Why is everyone walking around not being bothered by the fact that we don't even know how colors are possible

>Those "emotions" exist.
not really.
truth

>not really.
How so?

they're emergent properties of a system, and any changes to the system change the properties.

they have no independent existence, they are not objects. As phenomena go they're transient, and probably not at all what people think they are.

so they exist exactly like unicorns and angels do.

So your point is... They exist?

only if you define "exist" as "things which don't exist."

Because science is reductionist, and act like philosophy on the subject doesn't matter.

Goethe is correct about color, if you speak about how we experience color, and don't just view "le universe is nothing but numbers :-)"

>act like philosophy on the subject doesn't matter.
it's not that it doesn't matter, it just has no real explanatory power and acts as the new god-free religion.

which is perfectly fine, but it's not going to take you anywhere new.

>it just has no real explanatory power
wrong

>acts as the new god-free religion.
double wrong

>it's not going to take you anywhere new.
triple wrong

I see you have great faith in philosophy, but perhaps you could tell me how you test it?

>only experimentally verifiable things are important
this is just stupid

as for color, goethe's conception of color is testable, we just have no scientific explanation for why it occurs, so people tend to dismiss it as unimportant and irrelevant.

>only experimentally verifiable things are Veeky Forums
is that way

>>only experimentally verifiable things are important
>this is just stupid
You're not doing a good job at explaining why it isn't complete garbage. Maybe because it is.

>thread is about color
>talk about the lack of scientific ability to explain
>tells me to leave because thread is about science

kek

I'm not going to sit in this thread and apologize for philosophy, I'm just telling you how the world is.

>talk about the lack of scientific ability to explain
See:
>they're just qualia. essentially emotions induced in the brain in response to specific stimuli.

There is a completely scientific answer. It is not 100% fully understood in every detail. That is normal in science. That doesn't make us more accepting of bullshit.

>There is a completely scientific answer. It is not 100% fully understood in every detail. That is normal in science. That doesn't make us more accepting of bullshit.
>we can't explain it but we know it must be science

>muh philosophy is gud but i dont have a single reason why
gtfo, this is why Veeky Forums hates philosophy, because you're all worthless shits

>We can't explain it so it's got to be magic

>qualia

You're out of your depth, son. The explanation you cited as "scientific" was even more unscientific than what I was talking about. Don't argue with people if you don't understand the subject.

I'm not the one who came out swinging and acting like a cunt ;-)

We can figure it out when we figure out how the brain works.

>everyone on this board is the same person

You're a fucking moron. There is no such thing as perfect understanding.

Fuck consciousness threads

No other subject on Veeky Forums brings out the pseudointellectuals this badly

>You're a fucking moron. There is no such thing as perfect understanding.
I agree with that, what are you smoking that you think I'm disagreeing? Stop arguing against what you don't understand, bubba ;)

Yeah, they attract you like a fly on a turd

>if our understanding isn't perfect it's not science
I'm glad you agree with the most important part, that you're a fucking moron.

Look buddy, I don't know who you are, but what you're saying is so apart from the point that you just look like an idiot. Please, stop trying to talk if you're incapable of communicating.

How Can Colors Be Real If Our Eyes Aren't Real?

>that image

Man that has seen some mileage.

>As phenomena go they're transient
>colours are transient

lol

>Please, stop trying to talk if you're incapable of communicating.
Right back atcha buddy boyo. You're backpedaling and rephrasing your previous statements.

I haven't backpedaled or rephrased a single thing. You have no clue what you're even talking about, and are taking your assblasted rage out on me.

they don't exist when nobody is looking at them.

so yeah, pretty transient.

/thread

how do we know it's wavelength that determines it and not frequency that determines it

for every wavelength of light it has one exact corresponding frequency

The wave of light causes it. Wavelength and frequency are just properties of a wave

What do you mean? Colors are defined by wavelength, which is based on what is effectively the energy of the wave.

Not really. I mean I guess you could argue that nothing exists when you aren't looking at it, but I'm assuming that we all have a sense of object permanence, here. Color is defined by an objective measure: the wavelength of the light in question (or for a material, the wavelength of light that it reflects like green for many plants).

yea, but how do we KNOW it's the wavelength

>Color is defined by an objective measure
no, wavelength is.

color is just how your brain interprets wavelengths hitting your retina.

without a retina or a brain there's no color.

it's a little weird there's people on Veeky Forums that don't naturally understand this.

