This image has no red pixels. Explain this shit to me /sci/,

hierarchical bayesian inference

>>8713094
I was gonna say bullshit, but then I did check those colors in paint and can't find any red. Weird.

This just proves how extraordinary The Mind Of God Is.

Define red. Red to us isnt one wavlength. Human eye is pretty insensitive to different wavelengths in that part of the spectrum.

>>8713094
I dunno but I'm getting a headache from looking at it so the brain must be doing some serious work for it to perceive the colors 'correctly'

I call bullshit, when I first looked I didn't know what they were and thought it was corn cobs and was like why are they red. Stop same fagging yourself to be a dipshit

>>8713094
It's not inferred form the shape.
There is obviously a blue-ish filter. Although it is not actually red, our brain knows that it's still supposed to be red due to the background and everything.

File: w-o-red.png (741KB, 857x857px) Image search: [Google]

741KB, 857x857px

>>8713094
Bullshit. Pic related is same image w/o red channel

>>8713105
this, it's clearly a filter. the original color was red but you won't find red pixels because they're underneath a blue layer, don't be retarded /sci

>>8713106
Nah dude, take OP's image and dissect it all you want, there isn't any red in it.

File: w-o-red.png (523KB, 857x857px) Image search: [Google]

523KB, 857x857px

>>8713106
This one sorry

>>8713094
Due to the blue iverlay I would assume the brain just compensates for everything - i.e. it thinks it's looking through a blue filter and tries to guess what the true image is. It's perfectly possible to visualize blue strawberries, if the environment around them is unchanged.

>>8713109
There is. Just always mixed with cyan -> it is actually a grey color.

Technically the plate isn't white either. But it does look white to you.

>>8713102
>Define red

Retard spotted.

Red is a color associated with the following things: strawberries, blood, meat, flag of china, paprika.

Physically red to a human is light with wavelength between 620-740 nm.

Chemically, for example, iron oxide is red.

Culturally, red is associated with, for example, anger, victory, and love.

Biologically, for example, parrots are red.

Neurologically, human eye has cones and rods. Stimulating cones are equivalent to colors red, green, or blue. Stimulating only the red-cone corresponds to perception of red.

You literally learn all this before you are 10 years old. How can you not know what the color red is? How do people like you without basic skills required to be a functioning human survive in this modern world??

>>8713094
There's some kind of trickery involved here.
I don't believe the read I perceive is completely made up.

>>8713110
This.

>>8713110
Ooooh, black strawberries.

>>8713119
>Chemically, for example, iron oxide is red.
>Biologically, for example, parrots are red.
That's not a chemical or biological definition of red. It's just a chemical/biological object which is red. Both would use the physical explanation. Because it is important that it's light with a certain wavelength. That corresponds to a specific energy that is used.

File: 920.jpg (117KB, 633x960px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 633x960px

>>8713126
I didn't either, but try and save it, open it in paint and try to eyedropper the colour of any pixel you might fancy as red. I found none.

There's something about contrast. Human vision normalizes colour under any given lighting to infer what colour objects would be under white light. Here you assume the lighting must be clue, so the lichencoloured area must actually be red.

Just to be clear: The illusion doesn't have to do with strawberries being supposed to be red.

File: lies.png (1MB, 1936x888px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1936x888px

>>8713094
OP is a faggot.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (38KB, 400x395px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 400x395px

>>8713173
You know right that colors can be obtained by mixing?

File: Angry Chins 0009.jpg (5KB, 198x160px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 198x160px

>>8713119
>i don't know how color werks

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/light/Lesson-2/Light-Absorption,-Reflection,-and-Transmission

Jesus Fucking Christ.

>>8713173
How did people ever see black on that fucking dress? It's clearly light blue and brown-gold.

File: untitled2.png (1MB, 4888x1762px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4888x1762px

>>8713110
>>8713106
You anal bastard.

Here's the three different color channels of the image, plotted separately. Obviously the red channel isn't empty, because otherwise we wouldn't have any true white in the image. That doesn't mean that individual pixels are red numb nuts. There isn't a single pixel in which the intensity of the red channel is higher than any other channel. Thus, the image does not contain a single red pixel.

Fucking pedants, I swear to fucking god

>>8713177
see >>8713214

>>8713094
Post the color of the strawberries in that pic. I want to see.

