That doesn’t make them fake, in the same way that x can mean 2. You are merely representing a given value (in this case light within a certain electromagnetic spectrum) in a useful way.
I disagree that it’s pointless. I think it may be beneficial to humanity (eventually) to establish whether or not there is an objective reality which we all experience.
There is no way to “establish whether or not there is an objective reality.” It’s a philosophical position. You either take the reality which we observe and study as part of the material sciences to be objective reality, or you don’t believe it’s objective reality and think it is all sort of invented in the “mind” somehow. Either position you take, you cannot prove or disprove either one, because even if you take the latter position, no evidence I present to you could change your mind because to be presented evidence would only mean for that evidence to appear in the mind, and thus wouldn’t prove anything. The best argument we can make is just taking the reality we observe as indeed reality is just philosophically simpler, but that also requires you to philosophically value simplicity, which you cannot prove what philosophical principles we should value with science either.
Some people see numbers instead/along with colors, and different people see different numbers, so I guess the colors might be different between people too
a
: a phenomenon of light (such as red, brown, pink, or gray) or visual perception that enables one to differentiate otherwise identical objects
b
(1)
: the aspect of the appearance of objects and light sources that may be described in terms of hue, lightness, and saturation (see SATURATION sense 4) for objects and hue, brightness, and saturation for light sources
the brain’s actually trying to understand what things are made of, and it’s guessing at that based on the light that enteres the eye.
this is why when you pick up a thing outside and take it inside, it doesnt change color (edge cases exist), even though the light that reflects off of it into your eye absolutely changes a lot.
deleted by creator
That doesn’t make them fake, in the same way that x can mean 2. You are merely representing a given value (in this case light within a certain electromagnetic spectrum) in a useful way.
But is my red the same as your red? Hmmm?
if two people can both point to red and agree that it’s red, that’s close enough. anything beyond that is just pointless esoteric debate.
I disagree that it’s pointless. I think it may be beneficial to humanity (eventually) to establish whether or not there is an objective reality which we all experience.
i agree, but that’s a job for neuroscience, quantum mechanics, and psychology; not a pack of dorks on the fediverse.
But I want to contribute to humanity in a meaningful way!
-me, a dork on the Fediverse nearly incapable of contributing to humanity in a meaninful way
Hey now, you could be the person to force manufacturers to add a new type of warning label to random products!
buy guns
Working on it.
it’s more in the philosophy ballpark, which shapes the interpretration of methodology and the consequences, in my humble opinion.
But what if the dorks on the fediverse are scientists?
then by all means
There is no way to “establish whether or not there is an objective reality.” It’s a philosophical position. You either take the reality which we observe and study as part of the material sciences to be objective reality, or you don’t believe it’s objective reality and think it is all sort of invented in the “mind” somehow. Either position you take, you cannot prove or disprove either one, because even if you take the latter position, no evidence I present to you could change your mind because to be presented evidence would only mean for that evidence to appear in the mind, and thus wouldn’t prove anything. The best argument we can make is just taking the reality we observe as indeed reality is just philosophically simpler, but that also requires you to philosophically value simplicity, which you cannot prove what philosophical principles we should value with science either.
It was a joke?
hahaha?
Ehehehe
Some people see numbers instead/along with colors, and different people see different numbers, so I guess the colors might be different between people too
I would be way more surprised if people who saw numbers with colors all saw the same numbers.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Pink isn’t real. There is no wavelength of light that is pink.
Its bright red, maybe toward purple! Brown is dark orange.
Light frequencies between blue and red don’t exist.
This person colors
Clearly, it’s light-ish red.
deleted by creator
For pink light to be perceived, it needs red cones to fully react, and both green and blue cones to only partially activate.
https://gizmodo.com/if-the-color-pink-doesnt-scientifically-exist-why-can-1464266788
The definition of color from Merriam/Webster.
a : a phenomenon of light (such as red, brown, pink, or gray) or visual perception that enables one to differentiate otherwise identical objects b (1) : the aspect of the appearance of objects and light sources that may be described in terms of hue, lightness, and saturation (see SATURATION sense 4) for objects and hue, brightness, and saturation for light sources
Wavelength of green light = 550nm
Wavelength of pink light = N/A
I guess we disagree.
I stand with Merriam/Websters definition of color. You are using a different definition.
There is no disagreement. Merriam/Websters definition of color is not scientific. Science says pink light doesn’t exist.
the brain’s actually trying to understand what things are made of, and it’s guessing at that based on the light that enteres the eye.
this is why when you pick up a thing outside and take it inside, it doesnt change color (edge cases exist), even though the light that reflects off of it into your eye absolutely changes a lot.