Pick any two adjacent known colors. Find the wavelength midpoint between these colors. Determine if this is a known color. Repeat until you’ve found an unclassified color.
This isn’t an imagination problem, its a math problem.
They are not talking about the mathematical definition of color, but how the color is represented in the mental image you have in your head. Think about how a blue wavelength becomes a blue “pixel” in your head. It is possible to imagine other colors? If we could see ultraviolet, what color would it be? Is my blue the same as your blue or what my brain interprets as blue is different from what your brain does?
It depends on the definition of “color”. For us humans, in our everyday life, the abstraction we have in our mind is more meaningful than the wavelength, which is what formally defines a color, but not how we cognitively perceive it
Yeah, pretty much all arguments about colour can be solved if you realise each side is using a different definition of the word “colour” out of the four or five common ones. It’s frustrating.
Same with holes - people always bring out topology as if it wasn’t a super specialised piece of abstract math with barely any relation to anything physical.
This doesn’t really work because colors are a spectrum. You can split and merge existing colors like using a single word for blue and green (like Japanese) or distinguish between light and dark blue (like Italian) but “light blue” isn’t a new color. It’s part of the blue spectrum
but “light blue” isn’t a new color. It’s part of the blue spectrum
A spectrum isn’t a color, its a range of wavelengths. “Light Blue” is a narrower range of wavelengths with higher brightness value than the “Dark Blue” end.
We define a unique “color” as a specific combination of hue, saturation, and brightness value. “Inventing” a new color is just a question of finding a combination of attributes that hasn’t been produced before. Thanks to the midpoint theorum, you can do this right up to the point of Plank’s constant.
I meant spectrum as in it’s not a fixed value but, fine, I can call it range instead. Doesn’t change my argument.
What do you mean “hasn’t been produced before”? That comes with a huge burden of proof. People produce color gradients all the time. Pretty many colors in them.
And if you produce a shade of blue that by happenstance is either more or less saturated than anything else, what have you found there? It isn’t a new color by any meaningful definition. It won’t blow anyone’s mind, it’s just a shade of blue similar but not identical to other blue shades. It falls into the blue range. The observable light is devided into colors, each inhabiting a range. The exact way is different depending on language and other contexts but by no meaningful definition is a color just a single value.
Before you double down on your definition: the implication is that your definition doesn’t make much sense and to demonstrate it from a different angle: how precise are you going to measure these? Let’s say a common blue has the saturation of 63%, would 64% quality as a new color? What about 63.2%? Where do you draw the line? And if you have to draw lines anyway, why not choose a meaningful way as in defining “blue” as one color?
What do you mean “hasn’t been produced before”? That comes with a huge burden of proof.
Sure. But, again, that’s not a question of creativity, just an exhaustive exercise of proving uniqueness.
It isn’t a new color by any meaningful definition.
Because color isn’t an invented concept, it is a perceived wavelength value/range. Asking for a “new color” is like asking for a “new number”.
Under your broader definition of color, we’ve already found the three or seven or I guess nine if you want to count black/white, existing colors. The only way to “invent” new colors is to expand the spectrum by which humans perceive light.
Understanding how light works and how one might accomplish this takes creativity. But if we’re excluding ultraviolet or infrared because they’re outside the natural visual spectrum, all we can creatively accomplish is proving we’ve exhausted the range of available colors.
Under your broader definition of color, we’ve already found the three or seven or I guess nine if you want to count black/white, existing colors
Which is the point of the meme and I agree with it
all we can creatively accomplish is proving we’ve exhausted the range of available colors.
There is a lot we can do creatively besides creating new colors from stretch. The meme is about how the human mind is creative but this one thing it can’t do.
Besides, how is your method creative? You said yourself it’s pure mathematics.
The point is based on a faulty understanding of creativity. It’s not a counting problem.
Besides, how is your method creative?
It’s not. The problem isn’t a problem of creativity. That’s the underlying flaw in the comic’s conceit. “Give me a color that’s not a composite of primary colors” is an impossible task because of how we define the concept of colors, not because an individual is incapable of coming up with a color permutation that has never been seen before.
I think you’re conflating creativity and imagination. The task isn’t about physically creating a color but about imaging it. About a mental image of a color you never saw before. Not about actualizing that color.
It’s not a counting problem.
You made it into a counting problem so I really don’t see your point here
“Give me a color that’s not a composite of primary colors” is an impossible task
Exactly. It’s even impossible to imagine. We can imagine shapes and form and stuff we never saw and will never see but for colors, this isn’t true. That’s the whole point.
