Colors

[Anonymous No.15758114]

Scientifically speaking, the fact that colors are undoubtedly related to wavelengths, and that those wavelengths range from low energy to high energy means that some colors are objectively superior over others, Red has the lowest energy and is thus the most inferior form of color, Magenta has the highest energy and thus the most superior form of color

[Anonymous No.15758338]

>>15758114
>"high energy" light is some weak beta punk that gets btfo by anything, and will quickly give away it's energy like a cuck, and almost nothing creates or wants this loser

>"low energy" light will pass through nearly everything, and doesn't give a fuck like a chad, and every stacy emits it because he's so popular

[Anonymous No.15758349]

>>15758114
>t. low energy redposter.

[Anonymous No.15758356]

>>15758114
>magenta
>wavelengths

[Anonymous No.15758368]

>>15758356

[Anonymous No.15758371]

>>15758114
>red
>the color of filthy commies
>low energy

>purple
>the color of royalty
>high energy
Your science checks out.

[Anonymous No.15758373]

>>15758368
out of all pink magenta and purple have no wavelengths.

[Anonymous No.15758374]

>>15758114
wrong
the worst color, is green
it's located in the middle of the spectrum, and hence is the most average, bland color
it signifies that you are absolutely not special whatsoever, you are a mediocre wavelength of light

[Anonymous No.15758376]

>>15758374
>it's located in the middle of the spectrum
So are you.

[Anonymous No.15758378]

>>15758114
Magenta is very low energy. Magenta is either high energy blue dragging red's fat ass along with it or magenta is low energy red dragging blue's skinny ass. Either way, it's lower energy than both red and blue by themselves.

[Anonymous No.15758383]

>>15758376
>t. btfo'd greenfag
sorry that your "naturalist" color is so bland and unspecial

[Anonymous No.15758384]

>>15758373
They have wavelengths, retard.

[Anonymous No.15758390]

>>15758384
they may have wavelengths but they don't have a wavelength.

[Anonymous No.15758391]

>>15758390
>I have two pennies in my pocket
>I don't have a penny in my pocket
magentard logic

[Anonymous No.15758397]

>>15758114
There is no difference between colours. Consider a certain wavelength of light. It’s energy is always equal to the product of the frequency and Plancks constant. However it’s energy is also equal to its momentum divided by h.

So the product will of these two energies is independent of h.

Therefore all energies are equal and categorization by wavelength is meaningless.

[Anonymous No.15758399]

>>15758114
I still love magenta for the mere fact it mindbroke many scientists when:
>"what wavelength is magenta?"
>"it doesn't have a wavelength, it's just blue and red at equal intensity"
>"yes, but could you tell me the wavelength please? 580mn? 300 mn? give a number"
>"I said I don't know! all you need to know is that it doesn't exist and is some bizarre color made by the brain!"
>"you did not answer the question"

[Anonymous No.15758401]

>>15758399
it mindbroke you and your fellow magentards, no one else

[Anonymous No.15758403]

>>15758401
>t. mindbroke scientist who can't figure out magenta's existence

[Anonymous No.15758409]

>>15758403
>t. wavelet

[Anonymous No.15758410]

are there people who don't see magenta? like their brain not lying to them.
>it's totally real bro trust me

[Anonymous No.15758412]

>>15758399
if anything that only proves that colors are absolutely not related to wavelengths and OP aswell as his companions are retards

[Anonymous No.15758430]

>>15758412
apparently our brain can just come up with them. which means the fucker can do it with more.
how do we unlock the new colors power? that is a serious mindfuck.

[Anonymous No.15758431]

>>15758399
What would you expect to happen when a collection of imperceptibly small objects or a surface is emitting light of two differing wavelength?

[Anonymous No.15758436]

>>15758412
>a dime and a quarter isn't 35 cents

[Anonymous No.15758437]

>>15758410
Cones don't have enough "resolution" to perceive the individual red and blue sources of a magenta object.

[Anonymous No.15758440]

>>15758437
or white. should we go on? how about black photons? oh what? we're already at FUCKING THREE FAKE COLORS????

[Anonymous No.15758446]

>>15758440
White's a real color and it's wavelengths. Black's a real color and it's wavelengths. Magenta's a real color and it's wavelengths.

