Human Visual Color Experiences

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Basic Science behind Vision
Similarities between Locke, Armstrong, and Smart’s views on Color Experience
Differences between Locke, Armstrong, and Smart’s views on Color Experience
The Superiority of Armstrong’s Physicalism
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

The brain is the most crucial organ in the human body, which helps in coordinating movements, feelings, and thoughts as it is at the center of the nervous system. On the other hand, the mind is a person’s conscience and thought process. The human ability to visualize colors depends on the mental activities of perception, learning, memory, discrimination, and attention. Sight is an essential capacity in all living things. It is paramount to note that two humans may perceive an object, each noticing a different color. The difference in color perception may be explained by the different viewpoints presented by Locke, Smart, and Armstrong. Locke argues that colors are wholly subjective and embedded in human beings. The ability to see a color lies within an individual, and people may perceive a color differently based on their mental activity (Locke 92). On the other hand, Smart focuses on the objective and subjective nature of colors to determine resultant perception. At the same time, Armstrong argues that color is a secondary quality and depends on a person’s beliefs. Humans perceive colors differently because visual experience is not only a biological function but is also affected by dynamic belief systems.

Basic Science behind Vision

A human being can view an object when light reflecting an object enters the eye. Vision is coordinated by inbuilt mechanisms within the eye, which work in tandem with the brain’s sensory mechanisms to detect light and convert it into a color perception. Color observation and recognition are elements of general sight. Scientists discovered eyes through evolution as time passed and in distinct forms (Atherton 273). Since then, philosophers got interested in determining how human beings perceive different colors from various points of view. Mammals, including human beings, are endowed with eyes resembling a camera. Human eyes comprise a hollow sphere-like body with a particular opening whose size varies depending on the present light intensity conditions. A lens surrounds this particular opening. The curvature of the lens is controlled through muscular action (Atherton 274). These lenses direct light energy to a highly light-sensitive point on the eye’s retina, covering the internal membrane of the human eye. At this point, light intermingles with various light-sensitive neurons to help an individual perceive the color.

Similarities between Locke, Armstrong, and Smart’s views on Color Experience

All the philosophers agree that colors are secondary and determined through a unique brain activity of perception and comparison. According to Locke, all colors are embedded in the human brain and a person compares the perceived color and compare it to the colors present in the database (Locke 91). Armstrong supports Locke’s argument by stating that human belief system creates a pool of colors in the human brain where each incoming reflection is compared for determination (Armstrong 71). If an incoming reflection is unique and is not found in the pool of colors stored, it cannot be determined. Smart further supports the comparison argument by stating that a person perceives a color based on the information stored in the brain by judging the incoming reflection objectively and subjectively (Smart 1216). All three philosophers underscore the importance of comparison in color perception.

Differences between Locke, Armstrong, and Smart’s views on Color Experience

Despite the philosophers focusing on comparison as the primary form of determining colors in perception, there are crucial elements in their arguments that make their viewpoints differ. A critical analysis of the three viewpoints shows that Armstrong’s arguments are superior and that human vision depends on the object; when an object’s color changes, the perceptions change automatically.

Locke’s View on Human Visual Color Experience

Human beings tend to judge color vision based on the intuitive ideas from an external stimuli. According to Locke, colors are entirely subjective and are anchored on human dispositions (Locke 76). This argument implies that the human body can judge color vision subject to particular intuitive ideas. Locke’s view on colors is that they are inbuilt in humans and that color does not originate from external objects. Locke’s theory does not seem to make much sense because people perceive stimuli differently. A closer analysis of Locke’s proposition should indicate that colors are rather relational than dispositional. Basing arguments strictly on Locke’s propositions would imply that a particular object is black if and only if it triggers a unique sensation in the observer.

It is the sole role of scientific inquiry to identify both chemical and physical characteristics of object’s surfaces, the process of light transmission, the prompting of cones and rods in the human eye retinas, propagation of reflexes along the neural channels, and the analysis of this observation in the human brain. Philosophers tend to address various species’ color distinctions (Locke 88). They also try to explain how different human beings judge their color experience. Locke further attempts to address these discrepancies by maintaining that a person will describe a particular color according to innate predispositions and not from the actual nature of the object’s surface.

