User Controls
Do rainbows exist objectively?
-
2015-09-17 at 3:55 PM UTC
You win. I lose. You're right. I'm wrong.
Tell yourself that when you are passed out and breathing your own vomit on your way to meet mark311. -
2015-09-17 at 3:57 PM UTCI watched Interstellar the other day. Pretty cool shot.
-
2015-09-17 at 4:04 PM UTCI watched a rainbow the other day. Then, I found the pot of gold at the end of it, which wasn't entirely full so I actually just pulled the entire rainbow into the pot of gold and filled it to the brim.
I THOUGHT THE RAINBOW MIGHT BE HEAVY, BUT IT WAS VERY LIGHT.
I'm going to sell it on craigslist later today. -
2015-09-26 at 5:13 PM UTC
Wow you are dumb.
A rainbow is a colourful arch which appears in the sky under specific circumstances and is an optical illusion - there really is no arch in the sky.
The visible spectrum is just the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum visible to the human eye. It is not the optical illusion of a giant arch in the sky.
These things have different definitions because they are different things. You dummy.
Rust Has Spoken. -
2015-10-25 at 4:47 PM UTCNo, rainbows do not exist. Review my debate on debate.org. Colors only exist in our minds, therefore it's impossible for a arch of colors to exist in reality. Cameras capture light of different frequencies and create a image that transmits those same frequencies. It takes an eye and a mind to convert those light waves into color.
Most people make the mistake of believing we see reality with our eyes. Like our brains see the image captured on our retina. They are mistaken. The physiology of sight is more like a antenna and TV. Your antenna recieves radio waves and sends a signal to your TV via the RV cable. Your TV converts this signal and creates a picture. It does so using just 3 different colors, but using different combinations we can see all the colors.
Our eyes are light wave antennas. There are 3 types of cones on our retina and each responds to only a certain wavelength of light. When triggered, these cones send a electrical impulse along our optic nerve to the brains imaging centre. Here the brain converts these electrical impulses and creates a visual representation of our surroundings. It actually combines the impulses from both eyes and creates a 3 dimensional picture in our head about 30 times a second. What you see, is that picture.
It's impossible for us to be seeing the world with our eyes, because we would see everything upside down. Our brains turn the picture so things make sense to us. So yes, light waves exist, but light waves have no color. A rainbow is a arch of colors. It exists only in our head. -
2015-10-25 at 5:07 PM UTC
No, rainbows do not exist. Review my debate on debate.org. Colors only exist in our minds, therefore it's impossible for a arch of colors to exist in reality. Cameras capture light of different frequencies and create a image that transmits those same frequencies. It takes an eye and a mind to convert those light waves into color.
Most people make the mistake of believing we see reality with our eyes. Like our brains see the image captured on our retina. They are mistaken. The physiology of sight is more like a antenna and TV. Your antenna recieves radio waves and sends a signal to your TV via the RV cable. Your TV converts this signal and creates a picture. It does so using just 3 different colors, but using different combinations we can see all the colors.
Our eyes are light wave antennas. There are 3 types of cones on our retina and each responds to only a certain wavelength of light. When triggered, these cones send a electrical impulse along our optic nerve to the brains imaging centre. Here the brain converts these electrical impulses and creates a visual representation of our surroundings. It actually combines the impulses from both eyes and creates a 3 dimensional picture in our head about 30 times a second. What you see, is that picture.
It's impossible for us to be seeing the world with our eyes, because we would see everything upside down. Our brains turn the picture so things make sense to us. So yes, light waves exist, but light waves have no color. A rainbow is a arch of colors. It exists only in our head.
Thanks for joining the site and contributing to this thread!
-
2015-10-25 at 5:40 PM UTC
No, rainbows do not exist. Review my debate on debate.org. Colors only exist in our minds, therefore it's impossible for a arch of colors to exist in reality. Cameras capture light of different frequencies and create a image that transmits those same frequencies. It takes an eye and a mind to convert those light waves into color.
That's pretty retarded bro. When someone says "oh look, a rainbow" they don't mean "oh look, there's the mind-independent externalized perception of color!". In the world where everyone is colorblind red and blue objects still have different colors, direct perception isn't required for existence (unless you're some some kind of nutty cunt like Berkeley). In fact your position boils down to solipsism: if a thing requiring integration to be perceived means it's subjective, and all of our senses require integration, then you have to deny access to objectivity altogether and you can't even make a statement about the objectivity of subjectivity of rainbows since such a claim would itself require objectivity. Your position is self defeating, the best you could do is argue for rainbow agnosticism which is pretty faggy if I do say so myself. -
2015-10-25 at 5:46 PM UTCYou just don't get it Lanny.
