The Random Crap Thread 2: It Hits the Fan.

[Bubble181]

Pez, most of those really do only exist in the human mind.
Also, reminder: different languages and cultures have different separations of color. You identify 7 colors in a rainbow, great - but while Russians also do so, they would name different ones. In Russian, light blue and dark blue are separate colors. Not different hues, not different tints, really separate colors, period. Most other countries must 11 different main colors; Russian lists 12. Again, this isn't just nomenclature - Russians find these two as different as you soul yellow and orange. Similar, sure, but clearly different.
See also This study of colors in Russian, English and other languages.
Anyway, you said yourself: while white hot iron may be cooler than the surface of the sun, it is hot to a human.
"1547 Kelvin" is an objectively verifiable fact. "really hot" isn't.
These are symbols representing a subjective judgment / view of an objective fact. Coarseness can be measured, being smooth is opinion. Speed can be measured, "fast" is a comparative descriptor.
These are symbols that do not point to a Platonian ideal - one can claim there is an abstract "apple" to which all apples compare; there is no possible "smooth" ideal to relate to.
As such, many in semiotics argue these words can only carry meaning within an associated framework and are therefore by default not meaningful.

 

[Ravenpoe]

Y'all a bunch of fucking nerds

 

[figmentPez]

These are symbols that do not point to a Platonian ideal - one can claim there is an abstract "apple" to which all apples compare; there is no possible "smooth" ideal to relate to.

And that does not matter one iota. The fact is that the observable world does exist, and that words are useful in describing it.

For example:

"1547 Kelvin" is an objectively verifiable fact. "really hot" isn't.

Here is a "really hot" piece of iron. Go ahead, touch it with your hand, prove that telling you it's "really hot" isn't objectively useful information.

 

[HCGLNS]

 

[MindDetective]

And that does not matter one iota. The fact is that the observable world does exist, and that words are useful in describing it.

It is valuable to point out, though, that 565 nm light does not have to be experienced as yellow. There is nothing whatsoever in the stimulus itself to indicate that it must be perceived as this color. It has the effects it has on the world the way a loaf of bread will serve as food or get moldy or whatever, even if there is nobody there to perceive and label it. That it is experienced as yellow probably has to do with the things in the world that are typically reflecting yellow light (fruit, birds, etc.) But the experience of yellow, the qualia, as it were, is not inherent in the stimulus.

I think it is also worth noting that very few other species are trichromats, some birds and new world monkeys, and even fewer are tetrachromats, all birds to my knowledge. None of those other species can communicate their experiences of color very reliably. They can only use them for finding food and selecting mates. We will never know the qualia of their experiences. It probably does not matter if we ever do, Id reckon.

But I am just refining the boundaries of the discussion here. I very much agree with you that words, and I'll go further to say categories, are useful in helping people navigate the world and communicate with each other about what they experience in common.

 

[PatrThom]

The fact is that the observable world does exist, and that words are useful in describing it.

This statement is 100% true, and I have no issue with it. Words like "blue" or "tortilla" are always good starting points.
But you cannot justifiably deny that words DO carry different meanings with different people. Oh sure, there is going to be some Venn diagram-esque overlap between individuals, but each person's gamut of meaning for individual words is going to be... ah, colo(u)red by that person's specific upbringing/experiences/beliefs/etc. This is not up for debate, it merely IS, and to argue otherwise is, in my opinion, an attempt to argue against reality, itself.

--Patrick
(edited to fix formatting code error)

 

[netsirk]

there is no possible "smooth" ideal to relate to.

Tell that to Hotblack Desiato
#HoopyFrood

 

[figmentPez]

It is valuable to point out, though, that 565 nm light does not have to be experienced as yellow. There is nothing whatsoever in the stimulus itself to indicate that it must be perceived as this color. It has the effects it has on the world the way a loaf of bread will serve as food or get moldy or whatever, even if there is nobody there to perceive and label it. That it is experienced as yellow probably has to do with the things in the world that are typically reflecting yellow light (fruit, birds, etc.) But the experience of yellow, the qualia, as it were, is not inherent in the stimulus.

But yellow paint will still reflect the same wavelengths of light, even if there is no one there to call it yellow. It remains yellow paint.

 

[MindDetective]

But yellow paint will still reflect the same wavelengths of light, even if there is no one there to call it yellow. It remains yellow paint.

That's true. Nor does it contradict anything I said.

 

[GasBandit]

IT'S FRIDAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!

 

[figmentPez]

That's true. Nor does it contradict anything I said.

But it does go back to how this originally started.

"There are only three colors in a rainbow*. Everything else is your brain lying to you."

Yellow light remains yellow light, even in the absence of a human brain. Our brains are not lying to us about the existence of yellow light. There are even animals and things that can directly sense yellow light. Either we say that ALL words are just our brains lying to us, or we accept that the rainbow has more than three colors in it.

