff coming out of somebody's body (or possibly even your own), that's an important message that your brain needs to be able to comprehend quickly.

Why red green and blue?
Why not just red and green, wouldn't we be fine?
Or why not much more colors?

To distinguish ripe edible fruits from poisonous or unripened fruits. Women are less likely to be colorblind than men likely because they used to be the ones gathering while the men were hunting.

File: stoner-boy.jpg (390KB, 757x412px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 757x412px

>>3225183
any color you like bro

>>3225191
Also finding predators hiding in the bushes. It's the reason as to why humans can see more shades of green then any other animal.

>>3225183
There are much more colors, it's just our receptors can't distinguish them. There's a species of lobsters that can see a shit load of other colors, and I'm not talking about shades.

To love creation
>muh STEMsperg bullshit
Back to /r/eddit please. You history (mythology) idiots are all the same.

File: images (1).jpg (7KB, 290x174px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 290x174px

Predators

>>3225183>>3225163

Ripe vs unripe fruit.

because color gives us information about what things are made of

So we don't confuse whites as poc

>>3225228
>There are much more colors
Colors are a subjective experience of light with different wavelenghts. Technically, colors don't exist as a physical property.

>>3225241
Colour is like the least important skill in determining this. Colour is for things like determining poisonousness where the other options are deadly.

>>3225228

How do you know that they aren't just experience the same red-to-violet spectrum, but stretched over a wider length? That is to say, their warm colors would be redshifted compared to ours, and their cool colors would seem blueshifted.

I like to think it's possible to perceive more colors, but something tells me it simply isn't.

>>3225241
>STEMspergs actually believe this

>>3225163
Fruits nigga

>>3225191
Actually, it was this

>>3225885
They wouldn't be able to distinguish between wavelengths then, not enough colors.

There exist tetrachromats in humans. They can see more shades (in the red area i believe).

So you're wrong.

>>3225885
It is.

The reason you can't think it true is because your brain literally cannot fathom colours it can't see, because colours only exist and make any sense once experienced. Unless you can see a colour, the concept of that colour does not, practically, exist for you.

>>3225285
What? Light has an objective colour measured in wave length.

>>3225163
Left looks depressing as fuck.

>>3225191
Babby's first evo psych class

>>3225191
>Women are less likely to be colorblind than men likely because they used to be the ones gathering while the men were hunting
No, dipshit, it's because color blindness is X-linked, and women have two X chromosomes.
Women have to have twice the defects to be colorblind, where a man only needs one defect

>>3227249
Our eyes don't process an objective "redness" or "blueness" according to 700nm or 450nm light. There is an incredible series of biological events that takes place for that to happen. The fact that we see red as red and not as blue is basically happenstance.

Think of it another way; do you think a simple molecule like ethanol (CH3OH) HAS to taste as we humans perceive it to taste?

>>3227249
No, it has been determined that what we experience as green is light with a specific wavelength, but nothing about that wavelength is intrinsically "green", green is just the way the human mind views that wavelength.

Its concieveable that a creature could evolve that detects all the same variations in light we do but doesn't interpret them as visual phenomena but as something completely different