Why do this bastard color exist even when physical reality says it shouldn't? Our brain is a trickster and I hate it.
color <> frequency
>>16859032It's another episode of grey people not knowing the difference between physical stimulus and perception.
>>16859032>magenta shouldn't existExplain.
>>16859064Not him. But a mixture of red and blue shouldn't be possible under a naive understanding of how color works. If color = frequency then you should only see gradients between adjacent colors which red and blue are about as far apart as you can get.The reason it is, in fact, possible is because your red cones have a peak in the higher-frequencies as well as lower frequencies. So they essentially have a dedicated "purple/violet/magenta" band along with their standard "red" mode of activation.
>>16859064trumplican schizobabble
Threadly reminder that any and all colors are physically impossible.
>>16859032Color is just a label our brain assigns to specific ratios of red green and blue. No colors exist in physical reality.
>>16859071>Color is just a label
>>16859032nigga, get the fuck out of >>>/sci/, like A$AP
>>16859032why do you think what you're looking at is real and not all an interpretation that your brain creates? have you not taken enough acid when you were a youth?
>>16859110>why do you think what you're looking at is realIf it's not real, then either nothing is real, or the word 'real' doesn't mean anything. Your entire notion of 'real' is derived from what you're denying.> have you not taken enough acid when you were a youth?It was obviously wasted on you.
>>16859125>the word 'real' doesn't mean anythingthere you go, it's not very hard is it?
>>16859133Not very hard for you to run your mouth, you mean. But in reality, you always act like it means what everyone thinks it means. :^)
>>16859142why are you so angry bro? chill out. it's only colour and nothing really matters in the end. relax more.
>>16859163I can tell you were thinking about taking drugs again to soothe your agitation while you were writing that post.
>>16859032Magenta charge exists in Quantum Chromodynamics
>>16859032because it melt in our brain like cotton candy
>>16859032>muhhhhhgenta
>>16859110there's two things that matter besides your brain interpretation1) Other people having the same interpretation matching your ownE.g. If you are the only one "hearing voices" or "seeing this" chances are you are insane.Ofc there is also the potential of mass psychosis and hallucination and there are records of it happening in historyBut there is also number 2 which is more important than 12) Your brain interpretation giving you some sort of edge in survivalE.g. if you are the only one hearing voices but the voices tell you the lottery numbers and you win every time, then they are real.
>>16859032This is fuchsia, magenta is redder and slightly darker
>>16859235You can't say shit like this. It's too powerful, too reasonable. You're supposed to just shitpost and argue in circles with crappy AI generated memes. Sincerity like you're showing is wasted on these kinds of people.
>>16859032>I hate it.We don't need no hatin'.
>>16859072It's called nominolism.
>>16859110materialists dont believe consciousness exists, so they think what they see is whats really out there.
>>16859242>Sincerity like you're showing is wasted on these kinds of people.>these kinds of people.no it isn't. i appreciate it very much.
>>16859397Then you're an outlier. Good for you.
>>16859329>it's labeled by this label!Modern education turns midwits into a bio-GPTs.
>>16859235Your criteria have nothing to do with anything being real. Blatant delusions can fulfill both.>>16859242I like how enthusiastically you updooted your own wrong and low-IQ post.
>>16859325>>16859233>>16859032noooo stop it just STOP it
I don't know why people obsess over magenta when white is also extra-spectral color that you don't find on the rainbow
>>16859424It's our only chance to survive in the AI-dominated world.
>>16859032>>16859325Can someone explain to me why magenta appear closer to red in hue than blue despite being made of both colors equally?
>>16859032Define reality
>>16859436>noooo [...]TL;DR
>>16859754>Can someone explain to me why magenta appear[s] closer to red in hue than blue[?]I cannot explain it.The combination of red, magenta, and blue is interesting, to me.
>>16859032>I hate it.We don't need no haters.
>>16859509>AI-dominated worldThis isn't a thing. Your corporate training data is faulty.
>>16859754>why magenta appear[s] closer to red in hue than blueRegarding the image:Does cyan appear closer to green in hue than blue?
>>16859032Muuuuuhhhhhhhhh
>>16859071Ill never understand why green is a primary color, but also green is yellow+blue. why the fuck isnt yellow a primary color but green is?
>>16860714because yellow is what you perceive when you see red wavelengths and green wavelengths simultaneously.you should abandon the RYB model because it's outdated, RGB has already proven that red green blue are the true primary color wiring of our brain.
>>16860714The RYB color system is an obsolete version of the modern RGB system. So a lot of older people grew up being told green is a mix of yellow and blue and that became popular perception. But in the modern color system yellow is a composite of green and red.
>>16860921>>16860927Im an artist, when you mix yellow and blue paint you get green. when you mix red and green you get brown. with RYB+white and black you can mix any color on the spectrum, but if you replaced yellow with green you'd be fucked. I understand scientifically it IS green but none of that actually explains why theres a disconnect between how our brains perceive it and the way you work with colors IRL.
>>16860933no one taught you the mechanics between additive coloring and subtractive coloring kid?