>>8713214
I love this board

>>8713183
Do you know that you're retarded? You are retarded. Now you know. No need to thank me.

>>8713169
Yes it is. Definition by example. Go away brainlet shoo shoo.

>>8713185
Nah.

>>8713106
It's red in the sense that no pixel have dominant R value.

>>8713286
Wrong. "This image has no red pixels" means the image is constructed entirely without using the color red. OP was incorrect, of course as we clearly see the red color, but also proven by computer.

>>8713214
still, because of the little bit of red in the pixels it looks like an image with a cyan filter on it, which your brain can compensate for and perceive the relatively more red areas as red. That doesn't work anymore when you completely take out the red information as in >>8713110

>>8713292
No it doesn't then he'd say it hadn't any red channel. Gray isn't a red color no matter how you look at it.

>>8713292
No, you dumb cunt. No red pixels means no red pixels.

An extreme example: take a fully white image. It contains no red pixels, because all pixels are white. Yet, for all pixels the red channel is maxed out. The color of individual pixels is defined by the balance of the color channels, not by the value of individual color channels.

Fucking hell, this should be stating the fucking obvious.

File: C5xV_udUsAAKxxC.jpg (40KB, 449x410px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 449x410px

>>8713223
just zoom in so that you can see the pixels

>>8713094
Just standard white balancing.

>>8713302
Nope, he said "This image has no red pixels." Learn to read before you humiliate yourself on the internet.

>>8713303
Wrong. Obviously white and black are exceptions. Red pixel is red pixel; white pixel is white pixel.

>>8713312
>Obviously white and black are exceptions.
just kill yourself already

> the image is constructed entirely without using the color red.
>white pixel is white pixel.
you're directly contradicting yourself shitbrain

>>8713316
Wrong. Red is red; white is white.

Won't respond to you annoying brainlet anymore. People literally learn colors in the kindergarden. Maybe you never went there because your mother was a whore.

>>8713312
>Nope, he said "This image has no red pixels." Learn to read before you humiliate yourself on the internet.
Exactly, he didn't say that the image has no red channel. You're confused buddy.

>>8713319
>Won't respond to you annoying brainlet anymore
I accept your surrender

>>8713094

I'm not seeing the problem here...???

I don't see red, I see light bluish red. I can still tell it's slightly reddish, but why wouldn't I be able to when there's still red channel information.

File: Nigger.png (1019KB, 857x857px) Image search: [Google]

1019KB, 857x857px

>>8713325
>why wouldn't I be able to when there's still red channel information
does this look red to you?

>>8713320
Nope. Red=red; not-red=not-red. Go away now.

>>8713323
Do you have problems with reading comprehension? "I won't respond to you anymore" means "I want to end the conversation". So stop talking, you brainlet. Jesus, you need to get laid.

>>8713219
>>8713214
Looks read to me. Are you color blind? It is okay if you are color blind, but you should stop posting. My empathy for your embarrassment can't take much more.

>>8713331
>Do you have problems with reading comprehension? "I won't respond to you anymore" means "I want to end the conversation". So stop talking, you brainlet. Jesus, you need to get laid.
I think I have it figured out. You're a woman, so yes means no and no means yes. And not read means red.

File: 1488381612901a.jpg (52KB, 857x857px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 857x857px

>>8713329
Yes, there was red in that.

>>8713332
0/10

File: babby.jpg (138KB, 1251x825px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1251x825px

>>8713332
>read

OH HAHAHAHA GOT YOU NOW MOTHER FUCKER

>>8713333
Jesus, stop talking. We are not talking anymore. You were just wrong; get over it. It happens when you open your filthy mouth without thinking anything.

>>8713336
That's an answer to a question I did not ask.

>>8713338
When you reply like that, what you really mean is "11/10".

>>8713341
>We are not talking anymore.
keep responding.

File: 1484249437488.gif (4MB, 344x203px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 344x203px

>>8713336
R•E•K•T

>>8713344
What is wrong with you? Do you do this everytme someone rekts you online? Stop responding. I'm sure the ladies love your discipline.

>>8713349
Remember, whoever gets the last response is the real troll.

I have the time.

File: Last-Trolled.gif (4KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 125x125px

>>8713341
>>8713344
>>8713349
>>8713351
Who is who here? I'm with the "there's red in there you fucking moron" crowd.