> color is just how your brain interprets wavelengths hitting your retina.
hurrrr
> without a retina or a brain there's no color.
durrrr

why philosophy students should shut the fuck up about science and gb2

Wavelength is, but how it's perceived to us is still objective. It isn't like one person sees 550 nm light as violet and some see it as red, it's yellow. It is actually absolute, and this statement has an empirical basis (unlike a lot of bullshit philosophy students try to put forward).

> it's a little weird there's people on Veeky Forums that don't naturally understand this.

Evidently I'm talking to one.

Color comes from nothing more than wavelength. Certain wavelengths are defined as certain colors, but that doesn't make it any less absolute than an 'invisible' wavelength like infrared at >700 nm.

science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/Wavelengths_for_Colors.html

Usage of terms changes as our understanding changes. We consider it more useful to speak of "sound" as vibrations that we are capable of hearing whether or not we do. Similarly, we consider it more useful to speak of "color" as photons in specific wavelength ranges, regardless of if we are there to perceive them. It's not much different from how we speak of other wavelengths as "radio waves" which are detected by equipment but are still just photons falling into a narrower definition that we find useful.

>how it's perceived to us is still objective
perceptions are never objective, always subjective.
>Usage of terms changes as our understanding changes
indeed.

and once you understand the process involved in perceiving color (or hearing sound, or smelling odors) you'll understand why color doesn't exist without an eye to see it.

because color isn't the wavelength of light, it's also the eye's sorting of it and the brain's interpretation of it.

this isn't controversial. You may not be familiar with it because you're uneducated, but that doesn't make you correct.

>because color isn't the wavelength of light, it's also the eye's sorting of it and the brain's interpretation of it.
Not to society. The existence of various colorblindnesses does not change our agreed-upon average ranges assigned to each color. Someone with abnormal perception has to adjust to the labels shared by society.

As for "but wut if it isnt the real blue in ur mind" you should know better than to pose such a stupidass question.

You're really short-sighted for your level of hostility. Dunning-Kruger?

>Dunning-Kruger?
exactly.

you're arguing that a popular understanding and usage is better than a technical one.
on a fucking science board.

this is a textbook example of Dunning Kruger.

you're a moron and you think you're smarter than your obvious superiors.

>perceptions are never objective, always subjective

It doesn't matter. Our agreed colors correspond to wavelengths. And what makes you think color doesn't exist when nobody is looking at it? Because that wavelength of light that we all agree is red is still there when nobody is looking at it (again, assuming object permanence). This isn't a philosophical discussion. There exists a scientific answer, therefore philosophy is useless (not that it's really useful anywhere nowadays because it's just a more primitive form of science).

>And what makes you think color doesn't exist when nobody is looking at it?
because color is your perception of wavelength.

wavelengths of light have no color without an eye to see them and a brain to perceive them.

> usage is better than a technical one.

He and I both did. Yellow is defined as light with wavelength 570 nm. You're trying to make a bullshit philosophical argument that just doesn't work. Maybe check out reddit.com/r/iamverysmart/

>This isn't a philosophical discussion
then stop saying "color" and start saying "wavelength."

color =/= wavelength,
one is a quale, the other is measurement.

and if you can't tell the difference between qualia and measurements you're on the wrong board.

> because color is your perception of wavelength.

False. It is a word defined by wavelength. Before we knew about wavelengths it may not have been defined that way, but this is certainly not the case anymore. Whether you are looking at it or not, the light is going to exist and it's going to have a certain wavelength. Light with a wavelength of 400 nm is violet. It is going to be violet whether someone is looking at it or not.

>Yellow is defined as light with wavelength 570 nm

>Yellow is the color between green and orange in the spectrum of visible light. It is the color of ripe lemons and of egg yolks.[2] It is a primary color in subtractive color, used in color printing. According to surveys in Europe, Canada and the United States, yellow is the color people often associate with amusement, gentleness, and spontaneity, but also with duplicity, envy, jealousy, avarice, and, in the U.S., with cowardice. It plays an important role in Asian culture, particularly in China, where it is seen as the color of happiness, glory, wisdom, harmony and culture.

hey look, no mention of wavelength.

