Our percept of color was probably once the most important function in the human mind. We needed to be able to distinguish color in order to separate out foods that were good for us and those that were poisonous. Color was thus a means of survival. But the body was developed through a random sequence of events and thus we were adapted to the environment that we live in which is why we can neither see actual photons nor wavelengths of color. The fact that the autonomous brain takes over the interpretation of the different ratios of long, medium and short wavelenghts is probably characteristic of the greater part of the brain being given over to concious "higher" thinking. It is an interesting question to ask whether artists have a more intimate closer relationship with color. Since perception is so individualitistic are there individuals in which the C areas are better developed and so they see more vivid colors?

It is interesting to note that color is an inherent property of the object> that we see by comparing objects to their surroundings. This is also a means of survival like our lateral inhibition network, we only distinguish by comparison and contrast. As with many things this was probably an adaptive measure, looking out over the horizon for a predator or prey. But, we have retained this adaptive measure, never seeing an object for what it is but what it is not. In this way behaviour and science are very close, they are comparing what they see and what they know, to what they do not.

As organisms we have had to develop in a less than perfectly organized manner, but the system works, thus since no better models have been developed we keep our general physiology. But since there are some faulty adaptations, the body has had to adjust in order to be able to accommodate and correct these faults. We are able to fill in the gap in the retina where the optic fiber leaves because the brain could not be left with a hole, and we are still able to see if in if the pigment is on the third layer. It is a sobering thought that we are never truly aware of everything around us, and because of the constraints of the system we will never truly see an objective reality.

It is an interesting, psychological question why colors have an ability to> affect our moods, the passionate red, the sombre blue, anxious yellow, are these the flags of mother nature to alert us to danger, red for blood being spilt or the paleness yellow of illness ? By our very natures we are able to impose certain feelings on our perceptions one of these being the association of particular moods to color.

Color affects our behaviour in many ways, it is a reflective measure of how much light is present, it affects our mood, but it is also a protective movement allowing us to compare and contrast better, than merely relying on the rods to detect movement.

Lots of interesting thoughts. Yes, clearly color has, for us, significance beyond being able to tell things apart (healthy food versus unhealthy food). I don't know enough about that to talk meaningfully about it, but others have written extensively on it. I do think there is an important GENERAL point there, which is that evolutionary adaptedness not only shapes things that work in an existing environment but also, in doing so, always creates the potential for new things (which may or may not prove useful/adaptive): that human color perception has significance beyond telling things apart is a good case in point. Yes, behavior and science quite similar: there is always the potential to find something new. Once can be sobered by the understanding that "we are never truly