>>8713351
What are you doing? Stop responding. Jesus, christ.

>>8713352
Yes, we know. You're with the retarded crowd.

There's red in all kinds of colors. Doesn't mean those colors are red themselves.

>>8713353
or what?

>>8713355
Stop responding for fucks sake.

File: Untitled3.png (8KB, 521x479px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 521x479px

>>8713357
is there red in this image?

>>8713363
Dont talk anymore freak

File: astounding1.jpg (70KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 500x500px

>>8713329

Red? No. Reddish? Yes

It's all an issue of contrast. Can't believe you people don't know this.

File: U5Bdsbj.jpg (152KB, 999x1002px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 999x1002px

>ITT: colorblind people spaz out

>>8713367
no tell me, how many red pixels does it have

>>8713369
>Red? No.
Well there you fucking go.

>>8713371
Stop responding creep

>>8713376
you're in my thread numbnuts

>>8713379
Dont talk to me are you disabled

>>8713373

But strawberries wouldn't show up as blobs of pure 255R, 0B, 0G. You can blow up any pixel on any strawberry and it won't be "red". It'll be reddish, just like these are, along with contrast information.

File: Untitled.png (2KB, 521x479px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 521x479px

>>8713381
How about this image? How many red pixels does it have?

>>8713376
>using social approval tactics in an argument
Why did moot let you tumblr normie shitstains onto this site.

>>8713110
>>8713106
OP got owned.

trying to pull the wool over our eyes

>>8713385
No, but the dominant channel would be the red channel, as in the original picture. That's what defines a red pixel, a dominant red channel.

>>8713363
Clever.

I had a 3 year running streak. I thought I was in the home stretch then another old fag comes along and wrecks it.

>>8713370
im colorbind and i had to change with levels of this in gimp to see anything
go fuck yourself

>>8713393
You're welcome.

File: 1462561430282a.gif (928KB, 731x1558px) Image search: [Google]

928KB, 731x1558px

>>8713399
Here is your reward. Happy faps.

>>8713386
Stop talking

>>8713387
>tactics
Tactics? You mean Age of Empires? Or Chess? Or some boardgame tactics? What game?

>>8713402
Why would you fap to cartoon girl? Are you homosexual?

>>8713402
touché

>>8713403
>Stop talking
you get the point though

just let me know when you're ready to apologize

>>8713403
>he thinks it is a "girl"

Confirmed for not watching the gif.

>>8713410
Dont talk anymore fag

>>8713411
It's not a girl, it's a cartoon girl you retard. If u fap to that u might as well be classified as homosexual.

>>8713416
>Dont talk anymore fag
keep responding

>>8713419
Stop talking tard

>>8713403
>le ebin trole amirite
>>>/b/
>>>/9fag/
>>>/daycare/

File: Untitled.png (2KB, 521x479px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 521x479px

>>8713420
if you tell me how much red pixels there are in this image

>>8713421
Don't talk

>>8713423
Stop talking fag

ITT children telling each other to stop talking

What a wild ride this thread was.

>>8713428
no, I'd rather sit here and see how long you're gonna keep this up

>>8713424
>>8713428
Isn't this site 18+?

File: brainfreeze.gif (2MB, 360x307px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 360x307px

>>8713214
>There isn't a single pixel in which the intensity of the red channel is higher than any other channel. Thus, the image does not contain a single red pixel.
>Fucking pedants, I swear to fucking god
"one drop" theory applies imo

File: Untitled.png (2KB, 521x479px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 521x479px

>>8713438
So you would in all earnest say that this image is made up entirely of red pixels

The nagative of red is blue-ish, as the background is greenish blue our brain is trying to comensate the spots where there is less blue color, i dont know guys, what do you think?

>>8713470
kinda

ambient light varies from yellow (inside) to blue (outside), so we're hardwired to correct for gradations in between those colors that occur naturally in our daily life

>>8713431
stop responding fag

>>8713279
>>8713119
you are the greatest retard I've seen in /sci/ in a while

>>8713489
that took a while, were you off to take a shit or something?

