/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11206091

29KiB, 600x286, DCD70E00-A661-48E6-B4C9-267AC5BF4878.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Light and color

Anonymous Sat 07 Dec 05:05:03 2019 No.11206091 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11206148 >>11206152 >>11206161 >>11206208 >>11206331 >>11207833

/ck/ made me angry because there’s too many fucking brainlets

We are in agreement that light OBJECTIVELY has no color, and that color is an abstraction of the human brain’s interpretation of different wavelengths of light, correct?

If not, lemme school you real quick, just let me know

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Dec 2019 05:25:51 No.11206123 Report

Quoted By: >>11206145

Yeah... why'd you make this thread?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Dec 2019 05:40:09 No.11206145 Report

Quoted By:

>>11206123
I told you, /ck/ made me angry by being brainlets, and I decided to see if /sci/ was also on this level of brainlet.

Sometimes you witness retardation on such a level that you just have to make sure there’s other people who aren’t

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Dec 2019 05:41:44 No.11206148 Report

Quoted By: >>11206186

>>11206091
They're not wrong, because nothing is objectively true, truth is an abstraction of human brain's interpretations of particular arrangements of subatomic particles

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Dec 2019 05:42:59 No.11206152 Report

Quoted By:

>>11206091
>human brain’s interpretation
and it's weirder than you think:
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xl7eh1
himba color test at 2m30s

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Dec 2019 05:45:15 No.11206161 Report

Quoted By: >>11206186

>>11206091
so you had a retarded argument about metaphysics and instead of addressing the metaphysical question you just stayed on the physics (which is trivial)

Read Wittgenstein's "Remarks on Colour" for a much more interesting philosophical discussion on color and our perception/discussion of it

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Dec 2019 06:00:08 No.11206186 Report

Quoted By: >>11206200 >>11206211

>>11206148
This implies that the universe isn’t real which is outside of the scope of the argument, the general idea of an argument is that it stays on topic with certain assumptions in place, and backtracking to the point that the entire universe isn’t real is intellectually dishonest
>>11206161
If you’re just going to argue that the universe doesn’t real, arguing about color is pointless and stupid. If the universe doesn’t real, then who the fuck cares about anything? It’s a stupid argument and it’s why philosophy is such a stupid and pointless school of thought

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 6a3.png, 2MiB, 800x1012

Anonymous Sat 07 Dec 2019 06:04:43 No.11206200 Report

Quoted By: >>11206203

>>11206186

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Dec 2019 06:07:35 No.11206203 Report

Quoted By:

>>11206200
This is why philosophy is stupid, it’s literally just the antithesis of religions which are equally stupid, you may as well call it a Flying Spaghetti Monster or a dead kike on a stick and “poof” suddenly there’s “meaning” to the meaningless. Making further and further abstractions based solely on the limited science at the time is literally a meme and a fucking shitty one at that. Might as well be a psych major, you’re doing the exact same thing (pseudoscience based in “fact”)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Dec 2019 06:12:44 No.11206208 Report

Quoted By:

>>11206091
>We are in agreement that light OBJECTIVELY has no color, and that color is an abstraction of the human brain’s interpretation of different wavelengths of light, correct?

I’d agree but you’ll inevitably find idiots who disagree. Color is a form of qualia that attempts to inform us about the wavelengths of photons being absorbed by our eyeballs

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Dec 2019 06:13:28 No.11206211 Report

Quoted By: >>11206224

>>11206186
>If you’re just going to argue that the universe doesn’t real
No one is saying that retard.

The point that nothing is "objectively true" is *not* a statement that there is no human-independent physical universe that operates a certain way... the point is human discourse is an imperfect mapping between interior and exterior semantics. The concept of "objectively true" is not relevant because there is no pure objectivity to the interior (i.e. subjective) semantics.

>arguing about color is pointless and stupid
On the contrary its one of the more interesting things. Color is one of the most obviously subjective experiences of a purely physical phenomenon, and how we come to describe it, classify it and understand it is pretty fascinating. The role of language (as in how different words for different colors in your language work) has a large impact on your perception of color; that's pretty interesting. But if the only thing that matters to you is childish reductions to physical objectivity and literal wavelengths, then no it probably isnt.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Dec 2019 06:20:10 No.11206224 Report

Quoted By: >>11206265

>>11206211
Discussing color as a subjective experience I can understand to be interesting, the problem is you have to be able to understand the difference between objective wavelengths of light and human’s subjective interpretation of them.
If you don’t understand the difference between those two things, you couldn’t possibly ever argue about the perception of color because in your mind “color” is a definable thing, which if simply isn’t.

Furthermore, I understand that “objectively true” isn’t something that can technically exist, but when trying to move discourse from “objective reality” to “subjective perception”, you must have a ground state at which to define “objective” reality such that you can actually move the discussion from a point A to a point B or else you’ll never have a place to start.

Does that clarify what I’m saying?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Dec 2019 06:40:50 No.11206265 Report

Quoted By: >>11206270

>>11206224
>the problem is you have to be able to understand the difference between objective wavelengths of light and human’s subjective interpretation of them.
sure, but thats just scientific illiteracy. Like, if my grandmother says some dumb shit about chemistry or physical phenomenon, I might charitably explain the science, but there's no meaningful point in arguing when we're essentially speaking different language games (this is the Wittgenstein point). As humans, we have to contextualize discussions we have because language only works when theres a shared understanding of the semantics. My mates at the pub are not a good audience for my rants about probability and my colleagues at university are not a good audience for my rants about football.

>If you don’t understand the difference between those two things, you couldn’t possibly ever argue about the perception of color because in your mind “color” is a definable thing
This is why I recommended Wittgenstein. Philosophers and physicists (the two actually get along) actually do and did discuss the more interesting aspects of subjective perception of color vs its physical reality.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Dec 2019 06:47:00 No.11206270 Report

Quoted By: >>11206297

>>11206265
Well then I guess I’m just angry that 99% of the population refuses to become literate in the fields of discussion they so desperately want to be a part of.

Thanks for the recommendation, I don’t hate all philosophers, I just have the sanity to understand that there’s a large number who are as intellectually dishonest as cult leaders

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Dec 2019 07:07:49 No.11206297 Report

Quoted By: >>11206308

>>11206270
>here’s a large number who are as intellectually dishonest as cult leaders

Which are who? I don't doubt you, be specific as opposed to just bashing philosophy as a general rule of thumb.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Dec 2019 07:15:26 No.11206308 Report

Quoted By: >>11206338

>>11206297
I’m moreso talking about modern philosophers than others, but John Locke was a fucking faggot

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Dec 2019 07:27:26 No.11206331 Report

Quoted By:

>>11206091
objective reality is imperceptible, and thus indiscernible
what kinda basis do you have to claim that em wavelengths comprising the visible light spectrum don't have a color innate to them?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Dec 2019 07:31:00 No.11206338 Report

Quoted By: >>11206362

>>11206308
>I’m moreso talking about modern philosophers than others
Like who? Be specific.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Dec 2019 07:47:58 No.11206362 Report

Quoted By: >>11206370

>>11206338
https://thebestschools.org/features/most-influential-living-philosophers/
Didn’t read through the whole list but after a few you should get the idea. Also, Locke is still a faggot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Dec 2019 07:50:50 No.11206370 Report

Quoted By: >>11206376

>>11206362
anon, that's not "being specific"

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Dec 2019 07:55:15 No.11206376 Report

Quoted By: >>11206384

>>11206370
Okay how about this, 95% of the people who contributed to feminism and other various aspects of our current culture that make freedom = bad

Do you think I actually read through volumes of vomit by retards when there’s volumes of gold by valuable philosophers from the 18th and 19th centuries?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Dec 2019 07:57:25 No.11206378 Report

Quoted By: >>11206380

Quantic jumps and orbital make colors

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Dec 2019 07:57:58 No.11206380 Report

Quoted By:

>>11206378
Explain

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Dec 2019 08:00:19 No.11206384 Report

Quoted By: >>11206443

>>11206376
>95% of [large group]
that's extremely non-specific, anon
>Do you think I actually read through volumes of vomit by retards when there’s volumes of gold by valuable philosophers from the 18th and 19th centuries?
how can you make a such a sweeping claim about a wide group of philosophers with differing views if you haven't even researched those views?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Dec 2019 08:44:32 No.11206443 Report

Quoted By: >>11208030

>>11206384
Laziness, stupidity + preoccupations with other fields of interest

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO spectra[1].jpg, 47KiB, 800x400

Anonymous Sat 07 Dec 2019 22:05:11 No.11207833 Report

Quoted By:

>>11206091
It objectively does have color. The colors we see are the result of our eye's limited ability to resolve the spectrum that we see.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO colors.png, 9KiB, 512x270

Anonymous Sat 07 Dec 2019 23:13:06 No.11207991 Report

Quoted By:

Is this correct?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Dec 2019 23:35:45 No.11208030 Report

Quoted By:

>>11206443
So you are just as bad as them, good job

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO color test.png, 52KiB, 793x793

Anonymous Sun 08 Dec 2019 01:11:59 No.11208276 Report

Quoted By: >>11208310 >>11209103

How would a tetrachromat see colors? Picture unrelated

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Dec 2019 01:32:08 No.11208310 Report

Quoted By:

>>11208276
I would assume they would differentiate the pink green and red tones in that pic?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO New0003.png, 21KiB, 969x397

Anonymous Sun 08 Dec 2019 09:23:32 No.11209103 Report

Quoted By:

>>11208276

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches