Philosophy bros, are colors objective properties of objects?

When you looked at objects as a kid, did you honestly believe you were looking at the reflection of different wavelengths of light on them? Of course you didn’t. Then it’s not a priori you fucking /sci/ retard.

Not as they appear to you. A light wave's wavelength is not "red," it's simply indicated with red by your apparatus.

They aren't, is a subjective expression, the "redness of red", how "painful" something is, etc...

Attached: color frequency.jpg (1200x750, 168K)

That's a lot of potential questions concealed in a deceptively simple question. Democritus says, "by convention hot, by convention sweet, by convention colorful, but by nature atoms." Locke says something similar with his distinction between primary and secondary qualities. A facile solution to the problem is to draw the line between primary and secondary, between nature and perception, in a way that simply feels intuitive to the modern scientific sensibility, for example by saying that the "real" primary stuff of nature is waves and particles behaving according to certain mathematical laws, and everything above that is a heuristic imposed by the subjectively perceiving human mind. But that doesn't solve the actual underlying problem group intended by the question, which is really the question "how does nature relate to perception?" in disguise.

Again, you can't facilely answer that question by simply drawing a line. The implicit point is to understand why there is a line at all, in the first place. And that implicitly involves you in a whole series of metaphysical speculations, e.g., about whether mind is an epiphenomenon of nature, an emergent and holistic property of nature, an entelechy of nature, an emanation of a more primordial ideal essence or subject, and so on. Measuring the wavelengths of quanta and then correlating those measurements to the fact that the quanta themselves correlate to certain subjective experiences of colour does not "explain" colour metaphysically as a function of wavelength, it merely correlates it to something else in observation.

Some answers to some of these speculations might allow you to say something like "colour is an objective property," for instance if you are a monist who takes perception to be an extension of objective physical reality you might be able to say "perceptions are objective." But the answer wouldn't make any sense without first understanding that it is being situated it in that framework of explanation.

The only truths you should accept are the ones you have to accept. Like, say, a traffic light being green is actually green (you might die if you make the mistake of saying a red light is green). Aside from that you can believe anything you want. A flower looks red, but I can say that it looks green to me because I want to. I might be wrong but I believe it so it's all that matters

Wittgenstein would say no.

Using that definition someone using a cochlear implant would hear the tree and still it would make no sound, because they can hear without use of their eardrums.

perception is subjective

youtube.com/watch?v=FLb9EIiSyG8

There is much evidence to the contrary.

no. objects reflect certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation
colour is entirely perceptual

>dude what color is this to you
>it's between these wavelengths which means it activates these cone cells in your eyes thus causing you to perceive this subjective color
>okay thanks I'm retarded!

Ah yes, because animals see the same way humans do and never have things such as colorblindness etc.

In what context are you interested in the answer? What is the use-value? Could you give an example of objective and subjective properties?

The question is about objective colors ESL, the post was in support of subjective colors.

>objective
>colors
I think you're the ESL or a child to have this bad of an understanding of the English language. Color is by definition the perception of electromagnetic properties of a substance. It CANNOT be objective BY DEFINITION.

THE POST IS AGAINST OBJECTIVE COLORS HOLY SHIT ARE YOU RETARDED WE ARE ON THE SAME SIDE

There are physical properties which correlate to color but color is a perceptual phenomena
pic related

Attached: dress_color.jpg (411x354, 14K)

That means nothing. Differences are common in objective phenomena.

Would you say that the meaning of a post is subjective due to having to be interpreted by the reader? Or is the meaning objective because it only means what the poster intends it to?

Meaning is not an empirical phenomena. It cannot be understood using the scientific meaning. Therefore it does not exist. QED.

wavelengths the mathematical object are analytic a priori
wavelengths the physics model are synthetic a posteriori
/sci/fags get off my board

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you a moron.

>objective phenomena
You don't understand the conversation

Not an argument /sci/fag

I dont think that it would be unreasonable to assume that colors exist independently of observation due to multiple people being able to pick out the same blue and red objects from a pile. Itd be impossible to prove that those same people had the same perception of what the red and blue looked like ("what if your red was my blue" argument). Color in of itself though is special, and even though we might perceive them differently, we can still tell them apart. In order to prove something is of one color though, it must be observed, and yet our perception of it is subjective. Most people can tell an object is yellow, but when asked to prove it, you can't. "It looks yellow, therefore it is yellow," Or "This other object is yellow and they appear similar colors" might be the best you get.