>>8713331
>>8713341
>>8713349
>>8713353
>>8713357
>>8713367
>>8713376
>>8713381
>>8713403
>>8713416
>>8713420
>>8713428
>>8713489

hahahahahahaah holy fuck are you 12
did you come to 4chan today for the first time? you're being played like a fiddle, you silly newfag

File: no red strawberries yaller.png (671KB, 857x857px) Image search: [Google]

671KB, 857x857px

>>8713094
>how exactly does our brain infer color from shape?

It's not from shape -- here is the same image, with the same shape, but with the hue pushed to the yellow. The red illusion is gone, but the shapes are the same.

>>8713102
But pixels in that image are not emitting light in that part of the spectrum, it is all blues and neutral greys

>>8713516
I'm not saying that the same shape should always have the same color, but the surroundings of the image definitely influence how individual objects are perceived, right? That's all I meant by 'shape'. In retrospect 'context' would have been more appropriate.

>>8713526
Context is the same in the pushed to yellow image as well. It is not shape or context or expectation that the berries should be red, because it does not work when you change the hue.

>>8713530
>Context is the same in the pushed to yellow image as well.
Not exactly, because context also includes color, which is different in your image.

File: yes red strawberries.png (865KB, 857x857px) Image search: [Google]

865KB, 857x857px

This is interesting -- I just asked Photoshop to "auto-correct" the image, and got this. So it is not just a perceptual thing, there is information in there that says "this shit is supposed to be red," beyond mental tricks and illusions.

Color channel fag may have a point.

>>8713534
If your argument is now that color influences how we perceive color, that seems indisputable, but a long way from your original statement.

>>8713535
>So it is not just a perceptual thing, there is information in there that says "this shit is supposed to be red,"
That's a rather strong conclusion. I don't know how the auto-correct color function in photoshop works, but I can imagine that it balances out the color channels. The red channel is a lot weaker than the other two channels, so correcting for that obviously would make the strawberries red. But that doesn't mean that there is something inherent about strawberries that should make them red.

>>8713540
To be specific, surrounding color influences how we perceive color. I agree that this is far off the original point - I'm not married to the statement that shape influences color perception.

File: strawberries.png (18KB, 312x321px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 312x321px

>no red
nope

>>8713548
>>So it is not just a perceptual thing, there is information in there that says "this shit is supposed to be red,"
>That's a rather strong conclusion.

Perhaps I stated it poorly.

If a computer, which does not buy into our optical illusions or perceptual tricks the mind can play, since it has no mind, can also look at that image and recognize it as something that should be red, then there is information there that indicates this, beyond mere Jedi Mind Tricks.

Perhaps I still stated it badly. But I only care so much.

>>8713556
>no red
>>8713094
>no red pixels

These seem to me to be two different statements that are not mutually exclusive.

File: Untitled.png (2KB, 521x479px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 521x479px

>>8713556
try it with this picture dumbass

tell me it's red

>>8713516
they look blue to me now

>>8713556
We've been over this, see >>8713214

>>8713548
>But that doesn't mean that there is something inherent about strawberries that should make them red.
It's not because they are strawberries that we see them as red, but because they are actually more red compared to the things around them. >>8713310
is right

>>8713094

>strawberries are red
>tabletop is brown
>plate is white and blue
>pie crust is brown
>cream is white

wow I guess the shapes let me figure out what colour all of those were

>>8713583
>because they are actually more red compared to the things around them
True. But that doesn't really address why it happens, instead 'white balancing' simply describes the illusion.

What I want to know specifically, is how does our brain adjust our perception based on context? I assume we have neurons in our brain that code for color. But obviously they don't simply respond to what wavelength of light falls on our retina, but also take into consideration what the wavelength of light around their area is picking up on. I'm looking for a mechanistic explanation here.

>>8713494
had to go gym.
i forgot who i wasnt talking with anymore. u know, anonymous board.

domt respond to this

File: index.png (886B, 476x106px) Image search: [Google]

886B, 476x106px

>>8713604
>domt respond to this

>>8713606
shut up nooblord

>>8713118
Huh, that's a pretty neat trick.

>>8713610
i'm glad you've decided to come back

>>8713204
Don't start this shit again plz.

>>8713592
The interesting part is supposed to be how you experience colors beyond wavelengths. The strawberries are actually grey. You still experience red subconsciously.

