/sci/ - Science & Math

how come

>>16149841
fuck you op, now this thread is going to be another shitfest about people saying:
>magenta isn't real!
>but yellow and cyan also ain't real!
>every color is fake!!
every single fucking time, no conclusion is drawn.

>>16149841
What if my magenta looks like your yellow?

Shut up retards, there are only three primary colors, which is Red (the long wavelength one), Green (the medium wavelength one) and Blue (the short wavelength one)

EVERY other color is made from one of these being combined in some way

>>16149844
>no conclusion is drawn.
color representation of the world is not perfect, nature said "good enough". we can see new colors (theoretically with maybe hardware mods)

>>16149852
>EVERY other color is made from one of these being combined in some way
no that's fucking wrong. red green and blue fully stimulate your eye cones, where colors in between partially stimulate each of RGB cones
what you "see" is electric signals from eyes. what they detect is based on R G B cones activation.

>>16149841
that's just red imbued with the high photon energy of blue

>colors

>>16149841
My eyes are telling me that I'm not seeing green, but something else...

>>16149841
Goethe was right: Newton is wrong.

>>16149841
No, it's not, you made that up.

>>16149863
>NO THAT'S FUCKING WRONG
>repeats exactly what was said with slightly different semantics

>>16149841
what's wrong with the pink color?

>>16150001
Retards feel offended that it challenge their understanding of what a color is so they lash out at magenta

>>16150009
magenta is made by god to test our faith. just like dinosaur bones

>>16150017
Which is funny because magenta is opposite of green, the religious color (atleast for islam)

>>16150070
>the religious color (atleast for islam)
huh, they have colors?
what colors is for the rest of them?

>>16149848
then you took the brown acid anon. lay low awhile

>>16149841
Gay color don't stare into it

>>16149841
Can you explain? I just see bunch of red, green, and blue dots. How are these colors illegal?

>>16149841
>cyan is just the color we see when our blue and green cones are activated at the same time
>yellow is just the color we see when our green and red cones are activated at the same time
>magenta is just the color we see when our red and blue cones are activated at the same time
And yet, cyan and yellow are considered "real" colors while magenta is considered "fake" or "made up." It makes no sense at all. I agree our entire model for color vision is probably just straight up fake and gay due to this obvious inconsistency.

bros we have a yellow&cyan problem. how do we fix it?

>>16149841
Colour is a construct of consciousness to distinguish things, magenta has its own wavelength

>>16149852
>EVERY other color is made from one of these being combined in some way
There is no such thing, all waves act singular

>>16150151
Couldn't agree more, they say magenta is "just the absence of green" but yellow is literally also the absence of blue and cyan is the absence of red, there is no real difference, those 3 are all fakes, >>16149852 said the truth

>>16150197 (me)
also what do we do with original cyan/yellow colors? keep them for yellow/cyan photons or for the mix of the two? either banana either banana on screen change.

>>16150227
yellow and cyan are fake, there is no "real" yellow or cyan, if you're a color that is only seen when two cones are triggered, then you're fake, simply as that.

If you see magenta, you're a fag. Simple as

>>16150234
listen, I was asking HOW do we fix it? two more detector cones for cyan/yellow photons? and reduce the spectrum of the other RGB cones? this way we detect yellow and cyan photons, and the extra information helps differentiate between yellow/cyan and the mix for both as we see them now.
would two more cones for yellow/cyan photons work? and would we start seeing new colors?

>>16150224
In point of fact, yellow and cyan can be created by a single wavelength due to how our eyes process median colors. Magenta can't, as wavelengths aren't a circular spectrum, and is thus more analagous to bluish yellow and reddish green. Magenta is able to fill an otherwise unoccupied gap so we can see it.

magenta is the silliest color anyway

>>16149841
It's the color of love, obviously it was made so that there is an inherent special quality about it

are there neural maps for what kind of neuron activity happens when someone sees each color? like a solid color picture full screen. with zero information past "everything is green" for example, as in all info hitting the eye. curious of the type of brain activity for each color.

>>16149841
You are a fucking idiot.

where in DNA is the code for rgb cones? how do cones get their spectrum sensitivity

>>16149841
What the fuck. I had a really strange dream with this color.

I like dreaming and having control on my dreams. I also have the habit to keep a journal of my dreams every time i wake up. I'm interested about lucid dreaming and a thing about ascension.

During a dream i went lucid, taking full notion of the state i were, i tried to detach from my body (i actually don't know how to explain it in words) and what it happend was that i head a really high-pitched note while also seeing only THIS color.