[Anonymous No.15758449]

>>15758446
>Black
>wavelengths

[Anonymous No.15758451]

>>15758430
even the retards who subscribe to the "colors are related to wavelengths" theory believe that there are more colors than we can perceive, it's all about cone cells, our eyes can't go behind infrared and past ultraviolet, a creature with six cone cells would perceive way more colors than human beings can

[Anonymous No.15758457]

>>15758451
yeah but how would those colors look like? apparently my brain doesn't need their specific wavelength so it can show them to me so why do we need more cones anyway? with three cones we already have 3 fake colors. I don't think there's a rule for how many cones we have vs how many colors our brain IS ABLE to show us.

[Anonymous No.15758459]

>>15758449
Black has no visible wavelengths.

[Anonymous No.15758463]

>>15758437
>>15758440
is almost like color is a hallucination by the brain, qualia and all that shit, and the wavelengths of light are measurable and real, but the colors associated with those wavelengths are subjective andvary by person. TLDR colors aren't real, but light is

[Anonymous No.15758465]

>>15758374
Green is the most attractive color

[Anonymous No.15758471]

>>15758463
>qualia and all that shit
blue car or red car splatters you the same. we can do pretty well without colors. just because some of it is fake does not mean you have a soul.

[Anonymous No.15758472]

>>15758457
>fake colors
What's a real color? One wavelength? One wavelength is a FAKE color, you retard. You'll never see one wavelength in nature.

[Anonymous No.15758475]

>>15758451
How are there more colors than you can perceive? That's idiotic.

[Anonymous No.15758476]

There's a reason why magenta is the color used for missing textures in video games, it's basically because our brain forgot to install a single-wavelength source for that color and goes schizophrenic
>tl;dr, magenta was the imaginary friend we made all along the way

[Anonymous No.15758477]

>>15758436
That doesn't imply the existence of a 35cent coin which is the proper analogy with respect to the wavelength

[Anonymous No.15758484]

>>15758477
No, it doesn't. That's the point. But I have 35 cents and it's all money (wavelengths).

[Anonymous No.15758485]

>>15758451
But that's true though

[Anonymous No.15758486]

>but magenta is not real
neither are dreams, still we "see" them.

[Anonymous No.15758488]

>>15758476
>>>/g/

[Anonymous No.15758495]

>>15758485
You can't perceive a color you can't name.

[Anonymous No.15758496]

>>15758399
it's that one color god created for the sake of telling us there's something more to the world than our brain can tell us

[Anonymous No.15758503]

>>15758496
>telling us there's something more
it's literally telling you more than what is. it's not telling you there's something more, it's telling you it's fucking fake. kek

[Anonymous No.15758513]

>>15758495
>You can't perceive a color you can't name.
fuck it, let's choose a name for a new color then. let's test your theory.

[Anonymous No.15758514]

Magenta isn't any less real than say orange, yellow or cyan. You don't have orange, yellow and cyan cones. Just blue green and red. All other colors are just interpolations between those three colors.

[Anonymous No.15758515]

>>15758503
But magenta isn't fake

[Anonymous No.15758520]

>>15758514
>>15758515
there's no magenta laser, if there's no magenta laser possible it's not a real color.

[Anonymous No.15758525]

>>15758514
This. All the colors we perceive are real

[Anonymous No.15758527]

I find it funny that it's also the opposite color of green, the color that we associate with nature, it's befitting for the supernatural wavelength-less color

[Anonymous No.15758528]

>>15758513
Go for it. I'll help you test the name.

[Anonymous No.15758531]

>>15758520
Why not? There being no magenta laser does not imply magenta isn't real. It only implies the non-existence of a magenta laser.

[Anonymous No.15758532]

>>15758525
I guess bilbo baggins is real because brains can perceive his image too then

[Anonymous No.15758533]

>>15758520
>there's no magenta laser
false

[Anonymous No.15758538]

>>15758532
What is the requirement for being real?

[Anonymous No.15758540]

>>15758533
I think he's saying that the magenta laser is a red +blue laser so magenta isn't real as it's own thing.

[Anonymous No.15758551]

>>15758514
>Magenta isn't any less real than say orange, yellow or cyan
there's cyan orange and yellow lasers. there's no magenta ones

[Anonymous No.15758558]

>>15758540
false either way. a laser is a laser. it doesn't imply a single wavelength anymore than a color does

[Anonymous No.15758560]

>>15758551
there's magenta lasers you idiot

[Anonymous No.15758569]

>>15758538
If U are alive that all

[Anonymous No.15758571]

>>15758560
no there aren't moron lol. whatever you are looking at, it's a ruse, a dupe, a trick of the mind. it's not real anon

[Anonymous No.15758576]

>>15758538
Anything which must pass through a process of sensory input + psychological construction is not real. Sorry Platonists, but color is a hallucination which doesn't exist outside of the mind of the observer

[Anonymous No.15758579]

>>15758576
but does that imply that everything else is "not real"?