File: hurrr.png (584B, 234x179px) Image search: [Google]

584B, 234x179px

>>8713442
>post an image with tons of red in it
>ask how the eyes perceive a color which is present in the picture
your yellow block has the same amount of red as pic related

>>8713675
And yet you qualify the pixels as yellow. You don't see that this proves an image can contain red, yet can at the same time can contain not a single red pixel?

>>8713618
shut up retar

File: 1295521645541.jpg (25KB, 523x480px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 523x480px

>>8713699

>>8713688
no one is saying that, obviously. we're saying you can't say that the pixels are not partly red. your obsession with which pixels meet some arbitrary standard of "red" is simple wankery

>>8713703
>no one is saying that
Except many people in this fucking thread are saying exactly that. Read the thread.

File: 1488374133390.png (822KB, 857x857px) Image search: [Google]

822KB, 857x857px

>>8713094
>gimp -> level -> auto

>>8713723
looks breddy gud

>>8713094
>how exactly does our brain infer color from shape?

The fuck? You're looking at in image on a 2D screen. Shape affects nothing.

I only read half this thread because at that point it got kinda grating, so I I guess this was probably answered, but I assume the reason it looks red is because it's a bunch of green and....something, pixels, packed closely together.

The brain can't tell the difference between yellow light and green light mixed with an equal amount of red light. It just mixes them together.

The only reason you're able to see color on your monitor at all is because it's packed with a bunch of tiny red green and blue lights. It mixes them together to get the remainder of the colors. If our eyes were less shitty we'd be able to tell.

>>8713733
We've covered that shape isn't the feature that lets us infer red from the image. I've since then rephrased what exactly I want to know:
>What I want to know specifically, is how does our brain adjust our perception based on context? I assume we have neurons in our brain that code for color. But obviously they don't simply respond to what wavelength of light falls on our retina, but also take into consideration what the wavelength of light around their area is picking up on. I'm looking for a mechanistic explanation here.

File: lead.png (54KB, 640x312px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 640x312px

Tfw use low light PC amber LED's for my precious shower time.
>hardly any blue light
>everything "black" appears blue

So comfey

File: article-2521023-19FE013100000578-708_634x422.jpg (43KB, 634x422px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 634x422px

>>8713737
Ya, our vision can he highly context-based. It's a blessing and a curse. The mechanisms aren't specifically spelled out by science. We just know what our brains tend to do with certain shapes and patterns.

>>8713746
>The mechanisms aren't specifically spelled out by science.
I doubt that there's no science on this. This is a fundamental property of the way we perceive the world.

>>8713749
Yeah there's science, but like all neuroscience, it's in its infancy.

>>8713754
I don't mind if it's novel theories, I just wanna know what they are.

>>8713499
shut up stop talking

>>8713701
shut up fag

>>8713765
no u

>>8713759
This seems to be all that we know. You can dig deeper on you own.

"Although the visual processing mechanisms are not yet completely understood, recent findings from anatomical and physiological studies in monkeys suggest that visual signals are fed into at least three separate processing systems. One system appears to process information mainly about shape; a second, mainly about color; and a third, movement, location, and spatial organization."

http://www.brainfacts.org/sensing-thinking-behaving/senses-and-perception/articles/2012/vision-processing-information/

>>8713773
I did a little more digging. Apparently this has been studied extensively, and whole books have been written about it. It's called 'color constancy'. One hypothesis states that it's due to two chromatic adaptation mechanisms in the color-coded retinal ganglion cells, 'local' and 'remote', which cause a 'curve-shifting' effect at each receptive field subregion. Another hypothesis attributes the phenomenon to lateral inhibition within the visual cortex, whereby neurons compete for perceptual representation, and certain representations are strengthened through experience.

>>8713094
Because the Newtonian model of "light=wavelength" only explains things in an abstract mathematical way, which is basically useless in telling us how we experience colors. You go to Goethe to learn how we experience color, as much as people think he's unscientific.

>>8713096

Literally first post should've been enough but you brainlets had to start talking about non-scientific shit like this was /lit/ or something.

File: 1488374133390.png (866KB, 857x857px) Image search: [Google]

866KB, 857x857px

tf

!

>>8713832
except some buzzwords are not an explanation you dumb faggot

>>8713861
what's that you're trying to say lassie?

They are "relatively red". If you actually examine it closely its not red but it's basically the same thing as putting the starwberries behind som blue glass. Your brain knows the berries are red, but your eyes see no red, its just you who confuse it with conscious thought.