Question:
>Are colors objective?

Answer: No, they really solely on perception for their existence

Answer as it applies to the daily life of the everyman: Yes

Attached: 1541662747128.jpg (699x435, 26K)

>Itd be impossible to prove that those same people had the same perception of what the red and blue looked like
Only if you believe in a Soul. All of the data is stored in your brain, if you could read the data in someone's brain you could analyze and compare to see if it was the same as that in another person's brain.

Objects have differences. That there are differences between them does not mean they are subjects. Do you understand now?

But there is no such thing as an "object" there are just certain configurations of matter and energy.

based and correctpilled

Word games. You'll notice the use of the phrase 'objective phenomena' originally. 'Configurations of matter and energy' or 'objective phenomena' is more abstract and make the original point less clear.

You need more than differences in perception to establish that 'stimulus is objective, perception is subjective'. Because there are differences in stimulus too.

>Something is not objective because the properties of the object are seen as different between subjects.
Peak stupidity. Fuck off.

Color blindness can be taken as conclusive evidence that colors are sensory overlays rather than inherent to objects.

How exactly aren't wavelengths a priori properties? I agree that our interpretation of them may differ based on biological differences, nevertheless, the wavelengths themselves are unchanging.

What if a subject had perfect perception of itself? Would its sensory overlay be objective, subjective, both, or some superposition of subjective and objective?

They are not intuitive nor obvious

Because a priori refers to knowledge of the object not the metaphysics of it
colors being wavelengths is not a priori because it can not be asserted prior to experiencing it within the world

Clearly not for you. Rest of us understand the idea of physical phenomena just fine.

You can't have metaphysics without experiencing it. Philosophy is just a massive cope by brainlets who haven't grown out of their childish idealism.

No, the tree falling still makes sound but the cochlear implant surgery severs the nerves that would convey the information from ear drums naturally.

>objective properties
They are these.
>of objects
All objects are mental products.

????
you haven't made a point here
one can have a priori knowledge without commenting on the metaphysics of the object
e.g. a priori a triangle has three sides and three angles, this is not contingent on triangles being platonic forms
even if wavelengths were a physical thing we don't necessarily have a priori knowledge of it
we can however, construct the ideas of light as wavelengths as a synthetic a priori idea but that statement does not elucidate to us the nature of wavelengths
in short, the metaphysics of wavelengths and knowledge of wavelengths are two separate inquiries
btw you're a brainlet

They’re a posteriori retard, you use a priori knowledge to reach the conclusion. You don’t come out the womb with an obvious assumption of waves. But since you’re obviously so well read on metaphysics you probably already knew that :)

none of this tells me if the dress is blue or gold

Attached: TheDress3.jpg (1536x2048, 242K)

You've got one thing correct, wavelengths of light are a posteriori. This is an argument in favour of colour being a matter of scientific inquiry, not philosophical.

See the original post I was responding to here
Now realize that was my whole fucking point you just conceded

What problem does this solve?

I am the person whom you originally responded to. And I am now quite confused; the point of my original post was to indicate that the colour of an object is a posteriori. Your response to me seemed to indicate the opposite.
What exactly is your point of disagreement, then?

Colors exist independently of our perception of them, so yes, regardless of whether we're seeing the "true" color.

no their not
that's not what a priori means, you are both wrong

Yes the frequency spectrum of light reflected off a red apple is the same to all observers who point a spectrometer at it.

>Their
Typing too fast bucko?

>you can have a priori knowledge of a triangle
Even if edges and the number were physical things we don't necessarily have a priori knowledge of them, we can however, construct the ideas of edges and the number three a synthetic a priori idea, but that statement does not elucidatue us to the nature of edges and the number three. In short the metaphysics of triangles and their edges and knowledge of edges and the number three are two separate inquiries.
btw you're a pseud.

Can you give us examples of what IS a priori then, oh wise one who uses their instead of they’re.

Except the triangle is known because of its three edges and angles, light is not known because of its wavelength
stay mad booklet

a priori means before experience, that is literally all it means. what Kant was concerned with wasn't simply a priori knowledge, as there are plenty examples of a priori analytic knowledge. he was concerned with a priori synthetic judgements, made possible through the transcendental structures of pure intuition (i.e. the forms of space and time)
>proof-read on Yea Forums
literally why