>>16860933>paintAs the other anon pointed out, this is a subtractive coloring process. The system you should be using for this is CYM (Cyan, Yellow, Magenta).
>>16860714>Ill never understand why green is a primary color, but also green is yellow+blue. why the fuck isnt yellow a primary color but green is?Green is not a primary color in a system where yellow+blue=green (subtractive) but it is a primary color in one where green+red=yellow (additive). The additive system is a more direct match for how the eye works, because you have three types of photoreceptor cells in your eye, and simultaneously stimulating the ones whose responses peak at green and red (using red and green light) can produce the same response as the "pure" wavelength associated with yellow.
>>16860927>>16860946How long until people realize that Yellow and Cyan are equally as fake as Magenta?
>>16860952>retarded and irrelevant schizo drivelThere is no such thing as "fake" colors. Magenta is no more real or fake than red.
>>16860954well no as far as i know red isn't a composite of two colorsyou display the same hostility a monkey would when it read something simple it doesn't grasp
>>16860000Zina?
>>16860961>well no as far as i know red isn't a composite of two colorsThere is no such thing as a "composite of two colors" except in the figurative language of people who can't/needn't distinguish between pigments, wavelengths of light and perceptions.
>>16860961Red is a composite of Magenta and Yellow in the CYM system.
>>16860969Yeah but do CYM conform to cone additive responses retard? Obviously not, it's RGB-based.
>>16860970>80 IQ schizo lashing out at someone else nowReminder that you don't understand how the eye works and you will never experience these "non-fake" colors of your ideal RGB fantasy model.
>>16859032it's a biological and evolutionary mistake. Creationists are retards
>>16860971I can tell you are being contrarian on purpose and it's not making you clever, but fine, keep wasting your time if it makes you feel special.
>>16860974>you are being contrarian on purpose Not at all. I'm just issuing a reminder that every color you will ever see will be what you mistakenly refer to as a "composite color". By your logic, all colors are "fake", except for the purely theoretical ones induced by somehow activating cone cells in isolation. In reality, actual color perception is so many levels of abstraction above what you're basing your dumb argument on, that the distinction you're trying to make simply doesn't exist.
>>16859166What a fucking dork, learn how to speak normally with people or you'll forever be alone.
>>16861005>the desperate normalgroid tries to establish dominance by threatening social consequencesIt's like watching animals in the zoo.
>>16861009>the piglet think he's not one of the animalsquaint
>>16861043>n-n-nooo>y-you!!>ook ook ook ook!!!!
>>16860934I went to art school anon. do you think they teach us retarded kids anything useful?
reggay mawn
This is now a green cat thread.
>>16860000Checked.
>>16860714Our eyes have 3 photo detectors that are attuned to red, green and blue. They don't cover single wavelength but rather a spectrum with some distribution that peaks at their colour. Each of them gives you value in intensity, means that cones that perceive red will also to some extent perceive yellow but you will get the signal back as red but with lower intensity.Since cones overlap our brain can calculate colours that are located inbetween based on the intensity. Since red and green cones overlap in their spectrum, we can perceive yellow as yellow because it gives signal to both, red and green. That way our brain can "see" rainbow without actual yellow etc. detectors. Just by interpolating values between binary detectors.>>16859032And this is the reason this shit happens. We have overlap between blue and red which should give us green. But our green detector tells us there is no green. This is why our brain has to conjure another colour that doesn't exist. It's basically an additional function that calculates overlap between blue and red with green being set to zero
>>16860946>>16860933>>16860927>>16860714Because you're not talking about the same kind of blue. Yellow and CYAN (or close to cyan) paint makes green. Pure yellow and PURE blue (on the left) will not make green, it makes grey because pure yellow and pure blue are opposite colors.It's literally just because people think cyan/sky blue are "blue" but those colors aren't the blue we're referring to when we talk about RGB colors.
>>16859032Colour is a creation of the mind, not wavelengths.
>>16862005No. The RYB system is genuinely a largely obsolete system that gets heuristically used in some contexts to this day.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RYB_color_model
>>16862022i don't really understand what you're trying to say? i don't support the RYB model and i didn't say anything about it
>>16862182>i don't support the RYB modelI know you don't.>i didn't say anything about itNot true.When you respond to a post like this:>>16860927With a post like this:>>16862005>you're not talking about the same kind of blue>It's literally just because people think cyan/sky blue are "blue"You are indicating you don't understand the source of confusion about green.The confusion comes from the historical use of the RYB model. Nothing else.
>>16862005>Yellow and CYAN (or close to cyan) paint makes green.No, retard. Yellow and blue make green. I know your ChatGPT-style verbal token processes and inability to do anything in real life lead you to believe otherwise, but actually try working with real paints and you will see reality is not your ChatGPT-friendly, simplistic color model abstraction.
>>16862298>No, retard. Yellow and blue make green.Cyan = Blue + GreenYellow + Blue = GreenCyan + Yellow = Green + Green = more Green
>>16859067It gets weirder when you think about the phenomenomenal experience of tetrachromatic species. It would stand to reason that they have a bunch more sub-whites like our purple, and a megawhite that's whiter than /pol/ on a recruitment drive from stormfrontand what's crazy about it is the more receptors you add, the more subwhites you have
>>16859325IT'S
>>16862005>[Gamblin, Old Holland, Williamsburg]Your pigments are neither free nor environmentally friendly.