It could be your subconscious mind and the pineal gland playing tricks on you. There's a reason why the pineal gland is called the third-eye. It's also made up of rods and cons so there is some information from there that the brain uses to tell you what the real color is.

>>8713947
>pineal gland
It's a fucking hormone gland

File: ★★★★★.gif (532KB, 375x266px) Image search: [Google]

532KB, 375x266px

>>8713214
this is the kind of shit /sci/ needs more of

>>8713214
How is the red channel more intense on the table and filling than on the actual strawberries?

>>8714048
Because the overall brightness is higher there: all channels have high values on the table and filling.

your brain is a bitch and when it can figure out wtf is wrong it reverts back to what it should be.

>>8713516
Id eat blue strawberries

>>8714061
K thx

>>8713723
>>8713535
Photoshop BTFO

>>8714130
To be fair, it was PS Elements 8.0

>>8713915
Does your brain not know these berries are red?
>>8713516

Isn't it amazing? Even if you remove all color with quality software you can still see the strawberries and that they are red.
We truly live in amazing times

>>8713094
Seems to indicate there is only black, white and shade.

File: kek.png (970KB, 857x857px) Image search: [Google]

970KB, 857x857px

Someone'es -cherry- strawberry picking there colors.

>>8713214
Thank you.

>>8713094
Dear OP,

Your wording and defense of your claim are both retarded. Saying that the image has no red pixels says nothing because there's no such thing as a red pixel, as a pixel is made up of three components, R G B. What would have not sounded retarded is that "there are no dominantly red pixels". With your original wording you made it sound like there was absolutely no red component in the picture

Kill yourself faggot

>>8713535
Neurofag here. This has nothing to do with color inference form shape. This is a perceptual trick from the relative color channels and perceptive inverse. Maybe you've seen the inverse color american flag, this works in a similar way. Changing the hue to a different color, will change your percevied color of the strawberry. ie. changing hue to blue will make strawberries appear blue, etc. It's a RGB channel color-data trick of some sort, but has nothing to do with our color perceptive apparatus. If you change the hue to various other colors, the perceived color of the strawberies will be the opposite color of whatever hue you've chosen to apply to the image.

File: rwb.png (3KB, 310x163px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 310x163px

>>8715426
*hue to blue will make strawberries appear yellow

File: A1.png (1MB, 857x857px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 857x857px

>>8715426

File: A1-inverse.png (1MB, 857x857px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 857x857px

>>8715431

File: A2.png (1MB, 857x857px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 857x857px

>>8715426
also is there a reason this board doesn't allow multiple images per reply?

File: A2-inverse.png (1MB, 857x857px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 857x857px

>>8715438

>>8715225
See >>8713214

>>8715426
All you've done is describe the illusion. This isn't any sort of explanation of what is actually going on neurally to cause the illusion.

>>8715441
mmmm radioactive strawberry pie

>>8715479
That's because I have no idea.

I was probably wrong that it has nothing to do with our color perception, just meant that there's no object-memory-inference going on here.

Generally it's probably some color-relative mapping confusion in early-mid visual processing regions, similar to the this-grey-block-on-a-light-background-looks-darker-than-this-other-grey-block-on-a-darker-background even though it's the same grey color illusion. By relative gradient hues on the objects, we infer from the shading that the color of the object must be the opposite of where its hue is heading from the darker to lighter region. Perhaps these cortical regions are filling in the missing color/channel information for us, specifically I don't exactly know, i'm not that type of neurofag.

The fact that the entire image is a hued color and all shadows are in that hue color probably changes the baseline-processing bias of our perception of the image's colorings, and we infer that since shadows should be dark/black from absence of light, and shiny spots normally are white when reflecting, then the fact that in this instance shadows are a hue-color probably means our whole processing mechanism is shifted over relative to this hue-change, so that what was a black-to-white comparison becomes a whatever-color-to-its-opposite comparison. The only part the inferred shape of the object plays is that we are able to map our expectations of shadows and gradients onto it, but we wouldn't say have any specific means of filling in from memory a red color just because it's a strawberry. This is a lower-order illusion based on gradients more likely.

If you've ever looked at something under neon lights. you'll notice how difficult it is for our perceptive apparatus to determine its true color in the absence of other channels of light to compare it to.