Which is it? Do words have meaning? Can words be used to describe an objective reality? Or are we all just babbling nonsense into the void?

Because either way, the rainbow doesn't have three colors. It has infinite, or none.

 

[MindDetective]

But it does go back to how this originally started.

"There are only three colors in a rainbow*. Everything else is your brain lying to you."

It wasn't even a technically correct statement, since cones do not respond to only one wavelength of light nor do they respond with a single pattern of responses.

Yellow light remains yellow light, even in the absence of a human brain. Our brains are not lying to us about the existence of yellow light.

It wasn't in question that yellow doesn't exist. There is no reason it needs to appear yellow to us, though.

Either we say that ALL words are just our brains lying to us, or we accept that the rainbow has more than three colors in it.

The Jale highland tribe in New Guinea purportedly only has words for black and white. They have no red, no blue, no green. They do not make the distinction. They call the color of blood black. Their rainbow does not even have 2 colors in it.

Which is it? Do words have meaning?

Nobody has said that words don't have meaning. Their meaning is arguably their most important feature!

Can words be used to describe an objective reality? Or are we all just babbling nonsense into the void?

Because either way, the rainbow doesn't have three colors. It has infinite, or none.

There are finite wavelengths in the visible spectrum. And we cannot perceive and thus not name those colors that are only 1 nm apart on the spectrum. They have no subjective difference to us, even though there IS an objective difference detectable by instruments. We CAN describe that in words, but only in highly technical terms and not by simply choosing a color name from the paint chips at Home Depot.

 

[PatrThom]

IT'S FRIDAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!

Hush, you. We're arguing about colors here.

Yellow light remains yellow light, even in the absence of a human brain.

In order for it to be called "yellow," a human brain has to be present in order to interpret and label it as such. Otherwise it's just ~580nm. We're having the "If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it..." argument over again, but with colors instead of sound.

Either we say that ALL words are just our brains lying to us, or we accept that the rainbow has more than three colors in it.

I mean, of course all words are just us lying to our brains in an attempt to evoke the memory of the meaning of the word. That's pretty much the definition of how language works! And as to the colors of the rainbow, of course a rainbow has more than three colors in it, or else we would only have names for three colors. It's just that all the colors we "see" are assembled based on proportions of the few we can actually detect.

--Patrick

 

[figmentPez]

Otherwise it's just ~580nm.

580nm is just words, too. It's a more precise definition than yellow, but no less arbitrary.

 

[PatrThom]

580nm is [...] a more precise definition than yellow, but no less arbitrary.

Nnnooooo, there's a significant difference there. If I tell you over the telephone that I want you to light up a stage with "yellow," then there is no guarantee that the shade of yellow you light it will be the same one I intend. If I tell you to light it at 580nm, though, then that will allow you to reproduce the shade I have in my mind exactly.

--Patrick

 

[figmentPez]

Nnnooooo, there's a significant difference there. If I tell you over the telephone that I want you to light up a stage with "yellow," then there is no guarantee that the shade of yellow you light it will be the same one I intend. If I tell you to light it at 580nm, though, then that will allow you to reproduce the shade I have in my mind exactly.

Yes, as I said, it is more precise. However, "meters" only exist to humans have no objective existence. The light still has the same properties even if it is measured in base-3 fractions of a smoot instead of nanometers. That's the point. Yellow is no more imaginary than a meter. One may be more precisely defined, but that doesn't make it any more or less real.

Also, good God, who would light a stage in truly monochromatic light? But that does bring us back to there being "only three colors in the rainbow". If you light a stage with just red, blue, and green light, you won't get the same results as you would if you light the stage with full spectrum light. Another proof that the rainbow contains more than three colors, even to humans.

 

[HCGLNS]

The meter, symbol m, is the SI unit of length. It is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the speed of light in vacuum c to be 299 792 458 when expressed in the unit m s-1, where the second is defined in terms of ΔνCs.

 

[figmentPez]

The meter, symbol m, is the SI unit of length. It is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the speed of light in vacuum c to be 299 792 458 when expressed in the unit m s-1, where the second is defined in terms of ΔνCs.

And there's no objective reason for choosing those values. A smoot could be defined in a similar manner, or thousands of others of units of length.

EDIT: Furthermore, things were a "meter" long even when a meter was literally a stick. Giving a meter a more precise definition did not make things measured in meters any more real. Society could, if it chose, define yellow more precisely (and there are ways of defining color that are more precise). Defining a very specific set of parameters for a yellow paint does not make it any more or less real. The paint would exist even without such a specific definition, and "yellow" doesn't become a real thing by being defined. The word exists to describe the phenomenon, not the other way around.

 

[Dave]

Hush, you. We're arguing about colors here.

 

[HCGLNS]

And there's no objective reason for choosing those values. A smoot could be defined in a similar manner, or thousands of others of units of length.