What the fuck? Is this color the barrier between two dimensions?

>>16150435
yes, also >>16150340

guys when i see yellow i see no blue dots, how come?

>>16149841
Magenta is the color of missing textures

>>16149841
stupid retard nigger. Colour is a subjective experience that only happens in our head, light, and lights of different wavelengths are a physical property and separate to our subjective experiences.

everyone knows this there is no paradox

spectral color ⊂ color

>>16149848
We are the same species.

Reminder that "color" does not exist and anyone who claims to "see" it is a delusional schizophrenic.

>>16151162

>>16151165
Detects electromagnetic radiation, not "color". Show me one ounce of red.

>>16151168

>>16151171
Delusional pseudoscience, seek help.

>>16149841
Science says nothing about the qualia of color. The fact it's a mix of ~440nm and ~700nm light is all science says and can say about it.

>>16151174
>qualia
Take your lithium.

>>16150151
There's no such thing as a fake color. Anyone who says that is using the wrong words.

What they actually mean is that cyan and yellow are pure colors, in that you can produce them with photons of a single energy, while magneta requires photons of two different energies. In other words, you can't say "this wavelength of light looks like magneta."

Maybe it's a quirk of how our cones work. But regardless, color perception is mental, not physical. No experience of color is physically explicable.

>>16151171
>>16151178
"I can scientifically demonstrate what red is! It's... what you see when you look at this red thing!"
You have missed the point. A good scientist learns what science can actually do before talking out his ass.

Qualia do not exist.

>>16151189
I'm just getting into philosophy, can someone please explain the qualia hate to me? As I understand it, qualia is just a word meaning "a specific instance of a mental state." So a qualia of red would just be some individuals subjective experience, based on their specific interpretation of their own sense data of some red object.

Qualia would exist as a specific orientation of some individuals brain which renders to that specific mental state they are experiencing.

Am I missing something? This seems to align well with materialism, per my very limited understanding.

>>16149841
No, its just the visual equivalent of an audible chord.

>>16149841

color perception is subjective

>>16151209
Basically, qualia operates on a different plane of reality. That's why there is the hate.

Imagine you are living in the quantum world. Not the crazy quantum realm, the mundane one. Electrons whiz around randomly, there's a proton and quark or two, it's pretty normal. Suddenly some guy runs up to you and starts ranting about "Molecules". "Proteins". "Cells". "Animals". All kinds of crazy shit, allegedly created out of higher level interactions from quantum material. How do we prove these things exist? Well, you kind of can't. All of the quantum level physics doesn't play nice with the macroscopic level physics; despite the macroscopic level being entirely dependent on the quantum. So ultimately the scientists of the quantum level decide that macroscopic physics is Russel's Teapot, and therefore doesn't exist. And when somebody from the macroscopic realm splits the atom, it's just our minds playing tricks on us.

You guys have room temperature IQ

Don't think that we are just going around looking at single wavelength light all the time.
A red apple isn't red because it is giving of photons of exactly 650nm. When light hits the skin of an apple, that is a very complex interaction between trillions of atoms and bonds. This results in the reflection of photons with many different wavelengths. This contributes to an overall waveform. When that waveform hits your eyes, it just so happens to stimulate the long cones mostly, making you experience red. Lemons have a different chemical makeup to apples. And it too produces a whole bunch of wavelengths that make up a waveform. And this waveform happens to stimulate the long and medium cones of you eyeballs, producing yellow. It isn't that hard to imagine pink or magenta objects that can stimulate long and short, but not medium cones. Because there are only a few things out there that produce single wavelength photons.

If you go to an older part of your town at night, you will probably notice that the street lights glow with a sickly, off yellow color. These are sodium vapor lamps, and they make light by passing an electric current through vaporised sodium. It induces a quantum energy level jump specific to that atom, and that jump produces light of exactly 589nm consistently. It's a lamp that produces a single wavelength, which isn't practical in most cases, but was a cheap way to light streets back in the old days.

>>16151181
>What they actually mean is that cyan and yellow are pure colors, in that you can produce them with photons of a single energy
what? cyan and yellow can be made with either single photons and dual photons. it is exactly the opposite of "pure" color, they can be something or other, nothing pure in two-faced colors anon.
when you see magenta that's what you get. there's no other possible combination of photons resulting in magenta, it's "pure" that way, not two-faced. magenta is as honest as reg green and blue.

>>16151159
stop reminding me

Yellow and Cyan are fake, they share the same mechanism as Magenta in that they are colors that necessitate two cones being triggered to be seen.
How is that difficult for you people to understand?

>>16151721
you're telling me that joy and clarity are unreal?

Apparently not a lot of animals can see Red, which mean they probably also can't see Yellow and Magenta

>>16151807
>Apparently not a lot of animals can see Red
you don't technically know that. you may know they don't see in our "red spectrum", but you don't know they don't see our red on some other wavelength.

>>16151912
Less cones= less colors to perceive
They often only have two cones

>>16151988
I agree (though some have more than us). It is not about the variety of colors they perceive, it's about how their brain maps colors to signals from eyes. They can use our red for what we see as green. We don't know how their brain maps colors to photons (or mix of them). We only know the spectrum in which they see. Our red does not exist out there in "red" photons, our brains make them look red.

>>16149848
If you call a substantially different color the magenta you either:
>Are wrong, because you're intentionally retarded.
>Are colorblind and unable to distinguish magenta from other colors
>Have a fourth color sensitive cone in your eye and are being intentionally retarded.
>Have a broken third world cellphone that doesn't display colors correctly.

>>16149852
You're correct because the eyes see in Rod(colorless), and Red, Green, Blue cones. The pigments in your eyes literally change shape and then are detected and then reformed back into the original protein shape to be recycled.

Nerds who responded to you are wrong and fail to see the reality. They don't even understand how cameras work.

>>16151165
>Invaginations
Heheh

>>16151368
>If you add blue to white it becomes blue
>If you lighten black to gold it becomes gold
>These colors can be added or subtracted
Whoah almost as if you should kill yourself because shitty lighting with shitty cameras can change the appearance of colors.

being able to see magenta is like an expension pack for our eyes, we don't really need to see it but it exist anyways

>>16152088
Light is a spectrums with multiple peaks. No light sources other than a free electron laser are single frequency. All light sources have multiple peaks, even if the majority of the energy is in primary peaks. There's also absorption and emission bands that will dirty up ideal spectrums.

>>16152093
>All light sources have multiple peaks
LEDs?

>>16152116
even phone/computer screens can have a very narrow spectrum for emitted photons.

plants love absorbing red light and blue light but detest green light
red and blue are at the extreme ends of the spectrum while green is in the middle
plants are extremist fucks

>>16152385
they know whats up

>>16152385
also yes, plants feed on magenta

>>16152385
Cause nature knows there is no such thing like a middle ground, you have to be either one thing or another (equalitarianism is an illusion)

>>16152069
>>Have a fourth color sensitive cone in your eye and are being intentionally retarded.
Why would someone with extra eye cones be intentionally retarded?

What is this color you guys are talking about? All im seeing is a blueish red

>>16153094
i see anti-green

>>16149841
What about #00FF00

>>16150435
I had experienced something similar in dreams but with the color #0000FF instead

>>16149852
why can't all colors just be considered different shades of redness?

>this thread again
interesting psyop

>>16151189
qualia is the only thing we can ever observe you retard.

>>16149841
color is just a label our brain assigns to various cominations of red green and blue.

>>16154973
So basically >>16149852

Funny how Red is associated with strength and power despite having the lowest photon energy out of all colors, whereas Blue is associated with peace and calmness even though it carries quite the punch of photon energy compared to Red.

>>16149886
what does that even mean

>>16154925
but what, indeed, is the idea behind it

>>16152069
He's talking about whether the same visual data renders the same way in different brains, basically. Like if I bodyswapped with you maybe we would each see the world with a totally different palette. Maybe it would be backwards or we're each seeing colors that don't actually resemble anything the other sees in our respective minds at all.

>>16151171
>400nm is black
lol, lmao even

all science is a psyop, we live in 1984, and it is really easy for anyone with 10% of a working brain to realize why

>>16156187
>t. picrel
so you haven't played with a 405nm laser before? pathetic

>>16149841
>It's another episode of mongoloids thinking that if wavelengths have colors associated with them, then colors must have wavelengths associated with them
Meat LLMs can't process the difference between physical stimuli and sense perceptions.

>>16151181
>>16155372
>color is described with WAVELENGTHS of light
>point out what that should imply for how those waves interact
>point out how that pokes holes in the model
>goalpost shifts to "photon energy"
Every time. This whole retarded pilpul of light being a wave or a particle depending on what's most convenient to defend the soience at the time makes discussions about this stuff impossible.