If a tree falls in the woods, and nobody is there to see it, does it have color?

Is color just our brains interpreting certain wavelengths of light and therefor there is no such thing as color if nothing is there to see it?

Or is red still red regardless if anybody or thing is seeing it?

I'd say it's a light wave in "red" frequency range automatically, and is interpreted as red upon entering our eye
for all we know what you see as red I see as green

the visible light spectrum consists of the mnemonic ROYGBIV, whatever color an object is, is the color that object reflects

so if an object appears red to you that means it doesnt absorb the red wavelength, and this will always be true regardless if you can or cannot see color

...

But is the color i see red, because my brain is showing me this wavelength as red. Or is there actually something 'red' about the wavelength itself.

Maybe black and white is really how everything is, its just our brains going 'lets add some color to make things easier'.

Maybe not even that, maybe everything is just black, its just that we see light as light colored. Maybe even black doesn't exist outside of out minds either...

if this is the case our brain would have to remember how it colored everything initially so that it stays consistent

Color exists as a state within a given machine. Therefore, yes, color exists. Just not in the way people might think.

Explain.

How.

Redness could be a qualitative consequence/ aspect of a particular physical configuration such as neural networks responding to particular retinal sequences.

Not if this is true

that's like saying what you might read as "2" i read as "3"

Yes

They are essentially the same debate. We are only really sure of our own reality, we can not be sure of what other people experience because experience is not a quantifiable measurable thing. You don't even know if other people have any experience at all. You probably can't even be sure that you yourself are experiencing experience. It could all just be an illusion. It's a retarded thing to argue because he can't be proven wrong. He's not wrong though.

Those zen riddles are pretty fucking irritating.

hloy siht is dat ariele???
switching colors on a rainbow can make gray lines such as red being between cyan so therefore everybody sees colors in same order

No, we're both humans, we both have eyes evolved from the same ancestors, we both have brain/eye connections that evolved, etc, etc. Color blindness is a mutation of those genes that makes mixtures of colors seen by rods and cones via indistinguishable.

The arguement can be made that every species with rods and cones who evolved from a common ancestor sees the same colors.

Philosophical questions such as and "if a tree falls in a forest", etc were answered by Einstein. "If you stop looking at the moon does it stop existing?". No, the tides still happen even if the moon is on the other side of the planet and I have no knowledge of how the tides are supposed to work.

>Philosophical questions such as (You) and "if a tree falls in a forest", etc were answered by Einstein.
These are two different questions though. One you're talking about an event happening that we can measure the effects of (the tides), the other is talking about subjective experience. How can we know if two brains interpret rods and cones exactly the same way when we barely have an understanding of the brain? I get it the moon will still have an effect on you if you're on the other side of the earth we know that's true because Einstein described it with his theory. But nothing about Einstein's theory has anything to do with the human brain. You're assuming way too much. Not every brain is the same and not every philosophical question is the same.

>the other is talking about subjective experience. How can we know if two brains interpret rods and cones exactly the same way when we barely have an understanding of the brain?

We can infer it from evolution. Take baby ducklings. They imprint on Red spots which mimics the red on their mothers beak. They all recognize the spot as the same color, prior to (or in place of) seeing their mother or any beaks, it is genetic. If color were a la carte, so to speak, the sucks wouldn't imprint. The Brain/Eye connection and interpretation must be fairly universal among species members at least. If colors can be decoded genetically in one species we can infer they can be decoded in all species with similar rod and cone setups through convergent evolution, as in, it is probably useful for people (or chimps, or dogs, or rabbits) to see things as the same colors, for example, to recognize poisonous plants (another thing that wouldn't evolve if color was Willy nilly, tree frogs and snakes with red coloration saying fuck you don't eat me wouldn't work).

Pic seems so familiar. What is it OP?

it must be ariel

>We can infer it from evolution.
I don't think we can. Ducks imprint on the red spots because earlier on in history the ducks that didn't do this had less chance of survival. There are two ways this could occur, if the duck was ignoring it's instinct and sitting on green, or if the duck saw the green spot as being red and was just following it's instinct to sit on red. These would both produce the same outcome, so we don't differentiate but there is a difference. For example, lets say a duck saw a green spot as being red but also ignored it's instinct to sit on the red (actually green) dot. Then it would sit on a red dot and survive, even though it's got two problems in it's genetics.

>another thing that wouldn't evolve if color was Willy nilly, tree frogs and snakes with red coloration saying fuck you don't eat me wouldn't work
You aren't understanding. The only thing that matters is relative color, So any system that shifts the color wheel around without changing the order would make no difference. I understand that actual light doesn't correspond to the color wheel, but that just means the brain interprets light in a way that doesn't accurately represent it in reality. This makes it possible for different subjective experiences to occur.

Buzz Lightyear cartoon character.

>What I see as red, you might see as green!

Very unlikely. Remember we have 99,9999% of the same genetic sequence.

Nature vs. Nurture buddy. And when I say nurture here I'm talking about the effect of the environment on the growth of the brain in the womb and shortly thereafter. There's no way that genetics are the only thing responsible for building the brain, things like the mothers diet and other random uncontrollable effects can cause slight changes in brain chemistry/structure, enough to change our subjective experience just a small amount. These small changes can compound on one another when we talk about the sheer number of neural connections in our brain, things can get complicated pretty quick and without a more complete theory of the brain we cannot know for sure.

i like green, does this makes me faggot?