And as I said before, those measures are based on how a typical human eye perceives various wavelengths of light - not any intrinsic value of the light itself (as there's no intrinsic "redness" or "blueness" or any other color imbedded in light itself).

I see that nothing productive will come of this conversation (you'll continue to insist color exists outside ourselves, I'll try to explain that this epistemology is flawed, you'll continue to insist it exists outside ourselves - repeat ad infinitum).

"Our perceptions of reality don't shape the reality around us."

I beg to differ - perception has a powerful effect on how one behaves in life, thus causing him to shape his reality around him; within the perameters of his predispositions, of course.

"Why am I not surprised you are once again pulling out the relative reality card?"

Maybe it's because I openly admit that I don't believe in such things as absolute "truth" - only ideas of truth - and hold that much of what we call "reality" is just an artificial construct? Come on, I pretty much gave that away when I admitted to being a Nihilist!

"Hell, the blog owner has advised us all to ignore you, and as I said before I would have had I noticed that you had written the post I responded to."

Both you and Ebonmuse are entitled to your opinions of me, but remember that they are just that - opinions - and have no more significance than what you ascribe to them.

"You may have the last ignorant word, where you will undoubtedly simply repeat the same crap as if I had said nothing, just as you ignored some other points I made, like about infrared light, etc."

I skipped over them because the point was moot: if infrared light was visible to the naked eye, we'd likely base our color system on that instead of what we think of as "visible" light. And I already stated that color is simply based on how light is peceived - be it infrared or anything else - so it would have been pointless to state it again...

No, wavelength determines what the eye perceives

No, the physiology of your eyes determines what your eye perceives.

Unless you can prove that color exists as some Platonic ideal just floating in the ether somewhere (good luck trying to do that), this is the only logical explination for its existence - the concept exists because we perceive and conceive it into existence.

Wrong again. Color exists because different EM waves have different wavelengths. This has nothing to do with Platonic ideals. There are objective measures for color and you are incredibly ignorant about them and arguing like a troll. I suggest you actually look it up and try learning about them instead of simply toeing your relative reality line.

Quite frankly, to the color-blind observer in question the object *is* grey - as that's how their nervous system interprets the light waves emminating from the object.

Our perceptions of reality don't shape the reality around us.

The thing called "color" is all in the mind of the beholder

I'd like to see a color-blind person get out of a ticket for running a red light by claiming that the light was gray. To that person, it was gray, so they can't be ticketed for running a red light that wasn't red.

If you refer to the color wheel, it's based on how a typical *human* eye perceives light - which is in and of itself a subjective standard:

Actually, it's now based on wavelength in some applications which is objective. Face it, you've lost. Whether anyone really decides by wavelength or not, the fact remains that we *can* make objective determinations of color by wavelength. But, keep trolling, because I'm done with your ignorant obstinance.

In the end, we just accept it as the standard because that's the perception of light most common to us - if the overall population perceived light differently, we would use a very different standard!

Even if we called "red" "der" instead, it would not change the fact that we can and do label a range of wavelengths as "der". Slapping a label on something may mean that the name was subjectively chosen, but it doesn't mean that the thing being described is subjective.

In the end, we still have no truly objective view of reality - only concepts thereof.

We might not be 100% objective, but it's not near as dire as you make it out to be. We subjectively see the sun move around the Earth, but we objectively measured and found that the Earth moves around the sun (in the most parsimonious sense). We may subjectively bite into a pepper and find it hot, but we can objectively measure the capsins in it and find out how hot it is.

That can be argued based on context - likewise *you* could be called a "troll" under different circumstances.

Why am I not surprised you are once again pulling out the relative reality card? On this board, you come here to be obstinate, to argue (not to debate or discuss), you disregard the tough questions only to simply repeat your arguments ad nauseum. Hell, the blog owner has advised us all to ignore you, and as I said before I would have had I noticed that you had written the post I responded to. You may have the last ignorant word, where you will undoubtedly simply repeat the same crap as if I had said nothing, just as you ignored some other points I made, like about infrared light, etc.