[Anonymous No.15758580]

>>15758576
so science and math arent real

[Anonymous No.15758590]

>>15758503
Correct it's fake

[Anonymous No.15758591]

>>15758560
picrel is not yellow laser, but there are yellow lasers. there are no possible magenta lasers.

[Anonymous No.15758595]

>>15758571
you'll never even see pure blue or red let alone pure magenta. Blue and red are as fake as magenta by any measure.

[Anonymous No.15758600]

>>15758579
I don't know what you mean by everything else. Everything outside of what?

[Anonymous No.15758603]

>>15758591
Of course there are, just put red into blue instead of green.

[Anonymous No.15758605]

>>15758591
Heres the thing you guys our brains are designed to spot fruit trees in an ocean of green. We can't see true colors. Ultraviolets looks yellow to us.

[Anonymous No.15758608]

>>15758603
did you actually read my post anon?

[Anonymous No.15758609]

>>15758600
>Everything outside of what?
outside of color. that seems fucky, but if we take out color, is the rest real?

[Anonymous No.15758614]

>>15758608
yeah you said a laser isn't a laser if it's not one wave. that's obvious bullshit and you should know better.

[Anonymous No.15758615]

You guys are beyond retarded

[Anonymous No.15758620]

>>15758614
no, I clearly said that >>15758591 picrel is not a yellow laser, it's red and green lasers. the yellow is a trick of the mind.
unlike this picrel which is true yellow laser, 593nm

[Anonymous No.15758622]

>>15758620
that's orange.

[Anonymous No.15758625]

>>15758620 me
>>15758614
if you need 593nm laser for something, and you trust your eyes that >>15758591 picrel is 593nm laser, you will fuck up whatever you are doing, because your eyes are lying to you, that is not 593nm laser, that is green and red photons

[Anonymous No.15758626]

>>15758451
Things get a bit fuzzy when we decide on what wavelengths constitute color versus being other kind of waves.

[Anonymous No.15758631]

>>15758625
593nm isn't yellow. you're defining a blend as a color and arguing about it post hoc

[Anonymous No.15758633]

>>15758631
stop being a retard, I just googled yellow laser and noticed the wavelength in the ad. you get the idea get your head out of your ass

[Anonymous No.15758638]

>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy
Colors aren't real. Reading this article should make it rather obvious.

[Anonymous No.15758642]

>>15758633
>I just googled
no shit. 593nm isn't "yellow" you fucking dumb ass google faggot

[Anonymous No.15758643]

>>15758638
that begs the question, what else is not real?

[Anonymous No.15758645]

>>15758643
Quite a large number of things I'd suppose.

[Anonymous No.15758647]

>>15758642
are you really going to argue with me for 10 fucking nm you piece of shit?

[Anonymous No.15758648]

Saying colors aren't real is just science denial.
Why is this board so full of anti science schizos?

[Anonymous No.15758650]

>>15758647
yeah cuz that's the whole point of the argument, asshole. yellow isn't a wavelength, it's a guess

[Anonymous No.15758655]

>>15758638
Nothing in that article says that colors aren't real.
Saying colors or numbers aren't real immediately implies that every scientific model is actually not real. Scientific theories aren't real and mathematics used to produce the equations of maxwell or Einstein aren't real.
You're just a post modernist anti science schizo.

[Anonymous No.15758657]

>>15758648
Hi, I'm blind and my handler is typing this for me. Can you explain to me what the shade of red on an apple looks like? Thanks.

[Anonymous No.15758662]

>>15758655
Obviously the article doesn't just declare that colors aren't real, lol. It should be obvious that colors are an artifact of perception and require a perceiver to "exist."

[Anonymous No.15758664]

>>15758657
Ask your handler to put his hand in your ass softer or harder depending on the shade. You'll either get it or you'll shut up about it.

[Anonymous No.15758665]

>>15758657
It's not possible to explain to a blind man what a color looks like. Doesn't imply that the color isn't real.
Dogs can't learn calculus. Calculus is still real.
>>15758662
Something having a perceiver is still real. You just saying otherwise doesn't mean anything

[Anonymous No.15758667]

>>15758662
Not him but colors are as real as anything else.

[Anonymous No.15758668]

>>15758664
Yeah that's a non-answer.
>>15758665
Math is in a similar category lol.

