Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 20:13:28 UTC No. 16304934

Because colors are distributions of the spectrum, not points on the spectrum.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 20:17:22 UTC No. 16304936

>>16304932
the color of love (magenta) and the color of purity (white) transcend conventional boundaries, it's symbolic

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 20:54:23 UTC No. 16304977

>>16304936
Magenta was the colour of love?
>cue my sorry ass thinking it’s the colour of pure, refined power thanks to junko from touhou

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 21:29:58 UTC No. 16305022

magenta is obtained by superposing blue light and red light and
white is obtained by superposing all the colours

thats how things are, nobody know why the rules of the universe are what they are

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 21:34:58 UTC No. 16305027

>>16305022
yea but they don't have a place in the spectrum, why is that

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 21:37:49 UTC No. 16305029

>>16305027
Because they're not on the spectrum of visible light, they're not made of one wavelength
>yea but
Retard, if you say "yeah" that means you understand, there's no but.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 21:39:47 UTC No. 16305032

Because white light is color in its purest form. black is the absense of light. basically without white you don't have any other color. I'm not sure why magenta isn't on the spectrum. honestly screw magenta. blue was always better anyway

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 21:51:58 UTC No. 16305042

>>16305029
>Because they're not on the spectrum of visible light
that's not an answer
>they're not made of one wavelength
that is an answer
>Retard, if you say "yeah" that means you understand, there's no but.
take it easy dumbass, it's just a question, it's not like i murdered your family or broke your phone

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 22:00:13 UTC No. 16305049

>>16305042
>it's not like i murdered your family or broke your phone
zoomer detected, values phone equally to family
Kill yourself

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 22:06:20 UTC No. 16305057

>>16305049
>use the word zoomer
Go back to r*ddit

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 00:09:13 UTC No. 16305185

>>16304932
they just do, no need for an explanation

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 10:50:51 UTC No. 16305722

>>16304932
B

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 01:14:15 UTC No. 16306441

>>16304932
because wavelength=/=receptors, you demented baboon, now go have your schizophrenic breakdowns on >>>/x/

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 03:06:57 UTC No. 16306489

>>16306441
Take meds, nobody's mad here except you

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:01:10 UTC No. 16307106

>>16304932
Because they're the best

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 16:32:27 UTC No. 16307255

Are retards really filtered by the fact that color is not related to photons/wavelength?

What do you see during your dreams? Do you dream in color?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 16:36:12 UTC No. 16307257

>>16307255
>color is not related to photons/wavelength?
Which color do you see when you look at a screen emitting what are traditionally called wavelengths of the color blue?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 16:37:51 UTC No. 16307261

>>16307255
80% of the posts on /sci/ are AI bots feverishly trying to understand why their world of 0s and 1s doesn't align with the world humans experience.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 16:38:59 UTC No. 16307264

>>16307261
Damn, I didn't know bots were already smarter than us

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 16:39:01 UTC No. 16307266

>>16307261
>>16307257
Case in point.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 16:39:42 UTC No. 16307267

>>16307257
Something where my brain has "decided" upon receiving the excitation that matches that wavelength, it will most likely display the quale that matches the concept of "blue color".

The electrochemical excitations (not photons, not wavelength) running through my optical nerve this moment are a sufficient but clearly not a necessary condition to pain the color blue to my consciousness. Ergo, if we focus on a condition that is not necessary, we focus on something that does not actually tell you anything about the nature of the thing.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 16:41:10 UTC No. 16307270

>>16307264
>us

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 16:44:00 UTC No. 16307277

>>16307267
>receiving the excitation that matches that wavelength
So it is related to wavelength, then?
> it will most likely display the quale that matches the concept of "blue color".
Notice that you can't come to this conclusion unless you assume that your experience and the wavelength are related.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 16:54:58 UTC No. 16307285

>>16307277
Do you think circles are cars are related? Consider the fact that cars run on wheels, which are necessarily round (i.e. circular).
By applying your logic, why could or couldn't I say cars and circles are related?

I just don't think it's valuable to speak of terms being "related" in your everyday language way (i.e. such where the transitive property applies to them). I only care about the word "related" being used in a way that more or less matches logic/math/philosophy, i.e. where the transitive property does not apply and you cannot speak of cars and circles being related without that being a basically valueless statement.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 17:04:42 UTC No. 16307295

>>16307285
You could say that cars and circles are related but it wouldn't be very useful. On the other hand, by using the relation between wavelength and color, people can design screens to show the colors they want people to see, without ever worrying about the biological details of each and every person who'll use the screens. If you think that's not valuable, I would question your notion of value.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 17:36:39 UTC No. 16307320

>>16307295
>people can design screens to show the colors they want people to see, without ever worrying about the biological details of each and every person who'll use the screens
NTA but you can also use the relation between circles and friction to design a car to get people where they want to go without worrying about whether or not each and every person understands why it's more efficient. Why you do think your example is somehow deeper or more special?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 17:43:44 UTC No. 16307325

is magenta basically a color that is both low photon energy and high photon energy at the same time?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 17:57:52 UTC No. 16307347

>>16307325
>is 10100011 basically a number that is both 0 and 1 at the same time?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:08:20 UTC No. 16307362

>>16307320
Ok, sure, you can say the relation between wheels and circularity is also useful for the reasons you've just given.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:16:22 UTC No. 16307373

>>16307362
That synecdochizes car to wheels. It doesn't change the relation between circles and friction.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:18:00 UTC No. 16307379

>>16304932

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:25:32 UTC No. 16307392

>>16307373
If it's genuinely useful, why wouldn't you want to call it a relation? If it's not really useful, then you've answered your own question.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:34:20 UTC No. 16307401

>>16307392
>cars : circle friction :: wheels : circle friction
Maybe I don't understand what part of the relation are you asking about?

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 00:52:26 UTC No. 16307836

>>16304932
The retina has 3 kind of buttons, one for red, one for blue, one for green. When red and blue are pressed at the same time they make magenta.

When Green and red for example are pressed at the same time, you see yellow, naturally, but if you didnt have green buttons at all you would see a barely different kind of yellow.