Critical Analysis of Locke’s View

Locke’s analysis of the immediate environment raises confrontation towards central themes in his philosophical work. His theory of perception proves that a person can formulate an idea solely from external stimuli. His argument is, however, not accurate because an idea can only be perceived by an interaction between the external stimuli and the internal processes to determine the outcome. His argument that colors can be viewed as a result of disposition fails the validity test as it excludes internal and external interaction to form concepts. He perceives adequate knowledge of the environment as ideal knowledge of actual existence. Knowledge about the existence of some objects in the human brain influences the human mind to generate specific ideas about them (Bruno and Mandelbaum 167). The implication is that a person will judge an object as black because such sights trigger such reasoning. Predetermined knowledge is acquired through some sensory exposure to environmental conditions (Bruno &Mandelbau 168). The human color description does not originate from the reflection of ideas in the brain or any deductive judgment from external sources. The bottom line in Locke’s view is that some prior mindset influences how a person perceives a specific color in the brain.

Armstrong’s View on Human Visual Color Experience

Armstrong believes in a primary difference between color sight and visualization. He argues that human visualization of color depends on their beliefs in the color observed. This proposition should imply that the way a person perceives a specific color should be fully entertained by the same sight (Armstrong 73). Armstrong analogizes his view to a flying bat. He argues that a bat uses echo to detect obstacles along its course and gauge their distance from such obstacles. Color names are just baptisms that do not specify the properties of such colors (Hayhoe 2). Armstrong argues that the properties of colors can only be established by studying the brain’s psychology. How human beings name colors is subjected to the level, they get entertained by such identities.

Armstrong proposes that humans acquire particular perceptions about the world’s colors through their senses. Such instincts are reinforced by the beliefs humans already possess. For instance, somebody will mention the color black based on what they have set their minds on that particular color. The main point here is that there would be no perception without some motivated perception. However, in some instances, it is possible to encounter a perception without any experience with a similar scene (Hayhoe 2). In such cases, the person making the perception is assumed to have been influenced by some related scene encountered in another similar scenario.

Critical Analysis of Armstrong’s View

The main weakness in Armstrong’s view, which has been opposed by many scholars, is that when a belief system is a key in determining colors, nations with different belief systems would perceive colors differently. Opposing scholars assume that opinions do not hold because of contrary beliefs. However, Armstrong is clear enough in his theory despite the disagreements from scholars. A mind develops some inclination to adopt a specific proposition after it starts believing in such experiences. The central point here is that sensory experiences based on this argument are defendable in their own right. In this case, beliefs are shaped by the mind’s inclination (Hayhoe 3). Human beings do not believe in their eyes but make judgments depending on the predetermined inclination. It is worth noting that Armstrong’s argument of the observer being aware of the actions taking place in the brain. Being able to name a particular color correctly is subject to what the perceiver makes of such sights.

Smart’s View of Human Visual Color Experience

According to Smart (1215), colors are elementary when stating the physical characteristics of objects. Smart argues that the view of human color experience can only be explained objectively and subjectively (Smart 1215). From this point of view, Smart uses both Subjectivist and Objectivist views on the human experience of color. Smart anchors part of his argument on the modern theories of the science of color perception. The objectivist view of color proposes that both physical and mental concepts of perception work hand in hand. Smart uses the analogy of red tomato to drive his point home. According to him, redness on the tomato’s surface is inherently possessed. The implication is that redness is one of the tomato’s physical properties, not necessarily from the observer’s mindset. Smart assumes that the colors of objects are independent of the sensor such sights produce in human beings. This argument holds despite the reasoning that inherent color and the ability to produce a perception go together. Subjectivist, on the hand, argues that the color of an object is not part of an object, besides every connection to human perception.

