User Controls
Do rainbows exist objectively?
-
2015-11-10 at 2:43 AM UTC
Source
What? "The researchers also found that men require a slightly longer wavelength to see the same hue as women" what the fuck does that even mean? Aside from the obvious issue of determining qualia equivalence across organisms (since you quoted a popsci site I'll save you the time of reading the actual paper and tell you they asked to rate colors on a scale from 1 to 100 in each of the RGBY channels. If you can't see the obvious issue here then you're fucked in the head) we've learned that color differential perception varies between sexes in that very article and thus even lopsided hue perception differentials can be explained by fewer discrete perceivable hues
The second link is even worse than the first. It actually demonstrates my point. Consider that the spectrum of human-visible light is filled by what we call colors. Consider that some animals can see a wider spectrum, we see consider them to be seeing colors (per your childrens article, "Bees and butterflies can see colors that we can't see"). What then do we say of light that exceeds the spectrum visible to any animal? Is it not color? Does it become color when there become animals that can perceive it? Was the ocean not blue before animals with a visual system evolved? Your position is fucking absurd and fails to capture the way in which we use the term color in any sane context. -
2015-11-10 at 6:23 AM UTC
Your position is fucking absurd and fails to capture the way in which we use the term color in any sane context.
WREKT
R
E
K
T -
2015-11-11 at 4:48 PM UTC
What? "The researchers also found that men require a slightly longer wavelength to see the same hue as women" what the fuck does that even mean? Aside from the obvious issue of determining qualia equivalence across organisms (since you quoted a popsci site I'll save you the time of reading the actual paper and tell you they asked to rate colors on a scale from 1 to 100 in each of the RGBY channels. If you can't see the obvious issue here then you're fucked in the head) we've learned that color differential perception varies between sexes in that very article and thus even lopsided hue perception differentials can be explained by fewer discrete perceivable hues
The second link is even worse than the first. It actually demonstrates my point. Consider that the spectrum of human-visible light is filled by what we call colors. Consider that some animals can see a wider spectrum, we see consider them to be seeing colors (per your childrens article, "Bees and butterflies can see colors that we can't see"). What then do we say of light that exceeds the spectrum visible to any animal? Is it not color? Does it become color when there become animals that can perceive it? Was the ocean not blue before animals with a visual system evolved? Your position is fucking absurd and fails to capture the way in which we use the term color in any sane context.
How is my position fucking absurd? It isn't crazy, and it shouldn't be too hard to understand. You asked how colour only exists in the mind. This is how:
If specific colours objectively corresponded to specific wavelengths of light, specific wavelengths of light would appear to be the same colours for everyone. Clearly specific wavelengths do not appear to be the same colours for everyone. Therefore specific colours do not objectively correspond to specific wavelengths of light, and therefore colour is not objective.
Since specific wavelengths of light do not objectively correspond to specific colours, of course animals with different visual systems will see colours we do not see - that doesn't magically make the colours they are seeing objective. On the contrary, it clearly demonstrates that colour is function of an animals visual system and not an intrinsic property of the objects they are viewing. An object only appears to have colours, and will appear to have different colours depending on who is viewing the object. Even the words we use to describe colour reflect this: the word "spectrum" from the term "visible spectrum" is the Latin word for appearance or apparition.
"What then do we say of light that exceeds the spectrum visible to any animal? Is it not color? Does it become color when there become animals that can perceive it?"
We could demonstrate that those wavelengths of light objectively exist, but clearly they do not appear to correspond to any colours in our minds. Therefore we could say those wavelengths of light subjectively correspond to some unimaginable colours in that animals mind, and subjectively correspond to no colours in our minds, but objectively they do not correspond to any colour because clearly colour is a function of an organisms visual system and not an intrinsic property of the objects which they are viewing. -
2015-11-11 at 5:10 PM UTC
If specific colours objectively corresponded to specific wavelengths of light, specific wavelengths of light would appear to be the same colours for everyone. Clearly specific wavelengths do not appear to be the same colours for everyone. Therefore specific colours do not objectively correspond to specific wavelengths of light, and therefore colour is not objective.
that's the major absurd part.
'colours' are labels given to light waves of specific wavelengths. perception is completely irrelevant. -
2015-11-11 at 5:35 PM UTC
that's the major absurd part.
'colours' are labels given to light waves of specific wavelengths. perception is completely irrelevant.
If that were true, specific wavelengths of light would appear to be the same colours to everyone regardless of perception. Since specific wavelengths of light appear to be different colours to different people, perception is completely relevant. -
2015-11-11 at 9:26 PM UTC
If that were true, specific wavelengths of light would appear to be the same colours to everyone regardless of perception. Since specific wavelengths of light appear to be different colours to different people, perception is completely relevant.
You're begging the question. Aldra is saying light has the quality of color regardless of perception. Your response is "color[by your definition as a perception] is subjective, so it can't be a property of light". We reject your definition of color as mere perception to start with.
So whose definition is correct? Well yours violates both common (no one talks about "that car emits light in the 450–495 nm range", they say "that car is blue") and technical ("infrared" does not describe a perception nor does it describe the subjective non-perception of light at longer wavelengths than is visible) usage so I'm inclined to say you're in the wrong here.
And the funny thing is the "is color a property of light" question is actually irrelevant. Color could be 100% subjective (it's not) but that wouldn't change the fact that rainbows objectively emit light in certain frequencies, be they colors or not (they are), that will hit observers, regardless of whether they perceive it subjectively or if they perceive it at all. A stone is hit by and reflects a certain amount of light emitted from a rainbow, with or without a human observer, and this is why rainbows have an objective existence. -
2015-11-11 at 11:09 PM UTCLight can have an objective wavelength regardless of perception, but the colour that wavelength corresponds to in your mind is clearly perceived and is not objective, as the scientific experimentation has demonstrated. My use of the word "colour" doesn't actually violate anything at all, for example when I say, "the car is giving off light of a specific, objective wavelength that your visual system interprets as the colour red. However, your girlfriend may look at the car and see it as more of an orange colour. This is because men and women evolved to perceive colours slightly differently," I do not violate any usage of the word colour. Also, your logic is ridiculous, claiming that rainbows have an objective existence is exactly like claiming a desert mirage has an objective existence.
-
2015-11-12 at 3:55 AM UTC
Light can have an objective wavelength regardless of perception, but the colour that wavelength corresponds to in your mind is clearly perceived and is not objective, as the scientific experimentation has demonstrated.
That's not even coherent. Colors don't reside in your mind, color is a property of things.My use of the word "colour" doesn't actually violate anything at all, for example when I say, "the car is giving off light of a specific, objective wavelength that your visual system interprets as the colour red. However, your girlfriend may look at the car and see it as more of an orange colour. This is because men and women evolved to perceive colours slightly differently," I do not violate any usage of the word colour.
You're right, using that lengthy and awkward digression in the middle of an everyday sentence doesn't immediately show of wrong your usage of color is. Some sentences like "that car is blue" and "blue light is part of the visual spectrum" however do demonstrate that "color" doesn't mean a subjective artifact of perception but rather something objective.Also, your logic is ridiculous, claiming that rainbows have an objective existence is exactly like claiming a desert mirage has an objective existence.
But mirages do exist objectively, anyone can see them under the right circumstances, we can capture them with cameras. Sure we may sometimes mistake mirages for something else but if I told you I sometimes mistake someone else's car for my own in the parking lot, would that maen that cars are subjective? -
2015-11-18 at 2:25 AM UTCNo, colour is a function of your visual system and is not objectively a property the object you are viewing. The object you are viewing has a surface that absorbs some wavelengths of light and reflects others. The existence of the object, the properties of the objects surface, and the wavelength of the light being reflected off the object are all objective. But the colour this object appears to be is not objective. The colour you perceive is a result of your own visual systems interpretation of the information it is receiving, as the scientific experimentation has demonstrated.
Colour information is transmitted out of the eye by three opponent channels, each constructed from the raw output of three types of colour receptor cells: a red–green channel, a blue–yellow channel, and a black–white "luminance" channel. This theory has been supported by neurobiology, and accounts for the structure of our subjective colour experience. Specifically, it explains why we cannot perceive a "reddish green" or a "yellowish blue", and it predicts the colour wheel: it is the collection of colours for which at least one of the two colour channels measures a value at one of its extremes.
Appealing to common practice doesn't save you from being incorrect. When people say, "that car is blue," that doesn't magically make the car objectively blue. It would be more correct to say that the car appears to be blue, because colour is a function of your visual system and not an intrinsic property of the vehicle. It's correct to say the car including the reflective surface of the car does objectively exist. And the light that is reflected into your eyes does have an objective wavelength. But the colour that car appears to be is a function of your visual system and not an intrinsic property of the vehicle. This has been demonstrated scientifically and explains why different people see colour differently.
If you think rainbows exist objectively because you can photograph them, do you also think this guy is actually supporting the leaning tower of Pisa?
-
2015-11-18 at 2:39 AM UTCI hope you dont actually think your bit on the leaning power of pisa is a legitimate argument.
-
2015-11-18 at 2:50 AM UTC
The existence of the object, the properties of the objects surface, and the wavelength of the light being reflected off the object are all objective. But the colour this object appears to be is not objective.
lol, /unsubscribe -
2015-11-18 at 2:59 AM UTC
No, colour is a function of your visual system and is not objectively a property the object you are viewing.
You keep saying that but you've done absolutely nothing to establish it.The object you are viewing has a surface that absorbs some wavelengths of light and reflects others. The existence of the object, the properties of the objects surface, and the wavelength of the light being reflected off the object are all objective. But the colour this object appears to be is not objective. The colour you perceive is a result of your own visual systems interpretation of the information it is receiving, as the scientific experimentation has demonstrated.
Wrong, I've already explained this to you. The very best the experiment could claim to show (and the methodology is so flawed as to be nearly meaningless) is that the subjective experience of color differs from person to person. But I maintain, and common/technical usage supports, that color is not the same thing as the experience of color. I can experience lavalamps differently than other people but this doesn't show that lavalamps do not have an objective existence,Colour information is transmitted out of the eye by three opponent channels, each constructed from the raw output of three types of colour receptor cells: a red–green channel, a blue–yellow channel, and a black–white "luminance" channel.