"Once again Christopher, wavelength determines color."

No, wavelength determines what the eye perceives - which is in turn interpreted as an image; color being a part of the image. The wave doesn't carry some color essence attatched to it: it simply exists and then, after it's observed and interpreted by an outside party, it has a color ascribed to it.

Unless you can prove that color exists as some Platonic ideal just floating in the ether somewhere (good luck trying to do that), this is the only logical explination for its existence - the concept exists because we perceive and conceive it into existence.

"If we went by what you assert, then when a color-blind person sees gray instead of the color they are blind to, that it actually is gray they are seeing, and not red or blue or green or whatever."

Quite frankly, to the color-blind observer in question the object *is* grey - as that's how their nervous system interprets the light waves emminating from the object. The thing called "color" is all in the mind of the beholder: the light waves may very well be real (assuming we aren't all trapped in Descartes' Dream - in which case both your argument and mine go right out the window), but any information about them is gathered by individual perception and thus is open to interpretation.

"Objectively, red falls in a certain range, as does blue, green, ultraviolent, infrared, etc."

If you refer to the color wheel, it's based on how a typical *human* eye perceives light - which is in and of itself a subjective standard: why use the human eye as the standard instead of some other animal's eye, or a mechanical eye that's far more sensitive to certain lightwaves than our sensory organs are? In the end, we just accept it as the standard because that's the perception of light most common to us - if the overall population perceived light differently, we would use a very different standard!

In the end, we still have no truly objective view of reality - only concepts thereof. And this argument about the nature of "color" is but one aspect of the broader debate concerning what is/isn't "real."

"Whatever. You fit the definition of troll."

That can be argued based on context - likewise *you* could be called a "troll" under different circumstances. You way wish to think twice before throwing stones from a glass house: those "stones" can do just as much damage to your credibility as that of the other person...

You provided an objective means of measuring a wavelength, not this thing we think of as "color."

Wrong again. Wavelength is integrally tied to color. What you are talking about is what we perceive, not what is actually there. If you want to contend that our perceptions are subjective, fine, I have no quarrel with that. But, that's not what you stated, and you insist on continuing to state the same thing over and over even though you are flat wrong.

Are the insults really necissary? One could just as easily call you a "troll" if you posted this in a forum full of post-classicalists.

Whatever. You fit the definition of troll. The only reason I responded to this at all was because I didn't realize it was from you. I didn't read the name attached to the comment before I had already written my response. Once I was in, I figured, "In for a penny, in for a pound," so to speak. Your assertions are dead wrong. If, for instance, my eyes were specially able to see infrared radiation, and it appeared to me as blue, would that make it blue? No, it would still be infrared.

Indeed, you are correct in the objective view. I merely think you two are arguing at cross-purposes. To be honest, I have a deeper gripe with Chris's statement that "
If we can't even reach a conclusion about the reality of physical things (like color) . . ." for color obviously has a physical reality, if nowhere else, then in our brains where synapses flicker with molecules to convey the experience of "red". A frequency may not convey color per se, but energy; but those molecules are what it means to see red, and they are as physical as the stars.

"Color is determined by wavelength. You have it backwards."

No, color is just an interpretation of a wavelegth - if a mechanical eye was programmed to do so, it could translate a wavelegth human eyes tend to interpret as "red" as being "blue" or "purple" or "orange" or anything else we can set it to.

"I don't care if you see a wave with a wavelength of 500nm as being red, it clearly is not, because it is outside of the range for "red"."

It's outside the range for "red" as perceived by the average human eye, but who's to say that there's no eye that won't perceive an entirely different color upon looking at the same wavelength?

"You asked if we could objectively measure color...we can, and I've shown you how. You simply can't countenance that someone else might be right and you might be wrong."

You provided an objective means of measuring a wavelength, not this thing we think of as "color."

"Troll."

Are the insults really necissary? One could just as easily call you a "troll" if you posted this in a forum full of post-classicalists.