^-- this!Colors are far more complex than simple wavelengths of light. Most colors do not correspond to any wavelength.
Well... it's a little more complex than this... a digital camera is "pretty", so we can talk about such things in very few terms and have a good idea of its structure... but the eye is quite messy.information like what is the size of perceived pixels or their molecular representations and how many of them are there. In other words, what is the resolution of the human inner display?
The table is made of wood; therefore there is no table, only wood.
Would you agree with this?
The table is made of atoms which are mostly space. Therefore there is not table, only space. — Banno
The sky is the selective absorption of certain wavelengths of light. Therefore there is no sky. — Banno
Colours are differing electromagnetic frequencies. Therefore there are no colours.
Colours are just the result of differential firing of the rods and cones in your eye. Therefore there are not really any colours. — Banno
But humans are the only ones that see "red", "green", "yellow", "blue", "brown", and other colors humans talk about. Humans are the only ones matching paint colors; selecting paints for art, building traffic lights, and so on. Restriction to human colors isn't a flaw of lexicons; it's a choice of lexicons.Humans are not the only creatures capable of seeing color.
...humans are the only ones that see "red", "green", "yellow", "blue", "brown", and other colors humans talk about. — InPitzotl
Of course it is. "Red" is a trichromatic color category; it's roughly an equivalence class of spectral distributions defined by the differential stimulation of erythrolabe and chlorolabe, which are uniquely human proteins. Humans have a distinct gene pool with alleles for creating these proteins; any other animal, even if it were trichromatic, is highly likely to produce different proteins. Different trichromatic photopsins imply different groupings of spectra into metamer groups, which means different colors.That's not true.
...because the odds are incredibly against it. Red is a human color category; it requires human trichromaticity to define. To get that, you essentially need human alleles in your gene pool, which I doubt other animals have.What makes you so confident that no other animals can see red? — creativesoul
That only makes things worse! Suppose protanopes were the norm, and suddenly humans started evolving trichromacy. Maybe, 5% of humans can see three colors. But all the words we have for colors are things like "gold", "blue", and such. For us 5%, there are drastically different kinds of "gold"... "red", "orange", "yellow green", and so on. But there's no word for it.Some can sense infrared, others ultraviolet. — creativesoul
Are there true sentences involving colors as objects of them? If so, then colors exist. — Pfhorrest
So take this to the final step... is your conclusion that colours do not exist? — Banno
It's just ridiculous. If 'science' can't square with simple everyday facts... then 'science' is using the wrong linguistic framework. — creativesoul
Are there true sentences involving colors as objects of them? If so, then colors exist. — Pfhorrest
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.