Correct. Plus the sensory capability of the observer.
Enmos. When people start asking for definitions of simple words, it is the time to stop arguing.
The opponent is digging trenches, and trench warfare is long lasting.
What colour is an orange in the dark
- Thread starter mick
- Start date
- Status
Enmos. When people start asking for definitions of simple words, it is the time to stop arguing.
The opponent is digging trenches, and trench warfare is long lasting.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
(I edited that post)
Why not ? You can shine a light on it periodically to see if its still orange
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
No, it's not correct. Neither the light nor the perceptions of the observer have any impact on the objects characteristics.
The observed colour isn't simply a property of the object because it also depends on another factor, the light hitting the object.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Well, I disagree. I explained in one of my posts above.
Enmos, imagine a universe in which there is no light.
In the middle is an orange, physically, atom for atom, exactly the same as an orange in our universe.
Does that Orange have the colour orange?
In the middle is an orange, physically, atom for atom, exactly the same as an orange in our universe.
Does that Orange have the colour orange?
Well, I will agree that what colour you observe if you expose the object to white light is a property of the object.
Similarly for every other wavelength or combination of wavelengths, however, it still isn't strictly correct to say that the colour of the object is the colour that is observed if the object is exposed to white light.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I think it is. The object still reflects the wavelengths it would normally reflect, only one or more are missing.
The way I see it, the color of an object is directly related to its chemical makeup. In fact, it's color IS the chemical makeup.
I can easily falsify your claim that perception has got anything to do with what color an object is. I'm colorblind.. I guess that should tell you enough
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
If we say that those characteristic are called orange, then yes.
Are you sure.
I've already shown that the observation of the colour green is made because the colours blue and yellow are not used by a leaf's chloroplasts.
Do you think that what an object does not do is a property of an object?
Is being President of the United States one of my properties because that is something that I do not do?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Of course not absorbing certain wavelengths is a characteristic. Exactly the same as not reflecting certain wavelengths is a characteristic.
Not being the president of the US would be a property of you by that definition, just as not reflecting red light is a property of the leaf.
I can't quite decide on whether not being able to do something can be a characteristic of an entity. If I tried, I could probably think of some instances, but I think they would be exceptions. I think that it would be if by necessity, that that was the case. I can't see that the inability of a leaf to absorb blue and yellow can validly be said to be a property of that leaf.
In common usage, which is what I would prefer to stick to, we define things by what they do rather than what they do not do.
In common usage, which is what I would prefer to stick to, we define things by what they do rather than what they do not do.
Last edited:
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Last edited:
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
You are calling it green because of those 'non-characteristics'!
Look, what is the difference between:
- absorbing all wavelengths but some.
- only reflecting some wavelengths.
No difference.
Damn, you deleted a patsy argument
I'll work on what's left.
The difference between something that a thing does being a property of that thing, and something that that thing does not do being a property of that thing, is, in the example of the leaf, the presence of a whole system within that leaf to absorb and use light of specific wavelengths, and the absence of the ability to absorb other wavelengths.
I think that what a thing does, rather than what is does not do, is what we would generally accept to be characteristic of that thing.
Don't you?
I'll work on what's left.
The difference between something that a thing does being a property of that thing, and something that that thing does not do being a property of that thing, is, in the example of the leaf, the presence of a whole system within that leaf to absorb and use light of specific wavelengths, and the absence of the ability to absorb other wavelengths.
I think that what a thing does, rather than what is does not do, is what we would generally accept to be characteristic of that thing.
Don't you?
I see your point, but the fact remains color cannot exist without light transmitting that information.
I can easily falsify your claim that perception has got anything to do with what color an object is. I'm colorblind.. I guess that should tell you enough
Im partially colorblind as well. High five :cheers:
ripleofdeath
Registered Senior Member
personal perception has nothing to do with core physics principals/laws.
light exists as does matter.
hypothetically speaking (an example of absolutism);
just because you may have been blown up by a suicide bombing Bonita banana deathly yellow bang squad...
does that mean all the earth disappears also because you can no longer perceive it ?(and that all human rights laws are now null and void).
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Damn, you deleted a patsy argument
I'll work on what's left.
The difference between something that a thing does being a property of that thing, and something that that thing does not do being a property of that thing, is, in the example of the leaf, the presence of a whole system within that leaf to absorb and use light of specific wavelengths, and the absence of the ability to absorb other wavelengths.
I think that what a thing does, rather than what is does not do, is what we would generally accept to be characteristic of that thing.
Don't you?
No, both are part of the same characteristic. Logic dictates that you can't have one without the other.
Did you read my last post ?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
The fact remains that color perception cannot exist without light transmitting that information.
Although.. that's not entirely true either
I'm red/green colorblind. I assume you are as well ?
- Status