3 ms·

> Color are colors only because visible light reaches your sensor You're playing a semantic game. In short, I dispute this definition. This is a reasonable d

> Color are colors only because visible light reaches your sensor You're playing a semantic game. In short, I dispute this definition. This is a reasonable definition of additive-based color mechanics. It is otherwise an arbitrary definition of the word "color" that does not match common usage of the term. To expand the term, "color" is often used to mean the perceived spectral emissions from a surface under white-ish illumination. If a wall is "red", and you turn off the lights, is it still red? By your definition, no, which means the tautology you extend is meaningless to me, as my definition of color would trivially admit that the wall remains red.

kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
The wall retains the capacity to reflect red light. If it were to change its spectral response while the lights are off it doesn't persist in being red.
scruffyprodigy 8y ago
Subtractitive color is only a thing because of additive colors. By adding extra pigments, you are trapping photons, and preventing light from getting to the eye. Black is the color that occurs when your pigments (or whatever other tools you are using) trap enough light that little-to-no light reaches the eye
close04 8y ago
The question is not "what color is the wall?" but "what color are you seeing?". So what color are you seeing when looking at the red wall in perfect darkness? Better yet, are you seeing anything at all? Are you claiming that anything you can't see, on the other side of the wall, is also black because you can't perceive any spectral emissions from their surface? Earlier you said the wall should be black because black is a color and that's what you'd be seeing. But now you say the actual color is red but only using prior knowledge. And if the wall actually changed colors (I quickly painted it blue just to prove you wrong) what color would you say it is? Black? Red? Blue? So your example is purely philosophical and doesn't support your claim one bit. Is the absence of light a type of light? Can we call the absence of any photon a "close04-ray" in honor of it's distinguished inventor, me? A room doesn't contain void, it simply lacks everything else. Water is odor-less and taste-less. Silence isn't a type of sound, it's the lack of sound. And a completely empty fridge doesn't contain food. Your definition of a color while correct sabotages your conclusion that "detecting no spectral emissions" should be called the color black. And please stop using additive/subtractive as if this should change how colors are perceived. It changes how they are produced but your eye will still detect light at a specific wavelength that you'll call a color. Colloquially people will still call it the color black. But it's just a convention also meant to support the fact that we call a wide range of greys and dark colors as "black". It's for ease of speech and description, not for accuracy. In reality true black is simply the absence of any perceived light.

kevin_thibedeau 8y ago

The wall retains the capacity to reflect red light. If it were to change its spectral response while the lights are off it doesn't persist in being red.

scruffyprodigy 8y ago

Subtractitive color is only a thing because of additive colors. By adding extra pigments, you are trapping photons, and preventing light from getting to the eye. Black is the color that occurs when your pigments (or whatever other tools you are using) trap enough light that little-to-no light reaches the eye

close04 8y ago

The question is not "what color is the wall?" but "what color are you seeing?". So what color are you seeing when looking at the red wall in perfect darkness? Better yet, are you seeing anything at all? Are you claiming that anything you can't see, on the other side of the wall, is also black because you can't perceive any spectral emissions from their surface? Earlier you said the wall should be black because black is a color and that's what you'd be seeing. But now you say the actual color is red but only using prior knowledge. And if the wall actually changed colors (I quickly painted it blue just to prove you wrong) what color would you say it is? Black? Red? Blue? So your example is purely philosophical and doesn't support your claim one bit. Is the absence of light a type of light? Can we call the absence of any photon a "close04-ray" in honor of it's distinguished inventor, me? A room doesn't contain void, it simply lacks everything else. Water is odor-less and taste-less. Silence isn't a type of sound, it's the lack of sound. And a completely empty fridge doesn't contain food. Your definition of a color while correct sabotages your conclusion that "detecting no spectral emissions" should be called the color black. And please stop using additive/subtractive as if this should change how colors are perceived. It changes how they are produced but your eye will still detect light at a specific wavelength that you'll call a color. Colloquially people will still call it the color black. But it's just a convention also meant to support the fact that we call a wide range of greys and dark colors as "black". It's for ease of speech and description, not for accuracy. In reality true black is simply the absence of any perceived light.