EDIT: Furthermore, things were a "meter" long even when a meter was literally a stick. Giving a meter a more precise definition did not make things measured in meters any more real. Society could, if it chose, define yellow more precisely (and there are ways of defining color that are more precise). Defining a very specific set of parameters for a yellow paint does not make it any more or less real. The paint would exist even without such a specific definition, and "yellow" doesn't become a real thing by being defined. The word exists to describe the phenomenon, not the other way around.

 

[PatrThom]

there's no objective reason for choosing those values.

There is, though. When a meter was a stick, you had to have a specific, official stick (or access to one) in order to measure an exact meter.
Now that its definition has changed, though, it can be derived anywhere with full confidence that the result will always be identical, with no worry about access to an official stick or that your preferred official stick has been damaged/tampered with. As to the reason why it is a "meter" instead of a "smoot?" Because that's what they chose to call it.

--Patrick

 

[figmentPez]

As to the reason why it is a "meter" instead of a "smoot?" Because that's what they chose to call it.

But a meter is NOT a smoot. A smoot is ~1.7 meters. There is no objective reason why a meter is the length it is. I understand the reasoning as to how the more precise definition of a meter is used to more accurately define that length, but there's no reason beyond "because that's the established length" that it was defined at that fixed length and not longer or shorter.

 

[PatrThom]

there's no reason beyond "because that's the established length" that it was defined at that fixed length and not longer or shorter.

...it was actually originally defined as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to a pole. Because the metric system is supposed to be all about tens, and the metrics were supposed to be universally derivable.

--Patrick

 

[figmentPez]

...it was actually originally defined as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to a pole. Because the metric system is supposed to be all about tens, and the metrics were supposed to be universally derivable.

And why not one ten-millionth of the distance around the equator? Or one 100 millionth of the distance from pole to pole? Or one ten-millionth of the distance from the earth to the moon?

Oh, could the answer be because it comes out to a unit that's useful to humans? Just like calling something "yellow" is useful to humans? Golly, it's almost like this is all done for the subjective use of humans, and not for the sake of sort of objective truth...

 

[PatrThom]

The purpose of defining a meter was to establish a precise, objective measure that yes, is useful to humans, but that is also a definite, independently derivable measure that does not vary no matter who is using it.
The purpose of defining something as "yellow" is to narrow something to a general range.
These two metrics are not comparable.

--Patrick

 

[figmentPez]

The purpose of defining a meter was to establish a precise, objective measure that yes, is useful to humans, but that is also a definite, independently derivable measure that does not vary no matter who is using it.
The purpose of defining something as "yellow" is to narrow something to a general range.
These two metrics are not comparable.

But you can have precise definitions of color. You absolutely can define Pantone color or a specific gel sheet color for theater lighting, or a laser. It is possible to define a color as specifically as you desire. Just because the most common color words are very broad does not mean that the entire concept of color is vague and undefineable. That would be like saying that measuring length is vague because a "hands breath" isn't precise.

We're not arguing if "yellow" is as specific as a "meter" we're arguing if color is as objective as length, and it absolutely is. It's harder to define, and is more complex than length, but it absolutely is a descriptor of real world phenomena that can be measured and assigned values.

EDIT: Or we could just ignore rationality and say that the moon isn't three dimensional. It has breath and width, but it has no depth because it's too far away for my human eyes to have any depth perception of. I can't measure it with my human senses, therefore it is immeasurable, and anyone trying to tell you that the moon is more than a flat disc in the sky is just lying to you. After all, if a human can't sense it directly, then it doesn't exist. Some people say the moon is "huge", and others "immense", but no one can tell just how big it is by just looking at it, so we just can't tell how big it is, and it must be flat.

 

[HCGLNS]

 

[PatrThom]

We're not arguing if "yellow" is as specific as a "meter" we're arguing if color is as objective as length, and it absolutely is.

My original assertion ("only three colors") was a reference to the fact that humans (at least standard humans) are sensitive to only three narrow ranges of the electromagnetic spectrum, and use the input received from these sensations to interpret and synthesize the remainder of the visible spectrum in their heads. I know we've already explored the difference between RGB synthetic yellow (and why it works for human eyeballs) vs. "true" yellow. As such, I felt justified describing a rainbow as only three colors because...if you bust out a magnifying glass and get real close, that's exactly what your monitor is doing to your eyes at this very moment!

if a human can't sense it directly, then it doesn't exist.

Look, I have no idea what color Plato would've painted the walls of his cave, ok?

--Patrick

 

[Sparhawk]

Look, I have no idea what color Plato would've painted the walls of his cave, ok?

--Patrick

Obviously, yellow, you know that kinda yellow that’s not quite yellow yellow, but the kind that’s sorta like unsalted butter that’s been left on the counter yellow. You know the color.