>It is a word defined by wavelength.

>1. the property possessed by an object of producing different sensations on the eye as a result of the way the object reflects or emits light.
look, no mention of wavelength.

shall I keep googling for you, little one?

1 a : a phenomenon of light (as red, brown, pink, or gray) or visual perception that enables one to differentiate otherwise identical objects

b (1) : the aspect of the appearance of objects and light sources that may be described in terms of hue, lightness, and saturation for objects and hue, brightness, and saturation for light sources ; also : a specific combination of hue, saturation, and lightness or brightness (2) : a color other than and as contrasted with black, white, or gray

I want all the Jaden Smiths to pls go and stay go

>you're arguing that a popular understanding and usage is better than a technical one.
What you're suggesting is TECHNICAL? Hahahahahahaha, it's handwaving "i know a little about perception and cognition AND U CANT NO NUFFIN"

I'm fully aware of the intricacies of perception that you speak of, and the sad thing is that you truly do not understand how useless your pedantry is. Your definitions set us back, as opposed to adapting to a common ground that is still useful in spite of the facts you present.

>obvious superiors
This is the difference between our posts. I'm hostile in response to hostile children. Mull it over.

I've got an early day tomorrow user, so take your opportunity for last words that I wont read and sleep with the smug satisfaction that you "won".

you are the Jaden Smith here, dipshit.

colors are qualia, subjective experiences.
not available for scientific examination.
If that disturbs your autism by all means fuck off.

Color = wavelength, that's how they are defined nowadays.

> and if you can't tell the difference between qualia and measurements you're on the wrong board.

Face it, you tried to make a pedantic argument, realized you were being dumb, then tried to make it a philosophical argument. I see through it. Go try to convince someone else how smart you are, I'm not buying it.

That's how it's defined scientifically, ya dunce. It's like how Websters will give you a definition of theory that is different from what it means in a scientific context. You keep trying to convince me you aren't retarded, but you sure aren't doing yourself any favors.

>sleep with the smug satisfaction that you "won".
I won the instant I realized you didn't know color is subjective and then decided to insult me for your ignorance.

I know you'll read what I say. You can't help it. With any luck you'll also learn something from the encounter and then you'll win too.

>that's how they are defined nowadays.
>That's how it's defined scientifically

I notice neither of you can find a definition that agrees with you.

I'm finished, unless you can back up your claims I think we're done here.

>Why is everyone walking around not being bothered by the fact that op is a faggot.

We're very used to it by now :-/

>that's how they are defined nowadays.
I assumed that you would understand that we were talking in a scientific context, I didn't think I would need to spell that out for you. Evidently I gave you too much credit.

> I'm finished, unless you can back up your claims I think we're done here.

You've never backed up your claim that color is subjective. I explained to you that because color is defined based on wavelength it is absolute. That combined with object permanence yields that color doesn't cease to exist when you look away.

>still no citation
repeating bullshit doesn't make it fact.

I've posted 3 dictionary definitions that DON'T agree with you.

How about you post just one that does?

we both know you can't because you're wrong.
objectively wrong even.

>color is defined based on wavelength it is absolute
show me the definition, you stupid little fuck.

You are making the assumption that everyone perceive a certain wavelength in the same way. This is not necessarily true. We all agree that a wavelength of 620–750 nm is called red, but the mental state we get when light hits our eyes does not need to be the same in all humans. All people will call the wavelength of 620–750 nm red because that is how we have defined it. Take a piece of paper and write the colors and its corresponding wavelengths. Now paint small squares of colors underneath the name of the colors. Make a new row but move the square of colors one step to the right so the two rows are not identical. These two rows will represent two different persons and as you can see the sensation of color is different but no problem in communication will occur. These two persons will think that they percive color in the same way. If one of them asks for a red pencil he will recive a red pencil because both call the wavelength of 620–750 nm red even though they perceive color differently.

>repeating bullshit doesn't make it fact.
You're right, now where's that proof that color ceases to exist when you aren't looking at it?

When you get that for me, why don't you just google the visible light spectrum? Also, quit samefagging, you schizophrenic.

> You are making the assumption that everyone perceive a certain wavelength in the same way.

No I'm not, because it doesn't matter. Red is defined a certain way. It isn't subjective. Everyone may have their own idea of what red looks like (or maybe not), but it doesn't matter because color can be defined by wavelength.

> These two persons will think that they percive color in the same way.

But that doesn't matter because color can be defined by wavelength, therefore giving an absolute definition for color.

> If one of them asks for a red pencil he will recive a red pencil because both call the wavelength of 620–750 nm red even though they perceive color differently.

I could call 700 nm light blue, but that doesn't make it true.

> hey everyone, look how smart I think I am

You have a serious case of the Dunning-Krueger effect

>Red is defined a certain way. It isn't subjective
still can't post that definition.

>where's that proof that color ceases to exist when you aren't looking at it?
it's in the definition you third-grader:
>producing different sensations on the eye
sensations on the eye cease to exist when the eye isn't looking.

>What do you mean? Colors are defined by wavelength, which is based on what is effectively the energy of the wave.

wait, are you retarded enough to claim that a color is a number in some formal arithmetic ?

you seem to be retarded, in that you conflate "defined by" with "is".

so you agree that there were no colors before the contrived definition through wavelength.

Fucking plebs.

I will help you a bit, you seem to be lost.

-You choose to work with some formal system encoding some logic
-then you claim that you have some number in this formal system
-then you claim that something that you call ''color'' is encoded into this formal system
-then you claim that the encoding of the number above is the encoding of the ''color'' [because somehow, you manage to have an identity relation in your formal system ?]

of course you choose not to substantiate your claims, which is odd for some undergrad claiming to be rigorous.

ITT: half of Veeky Forums just can't cope with intangibles, stochastic systems, consciousness, etc.

yes, colors came magically into existence the first time somebody defined them through wavelength. sure

colour is not defined by wavelength

if it was, then you would be able to tell me the wavelength for magenta

there is no wavelength for magenta, because magenta is made by your brain

...

does it matter which is which? they're proportional, we just like to use wavelengths for some reason
You can easily convert from wavelength to frequency,
so saying a laser is green because of it's wavelength is the same as saying a laser is green because of its frequency
there's no difference

>if it was, then you would be able to tell me the wavelength for magenta

Magenta is a combination of two wavelengths, one near the highest wavelength we can see, one near the the lowest wavelength we can see.

>because magenta is made by your brain
That's like saying there's no such thing as water because there's no atom for water.

Magenta is defined by two wavelengths, ie. how your brain responds to a mix of colors from opposite ends of the visible spectrum.

And by the gods I'm sick of this solipsism anti-science thread popping up every two days.

Science only deals with the empirical world, that doesn't make it irrelevant. Get over it.

>being assblasted and wrong

your perception of color is loosely, but not absolutely related to wavelength. your reductionist numerology bullshit belongs on /r/eddit

>exclusive positivism

It's a simplification, but we know what pattern to expect in a normal brain viewing a particular color - or even imagining one, or reading the related word. That's as close to objectively measuring individual experiences as we can get. ...and we know a good deal about the physics and biology that leads to that interaction and reaction.

To say that we "we don't even know how colors are possible." requires you to delve outside the realm of science and into solipsistic bullshit, and basically just troll the board.

>"we don't even know how colors are possible."
Never said that.

Seems like you are looking for something ''new''. Tired and bored of the ''old''? You know that the ''old'' can become the ''new'', right? Just change a perspective, and you shall become happier.

Brah, I'm talking about OP who makes this thread every two days.

Who says we don't, I do.

you think you do, but you actually don't, wake up

Reminder that people believe that what they experience is literally numbers.

Go look at the cells at the back off your eyeballs. There are cells for red, blue, green (or Magenta/cyan/yellow), and they get triggered by light coming in through the lens and going across the cell. Inside the cell there's a special molecule. With that molecule a chemical reaction is possible that breaks a bond in the molucule when light of a certain wavelength/frequency hits it (don't know which, but I'm sure chemistry knows). The breaking of the bond triggers the cell to send a electric signal (e.g. RED) to your brain, which then processes all the signals to create what you see. There are cells for color, and cells for brightness.