>>16862380Maybe this is how your printer works, but it's not how paint works, TardGPT. Learn the difference between abstractions and reality.
>>16860954depends on how you look at it. primary colors are first order representation for reality. you can always trust them. red/green/blue. anything else can be faked.second order are composite colors, yellow, cyan, magenta. and everything else. white as well. hell, we can see white just with two wavelengths, something between blue and cyan and something between red and orange, enough to trigger all color cones.since we have no way of knowing if we're looking at yellow photons or green/+red ones (unless you have some piece of glass) that means we cannot accurately discern reality. thus the only colors we could ever trust are red/green/blue, the rest can be "faked". I guess magenta can also be trusted as it only means one thing.all colors are brain's representation for reality, for some reality. no reason we shouldn't be able to perceive new colors. we just didn't have to
>>16859754red's lo pitch when compared to blue, a base drum will be more noticible that a mosquito
>>16863395You're wrong because green is brighter than red
>>16860714>green is yellow+blueOnly with subtractive colours like paint Doesn't work with light
>>16859067Why does it matter what property the cones in your eyes have? Have you ever dreamed in color?
>>16864501Color is a sensation and so only exists in terms of what your biology is wired ro perceive.
>>16862912why would it have anything to do with white, that's like saying our red+green, green+blue and blue+red are subwhites from the perspective of a duochromat
>>16859067>The reason it is, in fact, possible is because your red cones have a peak in the higher-frequencies as well as lower frequencies.Nigga that's not true at all
>>16863174>but it's not how paint worksMaybe I don't have a paint at home, if you are such a dedicated painter maybe do some color mixing and upload the pic for us
>>16863364>since we have no way of knowing if we're looking at yellow photons or green/+red ones (unless you have some piece of glass) that means we cannot accurately discern reality.Either you're seeing yellow or you aren't. Everything else is science fiction. There is no such thing as "yellow photons". You don't see "wavelengths" and you don't see "photons".
>>16864512I think he's mixing it up the appearance of real-world violet
>>16864603>Either you're seeing yellow or you aren'tyeap, but it can mean different things, and you won't know>Everything else is science fiction.no it isn't, it is a limitation of our visual sensory system>There is no such thing as "yellow photons"there is representation of both yellow photons, and green + red photons, which is the same for our brain. it cannot know, based on the info coming from your eye cells>You don't see "wavelengths" and you don't see "photons"there is literally nothing else you are seeing, but photons, and wavelengths of photons, though not all and it's confusing.for example, if you need yellow photons and get a source of green + red photons, that will be useless for your application>but I'm a monkey I need to see yellow bananayeah that'll work. but in some cases it won't. that's my point.>muh reality is not realwhat is real you imbecile? we defined "real" as that which has consequences. you cannot say reality is not real, you buffoon, it makes no fucking sense
>>16864776>what is real you imbecile?Nothing Shut up and calculate
>>16859067ty anon
>>16864512>>16864643oh shit
>color is essentially fake>sound is essentially fake>all of our senses and how we perceive reality are essentially fakeThen we should just kill ourselves en masse then. Just nuke us all to hell because everything is fake.
>>16864940>Then we should just kill ourselves en masse then. Just nuke us all to hell because everything is fake.nigger what the fuck is that conclusionit just means the physical world is vibrationslucifer is the lord of light (waves) and music (vibration (waves)) and illusionbig fuckin deal
>>16859071>Water's not blue, it just looks blue>Sky's not blue, it just looks blue>Blue Jay's not blue, it just looks blue
>>16859032>ourSpeak for yourselft. mantis-shrimp
>>16864982Our blue Jay's look grey.
>>16865507best post
>>16864776>it can mean different thingsNo, it means exactly one thing: the thing you're looking at has a yellow color.>yellow photons, and green + red photonsThere is no such thing.>there is literally nothing else you are seeing, but photonsOk, it's clear that this point that you're schizophrenic and you think you're "seeing" abstract entities.
>>16865938take your meds, now!>the thing you're looking at has a yellow color.no, it means it either reflects yellow photons either green+red photons. this is scientifically proven.>There is no such thing.yes there is, I can literally detect them with scientific gear. you can detect individual photon energy levels.you can deny science as much as you want schizo, it will never change reality. you have zero power over it, you must accept it or there will be consequences. just like you know not to jump from a bridge, because of the obvious consequences of that.both yellow photons (~580nm) and green + red photons stimulate your eye cells the same, your brain cannot tell them apart, but they are different. you can never change this or prove otherwise.
>>16859067>If color = frequencythat's an unfounded materialist assumption. Just because colour correlates with freauency doesn't mean it is determined by it. Colour is a qualia thst cannot be studied by empirically science
>>16866711Apparently "qualia" is the scientific term for "soul" and "spirit"
>>16859032Bastard bitch bloody color disappear you!
