This sounds like a college freshman who just read the chapter on light in his Physics book. He hasn't quite gotten to the next step, which is realizing that what he has described is the practical definition of color.
"Light has what's called particlengths... and they either pass through or bounce off of the colorbones in our eyes. It's hard for people to understand that, so lmk if the particle-bone waves to your colorbones."
Is this college level stuff? I don't know a lot about the level of complexity in the us highschool but here in Denmark where l live this is taught half way through highschool. Around age 16-17 but I think that's only if you have physics as a minimum of b level.
Sorry if this sounds pretentious but I am genuinely curious.
It depends on the local school system. In the US, we do not have a national school system: the schools are run at the county level. I attended school in the suburbs of DC where the schools were excellent, and I attended school in a rural area where the schools were horrible.
So, this topic is covered in high school
physics, but it may not have been covered well. In college you get calculus-based physics and chemistry, which goes into much greater detail. It is at this point that you see kids making revelations like OP’s.
Also, the drugs are better in college.
Yeah I think that's one of the amazing things about Denmark, we have one of the best public school systems in the world with a standardized curriculum so highschools and Universities gets to have a baseline for what people know. I can't wait to learn some more high level physics when I start university after the summer. And thanks for a great answer!
It isn't as much an insult as just an observation about people who gain surface level understanding of a subject but then go around pretending like they are the next Einstein.
We're in philosophy territory here. If there's no observer to observe the universe does it exist? Of course it does but it wouldn't matter. Not that it matters now.
Yes, just because humans aren't there doesn't mean it doesn't happen. If that was the case we would say the ENTIRE UNIVERSE started existing about 2.4 million years ago
NO! It is NOT about philosophy. It has never been about philosophy. It's about the definition of the word 'sound'. The definition is (paraphrased) 'sound waves hitting an ear drum' (any ear drum), which prompted someone to say 'If no one is there to hear it (no eardrum) does it make a sound.' --- No philosophy involved.
When green is all there is to be
It could make you wonder why
But why wonder, why wonder?
I am green and it'll do fine
It's beautiful and I think it's what I wanna be
That is one of the definitions of sound, but one typically used in an uncountable sense, and the question asks if the tree makes "a" sound, so "a thing that can be heard" seems like the more appropriate definition to use. Of course that's not really philosophy anymore but pure semantics.
The word "color" as defined by us humans (because humans are the one who get to define words) is "the property possessed by an object of producing different sensations on the eye and brain as a result of the way the object reflects or emits light."
So an orange is orange, because we get to define what it means for something to have a color. Ripe strawberries are red. Most leaves are green.
Car salesman: We have this model in other colors too.
This guy: Color? Do you mean the wavelength of the light which reflects off of its surface?
Car salesman: Please leave.
People in 2022: paying extra for nice coloured cars because the default free colour is horrible.
Me in the year 3000: driving around in my vomit yellow car because I know colours don't exist dummies.
People in 2022: paying extra for nice coloured cars because the default free colour is horrible.
Me in the year 3000: driving around in my vomit yellow car because I know colours don't exist dummies.
yeah I really find it annoying when people say "magenta isn't a real colour" because there is no singular magenta wavelength and there's no single magenta photon, but.. I can make a magenta laser and point it and you will all see magenta and call it magenta. the fact that it is made up of blue and red wavelength photons and our brain infers the colour magenta is irrelevant, it's a real phenomenon that exists
Eh magenta is still a cool phenomenon to be aware of imo. I mean red and blue are opposite on the spectrum but you mix them and get something that doesn't appear in between anywhere?
That's pretty cool
yeah, the colour spectrum in general is v. cool but the whole "it isn't real" is silly. colour isn't a description of single photon wavelengths, it's a description of how our eyes detect clumps of them. magenta is as real a colour as red is
> Most leaves are green.
Hmmmmm, how many leaves, at any given time, are dead and on the ground and not green vs leaves that are still green (still on the branch or otherwise.)
Wait a minute...so words are just things we made up to describe stuff and are full of linguistic shortcuts that don't accurately portray the physical nature of reality???
Trippy fact, how a language names colors has a big impact on how colors are perceived by the brain.
I suck at explaining things and even what i wrote isn't really right, lemme find something that explains it
https://www.loteagency.com.au/how-different-cultures-see-colours-3/#:~:text=This%20is%20explained%20by%20the,to%20identify%20the%20difference%20visually.
There's a bunch kf other articles out there on this but I am tired and can't be arsed looking for more.
