fake is just an easy way to communicate the idea without going into a bunch of complex color terminology. extra-spectral is a name for them if you really want to split hairs about it. which includes both impossible and imaginary (which are also described as fictitious).
I feel it’s like saying “matter is mostly empty space and objects don’t actually touch, they repel each other”. Yes, that may be true on a physics/atomic level, but on a practical, every day level, objets are “solid” and they “touch”.
Yeah, pink/brown doesn’t “exist”. There is no “pink wavelength”. It’s “a composite”. But you can still pull a pink crayon out and everyone agrees “yeah, that’s pink”.
Saying colors don’t exist is splitting hairs in a context most people aren’t referring to.
In the case of the shrimp, it does matter because are they seeing “pink” or “red while also seeing purple separately and distinctly”? It’s asking if they are processing the colors in the same format.
I can’t see the fake colors either, so in a way I relate to the shrimp. I’ve done the overlapping an image of yellow and blue by unfocusing your eyes, where you’re supposed to see an impossible color instead of green, but I just see green. I’ve also done the ones with staring at a color then glancing at another, and it still produces very normal colors. Yellow circle then glancing at black? Just dark blue. Green then glancing at white? Regular pink. Blue then glancing at orange? Just looks red.
dafuq you mean fake colours, is white also fake then?
The are some colors that our brains make up that don’t actually exist, they’re called impossible colors, this video about it is pretty interesting imo
https://youtu.be/41H7kKwUlHo?si=lYnbYEad6vCrSD5d
That doesn’t justify calling them fake. All colors are made up in our brains. At least call them composite
fake is just an easy way to communicate the idea without going into a bunch of complex color terminology. extra-spectral is a name for them if you really want to split hairs about it. which includes both impossible and imaginary (which are also described as fictitious).
I feel it’s like saying “matter is mostly empty space and objects don’t actually touch, they repel each other”. Yes, that may be true on a physics/atomic level, but on a practical, every day level, objets are “solid” and they “touch”.
Yeah, pink/brown doesn’t “exist”. There is no “pink wavelength”. It’s “a composite”. But you can still pull a pink crayon out and everyone agrees “yeah, that’s pink”.
Saying colors don’t exist is splitting hairs in a context most people aren’t referring to.
In the case of the shrimp, it does matter because are they seeing “pink” or “red while also seeing purple separately and distinctly”? It’s asking if they are processing the colors in the same format.
I can’t see the fake colors either, so in a way I relate to the shrimp. I’ve done the overlapping an image of yellow and blue by unfocusing your eyes, where you’re supposed to see an impossible color instead of green, but I just see green. I’ve also done the ones with staring at a color then glancing at another, and it still produces very normal colors. Yellow circle then glancing at black? Just dark blue. Green then glancing at white? Regular pink. Blue then glancing at orange? Just looks red.
Pink and brown, I think?
Isn’t brown just a dark orange? I guess it would depend on the exact shade
Here, have a 20-minute video about brown.
Only 20 minutes? Was TC even trying if it’s not at least 45 minutes?