> but it doesn't change the fact that they are different colours. They are the same hue. That is scientific. It doesn't matter what words you use to divide the

> but it doesn't change the fact that they are different colours. They are the same hue. That is scientific. It doesn't matter what words you use to divide them -- I am sure you conceptually understand they are the same hue. I even found a comment from a Russian saying [1]: > I would say that they are two colours that are sufficiently distinct, but I also wouldn't argue against a statement that голубой is a lighter shade of синий. Again, just like my example with red and pink. Any Russian painter, for example, would have a very clear idea of a unified "blue" hue, because they have to mix paints. Surely you can't deny that? You are confusing two things, words and perceptions. The "arbitrary buckets" you describe refer to words. But they don't change our underlying perceptual qualia. We perceive lots of things we don't bother to give names to in order to distinguish them. Our concepts vastly outnumber our words. And regarding blue specifically -- the brain interprets colors based on the opponent process [2], which includes blue as a one of four fundamental hues. Which argues that it is one of the four most likely colors to have an instinctive perceptual concept for, regardless of whether you give it a word or not. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/russian/comments/75kaij/comment/do6z0mc/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button https://www.reddit.com/r/russian/comments/75kaij/comment/do6... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opponent_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opponent_process