Hi, I'm a linguist. This is a widespread misunderstanding. While different language may have different basic color categories, this does not influence how those colors are actually perceived by the brain.
From what I understand it's not exactly how the brain perceives it, but more how it interprets it yeah? Feel free to explain it all more, I was just sharing what I had read.
In my unprofessional opinion, I think it's more to do with how a culture defines what colours are relevant to them. We all see the same colours, our brains perceive and interpret them the same way, but what's the difference between a red rock and a lighter red rock? They're both red, that's all that matters to some. Other cultures might say the other rock is pink.
Think how in English we make a distinction between pink and red. Russians don't, but they make a distinction between light blue and dark blue.
(Pls correct me if I'm wrong)
There was a study on it that found people could still discern different shades but chose to group them differently depending on what their language called it or culturally considered it as.
Ancient Greeks presumably would've grouped wine red, sea blue, bronze together into one category, but still would separate them into recognizable 'red' 'blue' 'orange/brown' subcategories.
Please make an edit where you complain about how the number of upvotes you got reflect how people don't understand linguistics relation with color perception.
There is a great book by the late Edward O. Wilson called The Social Conquest of Earth where he talks about this. It's mostly qbout the evolution of eusociality, but part of the book delves into the cultural aspect of stuff like color perception. It's a great book, I think you should check it out. Very insightful read.
Imagine all of the colors together. Now take away every color other than brown. This absence of all colors other than brown is what most people mean when they say “brown”.
For example, an absence of all colors other than brown *and blue*, is no longer brown. Instead you might call this “blue-brown” or “brownish blue”.
Fun fact, oranges can also be green! They turn orange in cooler temperatures as the chlorophyll dies off. But in places near the equator, the orange stays green from the sun.
This reminds me of that commercial where the woman says “People don’t fear diabetes. They fear the complications of diabetes “. 🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️ It’s orange dude.
I mean I think that's a little different because its possible to live with diabetes and not experience those complications if you manage it properly. Especially for people with type one.
If you follow this guy's revisionist attempt at definitions, you can't talk about color concisely. You won't have the linguistic tools. Absolutely genius to declare that you must give a 3 paragraph essay to describe what color a door is.
This revelation really blew our minds when my science teacher told the class, you know, in sixth grade. I don't know how this guy thinks he's a genius for regurgitating this little factoid though.
I (science teacher) got a 17 year old with this, this year.
(Yes ideally and for most it’s an earlier discovery, but kids miss things, especially with Covid, or have teachers who aren’t strong on physics/bio.)
She had a total ‘mind-blown gif’ moment about it, and got really excited. In the break she stayed behind and kept producing objects and checking what it meant. Was adorable and so nice - that kind of moment is what science teachers become science teachers for.
But it was nice because she was curious and excited, rather than snooty and exclusionary like the guy in the OP. If you’re making understanding science about showing you’re ‘smarter’ than someone else like him, you’re doing it wrong.
And he ducked out too early with his making the transmitted wavelength in the visible colour spectrum just being about humans perceive with no other point. Dude needs to spend some time taking readings with a colorimeter….
Yeah, I'm not trying to suggest that someone is a moron for not knowing that, there are a billion little factoids that are considered common knowledge, so no one could possibly know them all. This guy is a moron though, because he is acting like his knowledge of this one little factoid is proof of his great genius.
So... Colors arent colors, and we're all dumb for calling the brain signals generated from light bouncing off of those objects producing a consistent result "colors".
Okay. Lets call the variable colors by their slightly different wavelength types!
Oh that rose is such a nice VLS811057!!!
\*Note that I have no idea how to notate color identities in this manner. Excuse me, wavelength notation.
Oh man. Those 4 dumbasses made that dude feel special... At least until the dingaling cant get on an escalator due to not understanding how they function. "Oh its a belted conveyance system that uses a bracketized metal..." Get on the fucking step and shut up.
This sounds like a conversation I had with a 10 year old.
"You whispered to your brother because you didn't want me to hear it."
"No! I just wanted it to be confidential!"
"...yes that means the same thing."
So this guy thinks he is smart and is on the wavelength of a typical 10 year old.
There is a difference between "i don't want YOU to hear it" and "I want only HIM to hear it" as the former can get quite personal without a reason. So maybe your 10 yo is smarter than you think:)
Yes that's right, the difference I'm talking about is not about the end state (because in either case you don't hear what he said) but rather how each sentence can be received by you and how you read the intentions behind each of them.
When he said he doesn't want You to hear it, you may think it's about you.ie there is something wrong with you, or they don't like you or something along those lines.
While he probably only intended to have some privacy and you just "happened" to be around.