[Anonymous No.15758672]

>>15758668
Yeah to a non-question.

[Anonymous No.15758673]

>>15758664
They're not thinking about it properly.
>dogs can't learn calculus. Therefore calculus isn't real.
>humans without sight can't see colors. That means colors aren't real.
>something exists as the interaction or emergence of many things. That means it isn't real
It's just a dumb version of reductionism that hasn't been thought through.
>>15758668
Yea in that both math and colors are real lol

[Anonymous No.15758676]

>water isn't real because it's composed of hydrogen and oxygen

[Anonymous No.15758677]

so if our brains just paints everything in color then what other blanks is it filling for us constantly without us being aware of it?
>>15758665
>It's not possible to explain to a blind man what a color looks like. Doesn't imply that the color isn't real.
so if there's no senses to begin with there's no "qualia"? damn, it seems this "qualia" is pretty dependent on 3D material organs providing sense to the brain

[Anonymous No.15758678]

>>15758677
Organs aren't real though by your own logic, as they are emergent.

[Anonymous No.15758682]

>>15758677
>it seems this "qualia" is pretty dependent on 3D material organs providing sense to the brain
And what do you think follows from this?

[Anonymous No.15758683]

>>15758609
No, there are many apparent objects which are constructions of the mind only. A wrinkle in a curtain. A crack in a glass mirror. Neither exists materially. They are ontological parasites only 'existing' within their host substance. What really exists in both cases is the material substance in a certain configuration which resembles your purely intellectual concept of wrinkled fabric/cracked glass

[Anonymous No.15758686]

>>15758683
A crack in a glass mirror exists and can be more or less beautiful depending on who sees it.

[Anonymous No.15758691]

>>15758683
They both exist materially and can be mathematically quantified.
The existence is precisely in the configuration. Different configurations of the same substance is still real. They are differences in the entropy of the system.
Are you guys just not thinking about this?

[Anonymous No.15758693]

>>15758691
No, whoever that was wasn't thinking about what he said.

[Anonymous No.15758704]

>>15758683
but the cracks are just not silicon atoms, it's still information. it's still matter. air most likely. why is the curtain so special but the air around it isn't? I don't get it.

[Anonymous No.15758707]

>>15758693
It feels like they want to somehow attack the notion of qualia, not realizing quality and mathematical realism are necessary for science to be possible.
I think they might just be critical theorists or post structuralists or other anti science people. If you claim qualia and math aren't real then you completely attack the possibility of observation and evidence as well as the possibility to construct scientific models and theories with math.
Thankfully though mathematical platonism and computational realism are correct and real and so mathematics and colors are real and poststructuralists, relativists and postmodernists are btfo

[Anonymous No.15758716]

>>15758682
consciousness and thus what some around here call "soul" depends on sensory input. with no sensory inputs that soul does not develop. everything you think you know about anything is primarily as a consequence of matter, of you existing and having senses from material organs, about 3D space, and based on those inputs your brain churning at it "develops a soul".

[Anonymous No.15758728]

>>15758716
Sure, but you elided time. How can anyone develop a soul without accumulating time?

[Anonymous No.15758731]

>>15758716
>consciousness and thus what some around here call "soul" depends on sensory input
>everything you think you know about anything is primarily as a consequence of matter
Literally doesn't follow.

[Anonymous No.15758732]

>>15758716
But sensory inputs aren't real

[Anonymous No.15758739]

>>15758728
>soul
if you mean a sense of self I think it depends on brain structure. with a mature brain you will figure it out pretty quickly.
>>15758731
there is no soul, what you call consciousness is emergent from matter.

[Anonymous No.15758740]

>>15758739
Your opinions logically don't follow the fact that you need sense inputs to have normal sense-related qualia. Sorry.

[Anonymous No.15758742]

>>15758739
You won't. We've been scanning brains for 80 years and separating the data by age.

[Anonymous No.15758743]

>>15758732
sensory inputs are real, the way the brain presents them to you might not reflect reality. might or might not. clearly it doesn't present full reality, but what I'm trying to say it may just make up shit, just because random reasons.

[Anonymous No.15758749]

>>15758742
what do you mean? any vegetable 30yo got full senses and didn't develop a sense of self? like in any reasonable time? takes years or something?

[Anonymous No.15758750]

>>15758743
Why wouldn't the way the brain presents something be real to the presentee?

[Anonymous No.15758752]

>>15758749
I don't get it.

