/sci/ - Science & Math

I don't know, but when you take it out of that 'room', it will be brown and smelly

0/10, I'd rather bang my dog than that slut.

The doll would have no color, color is the wavelength of reflected or emitted light.

Black

>>4515700

The colour would be unobservable to us. However it is still emitting radiation, faggot.

>>4515700
>>4515742
You fags are both wrong. The absence of light means the object will appear completely black. Just like everything else in the room.

Colors don't objectively exist. They're qualia.

>>4515742
Emitting radiation isn't the same as color.

Yellow.

>>4515694
>>4515732
>>4515742
>>4515753
>>4515762

It will be either colourless or pink, depending on whether you define the colour an object as the experience a person has when looking at the object, or if you define it as the wavelengths that that object (pontentially) reflects.


/thread

>or if you define it as the wavelengths that that object (pontentially) reflects

would be correct if all objects would reflect a single wavelength only

but most the colors we see are compositions, and the way color-composition works is not based on physics but on the anatomy of our visual system (3 cones)

dark aka nigger

>>4515885
This was clearly an oversimplification.


I'll define it as the range of wavelengths that an object (potentially) reflects, then.

>>4515917
but according to this definition different ranges of wavelengths that are perceived as exactly the same "color" would actually be different colors

>>4515934
-> something like pink would have no meaning except the set of all colors that look like pink to the average human, making it about perception after all

>>4515760
>Colors don't objectively exist. They're qualia.
Is this true?

>>4515940
its not a matter of truth, but about definition

and as such its one ofe the more useful ones

>>4515958
depending on the context ofc

i would still say two different monochromatic light sources have a different color, even if they are never perceived by a human
(even if they are outside our visual range)

>>4515958
So qualia = perception ?
Then how come i so often see threads asking if qualia exist?

Clearly the existence of perception is selfevident.

>>4515971
i wouldn't say that qualia equals perception
but in this case its the sensation caused by perception
its again a matter of definition or even taste on which side of this connection you pin you colors on

and i wouldn't say that qualia is disputed as such, but merely if it is a useful concept to have
i don't see much use for it myself

>>4515934
>but according to this definition different ranges of wavelengths that are perceived as exactly the same "color" would actually be different colors

According to the other definition one object can simultaneously have 2 colours.

Personally, I prefer the the former consequence to the latter.

>>4516056
agreed, the other one is worse, but by no means the only other one
the alternative i favor is one based on perception

its red when it looks red
-> meaning anything from "excites cones in given proportions" to "hur-durr-qualia"
its compatible with both or anything in between

keep wavelengths in the lab and colors in our heads as well as printing and computing (which after all mimic the principals of our visual system to recreate colors)