 

[drifter]

*Skims last page or so* boy, this takes me back.

 

[jwhouk]

School bus yellow?

 

[figmentPez]

My original assertion ("only three colors") was a reference to the fact that humans (at least standard humans) are sensitive to only three narrow ranges of the electromagnetic spectrum, and use the input received from these sensations to interpret and synthesize the remainder of the visible spectrum in their heads. I know we've already explored the difference between RGB synthetic yellow (and why it works for human eyeballs) vs. "true" yellow. As such, I felt justified describing a rainbow as only three colors because...

And yet, even with my human eyeballs, I can light a room with RGB only and clearly see that something is wrong and that there must be other colors in the visible spectrum. It is very easy to prove that yellow exists outside of a blend of red and green. Something which that video you linked to shows very clearly.

Your understanding of human vision is WRONG. Even discounting the role of rods in color perception (and that's a whole kettle of fish when you start talking about antagonist colors and opponent process theory), the three types of cones in the average human eye are not only sensitive to three narrow ranges of the EM spectrum, they're each sensitive to overlapping ranges covering ALL of visible light. The cones that are most sensitive to blue light are not just triggered by blue light. The brain does indeed presume the existence of yellow by comparing the signals from all three types of cones, but the human eye really does see yellow light. Red and green combining to make yellow is the optical illusion, caused by the limitation of our vision. Yellow light is real, though, and is not illusory. It's not "true" yellow, it is truly yellow. No quotes. Yellow light exists. It's not a quirk of human perception like "stygian blue" or "hyperbolic orange".

if you bust out a magnifying glass and get real close, that's exactly what your monitor is doing to your eyes at this very moment!

No, it's not. Mainly because there are colors in sunlight that cannot be reproduced on a computer monitor, but can be seen by the human eye (i.e. A computer monitor is never going to show you the same color that a 380nm laser will). RGB color space is only a subset of the visible spectrum. Moreover, RGB monitors show that the human eye can be tricked, not that the "rainbow" only consists of three colors. As I've already proven, there are objective ways to measure color, and show that RGB is the illusion.

But now we're going around in circles, because you refuse to define terms, and keep using different definitions whenever it suits your argument to do so.

 

[Vrii]

And yet, even with my human eyeballs, I can light a room with RGB only and clearly see that something is wrong and that there must be other colors in the visible spectrum

This is, at least in some part, because of your culture and upbringing. As was mentioned earlier in the thread, other cultures distinguish between colours and shades differently; what you see as inherently "yellow" might well fall within the spectrum of red or green to someone whose language and culture interpret and talk about colours diferently.

If you're interested, here is a really good article that specifically discusses colour-related language in terms of Ancient Greek, but it spends some time on English and other modern languages as well as talking a whole lot about theory. The tl;dr is that it's a lot more complicated than "I see yellow there so clearly "yellow" is a meaningful concept to all people."

 

[figmentPez]

This is, at least in some part, because of your culture and upbringing. As was mentioned earlier in the thread, other cultures distinguish between colours and shades differently; what you see as inherently "yellow" might well fall within the spectrum of red or green to someone whose language and culture interpret and talk about colours diferently.

If you're interested, here is a really good article that specifically discusses colour-related language in terms of Ancient Greek, but it spends some time on English and other modern languages as well as talking a whole lot about theory. The tl;dr is that it's a lot more complicated than "I see yellow there so clearly "yellow" is a meaningful concept to all people."

Here's the thing, though. An object that primarily reflects sodium-lamp yellow light (which I don't give a fuck what other languages call that color, it's a specific frequency of light) will look dark when lit by RGB phosphors. (And again, I don't care what other languages call those three colors, the phosphors used in RGB color space have defined ideal values that are based on the physical phenomenon of light waves.) It doesn't fucking matter what language you use to describe the color that is perceived, certain things will not look right under limited spectrum lighting. Unless someone has a genetic abormality, they are able to see 589nm light, and they will be able to notice that an object that brightly reflects that light under "full spectrum white" light suddenly goes dark under a "fake white" blend of RGB. It doesn't matter what word they call it, they'll be able to see that it is bright in one case, and dark in another. There is an objective difference.

 

[PatrThom]

Obviously, yellow, you know that kinda yellow that’s not quite yellow yellow, but the kind that’s sorta like unsalted butter that’s been left on the counter yellow. You know the color.

Sure do! I have a stick of unsalted butter in front of me right now!

now we're going around in circles, because you refuse to define terms, and keep using different definitions whenever it suits your argument to do so.

A lack of agreed-upon, specific terms does make a discussion more difficult, doesn't it? Though at this point I think all we're really discussing is how upset I've made you via either my apparent ignorance of the acceptable rules of arguing OR a perceived inability on my part to understand the physics and biology related to sight, I'm not sure which.


--Patrick