Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Color: Philosophical Issues

Why does the apple on the table before you look red? A commonsense answer: You are looking at a red apple in good natural light and you have normal color vision. It may seem hard to quarrel with this statement, but it is not particularly informative. A scientific account might go something like this: The apple selectively reflects more of the longer wavelength rays in daylight than those of shorter wavelengths. As a result, the kinds of light sensors in the retina of your eyes that are more sensitive to longer wavelengths respond more strongly than do those that are more sensitive to shorter wavelengths. This imbalance in response is coded and re-coded, exciting appropriate neural networks in the brain. Properly fleshed out, as it presumably will be in the future, such an account is indeed informative, but it would seem to lack something important. Nowhere in it is there a reference to the red quality of the apple or to your experience of that quality. The philosopher's task is to try to put the commonsense and the scientific accounts together to get a picture that accounts for the red quality and relates it to an informative causal analysis. The main philosophical attempts to do so are briefly discussed in this entry.

Physicalism, Dispositionalism, and Primitivism

Our only access to the colors of things is through our visual experience. As the physicalist sees it, the red of the apple is that physical property of the apple that causes us to experience red. This would seem to be its selective reflectance of light rays across the spectrum. However, the three sensor types of the retina are limited in their ability to resolve the spectral details of the light arriving at the eye. Consequently, things with different spectral reflectances can look red. A comparable situation applies to the spectra of light-emitting objects such as LEDs. The causes of experiences of red are so physically diverse that it is not clear what or whether they have anything in common.

To secure a property that all red things have in common, dispositionalists propose that we take the redness of an object to consist in its disposition to look red to color-normal observers under normal conditions, regardless of the physical mechanisms that underlie that disposition. Unfortunately, this proposal has problems of its own. The color appearance of some objects varies significantly with variation in the spectral composition of the light source, even if the source is considered “normal.” For example, two surfaces that match in color in sunlight may look distinctly different in north daylight. In addition, the visual background and the distribution of colors in the scene will always affect the color appearance of the object to some extent, and sometimes quite dramatically. Furthermore, color-normal observers do not see colors of things in exactly the same way. So what viewing conditions and which observers shall we use to determine the “true” colors of an object? There seem to be no convincing reasons for choosing one set of conditions or observers rather than another. Once more, we are without a unitary objective feature that we could identify with redness.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading