#21 ·
You describe those color associations quite nicely, I suppose. That’s really all there is to it.
Home › Society › Philosophy ›
How do you explain color to someone who is blind?
How do you explain color to someone who is blind?
Started by Christian Parker2 · · 👁 7 views · 51 replies
Participants
…
…
#22 ·
I have to say, I’m a bit surprised by these responses. I guess the internet is really the only place where you can actually ask these kinds of questions. Every friend I’ve turned to seems to end up at the same conclusion—that they don't really have a clue how they'd even describe a color to someone who can't see it...
#23 ·
Elizabeth Ruiz65 said:Isn't this just a purely ethnocentric perspective? That's how this part of the world generally
perceives red, for instance—as a symbol of aggression or hostility. That doesn't
mean red actually possesses any inherent qualities of that sort,
assuming it even has intrinsic properties to begin with.
Man, that is such a fascinating question.
So, there's this thing called synesthesia, where people actually experience a literal blending of senses. Like, some folks don't just think a sound "feels" rough or white—they literally perceive it that way. And get this: it’s not totally random. Usually, one synesthete describes their experience almost exactly like another one does. Like, two different people might hear the same sound and both see red or blue. It's wild. This whole area of study is relatively new*, so I'm not sure if there are differences in how various ethnic groups describe these things.
Here's what Wikipedia says:
It was once assumed that synaesthetic experiences were entirely different from synaesthete to synaesthete, but recent research has shown that there are underlying similarities that can be observed when large numbers of synaesthetes are examined together. For example, sound-colour synaesthetes, as a group, tend to see lighter colours for higher sounds (Ward et al, 2006) and grapheme-colour synaesthetes, as a group, share significant preferences for the colour of each letter (e.g., A tends to be red; O tends to be white or black; S tends to be yellow etc., Simner et al., 2005; Rich et al., 2005; Day, 2005).
* obviously, it's been known for ages, but for traditional Western science, the whole concept probably sounded way too metaphysical, so they didn't really dive into researching it until recently.
#24 ·
To a blind person, color is just some vague, fuzzy concept—something they can’t actually grasp or process the way someone with sight does. It’s the same as any other person trying to wrap their head around something completely beyond their physical capacity to perceive.
They might try to "map" it onto things they actually experience using metaphors, analogies, or pure imagination. They use the senses they *do* have to make educated guesses, but at the end of the day, that idea of "color" remains an undefined abstraction in their mind.
Sure, a blind person might compare colors to a specific taste, a certain piece of music, or some other sensation. They can guess what it's about by comparing what they can feel to what others say they see—like linking a sound to a visual—but they will never actually experience color as color.
When you describe colors to someone who is blind, you aren't describing the color itself; you're just describing the imagery or the moods those colors trigger in us. If we couldn't see them, we wouldn't even make that connection.
A feeling, a taste, or a smell tied to a specific hue doesn't define the color, nor does it bring it any closer to someone who lacks the fundamental concept of sight from the start.
Everything a human experiences happens through their own senses. The world exists only as it is filtered through an individual's ability to perceive it.
So, if the sense of sight isn't there, then everything that relies solely on vision effectively doesn't exist for them, no matter how hard you try to explain it.
They might try to "map" it onto things they actually experience using metaphors, analogies, or pure imagination. They use the senses they *do* have to make educated guesses, but at the end of the day, that idea of "color" remains an undefined abstraction in their mind.
Sure, a blind person might compare colors to a specific taste, a certain piece of music, or some other sensation. They can guess what it's about by comparing what they can feel to what others say they see—like linking a sound to a visual—but they will never actually experience color as color.
When you describe colors to someone who is blind, you aren't describing the color itself; you're just describing the imagery or the moods those colors trigger in us. If we couldn't see them, we wouldn't even make that connection.
A feeling, a taste, or a smell tied to a specific hue doesn't define the color, nor does it bring it any closer to someone who lacks the fundamental concept of sight from the start.
Everything a human experiences happens through their own senses. The world exists only as it is filtered through an individual's ability to perceive it.
So, if the sense of sight isn't there, then everything that relies solely on vision effectively doesn't exist for them, no matter how hard you try to explain it.
#25 ·
I happened to stumble upon this thread, and while I’m certainly not one to get all bogged down in deep philosophical debates, I do have a pretty practical answer to what you're asking.
The whole thing boils down to heat. If you want a simple way to test this yourself, just close your eyes and have someone hold a black card in one hand and a red card in the other right over your open palms—you’ll feel the difference immediately.
At the end of the day, colors are nothing more than electromagnetic radiation waves. So, if we're looking for a practical explanation, it's heat. Think about how blind people can still sense the warmth of the sun; that's really where you start. 🙂
The whole thing boils down to heat. If you want a simple way to test this yourself, just close your eyes and have someone hold a black card in one hand and a red card in the other right over your open palms—you’ll feel the difference immediately.
At the end of the day, colors are nothing more than electromagnetic radiation waves. So, if we're looking for a practical explanation, it's heat. Think about how blind people can still sense the warmth of the sun; that's really where you start. 🙂
#26 ·
Christian Parker2 said:Hey everyone,😎 this is my first time posting here. I figured I'd start things off by throwing a question out there that I can't seem to wrap my head around. I've been stuck on this for a few hours now and I'm still coming up empty. The question is... How would you explain the concept of color to someone who is blind?
I remember this one movie where a guy falls for a blind girl and tries to describe colors to her... there was this one scene...
He grabbed some ice and put it in her hands, explaining blue as the color of cold and snow...
Then he took something hot (I think it was just a warm piece of food) to show her how red represents heat, warmth, love, and all that...
Maybe it helps, but honestly, that part of the film was beautiful.👍
#28 ·
You can throw all the explanations you want at a blind person, but at the end of the day, it’s just a bunch of comparisons rather than actual experience.
It’s kind of like those deep spiritual questions—how is someone who’s reached enlightenment supposed to explain that state of being to someone who hasn't? You basically need a different set of eyes entirely.
Maybe the only real way to bridge that gap would be through some sort of past-life regression therapy.🍿
What do you guys think? I haven't personally gone down that rabbit hole, but I know plenty of people who have, and they always have some wild stories about what they "saw."
Who knows, maybe even a blind person could "see" that way.
They might actually get to experience color and sight for themselves.
It’s kind of like those deep spiritual questions—how is someone who’s reached enlightenment supposed to explain that state of being to someone who hasn't? You basically need a different set of eyes entirely.
Maybe the only real way to bridge that gap would be through some sort of past-life regression therapy.🍿
What do you guys think? I haven't personally gone down that rabbit hole, but I know plenty of people who have, and they always have some wild stories about what they "saw."
Who knows, maybe even a blind person could "see" that way.
They might actually get to experience color and sight for themselves.
#29 ·
Matthew Cruz41 said:I remember this one movie where a guy falls for a blind girl and tries to describe colors to her... there was this one scene...
He grabbed some ice and put it in her hands, explaining blue as the color of cold and snow...
Then he took something hot (I think it was just a warm piece of food) to show her how red represents heat, warmth, love, and all that...
Maybe it helps, but honestly, that part of the film was beautiful.👍
That’s that flick with the lead actor who has that disfigured skull—I can't recall the title. If I remember correctly, his osteoclasts went haywire or something and caused massive bone growth. 🤔
He gave her a hot potato. 🙂
#30 ·
placidjackal36 said:That’s that flick with the lead actor who has that disfigured skull—I can't recall the title. If I remember correctly, his osteoclasts went haywire or something and caused massive bone growth. 🤔
He gave her a hot potato. 🙂
Yeah, a hot potato 👍
That's the one.
Cher played his mother.
#32 ·
Christian Parker2 said:Hey everyone,😎 this is my first time posting here. I figured I'd start things off by throwing a question out there that I can't seem to wrap my head around. I've been stuck on this for a few hours now and I'm still coming up empty. The question is... How would you explain the concept of color to someone who is blind?
Explaining color to someone who is blind?
Unless you're blind yourself...
Why even try to convince someone of an illusion?
Unless you aren't trying to convince them—you're trying to convince yourself. 😁
V.
#33 ·
Aren't colors just reflections of sunlight? Like how a leaf looks green because it absorbs the blue and red spectrum while bouncing back the green... everything else works the same way. It’s just the physical structure reflecting specific wavelengths. But here's the kicker: we probably don't even see the same colors. That's just my theory—I haven't cracked open an anatomy textbook lately to be 100% sure—but think about it. Have you ever had a quick argument with a friend about what color something actually is? You’ll both be dead certain you're right, neither side budging. We agree on the basics like red or blue, but the nuances? We're probably all seeing different things.
If someone had cornered me on a street corner in Chicago asking this, I probably wouldn't have thought of much. But looking at your replies, I'm leaning toward the whole warm vs. cold thing. Reds, browns, yellows, oranges... those are warm. Grays and blues are cold. Since we know animals have senses far sharper than ours, they could probably tell them apart easily. Just my two cents. 🙂
If someone had cornered me on a street corner in Chicago asking this, I probably wouldn't have thought of much. But looking at your replies, I'm leaning toward the whole warm vs. cold thing. Reds, browns, yellows, oranges... those are warm. Grays and blues are cold. Since we know animals have senses far sharper than ours, they could probably tell them apart easily. Just my two cents. 🙂
#34 ·
Druid;9338525 said:The second I laid eyes on your post... 🤣
But fine—maybe you were sitting there hoping some brother or sister, or perhaps a spouse, would stumble upon this thread and chime in with, "Hey, if you don't have anything better to do with your life, why don't you go explain things to people here instead?"
And besides, why on earth would you assume a blind person couldn't navigate their way onto this forum and read this entire discussion on their own?
I’m right here, and while I won't be solving all your little mysteries, I might just scratch the surface of them a bit...
By the way, using terms like "blind person" can carry a pretty negative connotation quite often. It would be a nice gesture if you all kept that in mind...
#35 ·
It’s a bit like trying to explain the concept of different musical pitches to someone who has never heard a single note. You tell them that light consists of electromagnetic waves, and that the human eye is tuned to pick up a specific spectrum—roughly somewhere between 400 nm and 700 nm. Within that narrow little window, our brains slice things up into what we call colors, like red, orange, and so on. But even if you lay out the entire physics of the wavelength, there is a massive, gaping hole in that explanation. What exactly is missing from that description of color?
#36 ·
mistyfox812 said:Man, that is such a fascinating question.
So, there's this thing called synesthesia, where people actually experience a literal blending of senses. Like, some folks don't just think a sound "feels" rough or white—they literally perceive it that way. And get this: it’s not totally random. Usually, one synesthete describes their experience almost exactly like another one does. Like, two different people might hear the same sound and both see red or blue. It's wild. This whole area of study is relatively new*, so I'm not sure if there are differences in how various ethnic groups describe these things.
Here's what Wikipedia says:
It was once assumed that synaesthetic experiences were entirely different from synaesthete to synaesthete, but recent research has shown that there are underlying similarities that can be observed when large numbers of synaesthetes are examined together. For example, sound-colour synaesthetes, as a group, tend to see lighter colours for higher sounds (Ward et al, 2006) and grapheme-colour synaesthetes, as a group, share significant preferences for the colour of each letter (e.g., A tends to be red; O tends to be white or black; S tends to be yellow etc., Simner et al., 2005; Rich et al., 2005; Day, 2005).
* obviously, it's been known for ages, but for traditional Western science, the whole concept probably sounded way too metaphysical, so they didn't really dive into researching it until recently.
I'm not quite following—what part of that strikes you as metaphysical? And why use the term "positivism" in such a derogatory way?
#37 ·
ironmarlin1 said:I'm not quite following—what part of that strikes you as metaphysical? And why use the term "positivism" in such a derogatory way?
Well, saying a specific letter has some kind of inherent color feels totally essentialist—which basically means it's metaphysical. It's like there's this "essence" to the letter A that's different from the essence of the letter B, and that essence just shows up as these colors we can't help but see.
ironmarlin1 said:I'm not quite following—what part of that strikes you as metaphysical? And why use the term "positivism" in such a derogatory way?
Because I think it's a pretty stupid concept.
#38 ·
Quincy:
But honestly, there isn't any rigorous argument to support the idea that letters A and B have an underlying "being." It all boils down to nothing more than following established rules for how we use them.
Quincy:
And why should that be the case? Personally, I believe positivism played a massive role in shaping the trajectory of analytic philosophy. Take Carnap, for instance; his work on the verifiability principle actually pushed scientific inquiry forward quite a bit. Even if I don't personally think the verifiability principle is correct, it acted as the necessary catalyst for Popper's principle of falsifiability to emerge. It holds historical weight, much like how nobody today fully adheres to Hegel's philosophy. Positivism is in the same boat. Should I claim Hegel's philosophy is foolish just because I don't find it particularly brilliant, if anything?
| The notion that a specific letter possesses some sort of inherent color strikes me as deeply essentialist—which is really just a fancy way of saying it’s metaphysical. It implies there’s this immutable "essence" to the letter A that somehow differs from the essence of B, and that this essence manifests itself through these various, involuntary colors. |
Quincy:
| Simply because I find it foolish. |
#39 ·
ironmarlin1 said:Quincy:But honestly, there isn't any rigorous argument to support the idea that letters A and B have an underlying "being." It all boils down to nothing more than following established rules for how we use them.
The notion that a specific letter possesses some sort of inherent color strikes me as deeply essentialist—which is really just a fancy way of saying it’s metaphysical. It implies there’s this immutable "essence" to the letter A that somehow differs from the essence of B, and that this essence manifests itself through these various, involuntary colors.
Quincy:And why should that be the case? Personally, I believe positivism played a massive role in shaping the trajectory of analytic philosophy. Take Carnap, for instance; his work on the verifiability principle actually pushed scientific inquiry forward quite a bit. Even if I don't personally think the verifiability principle is correct, it acted as the necessary catalyst for Popper's principle of falsifiability to emerge. It holds historical weight, much like how nobody today fully adheres to Hegel's philosophy. Positivism is in the same boat. Should I claim Hegel's philosophy is foolish just because I don't find it particularly brilliant, if anything?
Simply because I find it foolish.
Well, it's right there in what you quoted—that's what made me jump in with my comment. 😉
So, basically:
...e.g., A tends to be red; O tends to be white or black; S tends to be yellow etc., Simner et al., 2005; Rich et al., 2005; Day, 2005...
ironmarlin1 said:Quincy:But honestly, there isn't any rigorous argument to support the idea that letters A and B have an underlying "being." It all boils down to nothing more than following established rules for how we use them.
The notion that a specific letter possesses some sort of inherent color strikes me as deeply essentialist—which is really just a fancy way of saying it’s metaphysical. It implies there’s this immutable "essence" to the letter A that somehow differs from the essence of B, and that this essence manifests itself through these various, involuntary colors.
Quincy:And why should that be the case? Personally, I believe positivism played a massive role in shaping the trajectory of analytic philosophy. Take Carnap, for instance; his work on the verifiability principle actually pushed scientific inquiry forward quite a bit. Even if I don't personally think the verifiability principle is correct, it acted as the necessary catalyst for Popper's principle of falsifiability to emerge. It holds historical weight, much like how nobody today fully adheres to Hegel's philosophy. Positivism is in the same boat. Should I claim Hegel's philosophy is foolish just because I don't find it particularly brilliant, if anything?
Simply because I find it foolish.
Look, if you don't think it's smart, then you think it's dumb. Period. And yeah, I think positivism is pretty foolish too (like I said before). As for why... man, I'll save that for another thread.
I never said *you* had to think it was stupid.
#40 ·
Quine:
I don't see any evidence here suggesting that the letters A, O, or S possess some inherent, essential nature; rather, it serves as proof that people simply associate certain characters with specific colors. The underlying reasons for this could stem from all sorts of places—neurological wiring, cultural conditioning, and so on.
Quine:
Fine then, I suppose Hegel is just as absurd as Carnap is.
👍
| Well, it’s right there in the very passage you just pulled, which is precisely what caught my eye and prompted me to bring up that specific point in the first place. 😉 To put it plainly: ...e.g., A tends to be red; O tends to be white or black; S tends to be yellow etc., Simner et al., 2005; Rich et al., 2005; Day, 2005... |
Quine:
| Look, if you don't consider something intelligent, then by definition, you're calling it foolish. It's much like how I view positivism—as I mentioned before, I find it quite absurd. And if you're wondering why, I'll dive into that over in another thread. I never suggested that *you* personally had to view it that way. |
👍
🔗 Similar threads
- Can someone explain why I was banned? in Banned Users Corner · Feb 9, 2021
- Can someone explain how I got a 100-point penalty? in Banned Users Corner · Nov 17, 2020
- Can someone explain why Google moderators were banned? in Banned Users Corner · Jul 9, 2020
- Can someone explain this a bit better? in Feedback & Suggestions · Apr 11, 2017
- Do we ever actually own our own history, or is it just layers of someone else's decisions? in Philosophy · Jul 29, 2026