Critical Analysis of Smart’s View

The main weakness of Smart’s view is its broadness, which does not explain how people view different colors. On the opposite end, the perception of color is, in some parts, anthropological. Basing our argument on the tomato analogy, the red color on its surface gives it the power to prompt a sense of data regardless of its insignificance in everyday human life (Smart 1217). Notably, perception produced by the color of an object in a normal person possesses a certain unanalysable inbuilt quality. This quality can be differentiated from other kinds of sense datum.

The Superiority of Armstrong’s Physicalism

Armstrong’s theory of physicalism establishes some solid points which supersede its weaknesses and thereby make it superior to all the other views of color and perception. Arguing that color is part of the physical properties of an object is a universally accepted fact. Even in modern science, describing an object involves mentioning its color (Hayhoe 3). This statement implies that an object cannot be fully described without stating its color since science is the backbone of all discoveries. Information put forth by researchers and any conclusion should be fully supported by scientific facts. For instance, taking a closer look at the redness of a ripe tomato, the mention of the red color is enough to create an image of how the tomato appears. Therefore, Armstrong’s theory seems to get enough backing from scientific experiments, and his proposals should be adopted for future use.

Locke’s theory falls short of logic because if perceptions dictated color, several cases of color conflict would occur. The argument that colors result from certain predispositions is not convincing enough. Furthermore, if colors were a result of certain predispositions, then every person would see colors in their unique ways, and there would be no universal color matching. Therefore, Locke’s theory does not stand enough ground to convince scholars to adopt it since it runs parallel to scientific discovery.

Smart, in his book, alleges that color is a secondary quality and distinguishes it from other physical features like size and shape. His argument implies that color should be treated more specifically than other aspects and sizes. Arguing that color is a secondary quality implies that it can only be derived from shape and size. The theory further argues that color and human perception are independent and that a person can make a description that is not necessarily tied to the object’s surface (Hayhoe 3).

Locke’s theory lacks a general explanation of how people tend to settle on one color when describing objects. For instance, if a drum is black, there are minimal chances of a person describing it as red. This instance is enough to disprove Locke because people develop different perceptions of some sights. Armstrong’s theory portrays some logic in that the outside appearance of an object cannot be omitted when specifying its outlook. However, Armstrong does not give sufficient information on why different people struggle to distinguish close colors. A person will describe an object as green while another will describe the same object as green.

Conclusion

Some scientific discoveries should back every philosophical argument to make the proposals more convincing to scholars. Out of the three theories of human perception of color, Armstrong’s proposal is more convincing and has some scientific and mathematical backing. Armstrong believes that color cannot be exempted when describing the physical appearance of an object. This argument is convincing enough that color is one of the elements of describing the physical appearance of objects. Locke’s theory proposes that every person would have a unique way of reporting colors. This argument can be so because people have different predispositions depending on their environment. The implication is that a red object would be black for another person because of different predispositions. Further study must be carried out to build on what the ancient philosophers thought. In conclusion, human beings do not need to have some prior mindset in order to give an accurate description of color.

Works Cited

Armstrong, David M. “The causal theory of the mind.” Neue Heft für Philosophie vol.11, no.1 1977, pp. 82-95.

Atherton, Margaret. “Locke’s theory of personal identity.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy vol.8, no.1, 1983, pp. 273–293.

Bruno, Michael, and Eric Mandelbaum. “Locke’s answer to Molyneux’s thought experiment.” History of Philosophy Quarterly vol.27, no.2, 2018, pp. 165–180.

Hayhoe, Simon, Ruby Cohen, and Helena Garcia Carrizosa. “Locke and Hume’s philosophical theory of color is investigated through a case study of Esref Armagan, an artist born blind.” Journal of Blindness Innovation and Research vol.9, no.1, 2019, pp. 16-27

Locke, John. “An essay concerning human understanding, “American Psychological Association” vol.301, no. 4, 1948. pp. 87-99

Smart, Stephen, Keke Wu, and Danielle Albers Szafir. “Color crafting: Automating the construction of designer quality color ramps.” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics vol.26, no.2019, pp. 1215-1225.

Click Here To Order Now!