Sure, but like I said before "color information" or the qualia of color is not the same as color.Appealing to common practice doesn't save you from being incorrect.
It does actually, because what we're arguing about is the definition of color. The definition of words stems from common usage. You can't even claim a technical definition however, because we have terms like "infrared", "ultraviolet", and experts regularly talk about blue light or red light.
AND you're still sidestepping the fact that it's irrelevant what the meaning of color is. Rainbows emit light, light is objective even if you want to pretend color isn't, clearly rainbows have an objective existence regardless of how moronic you want to be about the meaning of color. -
2015-11-18 at 1:17 PM UTC
You keep saying that but you've done absolutely nothing to establish it.
Yes I have, I've explained it to you a dozen times already. At this point it's easier to just tell you that colour is already defined as the visual perceptual property in humans corresponding to the categories called red, blue, yellow etc.The very best the experiment could claim to show (and the methodology is so flawed as to be nearly meaningless) is that the subjective experience of color differs from person to person.
Colour is a subjective experience. It is defined as a perception. Colour is not an objective property of light, colour is subjective, wavelengths are an objective property of light but wavelengths are not colour. Colour is a perception.Sure, but like I said before "color information" or the qualia of color is not the same as color.
Demonstrate this.Rainbows emit light, light is objective even if you want to pretend color isn't, clearly rainbows have an objective existence regardless of how moronic you want to be about the meaning of color.
rainbows do not emit light, the sun does. A rainbow is not an object but rather an optical illusion produced under very specific circumstances which have already been explained earlier in the thread. -
2015-11-18 at 1:55 PM UTCi cant believe this thread is still going
-
2015-11-18 at 2:35 PM UTC
Yes I have, I've explained it to you a dozen times already. At this point it's easier to just tell you that colour is already defined as the visual perceptual property in humans corresponding to the categories called red, blue, yellow etc.
No you havent.Colour is a subjective experience. It is defined as a perception. Colour is not an objective property of light, colour is subjective, wavelengths are an objective property of light but wavelengths are not colour. Colour is a perception.
No it isnt.Demonstrate this.
After you.rainbows do not emit light, the sun does. A rainbow is not an object but rather an optical illusion produced under very specific circumstances which have already been explained earlier in the thread.
You are an idiot.
-
2015-11-18 at 4:32 PM UTCThe fact that people perceive colour differently demonstrates that colour is not objective. Colour is defined as the way your visual system interprets light, therefore colour is perceived and is not an intrinsic property of objects. There is nothing incorrect about any of that. The fact that you cannot understand this demonstrates that you're dumb.
-
2015-11-18 at 6:01 PM UTC
Yes I have, I've explained it to you a dozen times already. At this point it's easier to just tell you that colour is already defined as the visual perceptual property in humans corresponding to the categories called red, blue, yellow etc.
That's wrong, you haven't done anything to establish this. I've already told you why that experiment does not establish this. The only other thing you've done in this thread is repeat the mantra that color is subjective without actually making a meaningful reply to any of my points for the last couple of pages.Colour is a subjective experience. It is defined as a perception.
Where is it defined as such? Why? What about my evidence that "color" is actually not a perception at all? And just for kicks, here's the OED's definition of color: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
Colour is not an objective property of light, colour is subjective, wavelengths are an objective property of light but wavelengths are not colour. Colour is a perception.
Once again you're just making a claim with 0 support for it.Demonstrate this.
See the OED quote above. Also see the "ultraviolet", "infrared" and "blue light" examples. How could those terms be coherent in a technical sense if color is not a property of light? How could we assign wavelengths to colors if color isn't a property of light?rainbows do not emit light, the sun does. A rainbow is not an object but rather an optical illusion produced under very specific circumstances which have already been explained earlier in the thread.
Your whole argument has been semantics from the start but this is particularly stupid. Rainbows are causally responsible for certain light, wether or not you consider that emission doesn't change the fact that it's sufficient criteria for existence. Mirrors don't "emit" light (by your definition) nor do they create an alternative universe populated by their apparent contents. Do you deny the objective existence of mirrors? -
2015-11-18 at 6:02 PM UTCP.S. you never relied to this:
But I maintain, and common/technical usage supports, that color is not the same thing as the experience of color. I can experience lavalamps differently than other people but this doesn't show that lavalamps do not have an objective existence,
-
2015-11-19 at 9:06 PM UTC
objectively means it exists whether you think it does or not. so the reasoning of "i see rainbows therefore they exist" would be subjective, not objective.
a rainbow is just the alteration of light waves by a certain arrangement of moisture in the air. so you also cant say "its just an optical illusion" unless you are prepared to start calling everything an optical (or some other type) illusion.
anyways you suck and your dumb
"Grammar: The difference between knowing your shit and knowing you're shit." -
2015-11-20 at 3:49 AM UTCLooks like OYM pussied out. Unsurprising.
