What the fuck happened to my thread

what are 'iternationanl standards' but the human perception of colurs

What the fuck happened to my thread

sorry abt that yoshin-chan

im talking about colours named for definition and reference purposes ie on colour charts etc, like international standards for use in print and digital media

youre talking about human perceptions of colours and the way we interpret and choose to refer to them

and i think we each [initially] thought the other was talking about the same thing and had some confusion on that

ie i tried to "correct" you cause i though you were talking objective shit too

but there is no objective when it comes to colors. who cares about names or hex codes or whatever. the color defines the name, the name doesn't define the color.

idt we're on different pages here. i think ur just being pragmatic abt something thats p impossible to be pragmatic abt.

What the fuck happened to my thread

that mw magick

ye im done here tbh

but there is no objective when it comes to colors. who cares about names or hex codes or whatever. the color defines the name, the name doesn't define the color.

That's not how colors work at all. Stop smoking pot.

This post was last modified: Sep 29, 2016 at 11:27 PM by Yoshin.

Have you ever thought about the idea that everyone has a different tolerance or some fraction of color blindness and that there is no actual way to tell whether or not we see the same colors the same way? How do you verify for certain that the color you see is the same color someone else will see?

well because we all call x wave in the visible spectrum "blue"
Thats what colour standards are based off of, not human perception.

yeah lyk even if there is these so called 'hex codes' (sounds made up lol) that doesnt change anything to do with the functional words people apply to colours and one system of understanding colours doesnt invalidate the other, even if one is more 'specific' than the other (which i sont really believe that one is more specific than the other)

Have you ever thought about the idea that everyone has a different tolerance or some fraction of color blindness and that there is no actual way to tell whether or not we see the same colors the same way? How do you verify for certain that the color you see is the same color someone else will see?

ya thats p much what i'm getting at. even if what eberyone else sees is truly what i see, who cares? there's no way to know that

ok i mean i'm not really gonna bother debating about semantic qualia like a first yr philosophy student

sorry past-me, looks like i've failed you once again

This post was last modified: Sep 29, 2016 at 11:32 PM by Yrrzy.

theres entire organisations devoted to categorising colours in a system so that they can be referred to objectively in situations where that is necessary, ie matching colours across the globe for print and media

they dont have a say over your own perceptions its just used for standardisation

i was confused and thought you were referring to such standards, you were not

just because you dont have a reason to be specific and accurate with colour doesnt mean there arent huge groups of people who do, im sorry to mix up my world of objectives and definitions with your world of feelings and subjectivities

This post was last modified: Sep 30, 2016 at 12:10 AM by Draku. Edit Reason: don't act like a jerk

That's not how colors work at all. dont tell me what to do fash

ok objectively describe colors to me

hidden by staff: Show

cockboi

This post was last modified: Sep 29, 2016 at 11:33 PM by Yoshin.

@Yoshin And if, in your example, someone doesn't see blue as it is defined?

Assuming they see the same amount of colours and its just mixed up, they would still call it blue
If they didn't have the same visual range of colours I would say it depends on the person

@Yoshin And if, in your example, someone doesn't see blue as it is defined?

this statement doesnt make any sense

they see it how they see it, that wavelength just has a name

theres entire organisations devoted to categorising colours in a system so that they can be referred to objectively in situations where that is necessary, ie matching colours across the globe for print and media

they dont have a say over your own perceptions its just used for standardisation

i was confused and thought you were referring to such standards, you were not

just because you dont have a reason to be specific and accurate with colour doesnt mean there arent huge groups of people who do, im sorry to mix up my world of objectives and definitions with your world of feelings and subjectivities

yeayea im not saying there's no reason for all that. we need to name shit so we can describe it. im just saying there's no real way to be objective abt sensation

This post was last modified: Sep 29, 2016 at 11:34 PM by kaZaam.

they see it how they see it, that wavelength just has a name

e x a c t l y

yeayea im not saying there's no reason for all that. we need to name shit so we can describe it. im just saying there's no real way to be objective abt sensation

yea thats where the confusion is, yall are talkin about perception and sensation and im talkin about wavelengths and pigments

theres entire organisations devoted to categorising colours in a system so that they can be referred to objectively in situations where that is necessary, ie matching colours across the globe for print and media

they dont have a say over your own perceptions its just used for standardisation

i was confused and thought you were referring to such standards, you were not

just because you dont have a reason to be specific and accurate with colour doesnt mean there arent huge groups of people who do, im sorry to mix up my world of objectives and definitions with your world of feelings and subjectivities

im not rly interested in what capitalist organisations have to say abt colour

and i dont thin kanyone is rly srsly sayin that these Colour Experts are in the wrong to use a silly word lyk magenta over pink (but maybe they are - who knows).

yeah i mean i still dont really think that you're mixing up worlds. your just trying to justify your subjective relation to the world by claiming that its objective (which is a function of phallogocentric ontology)

has anyone ever really even seen a wavelength tho lol