Not sure if that makes any sense.

>>8715534
Some version of the McCollough effect is probably related to this particular illlusion, is what i meant to say with the inverse-american flag. if you look at it long enough, and then looka t a white wall, you'll see the red white and blue version

Note that the "shifting of our processing mechanism" when exposed to such an image that occurs is very likely just a passive consequence of biases we have biologically engrained in our lower/mid level color-perceptive pathways. Most lower-level circuits are low plasticity, meaning we can't learn these types of illusions away, ie. we're not going to find a way of identifying colors of objects in the absence of the key channels our whole color-perceptive apparatus is based on. So the circuits probably just fill in the missing channels when all the other information like shades and gradients are there.

I'd be curious to see what colorblind and non-trichromatic subjects see in these types of images.

>>8713516
Is that blueberries?

File: papryka-zolta-1szt-Product2.jpg (9KB, 228x228px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 228x228px

>>8713119
Found a counterexample

>>8713099
>how extraordinary The Mind Of God Is.
Wow, that's a leap.

>>8715476
See
>>8715225
I address the channel doninace faggot

>>8716336
Then you obviously missed the point.

For example, how many red pixels are there in this image: >>8713442

Hopefully you get the idea. If not, I'll spell it out. Obviously a pixel is composed of multiple color channels, but we perceive a pixel as a single color. The fact that red contributes to the color makeup of a pixel does not automatically make that pixel red. For our visual system, certain combinations of wavelengths are indistinguishable from single wavelength light of a different frequency. Only a fucking autist like you would feel the need to point out that technically the spectrum of the light contains 'red'.

File: kek.jpg (43KB, 640x444px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 640x444px

The center cross pieces of each X are the exact same color

>>8716613
that's pretty neat

File: kek.jpg (71KB, 640x444px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 640x444px

>>8716613
I thought I was being trolled... Fucking sorcery!

>>8713094
Background mostly.

The mixture of colors that we see are all blue/cyan, so a region with less blue and green content will naturally contrast to look "more red" than the area around it.

File: Untitled-1.png (768KB, 2667x1850px) Image search: [Google]

768KB, 2667x1850px

>>8716854
can't believe I fell for that shit

I attended a lecture yesterday at Glasgow Uni about brains as prediction machines - which seems super relevant to this. The conclusion was that the brain's best prediction becomes conscious experience - not the processed sense-data. When we look at something, the brain will try and see what it has to do in order to generate that same experience, and if it's wrong it there will be an error signal which causes the brain to revise its prediction model.
This is the hypothesis at least; it's logical and there's bits of evidence but the lecturer's team intends to do further research.

So in that light, I'd imagine in this scenario that the colours are just right for our prediction of red strawberries to align with the incoming sense-data. We expect it to be red and there's no error signal saying otherwise so we experience redness.

It's the same as how concave face moulds appear as normal faces, because our brains are extremely good at predicting faces, and it ignores the data that says its not a face.

I didn't fully understand everything he said though. I think the optimal state actually wouldn't be to minimize error signal (because then the model would never be revised), there may be some kind of sweet spot. Also there's the assumption that we start off with some kind of basic model as children.

tl;dr:
see >>8713096

File: fag.png (164KB, 288x444px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 288x444px

>>8716613
No they arnt you fag.

Even if some of the colours on the shadows are the same, not all of them are.

>>8716995
Was the guy giving the lecture Karl Friston by any chance? I fucking hate that hack.

The bare bones mechanics of predictive coding aren't all that complicated, but he intimidates the audience with 'complex' math, so that people buy whatever he's saying. That theory has the appearance of rigor, yet it makes hardly any solid predictions. Don't buy into it.

>>8717003
see: >>8713386

>>8717005
Nope. Andy Clark. He was a guest lecturer from Edinburgh University. I didn't understand a lot of the technical bits though because I'm a Physics/Astronomy 2nd year, not a Neuroscience postgraduate :)

Looks blue as fuck.
You guys have brain damage.

