3 ms·

I think that this article drastically over-complicates color. Color can be defined in two separate and distinct ways. First, color is light in varying waveleng

I think that this article drastically over-complicates color. Color can be defined in two separate and distinct ways. First, color is light in varying wavelengths and intensities. Second, color is a perception in the mind of a creature with light receptors. A tree falling in a forest without an observer is not black and white, because the lack of an observer does not change the wavelengths of light absorbed by the tree. The perception of color, however is dependent on the receiver. A creature with dichromatic vision has a different perception of colors than a trichomat or a tetrachromat. This article makes color sound very confusing by not setting a clear scope at the beginning. The resulting ambiguity is the source of "philosophical discussion".

tjbrennan 11y ago
The scope is the qualia of color and what it is to behold color in your mind. With all due respect, you sound like Mary in the Mary's Room thought experiment. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument
- orangepenguin 11y ago
  That is a very interesting thought experiment. Thank you for introducing me to it!
coldtea 11y ago
>This article makes color sound very confusing by not setting a clear scope at the beginning. The resulting ambiguity is the source of "philosophical discussion". The scope of the article is quite clear, and is the second thing: "perception in the mind of a creature with light receptors". The article mentions that this second thing doesn't coincide with a direct mapping from the first thing ("light in varying wavelengths and intensities"), because that (as measured mechanically) can produce different perceptions of color for the same measures of wavelength and intensity (depending on surrounding colors, overall lighting and several other factors). The philosophical discussion (without quotes) is not settled by saying we only want to investigate color as the second thing ("the perception in the mind of a creature with light receptors"). There are far too many philosophical issues in this alone.

tjbrennan 11y ago

The scope is the qualia of color and what it is to behold color in your mind. With all due respect, you sound like Mary in the Mary's Room thought experiment. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument

orangepenguin 11y ago
That is a very interesting thought experiment. Thank you for introducing me to it!

coldtea 11y ago

>This article makes color sound very confusing by not setting a clear scope at the beginning. The resulting ambiguity is the source of "philosophical discussion". The scope of the article is quite clear, and is the second thing: "perception in the mind of a creature with light receptors". The article mentions that this second thing doesn't coincide with a direct mapping from the first thing ("light in varying wavelengths and intensities"), because that (as measured mechanically) can produce different perceptions of color for the same measures of wavelength and intensity (depending on surrounding colors, overall lighting and several other factors). The philosophical discussion (without quotes) is not settled by saying we only want to investigate color as the second thing ("the perception in the mind of a creature with light receptors"). There are far too many philosophical issues in this alone.