[Anonymous No.15758757]

>>15758750
oh for coherence, survival, reproduction, cope, hope, fear, I think there's a plethora of reasons. the way we experience reality makes it possible for the brain to alter it in such way that it perfectly blends with reality, because it's like a low level hack or something, the only way to make sure is literally to use science. else your brain might add in shit which is not real, it's constructed on top of reality.

[Anonymous No.15758759]

>>15758752
as in say some dude was always a plant since birth, zero sensory input but somehow motherfucker stayed alive so far. through some medical shit you manage to give him all senses and wake him up from comma/veggie state.
this dude is literally blank, how long does it take him to get a sense of himself, if you also put a mirror in the room, and other people, when he starts experiencing reality.

[Anonymous No.15758762]

>>15758757
>the way we experience reality
>it perfectly blends with reality
Sure, I don't disagree but I don't get why the distinction matters in that case. (?)

[Anonymous No.15758764]

>>15758743
I am my brain, nothing is "presented to me".
You're trying to claim that some sensations reflect an external reality while others are hallucinations.
All of them reflect the external reality. Hallucinations aren't real.
Yes, when you're tripping out on DMT you are in fact seeing an objectively real reality.
Yes, mathematics is real.
Yes, the set of all computable and hyper computable functions are real.
Etc.
Science isn't possible without mathematical realism. You can't claim that you can use science to find out what is true if you reject the reality of math and qualia,, because without them you can't make models in the first place

[Anonymous No.15758765]

>>15758691
please mathematically quantify a crack without defining it in terms of a larger structure. Just the configuration which human brains recognize as a crack without any other materials it is in reference to, please

[Anonymous No.15758768]

>>15758759
Day one? Give a thirsty bitch a glass of water and she'll drink. Same shit here unless I read you wrong.

[Anonymous No.15758769]

>>15758765
It's called entropy and it's quantified in terms of pure information without regard to specific substances or substrate.

[Anonymous No.15758775]

>>15758765
Not him but if you notice a crack in a mirror it means that you've seen yourself in an uncracked mirror and you notice the crack. Human brains recognize this as "different"

[Anonymous No.15758776]

>>15758768
I was replying to this >>15758728, the "soul" forms pretty fast if the brain is matured as structure, and you turn it on blank state.

[Anonymous No.15758779]

...do any of you study math or any STEM field?

[Anonymous No.15758782]

>>15758769
didn't realize entropy is a material substance that can crack in two

[Anonymous No.15758787]

>>15758776
Both me. You're saying a guy's born in a coma. How long does it take for him to have [metathoughts?] after he wakes up? Zero time. Immediately.

[Anonymous No.15758790]

>>15758779
Shut up faggot.

[Anonymous No.15758795]

>>15758787
oh that's interesting. you studied this?

[Anonymous No.15758796]

>>15758782
It's not. It's the measure of the disorder of the system, the amount of configurations of a system. It doesn't matter what the material is.
A mirror with a crack is different because it has more entropy.

[Anonymous No.15758807]

>>15758795
I studied what you wrote for half a minute and saw that it was bullshit.

[Anonymous No.15758814]

>>15758807
what part exactly?

[Anonymous No.15758818]

>>15758814
>as in say some dude was always a plant since birth, zero sensory input but somehow motherfucker stayed alive so far. through some medical shit you manage to give him all senses and wake him up from comma/veggie state. this dude is literally blank, how long does it take him to get a sense of himself, if you also put a mirror in the room, and other people, when he starts experiencing reality.
This part.

[Anonymous No.15758822]

>>15758818
you must be retarded anon. that was a hypothetical. some of you can't even

[Anonymous No.15758825]

>>15758822
nah, retard is you son. you can't even see where your own bullshit fails

[Anonymous No.15758833]

>>15758825
well apart from you being a petty bitch for going for three posts without directly addressing the issue, I was asking a hypothetical question, there was no statement in what you quoted dipshit. I was asking how long would it take for him to get a sense of himself, and you said that pretty fast.
what's wrong with your brain dude?

[Anonymous No.15758838]

>>15758833
> you must be retarded anon.
that's a statement
so is everything else you wrote. stop being such a stupid cunt and say what you mean. then we can easily go on from there.

[Anonymous No.15759577]

Y'all are dumb

[Anonymous No.15759587]

>>15758338

[Anonymous No.15759633]

>>15758390
Lel

[Anonymous No.15759925]

>>15758779
Html programmer

[Anonymous No.15761783]

>>15758374
Our perception of colour is centred around green, presumably because it is the most important colour for us.