Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Color Cognition And Pre-Frontal Cortex (Pfc) "exhaustion"


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#1 petrushkagoogol

petrushkagoogol

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 404 posts

Posted 02 July 2017 - 12:26 AM

In physics blue has more energy than red because energy of radiation is directly proportional to the frequency.
 
In humans, color cognition leading to pre-frontal cortex "exhaustion" is faster with reds rather than blues and seems to echo Nature, where a blue sea seems to generate more equanimity than a red volcano.
 
Hence, unlike in Physics, energy of radiation seems to be directly proportional to wavelength, when applied to humans.
 
Is this paradox more than mere coincidence ?  :out: 


#2 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    412.63 ppm

  • Members
  • 1080 posts

Posted 02 July 2017 - 01:30 AM

Is not color itself a construct of the human mind?  Blue has more energy than red because we interpret higher visible frequencies as blue light and have assigned that group of wavelengths the name blue.  Red has less energy likewise.  Infrared has less energy still, even though we can't see it but we can certainly measure its effects.  Ultraviolet likewise in the opposite sense.  I can't see radio waves nor x-rays either, but they are still electro-magnetic radiation and can be shown to exist.

 

I don't understand what you mean when you say

In humans, color cognition leading to pre-frontal cortex "exhaustion" is faster with reds rather than blues and seems to echo Nature, where a blue sea seems to generate more equanimity than a red volcano.

 

Furthermore, when you say

 

Hence, unlike in Physics, energy of radiation seems to be directly proportional to wavelength, when applied to humans.
 
Is this paradox more than mere coincidence ?

 

I see no paradox at all, it seems to me to be obviously true that smaller wavelengths of light are more energetic.  I don't understand what you are claiming.

Edited by JMJones0424, 02 July 2017 - 01:36 AM.


#3 petrushkagoogol

petrushkagoogol

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 404 posts

Posted 02 July 2017 - 04:21 AM

 

Is not color itself a construct of the human mind?  Blue has more energy than red because we interpret higher visible frequencies as blue light and have assigned that group of wavelengths the name blue.  Red has less energy likewise.  Infrared has less energy still, even though we can't see it but we can certainly measure its effects.  Ultraviolet likewise in the opposite sense.  I can't see radio waves nor x-rays either, but they are still electro-magnetic radiation and can be shown to exist.

 

I don't understand what you mean when you say

 

Furthermore, when you say

 

 

I see no paradox at all, it seems to me to be obviously true that smaller wavelengths of light are more energetic.  I don't understand what you are claiming.

 

 

I am stating that red color exhausts the pre-frontal cortex (responsible for cognition) faster than blue does. This is counter-intuitive. This  is not what a physical model (one based on everyday physics) presages.     :innocent: 



#4 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    412.63 ppm

  • Members
  • 1080 posts

Posted 03 July 2017 - 08:07 PM

OK.  What is your evidence for this claim?



#5 petrushkagoogol

petrushkagoogol

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 404 posts

Posted 06 July 2017 - 11:41 PM

OK.  What is your evidence for this claim?

 

http://www.colour-af...ties-of-colours

 

Red leads to higher pulse rate, more oxygen intake, and decrease in rational thinking capacity ....



#6 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    412.63 ppm

  • Members
  • 1080 posts

Posted 07 July 2017 - 01:00 AM

Surely you know that not everything you read on the internet is supported by evidence.  After briefly reading the source you cite for your claims, I found many assertions but precisely no evidence.  I ask again, what evidence do you have for the claim that

 

I am stating that red color exhausts the pre-frontal cortex (responsible for cognition) faster than blue does. This is counter-intuitive. This  is not what a physical model (one based on everyday physics) presages.

 
The page titled research from your linked source gives at least some rationale for the claims, but I find them unconvincing.  I do not know anything about the "Wright theory on colour harmony" though, so perhaps I am simply ignorant.  Can you explain why the tests given on this site are an appropriate measure of what they claim to be measuring and how this corresponds to your claim?


Edited by JMJones0424, 07 July 2017 - 01:07 AM.


#7 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 527 posts

Posted 07 July 2017 - 01:16 AM

Red is the color of fire and blood and it does seem likely that we perceive it as a natural warning sign. Beyond that, I don't know what it means to "exhausts the pre-frontal cortex" I would need an explanation of that.

 

 



#8 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    412.63 ppm

  • Members
  • 1080 posts

Posted 07 July 2017 - 01:34 AM

Red is the color of fire and blood and it does seem likely that we perceive it as a natural warning sign.

 Do you instinctively shy away from red flowers?  Does a red sunset fill you with dread?  Do you find red leaves in fall to be unsettling?


Edited by JMJones0424, 07 July 2017 - 01:42 AM.


#9 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    412.63 ppm

  • Members
  • 1080 posts

Posted 07 July 2017 - 02:09 AM

Tomatoes, strawberries, pomegranates, cherries, beets, onions, radishes, cranberries, raspberries, roses, apples, potatoes, peppers, beans, Coca-Cola cans, wine, lipstick, cardinals, candy-apple red sportscars.

 

I like all of these things, and I am sure that there are many more that I have not thought of.  I do not perceive the color red as a warning sign when encountering any of these items.  In fact, without actual evidence, I am forced to conclude that "Red is the color of fire and blood and it does seem likely that we perceive it as a natural warning sign" is nothing more than a just-so story, as is, I suspect, the OP.

 

https://en.wikipedia...i/Just-so_story


Edited by JMJones0424, 07 July 2017 - 02:15 AM.


#10 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 527 posts

Posted 07 July 2017 - 08:56 AM

JMJones said:

Do you instinctively shy away from red flowers?  Does a red sunset fill you with dread?  Do you find red leaves in fall to be unsettling?

 

 

 

You are being silly.

 

Aposematism is a well known  phenomenon and if you will bother to do a bit of research you will find there is strong evidence to support what I have said. Here is a fairly good article on the subject.

 

".  in a variety of contexts, red seems to have a very special significance for humans.

“(1) Large fields of red light induce physiological symptoms of emotional arousal – changes in heart rate, skin resistance and the electrical activity of the brain.

(2) In patients suffering from certain pathological disorders, for instance cerebellar palsy, these physiological effects become exaggerated – in cerebellar patients red light may cause intolerable distress, exacerbating the disorders of posture and movement, lowering pain thresholds and causing a general disruption of thought and skilled behaviour.5

(3) When the affective value of colours is measured by a technique, the “semantic differential”, which is far subtler than a simple preference test, people rate red as a “heavy”, “powerful”, “active”, “hot” colour.

(4) When the “apparent weight” of colours is measured directly by asking people to find the balance point between two discs of colour, red is consistently judged to be the heaviest.

5) In the evolution of human languages, red is without exception the first colour word to enter the vocabulary – in a study of ninety-six languages Berlin and Kay found thirty in which the only colour word (apart from black and white) was red.

6) In the development of a child's language red again usually comes first, and when adults are asked simply to reel off colour words as fast as they can they show a very strong tendency to start with red.

(7) When colour vision is impaired by central brain lesions, red vision is most resistant to loss and quickest to recover.

These disparate facts all point the same way, to the conclusion that humans as a species find red both a uniquely impressive colour and at times a uniquely disturbing one. Why should it be so? What special place does the colour red have in nature's scheme of colour signals?”

He suggests that the explanation of red's psychological impact must be that red is by far the most common colour signal in nature, by virtue of the contrast it provides with other colours in nature, and because it happens to be the colour most readily available to animals for colouring their bodies because it is the colour of blood"

 

But, no need to get all red-faced about it! :cussing:


Edited by OceanBreeze, 07 July 2017 - 11:49 AM.


#11 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • 15436 posts

Posted 07 July 2017 - 12:15 PM

Red is the color of fire and blood and it does seem likely that we perceive it as a natural warning sign. Beyond that, I don't know what it means to "exhausts the pre-frontal cortex" I would need an explanation of that.

 

You are being silly.
 
Aposematism is a well known  phenomenon and if you will bother to do a bit of research you will find there is strong evidence to support what I have said. Here is a fairly good article on the subject.
...
But, no need to get all red-faced about it! :cussing:


:lol: But then, the article goes on to support JM's 'silly' contention, saying:

“If red was always used as a warning signal there would be no problem. But it is not, it is used as often to attract as to repel. My guess is that its potential to disturb lies in this very ambiguity as a signal colour. Red toadstools, red ladybirds, red poppies are dangerous to eat, but red tomatoes, red strawberries, red apples are good. The open red mouth of an aggressive monkey is threatening, but the red bottom of a sexually receptive female is appealing. The flushed cheeks of a man or woman may indicate anger, but they may equally indicate pleasure.

Thus the colour red, of itself, can do no more than alert the viewer, preparing him to receive a potentially important message; the content of the message can he interpreted only when the context of the redness is defined. When red occurs in an unfamiliar context it becomes therefore a highly risky colour. The viewer is thrown into conflict as to what to do. All his instincts tell him to do something, but he has no means of knowing what that something ought to be. ...


I do agree that Petrushka's "exhausts the pre-frontal cortex" requires evidence if not explanation.

#12 petrushkagoogol

petrushkagoogol

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 404 posts

Posted 07 July 2017 - 09:35 PM

 

:lol: But then, the article goes on to support JM's 'silly' contention, saying:
I do agree that Petrushka's "exhausts the pre-frontal cortex" requires evidence if not explanation.

 

https://www.scientif...s-our-behavior/



#13 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • 15436 posts

Posted 07 July 2017 - 09:42 PM

I do agree that Petrushka's "exhausts the pre-frontal cortex" requires evidence if not explanation.

 

https://www.scientif...s-our-behavior/


That reply doesn't cut the mustard Petrushka. Quote the appropriate content that explains/supports your statement "exhausts the pre-frontal cortex".

#14 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    412.63 ppm

  • Members
  • 1080 posts

Posted 07 July 2017 - 09:59 PM

You are being silly.

 

Aposematism is a well known  phenomenon and if you will bother to do a bit of research you will find there is strong evidence to support what I have said. Here is a fairly good article on the subject.

 

No, I am not being silly.  At least, I am not trying to be silly.  I gave numerous examples of things that directly contradict your claim that "Red is the color of fire and blood and it does seem likely that we perceive it as a natural warning sign".  For the simple reason that I, a moron, can come up with instances that contradict your claim, it seems to me to be silly that you continue to assert that your claim is correct when it has been disproven.

 

Perhaps you'd like to amend your claim that red is a color that humans perceive as a natural warning sign.  As it stands, your claim is demonstrably false.

 

It should be noted that the evidence you provided to support your claim included neither humans nor red objects.  This, I think, is an excellent example of how poorly designed studies can be used to incorrectly support a just-so story.  You've provided entirely no evidence to support your claim.  I have provided a list of red items that shows your claim to be false.

 

Furthermore, it seems clear to me that aposematism isn't even an issue here.

 

 

The most common and effective colours are red, yellow, black and white.[9] These colours provide strong contrast with green foliage, resist changes in shadow and lighting, have strong contrast, are highly chromatic, and provide distance dependent camouflage.[9] Some forms of warning colouration provide this distance dependent camouflage by having an effective pattern and colour combination that do not allow for easy detection by a predator from a distance, but are warning-like from a close proximity, allowing for an advantageous balance between camouflage and aposematism.[10] Warning colouration evolves in response to background, light conditions, and predator vision.[11] Visible signals may be accompanied by odours, sounds or behaviour to provide a multi-modal signal which is more effectively detected by predators.

 

 

If it is your claim that "Red is the color of fire and blood and it does seem likely that we perceive it as a natural warning sign" then you have failed to provide support for your claim, while I have provided numerous instances that show your claim to be false.

 

This is to say nothing of the unsupported nonsense of the OP.  Again, what evidence do you, petrushkagoogol, have that any color of light leads to pre-frontal cortex exhaustion?  I fundamentally do not understand your claim, despite the silly claims made by OceanBreeze.


Edited by JMJones0424, 07 July 2017 - 10:26 PM.


#15 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 527 posts

Posted 08 July 2017 - 12:03 AM

No, I am not being silly.  At least, I am not trying to be silly.

 

Then you have succeeded in being silly without even trying. Congratulations!



#16 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 527 posts

Posted 08 July 2017 - 12:20 AM

Why are Warning Signs Red?

 

It's an open question. "One physicist's answer is that red colours are scattered least by fog or smoke, and hence can be seen from furthest away. Another physicist's answer is that the receptors for red colours in the eye are clustered in the area near the centre where the sharpest images are formed. A biologist's answer is that nature uses red as a warning colour because it stands out most vividly against a green background. Other answers are that we associate it with danger because it is the colour of fire and blood. Maybe this last answer is nearest to the mark if we go by the behaviour of elephants, who go ballistic when they see the colour red - not unreasonably, since it is the colour worn by Maasai warriors, who love to demonstrate their virility by spearing the creatures. That said, warning signs in China have black borders on a yellow background, so red isn't always the first choice for signalling danger"

 

I find there is more than sufficient evidence to indicate that red is the color of warning in nature. While it is reasonable to debate that finding, it is silly to hand-wave it away in the face of so much evidence.

 

 

:hot:  :hot:  :hot:  :hot:



#17 petrushkagoogol

petrushkagoogol

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 404 posts

Posted 08 July 2017 - 12:50 AM

That reply doesn't cut the mustard Petrushka. Quote the appropriate content that explains/supports your statement "exhausts the pre-frontal cortex".

 

As per the abstracts -
 
 
Red color leads to 
 
  1. high pulse rate
  2. increased anxiety
  3. depression
  4. decreased cerebral blood flow in the pre-frontal cortex
  5. impaired cognitive function
This is what I am trying to prove ....  :beer-fresh: