Colors

That's it senpai.

To fuck with you further, now imagine what color an object would be in complete darkness. Now it has NO light to reflect, so what does it look like? Who knows.

3spooky5me

>>7947040
What a fucking retard.

>>7947053
This us fucjed up.

But I can't help but imaginr it would be like grey/monochrome or something

WHY WHY WHY

File: 1457312205548.png (901KB, 939x1195px) Image search: [Google]

901KB, 939x1195px

>>7947057

>>7947059
Go study chemistry and neuro now and tell us why

>>7947059
Cause in darkness we only use our rods to see (no colour vision), but if there's literally no light it has no colour cause colour is just light

How's the 7th grade?
Please take a class on optics you piece of shit
die
die
die

>>7947053
I never thought about that, this shot has been with me since high and I never met anyone that understood me.

>>7947057
I'm guessing you have a degree in colors if you think it's retarded. Explain to me how.

>>7947067
Look up conjugation and color. I found it interesting when I first learned about it because it's those electrons moving to a different energy level sort of causing the color. No light = no energy to move electrons = a physical change. Sort of

>>7947073
FIY there are people with PhDs in colour science

how about this OP

yellow is a primary colour, but tv screens only have red blue and green pixels

so HOW DO THEY YELLOW?

>>7947077
I don't believe it, I'm look into it

>>7947082
The new ones have yellow, but you have to remember about combining colors together to make other colors

>>7947085
i can explain why but i reckon if OP has a look at it he will realise why his post is ridiculous

Now realize that the world doesn't actually look like how you see it. Your brain takes in raw data and creates the images, sounds, touch sensations that you know.

The universe is actually just invisible energy in various configurations, amplitudes and frequencies.

It's impossible for anyone to know what the universe actually looks like objectively.

>>7947088
It is not ridiculous, explain anon, I'm listening.

>>7947117
I see, kinda like magnets, we don't know how they work. By some random force they attract and repel. But I still find it weird that everything is not the color we thought they were

>>7947117
The universe "looks like" whatever pattern the photons entering the observers field of perception make, there is literally no definition of visual appearance beyond this. Saying hings don't actually "look like" they do because all you are perceiving is the photons reflected off of them is literally just saying they don't look like they do because all you can do is look at them.

Visual perception is a dynamic phenomenon that requires a continuous source of light, trying to distinguish some sort of visual perception of objects existing in total darkness from how things are normally perceived as though the former is truly "seeing" is meaningless semantic masturbation.

>>7947130
>kinda like magnets, we don't know how they work
Insane clown posse pls

>>7947040
>>white shirts reflect every single color
>>black shirt obsorbs every color
This is precisely why black things are hotter in the sun. Did you just graduate middle school?
>>7947130
We know exactly how magnets work.

>>7947167
>We know exactly how magnets work.
>exactly how magnets
>exactly

I see a Nobel prize in anon's future.

>>7947130
You seem very uneducated in science, specifically physics. The greatest barrier to your understanding will be that you appear to believe that your perception is objective. This is, by definition, exactly false.

I don't typically recommend this, but try taking hallucinogens (LSD, mushrooms, etc.). LSD specifically involves taking a dose roughly equivalent to 0.00000014% of your body mass, yet will completely change your perception of everything you see, feel, hear, taste, and smell for 6-8 hours. In reality, this drug doesn't affect your eyes, ears, nose, tongue, or nerve endings, and these sensory receptors will receive the same inputs they do on any other day.

This is the best way I can think of to teach someone with your level of understanding the intuition behind the subjectivity of our own perception.

>>7947082
>how about this OP
>yellow is a primary colour, but tv screens only have red blue and green pixels
>so HOW DO THEY YELLOW?
What if I told you there are no primary colours. What if I told you you can mix any colour from any three colours on the colourspectrum.

>>7947198
>semantics
Are you talking about permanent magnets or electromagnets? As far as permanent magnets are concerned, we do know exactly how they work under our assumptions of electromagnetism (which so far we have no reason to believe are incorrect). This is why we can create them and predict exactly what they will do.

If you're talking about electromagnetism as a phenomenon, we understand it as well as we understand just about every other physical phenomenon that is used widespread in the sciences and engineering.

Just because we're still working out the details on the quantum level doesn't mean we can't say we don't understand it. Saying we don't know how magnets work is like saying we don't know how airplanes work.

>>7947040

How is it that you end up on a science and math board asking questions that freshmen philosophy students can answer?

>>7947164
>Insane clown posse pls
What does that have to do with this?

>>7947167
In just looking for answers to my own problem and see if I am correct, when I explain this to people they look at me in confusion.

>>7947264
Lurk moar newfag

inb4 Auras and shiet

They say depending on the person, its chakra nodes emit a certain light which coincides with that persons personality. This is /x/ but it's interesting to hear /sci/ take on it

>>7947295
>Lurk moar newfag
>implying people talk about the colors everyday
Tell me more, smart guy

File: George_and_Louisa_MacDonald_on_their_50th_anniversary.jpg (51KB, 775x565px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 775x565px

colour is only part of the see-able spectrum? Is it a wave? Did they sort that out in the end?

File: a14cf10a5583d19f7cfdebd63cf64382_electromagnetic-spectrum[1].png (99KB, 2159x1282px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 2159x1282px

>>7947264
I'm just trying to say that you are still entirely thinking about this the wrong way. The color of an object is not an objective property of the object. Rather, it is a subjective property that we made up to classify things. It is similar to saying that this cat has long ears and this cat has a short ears.

Refer to the image. Color is just how our brains decided to perceive the electrical impulses that our eyes send us. Our eyes just have small cone-shaped structures inside them that react when bombarded with electromagnetic waves of a specific wavelength. The electromagnetic waves that cause us to see red are absolutely no different than the radio waves that we can listen to in our cars except for the distance between the peak magnitudes.

So to say that an object is actually the colors that it absorbs because those are the wavelengths that are not reflected by the object, is incorrect. An object will also reflect and absorb many wavelengths outside of our visible spectrum, but we don't see them because we just don't have the cones in our eyes that correspond to them. Color means literally nothing besides "what we see when we look at something." An object IS the color that it reflects, which IS the color that we see when looking at it.

>>7947314
Thanks anon, I understand now

light simultaneously a wave and matter?

>>7947314
Thanks Kant

>>7947160
Of course.

I knew when I hit submit someone would reply about the liberty I took in the last sentence (not the first sentence, though, since not being able to look like is also not looking like), but the point was to convey a specific realization that most people haven't had yet.

yeah but...

>>7947040
>>7947053
Put the fucking bong down or head over to /x/, if you want to discuss Qualia.

>>7947264
>What does that have to do with this?
Everything, you underage memelord.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs

>>7947040
How about this. You can see only and I mean only the light that reflects straight towards you. Your ability to see and the understanding from your surroundings is not nearly as complete as you have always thought.

>>7947215
>this drug doesn't affect your nerve endings
>doesn't affect your eyes

but they literally do, that's exactly how LSD works, you spesh

it's even blatantly visible in pupil dilation

>>7947501
It mimics serotonin. This literally has no effect on your eyes directly, but instead your brain where the impulses from the eyes are interpreted.

Your pupils are dilated because LSD antagonizes (and therefore blocks) the same receptors that the optic nerve uses to tell the brain to constrict of the iris.

The eyes themselves have no receptors that are antagonized by LSD.

>>7947745
>iris get big
>more light go through hole
>more light hit cone + rod sells
>eyes see stuff brighter
gee hard science right there

but other than that LSD increases activity of both glutamate and dopamine too, glutamate is what's commonly used in receptors in the eye (mglu2 receptors are fucking everywhere though, ears / nose / mouth / whatever), so would increase the volume of action potentials created across them, and possibly cause them to fire randomly too (alongside all the shit it does to the 5ht6/7 receptors)

>>7947485
Well thanks for the video, I see how it is related, I just thought you were being edgy. Have heard of them back in high but the only thing my friend showed me was a bunch of tards with painted faces.

>>7947496
I see, thanks for the info.

>>7947299
Synesthesia

>>7947995
Have you even taken LSD before? The visuals are pretty darn inconsistent with the effects of both ophthalmic atropine and non-psych stims, as well as straight-up natural pupil dilation from avoiding light. Psychedelic effects are a signal processing issue.

5-ht2a agnonism is the defining attribute, with the wide variety of experiences from different compounds likely due to different affinities for various minor biological targets lie those you mention

>tfw now i wanna get some fungus to take me back into watercolor world

>>7948146
>5ht2a agonism is the defining attribute

no it isn't, nobody knows for definite what the defining attribute is, both MLD100907 and LY379268 have shown to limit the effects of psychedelics, so thus 5ht2a (5ht2c too) and mglu2 have something to do with the visual experience. nice to see you've learnt the difference between antagonism and agonism since your last post though:^)

you've got me on having never taken lsd before, only ever done mushrooms and stimulants. my knowledge only comes from when did a bit on it in my biochem course.

>>7948350
That was my first post ITT. Not the other guy

Quite a lot of things "limit the effects of psychedelics." Various atypical antipsychotics rapidly end trips, particularly competitive antagonists at 5-ht2a. The conventional wisdom has stoners "benzo out" of unpleasant trips as well, which isn't serotonergic and may have to do with a general inhibitory effect. Serotonin releasing agents decrease trip intensity and concurrent SSRI treatment greatly increases apparent tolerance, evidence for downregulated targets and greater postsynaptic 5-ht opposing the psych's mechanism of action

Though you should clarify what you mean by "psychedelic." I've had visuals from severe atropine poisoning before which most people would not call a psychedelic experience because that term is in practice reserved for serotonergics, particularly phenethylamines and tryptamines

Either way it's positively asinine to claim the mechanism is entirely or mostly peripheral action.

>>7947082
>>7947235
there are both subtractive and additive colours m8s

>>7947167
>We know exactly how magnets work.
No, we only know of the process in action. Not 'how' it really works, otherwise we'd be able to make magnets of any kind easily from anything.
Same goes about the whole science. We dont know how things work, we ignore that question, we only describe the process we see. And create theories to it saying as if its the truth then vote to accept which theory sounds most logical then throw the question "how" to the side and teach it to next generations as if its how it is. (not how EXACTLY that process was created/came to be. If we knew it we'd be able to control almost anything in this universe, which we cant, clearly.)
The current science is very closed-minded, egocentric and schizophrenic. :)

Will thanks guys, I'm going to look more info this, also maybe LSD

>>7947323
Wave inherits matter