- Joined
- Jan 16, 2022
- Messages
- 768
- Reaction score
- 2,472
In another thread, @Albedo said:
This is because of how the normal human trichromat brain is wired. At the opponent-process stage of color processing, red and green are treated as actual opposites. A signal of "red" at a particular location actually suppresses any signal of "green" at that location, and vice versa. We can see a color as "bluish green" but not as "reddish green," even though really we're just talking about mixing different wavelengths of light. There's nothing about the physics of light that makes this true. It's all about what evolution decided were the colors that are important to tell apart from each other.
So back to your question, if your people/creatures evolved as tetrachromats (and are not, for example, spontaneous mutations), they would presumably have evolved the extra cone type because it was important for their behavioral ecology, and the differences in color percepts it creates would be highly vivid and distinguishable.
Another angle to consider is how your creatures would think and talk about their color perception. If they are a minority within a trichromatic population, they would use the same basic color terms as everyone else, and would just be those weirdos who think that "lavender" and "lilac" are interestingly different colors.
Again, consider an analogy to red-green dichromats. If they were the majority of the population, there would probably be one color term (call it "gred") for all of green and red. People who claimed to see a large difference between reddish gred and greenish gred would be dismissed as excessively up in their artistic feelings. It would only be when the minority trichromats could detect something much more quickly in the environment that their superpower would become obvious.
On the other hand, if your tetrachromats are the majority of the population, or are a separate species with their own culture and language, then there would be separate words for the additional "basic" color categories they would have. To the trichromat minority (or trichromat species), these distinctions would seem excessive and tricky, but they would know that they were "real" distinctions that they themselves are just not very good at.
Again with the analogy. To dichromats in our trichromat population, "red" and "green" are fussy distinctions within one broad color category. Dichromats can often tell shades apart because of differences in luminance or saturation (how light/dark and how vivid/washed-out), or because one is more yellowish than another, or simply because they can tell from the object (e.g. stop sign) that it's supposed to be called "red." But they do know that everyone else makes a big fuss about "red" vs. "green," and they themselves often get it wrong.
I think the extra colors would have to be qualitatively different. Think about it this way: people with red-green color deficiency see reds and greens as shades of the same color. Add in an extra color receptor and bam, red and green are two wholly different experiences.
This is because of how the normal human trichromat brain is wired. At the opponent-process stage of color processing, red and green are treated as actual opposites. A signal of "red" at a particular location actually suppresses any signal of "green" at that location, and vice versa. We can see a color as "bluish green" but not as "reddish green," even though really we're just talking about mixing different wavelengths of light. There's nothing about the physics of light that makes this true. It's all about what evolution decided were the colors that are important to tell apart from each other.
So back to your question, if your people/creatures evolved as tetrachromats (and are not, for example, spontaneous mutations), they would presumably have evolved the extra cone type because it was important for their behavioral ecology, and the differences in color percepts it creates would be highly vivid and distinguishable.
Another angle to consider is how your creatures would think and talk about their color perception. If they are a minority within a trichromatic population, they would use the same basic color terms as everyone else, and would just be those weirdos who think that "lavender" and "lilac" are interestingly different colors.
Again, consider an analogy to red-green dichromats. If they were the majority of the population, there would probably be one color term (call it "gred") for all of green and red. People who claimed to see a large difference between reddish gred and greenish gred would be dismissed as excessively up in their artistic feelings. It would only be when the minority trichromats could detect something much more quickly in the environment that their superpower would become obvious.
On the other hand, if your tetrachromats are the majority of the population, or are a separate species with their own culture and language, then there would be separate words for the additional "basic" color categories they would have. To the trichromat minority (or trichromat species), these distinctions would seem excessive and tricky, but they would know that they were "real" distinctions that they themselves are just not very good at.
Again with the analogy. To dichromats in our trichromat population, "red" and "green" are fussy distinctions within one broad color category. Dichromats can often tell shades apart because of differences in luminance or saturation (how light/dark and how vivid/washed-out), or because one is more yellowish than another, or simply because they can tell from the object (e.g. stop sign) that it's supposed to be called "red." But they do know that everyone else makes a big fuss about "red" vs. "green," and they themselves often get it wrong.
