504
"Where are you?"
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 May 2025
504 points (98.1% liked)
People Twitter
7063 readers
2344 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Well color requires light in the visible spectrum. So, imo, no in a pitch black room the box would not be blue
But if you took a box you know is blue into the pitch black room, nothing changes about the box. Would it not still have the same characteristics that cause us to perceive it as blue?
Likewise, is it still blue if you close your eyes?
The thing is, the box isn't blue, it just reflects blue light wavelengths much more than others.
When we say "the box is blue" we are either technically incorrect or we're using it as a shortcut for "the box reflects mainly blue light wavelengths".
In a dark room, that box will not reflect anything, so if our "the box is COLOR" is really just the shortcut for saying that the box mainly reflects that color, then it would make sense to say "the box is black" if you mean what it is reflecting at that moment or "the box is blue" if you mean its capability when it comes to reflecting colors.
I agree that when we say something IS a color, we mean "it reflects certain wavelengths" but I disagree with the conclusion.
Let's say you have a red box and a blue box. You put a brick in the blue box then put both boxes in the dark closet. Someone asks you the color of the box with the brick. What do you tell them?
If it makes sense that the blue box is no longer blue in the dark, we'd ask "what color will the box be when I open the door?"
Therefore, I'd argue that the color of an object is defined by it's capacity to reflect/emit light. After all, is a farmer not a farmer while they sleep?
As your own example illustrates, it boils down to whether one is talking about the present status of the box or the capabilities of the box.
In your example, the capabilities of the box are what maters because the other person can bring it to be under different lighting conditions were those capabilities are fully used. If however we're talking about boxes bolted to the floor of a dark room which cannot be lit, for all practical effects and purposes and as far as people know both boxes are black, which is why in such a situation the advice given to find the box would not at all be color but rather thing like shape and size.
That said, after thinking it some more, I think people do say "the OBJECT is COLOR" only when they're talking about color reflective capabilities and use "the OBJECT looks COLOR" specifically for the current status of reflecting color, even if sometimes they confuse status and capability and might say that something "is" COLOR having seen it only under lighting conditions which are not good enough to fully judge that object's color reflection capabilities and strictly speaking should have used "looks" instead (I only mention this because when it happens it can cause funny confusions if the person they're talking to actually saw that object under different lighting conditions and thus thinks of it as having a different color).
I feel like if someone locked in a dark room with a blue box was asked what color it was, they'd say "I don't know" as opposed to "black"
Interesting point about is vs looks. I was thinking about LEDs before (hence the "reflect/emit" part) but I think I want to walk that back a little...if an LED only emits blue light, we'd say the LED is blue. But an RGB LED? It definitely depends on what it's currently doing. In both cases, the reflective properties of the LED module while it's off are the same. So it's like there's a hierarchy to how we define color...color it's emitting > color it CAN emit > color it CAN reflect > color it's reflecting.
I'm just riffing here so I don't really have a conclusion for that but it's intersting to think about. There's probably other examples that go against my hierarchy idea.
It still retains the pigments which will reflect blue. We call pigments by the names of their colors even when they're in closed boxes in the dark, because we know their properties relative to white light.
Well the characteristics that cause us to perceive it as blue comes from the light reflecting off of it's surface. So without the light that characteristic goes away. But if you close your eyes (and stay in a lit room) I would say it's still blue, trees falling in the woods and all that.
I don't think "color" is an immutable property of an object
Well, technically your eyes (and the wavelengths they can perceive) are part of the system of light source, box and your eyes that make it blue. If the light source emitted a different spectrum of light the box would reflect other wave lengths, if the box was different it would and if our eyes perceived a different spectrum of light it would also likely be split up into named parts differently.