Thread 16752307

If color is considered an intrinsic property of all objects, regardless of observation, can a truly colorless object exist — or is colorlessness merely a limitation of perception?

>>16752307 (OP)
>If color is considered an intrinsic property of all objects, regardless of observation,
It's not.

>>16752307 (OP)
>If
big if my nigger

>>16752307 (OP)
stephen hawking would say even black holes have a color

Color is merely how we perceive heat and energy in a given frequency. We cannot perceive most possible colors both because most frequencies are just too small to be captured by anything above the atomic level and also because of the biological limitations of our cones. There are no colorless objects, but there are definitely many things whose color is impossible to perceive.

>>16752311
>>16752418
Midwits

>>16752435
theres a shrimp which can see 23 colors instead of our 3
its world must be wild

>>16752439
You're probably thinking of the mantis shrimp.
Its range of color vision is no more broad than ours. The extra receptors correspond to frequencies we can already see. It's like how tetrachromats (people with 4 color receptors) don't see anything most people can't. The extra receptors corresponds roughly with yellow.

>>16752307 (OP)
>regardless of observation
Wavelength is intrinsic. Color requires observation and subjective interpretation.

>>16752442
>The extra receptors corresponds roughly with yellow.
Gotta be a reason for that, right? Is yellow light less scattered by Gulf of Tonkin seawater or something?

>>16752445
>Gotta be a reason for that, right?
Not necessarily. Tetrachromacy typically results in poorer color discernment.

>>16752439
>>16752442
>>16752445
https://www.sciencealert.com/now-we-know-how-the-mantis-shrimp-s-tiny-brain-processes-such-amazing-vision

>>16752446
>color discernment
Wavelength discernment.
"Color" is the biochemical neural solution to the problem of "wavelength discernment".

>>16752442
>t's like how tetrachromats (people with 4 color receptors) don't see anything most people can't.
Tetrachromancy in humans is not proven, just suspected.
But even if it's real the human brain does not have the parts to process the extra colors.
Animals with 2 cones and colorblind humans definitely see less colors than us.
So the opposite is true as well.

>>16752451
>But even if it's real the human brain does not have the parts to process the extra colors.
That's bullshit. The extra receptor's input is received and processed in the same way as the other three.

>>16752451
>see less colors
Discern less wavelengths.

>>16752435
>There are no colorless objects,
What color is a magnetic field?

>>16752459
Depends, would you accept the wavelength of the photon emitted by a ripple in the field or is that just the wavelength of the ripple itself?
I guess since it is the ripple which creates the photon and different ripples generate photons of differing wavelength, we will only get the ripple.
The still pond is lost to us.

>>16752470
>the wavelength of the photon emitted by a ripple in the field
So a different object...not the field itself? Or a "virtual photon"?

I can measure the field, I can feel its presence, I can manipulate it, this means it is an "object", right?

>>16752459
The interaction of eletromagnetic radiation with matter is what causes color. Fields and waves don't have colors because these are abstract concepts, what we call magnetic field is also built of frequencies, see Lenz Law, everything - except for the theoretical dark matter which I believe is nothing but a new aether - in the universe has energy, thus everything has frequency, and everything has color. It does have a color, the fact we can't see the color doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

>>16752476
Wavelength and frequency are real. Color is a purely subjective experience of biochemical neural interpretation.

>>16752478
Wavelenght has nothing to do with frequency, you learn in highschool that the gaussian view of light as an electromagnetic wave is to quantum physics what Newton's Laws are to quantum mechanics. The smallest possible object within a planck is a photo which is calculated by p = hf. And color is not a subjective experience, even your mind bends to the laws of physics and dimensional limitations.

>>16752472
>not the field itself?
The photon would be an emission of the field, not the field itself.
>I can measure the field
You can detect the emitted photons. Depending on the detector, you might learn its wavelength or even its color.

>>16752483
Color is purely subjective. Ask any avian dinosaur.

>>16752484
>The photon would be an emission of the field
A moving field, what about stationary?
>You can detect the emitted photons.
If its not moving then there would be no photons, only "virtual" one.
>you might learn its wavelength or even its color.
Of the particles it interacts with? The "other" obect?

>>16752487
>A moving field, what about stationary?
No ripple, no emission. We have lost the still pond.
>Of the particles it interacts with? The "other" obect?
Detections depend on detectors. Ask a wave question, get a wave answer.

>>16752307 (OP)
Clear is not a color

>>16752489
>Detections depend on detectors.
So a one hand clap can clap if you slap it?

>>16752506
Your mother has the one hand clap if you know what I mean.

>>16752506
>So a one hand clap can clap if you slap it?
You would only slap with the other.
One must clap the same instead.

>>16752753
>You would only slap with the other.
Thats was the point I made, you dont understand spectrometers in relation to magnetic fields and their inapplication without "another object", hence slapping to make a one handed clap, what couldnt clap without.

>>16752489
>Ask a wave question, get a wave answer.
I kept asking field questions and getting wave answers...why can you admit that its an object without color, the colorless object. It can only be seen by throwing colored particles into it.

...home needs to phone ET...

>>16752769
You seem to misunderstand. All detection of all attributes requires interactions. Those interactions determine what attributes can be measured. Nothing is free. Neither can you purchase everyrhing at once. Review, and you will see that is has always been said.
Review, and you will see that all has been to clarify your question and never to argue against your conclusion.
All photons have wavelength.
Not all photons have color.

>>16752786
>You seem to misunderstand.
I WASNT ASKING IF YOURE WRONG.
IM INFORMING THE WORLD YOU ARE.

FIELD!
>wave?
NO, FIELD!
>wave.
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?

>All photons have wavelength.
>Not all photons have color.
RADIOWAVES HAVE COLOR BEYOND LIGHTCONES.

>>16752769
>...home needs to phone ET...
[deep inhale.....sigh]
Pleantary retardation.

>>16752806
>all-caps rants
DJT, GCN, and now this guy.

>>16752811
If I have to correct somone on the same thing several times...we're not having a conversation, theyre sucking their own dick while telling me how it tastes.

Just. Like. You.

*mrph-glup-glup-acknowledge-my-glurp-feelings-mrph*

STOP SUCKING YOUR OWN DICK, FAGGOT.

>>16752831
NTA but how many of these images have you saved? And do you think associating an image with yourself is more likely to come off as a signal or as a countersignal?

>>16752840
>but how many of these images have you saved?
So retarded you forgit inages are not a consumable object?
>you think associating an image with yourself
AHHHH, shit {{{bro}}}, my post was totez abiut me, fr, I fucked up, shiiiit...."no u" never was so accurate rn!
>signal or as a countersignal
Just repsond to signals never made since you couldnt comprehend the signals that were....you auto-cocking jackass...

>>16752843
Calm down. I've seen you post at least 2 images that express a cartoonish desire for autofellatio. Why?

>>16752307 (OP)
A black hole is colorless since it absorbs all light.

Maybe you mean transparent?

>>16752845
>Why?
>>16752831
>...we're not having a conversation, theyre sucking their own dick while telling me how it tastes.
WHY DO YOU IGNORE WORDS?
>to express my interest is discussion autofellatio with you
I KNOW.

YOU FEIGN IGNORANCE TO PROMOTE YOUR SEXUAL FIXATION WITH ME.

Youre transparent as shit and full of delusion, fake even to yourself, this is why youre out of step with reality; corrupted desire via Cognitive impairment.

>>16752875
There could have been more than two images. I'm asking, why you chose you identify yourself as the poster of both? Was it random or meaningful?

>>16752887
>no IM the therapist saying "lets unpack this"
Delusion means self deception, you lied to yourself and youre trying to force the lead of the conversation to make me go along with your self deception, and I can tell, its my job to.

No, I will not join you in the lie, that is your's to "unpack".

t.Doctor of Psychology (PhD, research, not "Therapist", its for women)

>>16752894
Yes, I agree that anonymity allows you to self-ascribe whatever degrees you want. But the image, why did you post it? And why did you post at least two images that suggest the same sexual fetish, under the same unrequired but intentionally given name?

>>16752900
>anonymity
>Anonymous says
Fucking hell you are oblivious...
>to self-ascribe whatever degrees you want
Developmental Psychology, Evolutionary Cognition, Collective Intelligence.

If your degree touches these, I will fucking smoke you in them, if youre a professor...welcome to class.

Stop LARPing at me you embarrassing woman, youre not cute or insightful, youre arrogant and delusional.

>um no, "when did you stop beating your wife"
>[smirks and crosses arms]
Pathetic by-product of psy-ops and fatherlessness.

>>16753010
That's a lot of degrees and I'm happy that they make us interact as degree holders. But the image, why did you post it? And why did you post at least two images that suggest the same sexual fetish, under the same unrequired but intentionally given name?

>>16753014
>make us interact as degree holders
>us
>degree holders
PRESENT FIELD OF REARCH.

YOU ARE BEING PEER REVIEWED, RIGHT NOW.

>>16753025
Would it matter to your psyche if you saw an image that said my degree was earlier than yours and stronger than yours? Or would you keep acting like a child.

>>16753049
>dodges responsibility
>LARPs more
Welp, you lied about that.
>my degree was earlier than yours
That makes zero sense.
>and stronger than yours
Stronger than Pure Mathematics (Number Theory)? Literally not possible, its the field that invents Maths for Theoretical Physics.
>>16751825
>Converting Pure Mathematics, to Metrology, through Physics, into Cognition...then back.
As if your "degree" wouldnt be within my wheelhouse...I believe you know this, thats why you wont say it, because I will destroy it before your eyes or reveal publicly youre a charlatan.

>>16752307 (OP)
What color is a photon?

>>16753058
Your replies all look like neapolitan ice cream. I scream? Is that how you confront the images?

>>16753079
>Is that how you confront the images?
The Satanic images of God? Yes...yes it is.

I give no quarter, I reveal each lie, I force you to capitulate via feigned ignorance.

>>16753081
But why do you, more often than not, you do, we agree, depict the force as autofellatio?

>>16753083
Why are you arguing on the internet with men youre attracted to about things you know nothing about instead of being barefoot, pregnant, and cooking dinner in the kitchen?

https://youtu.be/IJS5vkrGW1U

>>16753105
Does ascribing sex organs to an anonymous interlocutor help you define your own perspective more clearly somehow?

>>16753112
>dick girl
Why are you talking and not gestating?

No talking, only cooking.

>>16752307 (OP)
colorless = black

>>16753127
Put my own thing in my mouth? Like you would?

>>16752486
>>16752491
>>16752500
>>16752756
>>16752862
Where is the R?