The anti🚫-derailment🚃 & thread🧵 hijacking🔫 thread🧵 ⁉

[Eriequiet]

[SnarkBe]

Who else checked the Wikipedia article to see if it was really added?

[amal]

@Aoxhwjfoavdlhsvfpzha

I think my mind subscribes more to Oxford’s definition:

“The appearance that things have that results from the way in which they reflect light. Red, orange and green are colors.”

If a substance doesn’t reflect or absorb light at all, our eyes and brain interpret it as “clear”, it’s as much an “appearance” as any opaque substance, it’s just easier to ignore

I believe Oxford’s definition as quoted here is a woefully narrow view. What about objects that emit their own light like the sun (stars), LEDs, bulbs, etc. What about structural color that is not a reflection but a refraction of light? Prisms? Actual rainbows in the sky from which we get our most anchient understanding of “color”… those are not reflections… yet we (humans) do perceive color from the light emitted or refracted (not reflected) that falls in wavelenth along the visual spectrum as allocated by and is defined by human experience.

@Aoxhwjfoavdlhsvfpzha

Even following “visual perception that enables one to differentiate otherwise identical objects.”, you can differentiate between a glass full of air and a glass full of water despite air being clear, it’s a “visual perception” in it’s own way.

Yes correct. This definition is also insufficient… one could say that blind humans using natural or artificial echolocation techniques could perceive “color” because they can differentiate two otherwise identical objects by position alone.

The dictionary definitions both fall short, so we must resort to common understanding - and nobody would claim that a blind person using echolocation is perceiving colors, even though they do use the visual centers of their brain to “see” what they are hearing. Would a lack of objects upon which to reflect echolocation pings against be considered “clear”? Perhaps, if one is to mean the path ahead of the blind person is “clear” of objects, but this meaning of clear indicates lack of something. I would argue that “clear” in the case of the glass full of water or air scenario, “clear” would also mean a lack of something - that something being the presence of any color at all.

Clear is not a color, it is the lack of color.

[Aoxhwjfoavdlhsvfpzha]

@amal

believe Oxford’s definition as quoted here is a woefully narrow view. What about objects that emit their own light like flame, LEDs, bulbs, etc. What about structural color that is not a reflection but a refraction of light? Prisms? Actual rainbows in the sky from which we get our most anchient understanding of “color”… those are not reflections… yet we (humans) do perceive color from the light which emitted or refracted (not reflected) that falls in wavelenth along the visual spectrum as allocated by and is defined by human experience.

I completely agree, perhaps “interact” is a better word, a bit more inclusive

@amal

This definition is also insufficient… one could say that blind humans using natural or artificial echolocation techniques could perceive “color” because they can differentiate two otherwise identical objects by position alone.

I wish I knew someone with synesthesia so I could ask them how they interpreted silence. But audio doesn’t directly translate to light. If we’re considering calling hearing “color” then we have to expand “color” to include physical feelings instead of being light specific, in which case you could argue heat is a form of “color”
(un-redacted because it’s considered “photochemical”, which is different enough from the way air pressure physically moves you to substantiate the claim to me)

@amal

Would a lack of objects upon which to reflect echolocation pings against be considered “clear”?

This is where the sound=light analogy falls down for me in this case, an absence of returning sounds isn’t exactly the same as an absence of light that is perceptible to the human eye, it’s more akin to the earlier “no EM at all” example which we both agreed was the absence of color, are frequencies of air movement that are outside of human hearing but which animals or microphones may detect not “sounds”?

@amal

I would argue that “clear” in the case of the glass full of water or air scenario, “clear” would also mean a lack of something - that something being the presence of any color at all.

I think it’s also important to my argument to acknowledge that a total lack of EM emissions is measurably different than EM emissions in a range we just aren’t capable of seeing without assistance, just as a lack of sound is measurably different than air fluctuations outside of the human audible range

[Eyeux]

@amal

There is no scenario I can see (pun!) in which “clear” would ever be considered a “color”.

All you said is perfectly correct. but then, in the interest of randomness, I must ask:

Is “white” the “presence of all the colours”, or the “abscence of all colours”?

Because if you look at this from the right angle… (oops, unintentional pun right there )

Some colour theories class it as absence. others class it as presence.

Depending on the ink medium you got, mixing them all might get you white. or black. (or most likely a brown-grayish abomination)

Depending on the language you use, 0 stands for either black, or white… or…
drummroll please: Clear!

[amal]

Since many colors can be experienced by receiving a combination of wavelengths on the em spectrum, not just a single wavelength, I would say white qualifies as a color… it is a combination of wavelengths that we can “see” with our eyes and our brain interprets as “white”.