… light waves exist, but light waves have no color. A rainbow is a arch of colors. It exists only in our head.
Colours only exist in your head. -
2015-10-25 at 6:06 PM UTC
You just don't get it Lanny.
Colours only exist in your head.
Demonstrate to me that "colours only exist in your head". -
2015-10-25 at 6:44 PM UTC
Colour doesn't exist - at least not in the literal sense. Light, however, does exist, and it's the mind that transforms that light into colour. In this image the two squares appear to be a different colour, but if you place your finger across the middle of the blocks you can see they are the same colour. -
2015-10-26 at 5:37 AM UTC
Colour doesn't exist - at least not in the literal sense. Light, however, does exist, and it's the mind that transforms that light into colour. In this image the two squares appear to be a different colour, but if you place your finger across the middle of the blocks you can see they are the same colour.
What do you think "literally existing" even means? What does it mean for something to exist in a literal sense? This is not supposed a platitude or point out some intractable ambiguity, I ask you because your account of what "exists" will have to tell us why things like light, something totally imperceptible directly and ambitious on a quantum level, is real while things like color, a property of light, which is widely experienced and corroborated, somehow does not exist. If light exists, and it has properties (wavelength aka color) how is it real and it's properties are somehow unreal? -
2015-10-26 at 12:13 PM UTCColor is a function of the human visual system, and is not an intrinsic property. Objects don't "have" color, they give off light that "appears" to be a color. Spectral power distributions exist in the physical world, but color exists only in the mind of the beholder.
What color is this dress? -
2015-10-26 at 10:13 PM UTCThe real color or the perceived color? Optical illusions don't prove you right.
-
2015-10-27 at 12:02 AM UTCAll colours are perceived colours. Colour is an interpretation made by the mind, and different people will perceive colour differently. For example, men and women tend to perceive colours differently. A man might see red or yellow where a woman would see orange or green, that's a fact.
-
2015-10-27 at 12:34 AM UTCno. The real color of that dress is the specific wavelength corresponding to the specific color that is interpreted by the mind. The percieved color is the color is the color we believe the dress to be after seeing a picture of the dress where the wavelength corresponding to the color is modified.
Regardless you are retarded and should probably kill yourself. -
2015-10-27 at 12:49 AM UTC
no. The real color of that dress is the specific wavelength corresponding to the specific color that is interpreted by the mind. The percieved color is the color is the color we believe the dress to be after seeing a picture of the dress where the wavelength corresponding to the color is modified.
Regardless you are retarded and should probably kill yourself.
Specific wavelengths are not specific colours. Like in my last example, a specific wavelength will appear to be a different colour for a woman than it appears to be for a man. That dress became famous because different people perceived it to be different colours. This is because colour is a product of the mind. Other animals may percieve colours much differently than you do. Light exists in the physical world but colours only exist in your mind.
-
2015-11-01 at 11:28 PM UTC
Color is a function of the human visual system, and is not an intrinsic property. Objects don't "have" color, they give off light that "appears" to be a color. Spectral power distributions exist in the physical world, but color exists only in the mind of the beholder.
Why? You're just making an assertion with no evidence. Why does color not a property of light? If a red car is not perceived by anything with a visual system does it stop being red? Does it become red again as soon as someone looks at it? You're digging yourself deeper and deeper into an incoherent hole here. -
2015-11-02 at 5:09 AM UTCAll of reality, including color, is nothing more than just perspective. None of it is really there, it's just perceived as being there by our brains, our nerves, or senses, all of which are designed in a similar fashion. Even our own bodies are not really there. It's just that we feel and sense, and so we think we exist, but we really don't. We, and everything in the cosmos, is simply a perception.
-
2015-11-03 at 3:39 AM UTC
All of reality, including color, is nothing more than just perspective. None of it is really there, it's just perceived as being there by our brains, our nerves, or senses, all of which are designed in a similar fashion. Even our own bodies are not really there. It's just that we feel and sense, and so we think we exist, but we really don't. We, and everything in the cosmos, is simply a perception.
That's retarded, the best you could do is argue for Humean skepticism about an external world (although Moore's proof makes a strong argument to the contrary), if you don't have reliable access to the external world then you fundamentally can not make statements about how it is or isn't, specifically you can not say "the external world doesn't exist" based merely on a lack of reliable direct perception of it. -
2015-11-03 at 4:44 AM UTC
Specific wavelengths are not specific colours. Like in my last example, a specific wavelength will appear to be a different colour for a woman than it appears to be for a man. That dress became famous because different people perceived it to be different colours. This is because colour is a product of the mind. Other animals may percieve colours much differently than you do. Light exists in the physical world but colours only exist in your mind.
this thread is retarded