>>8717003
>Not understanding how RBG works

It really doesn't matter if the pixel is red or not, what matters is how much red is in the pixel

pixels are composed of a mixture of red, green, and blue

you are just seeing red filtered through the same filter the rest of the image is being filtered through

the red pigmentation is still there as if it were to be removed it would be impossible to tell what color what you would be looking at was unless it was in the blue-green color spectrum or had a distinct shape

think of it like you seeing the world through tinted glasses. you can still tell what colors are which

I made this image really quick as an example

File: PinKSalad.png (492KB, 694x383px) Image search: [Google]

492KB, 694x383px

>>8717056

>forgets the image

technically speaking, anything that isn't 0 on the red channel is a red pixel

that is unless you want to be colloquial about it and have a vague definition of what a red pixel is

>>8713398
kek haha

>>8717056
I suspect that is an incorrect use of "pigmentation," since we are talking about emitted rather than reflected light.

an RGB LED is made up of 3 LEDs in one package

If a pixel has some R value that means that it is shining at least some pure red light at you

File: Bildschirmfoto_2017-03-02_22-10-09.png (269KB, 1084x487px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 1084x487px

>>8713094


Anon, I...

File: Bildschirmfoto_2017-03-02_22-11-19.png (680KB, 1564x937px) Image search: [Google]

680KB, 1564x937px

>>8717590

Split channels.

File: 2017-03-02-205710_375x357_scrot.png (15KB, 375x357px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 375x357px

>>8717590
>>8717591
another anon here corroborating

>>8713094
To me the colors slowly start to morph into that blue shape, i have hppd from over 35 trips on DXM. Any explanation for this?

>>8713110
Holy shit I can change the colors just by thinking of what I expect to see and I can feel my vision changing and adjusting to a new color.

>>8717787
HOLY SHIT

>tfw colorblind (Deuteranopia)
F-fuck off you guys.

>>8714660
/thread

>>8713214
Nice

>>8716613
well memed

>>8713094
sage every field

>>8713094
We're not inferring color from shapes. We're inferring them because they're fucking strawberries.

>>8717591
>>8717635
We've covered this. Read back.

>>8717072
See: >>8716379

File: youjustlost.jpg (553KB, 747x3715px) Image search: [Google]

553KB, 747x3715px

>>8713119
>implying red is determined by wavelength
When you get to college and take physics, you will learn that we see frequency and not wavelength. If we saw color based on wavelength, everything would change color underwater since water refracts light and stretches the wavelength

>>8713305
>individual pixels are obviously not red
>removed from context I STILL SEE FUCKING RED AND PINK

WHAT MIND TRICKERY IS THIS

>>8713094
Yes it does.
The color on my lcd is additive, white is composed of red green and blue.
The color in that jpg is additive, white color has non zero red values.

Its dishonest to say there is no red in the image, because the photon receptors in my eyes are still receiving red signals from it, whereas if they weren't whatever optical illusion you are trying to produce wouldn't work

>>8718468
Also if you take the average of a 3x3 square of pixels with
one pixel having RGB value of (255,255, 255)
half the pixels having (255, 0, 255)
and the other half the pixels having (255, 255, 0)
then you'll end up with an average of (255, 84, 84), a strawberry kind of pink :^)
it gets deeper with larger neigborhoods


>>8713286
>>8713303
so your "dominant" value arguement is kind of misleading

http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/cchem/RGBColors/body_rgbcolors.html

I'm just going to leave this here
your eye is receiving information from red pixels in reality, which is the only context perception of color really matters.

>>8718468
All color is additive. The pixels are grey. Grey in the real world in any context has a wide range of frequencies. It works without having red subpixels, like if it were a painting or something. There still is an optical illusion. You definitely "see" red in the picture, but if you only saw one pixel, you would say it isn't red.

>>8718298
I don't know what college you went to, but it was obviously shit.
[math]\lambda \cdot \nu = \mathrm c[/math]
If frequency stayed the same, and the wavelength increased, the speed of light underwater would be faster than in vacuum. But it's quite the opposite.

>>8718492
>which is the only context perception of color really matters.
No you dumb shitlord, because multiple combinations of frequencies can be perceptually indistinguishable. It doesn't fucking matter if the R channel isn't empty as long as the combination of RGB values isn't in isolation perceived as red.

File: Capture.png (113KB, 1174x513px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1174x513px

What fucking sorcery is this?

>>8719217
HOLY SHIT

File: mind.png (415KB, 314x459px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 314x459px

>>8719217
REMOVEEEEEE

>>8718213
but how do you know what you're looking at is a strawberry?

>>8716854
>>8716885
lmao