[Eyeux]

@amal

it is a combination of wavelengths that we can “see” with our eyes and our brain interprets as “white”.

That touches my point!

is “colour” a wavelength?
Because a wavelength is a wavelength. so there must be more to “colour” than just being a microwave within a specific frequency.

Otherwise, I might say that my oven throws so much red, sooooo intense red that my eyes can’t even perceive (infrared & “beyond”)… to the point it cooks my frozen Lasagna. (well, this is technically correct, but feels weird addressing it like that, right?) XD

Or is “colour” the psychologycal phenomenon of identification of such wavelengths as interpreted by our brains, through our eyes?

And then I add:

Is the absence of something still a reference of that something?

i.e. if I say “this has no colour” (clear), the only way I may reach such conclusion is by looking at an object and failing to identify any of said wavelengths…
Therefore, the root process behind that sentence is exactly the same process behind saying “look mommy! My guts are red!”…

Just throwing some thoughts around because this meeting I’m on is boring me to death! but cams are on and I need to look busy on the keyboard.

[Eyeux]

Oh, found a simpler way to put it!!

@amal

it is a combination of wavelengths that we can “see” with our eyes and our brain interprets as “white”.

is the “absence” of wavelengths that we can “see” with our eyes and our brain interprets as “clear”.

[ThePolishedTurd]

A counterpoint if you will. Colour is merely the human construct for communicating perceived wavelengths of light.

@Eyeux

Some colour theories class it as absence. others class it as presence.

This is the differnce betwen pigment and light. What is being discussed is light and colour specifically. Since pigment results in light I consider the point moot.

@Eyeux

is the “absence” of wavelengths that we can “see” with our eyes and our brain interprets as “clear”.

a good point. However I think it is more fitting to say that clear only specifies the filtering affect of a particular medium(gas, liquid, solid, plasma). Clear being the absence of an apparent filter.

[Eyeux]

@ThePolishedTurd

This is the differnce betwen pigment and light.

exactly! but nevertheless, both fall within “colour theory”, even if within distinct academic fields.

Just like Amal’s description (which is perfectly correct, btw) befits a “STEM-centric approach”… if you go to the College of Building I have in my town, they do teach “colour Theory”, which is mostly focused around Pigment-oriented colours.

@ThePolishedTurd

What is being discussed is light and colour specifically

I beg to differ.

What sparked this was the question “do you consider Clear to be a colour?”

Therefore “light” is only one of the possible approaches to that. ^^

@ThePolishedTurd

However I think it is more fitting to say that clear only specifies the filtering affect of a particular medium

Yeah, I personally would steer more towards “clear is the perception of light distortion or accumulation of particles too small and scarce to be properly Identified”. Unrelated to wavelengths at all.

But then, where’s the fun in stating that?

Hence I’m taking a more philosophical, mostly phenomenological, approach to the topic at hand!
just for the lulz…

[Pilgrimsmaster]

@img0jpg

might get my payment conversion done there

you mean installed or converted?

If converted, you will need Amal to be at grindfest with his lab tools, and he may not be…

[img0jpg]

Installed, it’s already converted

[Pilgrimsmaster]

Sounds like a great plan

[if_dumb_was_person]

Hey guys im selling a ChameleonTinyPro on ebay if anyone is interested

Chameleon Tiny Pro | eBay

[Pilgrimsmaster]

This was reported as spam, but I see you have been reading a few posts and its not just a hit and run.
We also dont often sell things here, but also not never…

The one issue I do have is your price, at €100

These can be bought brand new with free shipment for €82.

Profiteering off the community is a no-no
so I’ll assume you weren’t aware, or you have included the EU tax.

I would suggest you

• offer a cyborg discount, or
• adjust your price on ebay, or
• delete your post

[scorpion]

It’s worth noting that the 100eur is the bidding start price. 160eur buy it now.

[Precision]

I’ve finally earned the devotee badge. I’m quite happy! Still haven’t implanted my chip though, I’ll do that in august i hope

[ODaily]

Chip or not, once you’re Devotee, it’s permanent, there’s no going back. Ever.

[enginerd]

So you’re fully controlled by Amal and his mind control network! Without any implants to begin with!

Ok, joking aside, how did you manage to hang around this place while resisting the urge to get electronics under your skin?

[Precision]

It’s simple: the mind control is telling me not to get chipped yet!

Lol i bought the chip but the only person i found who’d do the installation is super busy, so i have to wait