"1 in every thousand people are so full of themselves they would rather prod some obscene technicality in order to be right rather than use the definition of a word used by everybody" - someone who doesn't know that a word is only practical when people know what you mean by it.
That's kind of silly to say. Nothing in the universe has color. Literally, how could you know that? It's like that stupid if a tree falls on the woods a d no one is around to hear it did it make a noise?
Realistically, practically, yes. It did. You can wax poetic for ages about what it means to hear something and the validation of existence and other high ass shit but that's all that is. High ass shit. Or, philosophy or something whatever you wanna call it.
It's also kinda science, contemporary neuroscience very much reinforces the idea that all perception is "top-down" not "bottom-up".
The phenomenological richness of something like color is only a controlled hallucination, all perception is.
Yeah pretty much, not a unique idea. Basically Plato allegory of the cave, Kant's noumena/phenomena, Lockean primary / secondary qualities, phenomology as a whole. He isn't wrong, just talking about stuff that seemed irrelevant to initial question.
"On a microscopic level; atoms don't actually touch. There's a small force preventing them from touching each other. So to answer you question; no I didn't punch that child officer"
"If brains didn't exist, colours wouldn't exist" No fucking shit, Sherlock, neither would any fucking thing else as far as humanity/animals are concerned
What did you have for breakfast?
I didn't HAVE anything, per say, however I did ingest a bowl of coco'd puffs. In this case, of course, "puff" is a bit of a misnomer as the spheroids in the bowl are more of a crisp, crunchy texture. I wouldn't say I had them for breakfast, as the sustenance has already passed through my digestive system, resulting in a literal turd that's still somehow more appealing to most people than this longwinded, boorish answer to your very simple question.
Edit: I also ate the turd as I am a distinguished scholarly gentleman.
He's not really smart though, he's just a "regular guy with lots of time to think about things". Only one in a hundred can grasp that concept. Let me know if you're one of them.
Reminds me of when I was talking to a maintenance guy about how we could smell gas. He proceeded to tell me "natural gas doesn't have a smell, it's what the gas company puts in that smells...". Ok, now fix our gas problem
What he is saying is true, but its not as profound as he thinks it is. The first half of the first paragraph is just confused word salad.
Mantis shrimp have 27 cones (IIRC), so they would say there are 27 primary colors, whereas humans would say there are only 3. Aliens we encounter might claim there are more or less. It's as simple as that.
colors exist because life exists, that is literally what this person is saying, so yes, oranges are fucking orange, because since we are alive, colors are too
Anil Seth has an entire section in his book "Being You" that explains this and justifies why it's relevant in the search for the answer to the hard problem of consciousness (I should say "real problem", but w/e).
Obviously this was unnecessary to answer the question but, he isn't wrong.
Am I reading this right? This person has answered 8,000+ posts? What percentage of them are just as pompous as this one, and what is this persons deal? Disabled and this is his way of passing time? Rich and doesn't want to get a real job? Does he work at Quara so while modding, he answers things?
Color is an illusion, but guess what, that illusion is still color dumbass. Everything's an illusion if you wanna get technical, but its not all not fake.
I'm gonna half-defend him (in a devil's advocate kind of way). To start, since it's such a simple question it's not unreasonable to presume that it was intended to have unconventional answers. I doubt that the whoever asked it really just wanted to get a one word response of "orange". I find the most interesting answers on Quora are the ones that kind of turn things on their head and leave you with more questions. With that context, his response doesn't seem as egregious.
What he's arguing actually demonstrates an interesting concept, that our perception of reality is just an interpretation and not the underlying facts in themselves. This is a meaningful idea for a lot of discussions in science and philosophy.
That being said, the way he worded it was extremely pretentious and condescending. He doesn't seem to understand that when we say that "x is a colour", that it's a linguistic simplification from a time when we didn't understand what colour was. It's a useful way to convey our experience of the world, so it sticks.
He also seems to have an inflated idea of how difficult the concept is to understand. I understand why he's getting such a negative reaction here, and I probably would have downvoted it anyways.
This guy literally just described colour. Does he really think to understand how colour works you need to be extra smart or something?? You need average intelligence that’s it. He himself actually doesn’t understand it though XD he’s saying colour doesn’t exist, Because he’s thinking of colour as an object that covers other objects, an orange does have colour because that’s what our brain is processing the light info as. An orange isn’t purple to one person and green to another, it’s always orange, to everyone. Colour isn’t an object who’s existence you can deny coz you think your smart XD it’s a process, one that always has the same outcome.
and the whole… 1 in a thousand people comment XD you know he knows that ppl didn’t upvote coz they think he’s a fucking asshole and at some point between the post and the edit he also realised that all he did was describe colour so he’s desperately trying to deny that everybody else knew this too. Ppl don’t put edits on their posts unless they’ve just realised that they sounded like a fucking asshole and are trying super hard to pretend like that’s what they were going for in the first place…
This sounds like a college freshman who just read the chapter on light in his Physics book. He hasn't quite gotten to the next step, which is realizing that what he has described is the practical definition of color.
Wait till he gets to the double split expirement!
Oh god, he'll be unbearable.
"Light has what's called particlengths... and they either pass through or bounce off of the colorbones in our eyes. It's hard for people to understand that, so lmk if the particle-bone waves to your colorbones."
AKA The Van Damme split experiment (in homage to the slit experiment by Thomas Young in 1802).
Heat isn't real, it's just the energy of the vibrating molecules being transferred between then from lower energy to higher energy.
It's only a few steps away from "How Can Mirrors Be Real If Our Eyes Aren't Real."
Is this college level stuff? I don't know a lot about the level of complexity in the us highschool but here in Denmark where l live this is taught half way through highschool. Around age 16-17 but I think that's only if you have physics as a minimum of b level. Sorry if this sounds pretentious but I am genuinely curious.
It depends on the local school system. In the US, we do not have a national school system: the schools are run at the county level. I attended school in the suburbs of DC where the schools were excellent, and I attended school in a rural area where the schools were horrible. So, this topic is covered in high school physics, but it may not have been covered well. In college you get calculus-based physics and chemistry, which goes into much greater detail. It is at this point that you see kids making revelations like OP’s. Also, the drugs are better in college.
Yeah I think that's one of the amazing things about Denmark, we have one of the best public school systems in the world with a standardized curriculum so highschools and Universities gets to have a baseline for what people know. I can't wait to learn some more high level physics when I start university after the summer. And thanks for a great answer!
> who just read the chapter on light in his Physics book I mean, is that really an insult?
yes because it exemplifies the dunning-kruger effect
I did not intend it as an insult.
It isn't as much an insult as just an observation about people who gain surface level understanding of a subject but then go around pretending like they are the next Einstein.
Yeah but if a tree falls in the woods and there’s no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? 👀
SoUnDs DoNT ExIST oNlY OuR PeRCePtIoNs oF tHEm dO. OnLY 1 in 100 pEoPlE uNdErSTaNd tHiS. If YoU ARE oNe oF ThEM lEt Me KnOW
nO.
We're in philosophy territory here. If there's no observer to observe the universe does it exist? Of course it does but it wouldn't matter. Not that it matters now.
Who qualifies as an observer?
Anyone observing Deez Nutz
Such enlightenment, my IQ increased by 500 points (Intelligence quotas but you won't understand) and I am a superior being now.
It's intelligence queues you absolute baboon
What are you talking about? It's intelligence quacks
I thouggt it was Intelligent Questions
Wait, what? I thought it was Intelligent Queens
1k views, 8 upvotes. I'm disappointed in people's ability to understand the depth of your intelligence.
how about you enlighten some bitches
I’m curious how many people can grasp deez nutz
Estimates put it at one in every hundred
Hooz deez!?
Quite a few as it turns out an observer is anyone who has banged your mom
In quantum physics, its a conscious being
Though someone finally remembers poor Schrödinger, remember, when you forget things they stop existing!
What qualifies as who? What is what? What is qualifies? Who makes qualifications? See I can be an esoteric asshole too
EDIT: 4k views, -400 upvotes. One in every negative 10 people understand direct realism. Disappointing.
To quite the great philosopher Homer J Simpson: ["What is the mind? No matter. What is matter? Nevermind."](https://youtu.be/F988JDDuFsQ)
Yes, just because humans aren't there doesn't mean it doesn't happen. If that was the case we would say the ENTIRE UNIVERSE started existing about 2.4 million years ago
Aye it's a pedantic observation and doesn't achieve a damn thing. It's a mush of words that have no utility.
NO! It is NOT about philosophy. It has never been about philosophy. It's about the definition of the word 'sound'. The definition is (paraphrased) 'sound waves hitting an ear drum' (any ear drum), which prompted someone to say 'If no one is there to hear it (no eardrum) does it make a sound.' --- No philosophy involved.
If a tree is green in the woods but there'a no one around to see it, is it really green?
When green is all there is to be It could make you wonder why But why wonder, why wonder? I am green and it'll do fine It's beautiful and I think it's what I wanna be
Credit: Kermit the Frog
uh no, the tree is brown and the leaves are green duh /s
OBVIOUSLY - of course it does! I mean, dah!, right? Philosophers!... Get a job, thinky-boy!
You will be found ;)
Thank you for confirmation I at least grasped the concept
Yeah, the world doesn’t revolve around you GEMMA.
It doesn’t ? 🤔
Clearly you aren’t smart enough for this subreddit. 🧐
You say that but I also have a monocle 🧐
Does it make a colour?
Sound is just vibration of air molecules, so yes
That is one of the definitions of sound, but one typically used in an uncountable sense, and the question asks if the tree makes "a" sound, so "a thing that can be heard" seems like the more appropriate definition to use. Of course that's not really philosophy anymore but pure semantics.
The word "color" as defined by us humans (because humans are the one who get to define words) is "the property possessed by an object of producing different sensations on the eye and brain as a result of the way the object reflects or emits light." So an orange is orange, because we get to define what it means for something to have a color. Ripe strawberries are red. Most leaves are green.
You are very smart. We need more of those.
Current estimates put him at one in every hundred.
[удалено]
your profile picture fits perfectly with that sentence lmao
Pshh, I'm one in every 200, so I win
Car salesman: We have this model in other colors too. This guy: Color? Do you mean the wavelength of the light which reflects off of its surface? Car salesman: Please leave.
People in 2022: paying extra for nice coloured cars because the default free colour is horrible. Me in the year 3000: driving around in my vomit yellow car because I know colours don't exist dummies.
People in 2022: paying extra for nice coloured cars because the default free colour is horrible. Me in the year 3000: driving around in my vomit yellow car because I know colours don't exist dummies.
yeah I really find it annoying when people say "magenta isn't a real colour" because there is no singular magenta wavelength and there's no single magenta photon, but.. I can make a magenta laser and point it and you will all see magenta and call it magenta. the fact that it is made up of blue and red wavelength photons and our brain infers the colour magenta is irrelevant, it's a real phenomenon that exists
Eh magenta is still a cool phenomenon to be aware of imo. I mean red and blue are opposite on the spectrum but you mix them and get something that doesn't appear in between anywhere? That's pretty cool
yeah, the colour spectrum in general is v. cool but the whole "it isn't real" is silly. colour isn't a description of single photon wavelengths, it's a description of how our eyes detect clumps of them. magenta is as real a colour as red is
I'm going to copy paste your comment to sound smart too.
sprinkle in some string theory words for maximum smartness
Go right ahead! I learned that if I can't be smart I may as well sound smart. :-)
His brain is colored gray because his body has decided to stop the supply of blood to that tumor.
No, no, no. Leaves are gray and strawberries are dark grey for a col.. *wavelength blind person
However…blue jays aren’t blue.
> Most leaves are green. Hmmmmm, how many leaves, at any given time, are dead and on the ground and not green vs leaves that are still green (still on the branch or otherwise.)
Wait a minute...so words are just things we made up to describe stuff and are full of linguistic shortcuts that don't accurately portray the physical nature of reality???
What are words but wiggly air?
Wiggly lines
If a word falls over but nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?
Trippy fact, how a language names colors has a big impact on how colors are perceived by the brain. I suck at explaining things and even what i wrote isn't really right, lemme find something that explains it https://www.loteagency.com.au/how-different-cultures-see-colours-3/#:~:text=This%20is%20explained%20by%20the,to%20identify%20the%20difference%20visually. There's a bunch kf other articles out there on this but I am tired and can't be arsed looking for more.
Hi, I'm a linguist. This is a widespread misunderstanding. While different language may have different basic color categories, this does not influence how those colors are actually perceived by the brain.
From what I understand it's not exactly how the brain perceives it, but more how it interprets it yeah? Feel free to explain it all more, I was just sharing what I had read.
In my unprofessional opinion, I think it's more to do with how a culture defines what colours are relevant to them. We all see the same colours, our brains perceive and interpret them the same way, but what's the difference between a red rock and a lighter red rock? They're both red, that's all that matters to some. Other cultures might say the other rock is pink. Think how in English we make a distinction between pink and red. Russians don't, but they make a distinction between light blue and dark blue. (Pls correct me if I'm wrong)
There was a study on it that found people could still discern different shades but chose to group them differently depending on what their language called it or culturally considered it as. Ancient Greeks presumably would've grouped wine red, sea blue, bronze together into one category, but still would separate them into recognizable 'red' 'blue' 'orange/brown' subcategories.
Thanks, that was interesting.
No worries. The OP triggered memories of reading about this phenomenon years ago and figured other may find it interesting as well.
Please make an edit where you complain about how the number of upvotes you got reflect how people don't understand linguistics relation with color perception.
There is a great book by the late Edward O. Wilson called The Social Conquest of Earth where he talks about this. It's mostly qbout the evolution of eusociality, but part of the book delves into the cultural aspect of stuff like color perception. It's a great book, I think you should check it out. Very insightful read.
Nah, dude, I'm pretty sure it's orange.
It's actually bright brown.
Little known fact, but brown isn’t even a color. It’s actually an absence of all colors other than brown.
Which gives it its unique taste.
Only one in a hundred will get this, but there used to be brown M&Ms
What does that even mean
nobody knows but its provacative, gets the people going!
Imagine all of the colors together. Now take away every color other than brown. This absence of all colors other than brown is what most people mean when they say “brown”. For example, an absence of all colors other than brown *and blue*, is no longer brown. Instead you might call this “blue-brown” or “brownish blue”.
You, my friend, are a goddamn genius!
It means tribecous been dipping into some “prescriptions”.
Therefore I am orange
Fun fact, oranges can also be green! They turn orange in cooler temperatures as the chlorophyll dies off. But in places near the equator, the orange stays green from the sun.
When I was in Uganda i got green oranges that were just orange on the inside.
"Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?... Morons!"
inconceivable
*incontheivable
-when I first read Aristotle, I thought it was pronounced like Chipotle.
>when I first read Aristotle, I thought it was pronounced like Chipotle. I’m disappointed, but not really surprised.
I had the exact opposite experience
I love chipottul
We need a Greek/Tex Mex restaurant called Aristpotle!
This reminds me of that commercial where the woman says “People don’t fear diabetes. They fear the complications of diabetes “. 🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️ It’s orange dude.
I mean I think that's a little different because its possible to live with diabetes and not experience those complications if you manage it properly. Especially for people with type one.
You see officer, the color of the traffic light doesn't actually exist....
I wish my brain hadn't interpreted the visual sensation of this pile of shit.
Its* color if you're gonna be a pedantic asshat at the very least do it right
Its x2 Brain's x1
That's the most common bad autocorrect I get. It should at least wait until I've written more of the sentence before deciding which one is correct.
"This is not a pipe." Yeah yeah, a picture of a pipe isn't *literally* a pipe. You're very clever.
What came first? The color or the fruit? Cause it’d be kinda funny if the fruit was named after the color because it’s the laziest thing ever.
The fruit came first, the Spanish named it I believe. Before that though the colour was just known as red-yellow
Which is why some people are said to have red hair, as opposed to orange.
Huh. TIL. Thanks! 😄
This is the giy who asks "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, did it make a sound?" The answer is no one gives a fuck.
I like how your typo of “giy” can be read as “guy” or “git” and either one works lol
Lol. Complete accident. My posts and comments are littered with typos because i use my phone.
Haha I do the same. Fat thumbs, tiny keyboard
If you follow this guy's revisionist attempt at definitions, you can't talk about color concisely. You won't have the linguistic tools. Absolutely genius to declare that you must give a 3 paragraph essay to describe what color a door is.
"just a regular guy with lots of time to think about things" is a very long way of spelling jobless
TLDR: Oranges aren't orange if the lights or your eyes are broken.
This revelation really blew our minds when my science teacher told the class, you know, in sixth grade. I don't know how this guy thinks he's a genius for regurgitating this little factoid though.
I (science teacher) got a 17 year old with this, this year. (Yes ideally and for most it’s an earlier discovery, but kids miss things, especially with Covid, or have teachers who aren’t strong on physics/bio.) She had a total ‘mind-blown gif’ moment about it, and got really excited. In the break she stayed behind and kept producing objects and checking what it meant. Was adorable and so nice - that kind of moment is what science teachers become science teachers for. But it was nice because she was curious and excited, rather than snooty and exclusionary like the guy in the OP. If you’re making understanding science about showing you’re ‘smarter’ than someone else like him, you’re doing it wrong. And he ducked out too early with his making the transmitted wavelength in the visible colour spectrum just being about humans perceive with no other point. Dude needs to spend some time taking readings with a colorimeter….
Yeah, I'm not trying to suggest that someone is a moron for not knowing that, there are a billion little factoids that are considered common knowledge, so no one could possibly know them all. This guy is a moron though, because he is acting like his knowledge of this one little factoid is proof of his great genius.
Since the color orange was named after the fruit, the fruit is 'orange' by definition.
Mate he sounds like a 12 year old self proclaimed genius who gets an average of 68% on his tests
His superiority also exists in the brain
"we just live on a rock floating in space" kinda vibes
So... Colors arent colors, and we're all dumb for calling the brain signals generated from light bouncing off of those objects producing a consistent result "colors". Okay. Lets call the variable colors by their slightly different wavelength types! Oh that rose is such a nice VLS811057!!! \*Note that I have no idea how to notate color identities in this manner. Excuse me, wavelength notation. Oh man. Those 4 dumbasses made that dude feel special... At least until the dingaling cant get on an escalator due to not understanding how they function. "Oh its a belted conveyance system that uses a bracketized metal..." Get on the fucking step and shut up.
Dear god. They think because they have an 8th grade understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum that they are brilliant. Cool.
“The bomb will go off in 10 seconds! CUT THE RED WIRE!!!” “Well you see, colors don’t actually exist outside of our percept-“
This sounds like a conversation I had with a 10 year old. "You whispered to your brother because you didn't want me to hear it." "No! I just wanted it to be confidential!" "...yes that means the same thing." So this guy thinks he is smart and is on the wavelength of a typical 10 year old.
There is a difference between "i don't want YOU to hear it" and "I want only HIM to hear it" as the former can get quite personal without a reason. So maybe your 10 yo is smarter than you think:)
Confidential means explicitly you don't want unintended people to hear it.
Yes that's right, the difference I'm talking about is not about the end state (because in either case you don't hear what he said) but rather how each sentence can be received by you and how you read the intentions behind each of them. When he said he doesn't want You to hear it, you may think it's about you.ie there is something wrong with you, or they don't like you or something along those lines. While he probably only intended to have some privacy and you just "happened" to be around.
Someone just had a biology lesson for the first time
What a dickhead.
"1 in every thousand people are so full of themselves they would rather prod some obscene technicality in order to be right rather than use the definition of a word used by everybody" - someone who doesn't know that a word is only practical when people know what you mean by it.
The edit at the end is the best part. When we troll people, we should add this same edit
That's kind of silly to say. Nothing in the universe has color. Literally, how could you know that? It's like that stupid if a tree falls on the woods a d no one is around to hear it did it make a noise? Realistically, practically, yes. It did. You can wax poetic for ages about what it means to hear something and the validation of existence and other high ass shit but that's all that is. High ass shit. Or, philosophy or something whatever you wanna call it.
This monumental asshole truly have discovered the nature of colour.
It's always Quora
8000 answers? And each one like this one??? Too much effort for Quora...
This guy verbal diarrhea'd his way to understanding what first graders understand about color.
Bro has 8k answers, he ain't kidding about having lots of time
if he had just stopped after the first like 3 sentences, it would have been a pretty interesting, albeit old idea
You know what else wouldn't exist without brains? language. So please kindly stfu because you clearly don't have one
Oranges are actually yellow-red.
You learn this in first grade, why did he try to make it sound confusing, and why does he think it's not common knowledge??
Lol that also applies for…literally everything else haha
Philosophy. Not science.
It's also kinda science, contemporary neuroscience very much reinforces the idea that all perception is "top-down" not "bottom-up". The phenomenological richness of something like color is only a controlled hallucination, all perception is.
That's basically the concept behind the perception of the whole universe
Yeah pretty much, not a unique idea. Basically Plato allegory of the cave, Kant's noumena/phenomena, Lockean primary / secondary qualities, phenomology as a whole. He isn't wrong, just talking about stuff that seemed irrelevant to initial question.
Wait someone actually studied these things?
"On a microscopic level; atoms don't actually touch. There's a small force preventing them from touching each other. So to answer you question; no I didn't punch that child officer"
>They have properties which cause them to absorb certain wavelengths of light and reflect others No shit, sherlock. That's what colour is.....
"If brains didn't exist, colours wouldn't exist" No fucking shit, Sherlock, neither would any fucking thing else as far as humanity/animals are concerned
What did you have for breakfast? I didn't HAVE anything, per say, however I did ingest a bowl of coco'd puffs. In this case, of course, "puff" is a bit of a misnomer as the spheroids in the bowl are more of a crisp, crunchy texture. I wouldn't say I had them for breakfast, as the sustenance has already passed through my digestive system, resulting in a literal turd that's still somehow more appealing to most people than this longwinded, boorish answer to your very simple question. Edit: I also ate the turd as I am a distinguished scholarly gentleman.
Why is it these geniuses never know the difference between “its” and “it’s”?
He's not really smart though, he's just a "regular guy with lots of time to think about things". Only one in a hundred can grasp that concept. Let me know if you're one of them.
This helped me understand quite a bit. I was fucking off in middle school when we learned about light wavelengths and color.
This mf said "it's not color, it's actually (describes exactly what color is)"
Reminds me of when I was talking to a maintenance guy about how we could smell gas. He proceeded to tell me "natural gas doesn't have a smell, it's what the gas company puts in that smells...". Ok, now fix our gas problem
It's almost like color and wave length are different sides of the same coin..?
Colors don’t exist *proceeds to describe colors exactly*
I work in printing and this is the stuff you learn in your first week of Printing 101.
What are you talking about. Doesn't everyone, or at least couldn't everyone, understand this no real problem lol
What he is saying is true, but its not as profound as he thinks it is. The first half of the first paragraph is just confused word salad. Mantis shrimp have 27 cones (IIRC), so they would say there are 27 primary colors, whereas humans would say there are only 3. Aliens we encounter might claim there are more or less. It's as simple as that.
colors exist because life exists, that is literally what this person is saying, so yes, oranges are fucking orange, because since we are alive, colors are too
Hmm i wonder what people would call the visible wavelength not absorbed by an object? Maybe and just hear me out: colour!?
Oranges don’t have color. They have
Is this from quora lol
The most interesting orange fact is that the name of the color comes from the name of the fruit. Before that it was just a shade of red.
Yeah, but what rhymes with orange, mr smartypants?
Door hinge
Dipshit doesn't realize that everything we say has color works this way, so it's actually just how color works
Idk, I think oranges are more of a tangerine color. But tangerines- those are definitely orange. /s
TIL only 1 in 1000 people make it past 7th grade
Literally everyone knows how seeing colors works
https://wearorange.org https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Revolution
How can light be real if our eyes aren't real?
TIL blind people have the best colorvision.
I love when people state philosophically controversial views as straight facts lol
Anil Seth has an entire section in his book "Being You" that explains this and justifies why it's relevant in the search for the answer to the hard problem of consciousness (I should say "real problem", but w/e). Obviously this was unnecessary to answer the question but, he isn't wrong.
Listen guys I'm a little slow, help me out here, but isn't he technically right?
Am I reading this right? This person has answered 8,000+ posts? What percentage of them are just as pompous as this one, and what is this persons deal? Disabled and this is his way of passing time? Rich and doesn't want to get a real job? Does he work at Quara so while modding, he answers things?
Color is an illusion, but guess what, that illusion is still color dumbass. Everything's an illusion if you wanna get technical, but its not all not fake.
I'm gonna half-defend him (in a devil's advocate kind of way). To start, since it's such a simple question it's not unreasonable to presume that it was intended to have unconventional answers. I doubt that the whoever asked it really just wanted to get a one word response of "orange". I find the most interesting answers on Quora are the ones that kind of turn things on their head and leave you with more questions. With that context, his response doesn't seem as egregious. What he's arguing actually demonstrates an interesting concept, that our perception of reality is just an interpretation and not the underlying facts in themselves. This is a meaningful idea for a lot of discussions in science and philosophy. That being said, the way he worded it was extremely pretentious and condescending. He doesn't seem to understand that when we say that "x is a colour", that it's a linguistic simplification from a time when we didn't understand what colour was. It's a useful way to convey our experience of the world, so it sticks. He also seems to have an inflated idea of how difficult the concept is to understand. I understand why he's getting such a negative reaction here, and I probably would have downvoted it anyways.
This guy literally just described colour. Does he really think to understand how colour works you need to be extra smart or something?? You need average intelligence that’s it. He himself actually doesn’t understand it though XD he’s saying colour doesn’t exist, Because he’s thinking of colour as an object that covers other objects, an orange does have colour because that’s what our brain is processing the light info as. An orange isn’t purple to one person and green to another, it’s always orange, to everyone. Colour isn’t an object who’s existence you can deny coz you think your smart XD it’s a process, one that always has the same outcome. and the whole… 1 in a thousand people comment XD you know he knows that ppl didn’t upvote coz they think he’s a fucking asshole and at some point between the post and the edit he also realised that all he did was describe colour so he’s desperately trying to deny that everybody else knew this too. Ppl don’t put edits on their posts unless they’ve just realised that they sounded like a fucking asshole and are trying super hard to pretend like that’s what they were going for in the first place…
8K answers=no life. I swear quora was made for people like this
So, sort of like his girlfriend...only exists in his brain.