Pick any two adjacent known colors. Find the wavelength midpoint between these colors. Determine if this is a known color. Repeat until you’ve found an unclassified color.
This isn’t an imagination problem, its a math problem.
Everything is a math problem. It just needs to be written in the proper form.
Colors aren’t sharp combinations of wavelengths though.
They are not talking about the mathematical definition of color, but how the color is represented in the mental image you have in your head. Think about how a blue wavelength becomes a blue “pixel” in your head. It is possible to imagine other colors? If we could see ultraviolet, what color would it be? Is my blue the same as your blue or what my brain interprets as blue is different from what your brain does?
That’s not a color, its an abstraction of a memory
It depends on the definition of “color”. For us humans, in our everyday life, the abstraction we have in our mind is more meaningful than the wavelength, which is what formally defines a color, but not how we cognitively perceive it
Yeah, pretty much all arguments about colour can be solved if you realise each side is using a different definition of the word “colour” out of the four or five common ones. It’s frustrating.
Same with holes - people always bring out topology as if it wasn’t a super specialised piece of abstract math with barely any relation to anything physical.
This doesn’t really work because colors are a spectrum. You can split and merge existing colors like using a single word for blue and green (like Japanese) or distinguish between light and dark blue (like Italian) but “light blue” isn’t a new color. It’s part of the blue spectrum
Yeah tell that to Pantone LLC
A spectrum isn’t a color, its a range of wavelengths. “Light Blue” is a narrower range of wavelengths with higher brightness value than the “Dark Blue” end.
We define a unique “color” as a specific combination of hue, saturation, and brightness value. “Inventing” a new color is just a question of finding a combination of attributes that hasn’t been produced before. Thanks to the midpoint theorum, you can do this right up to the point of Plank’s constant.
I meant spectrum as in it’s not a fixed value but, fine, I can call it range instead. Doesn’t change my argument.
What do you mean “hasn’t been produced before”? That comes with a huge burden of proof. People produce color gradients all the time. Pretty many colors in them.
And if you produce a shade of blue that by happenstance is either more or less saturated than anything else, what have you found there? It isn’t a new color by any meaningful definition. It won’t blow anyone’s mind, it’s just a shade of blue similar but not identical to other blue shades. It falls into the blue range. The observable light is devided into colors, each inhabiting a range. The exact way is different depending on language and other contexts but by no meaningful definition is a color just a single value.
Before you double down on your definition: the implication is that your definition doesn’t make much sense and to demonstrate it from a different angle: how precise are you going to measure these? Let’s say a common blue has the saturation of 63%, would 64% quality as a new color? What about 63.2%? Where do you draw the line? And if you have to draw lines anyway, why not choose a meaningful way as in defining “blue” as one color?
Sure. But, again, that’s not a question of creativity, just an exhaustive exercise of proving uniqueness.
Because color isn’t an invented concept, it is a perceived wavelength value/range. Asking for a “new color” is like asking for a “new number”.
Under your broader definition of color, we’ve already found the three or seven or I guess nine if you want to count black/white, existing colors. The only way to “invent” new colors is to expand the spectrum by which humans perceive light.
Understanding how light works and how one might accomplish this takes creativity. But if we’re excluding ultraviolet or infrared because they’re outside the natural visual spectrum, all we can creatively accomplish is proving we’ve exhausted the range of available colors.
Which is the point of the meme and I agree with it
There is a lot we can do creatively besides creating new colors from stretch. The meme is about how the human mind is creative but this one thing it can’t do.
Besides, how is your method creative? You said yourself it’s pure mathematics.
The point is based on a faulty understanding of creativity. It’s not a counting problem.
It’s not. The problem isn’t a problem of creativity. That’s the underlying flaw in the comic’s conceit. “Give me a color that’s not a composite of primary colors” is an impossible task because of how we define the concept of colors, not because an individual is incapable of coming up with a color permutation that has never been seen before.
I think you’re conflating creativity and imagination. The task isn’t about physically creating a color but about imaging it. About a mental image of a color you never saw before. Not about actualizing that color.
You made it into a counting problem so I really don’t see your point here
Exactly. It’s even impossible to imagine. We can imagine shapes and form and stuff we never saw and will never see but for colors, this isn’t true. That’s the whole point.
How on earth do you tell someone they haven’t imagined a new color? That’s quite literally impossible to assert or deny.
It is inherently a counting problem because of how sight and color recognition functions.
It is impossible to for a second party tell a first party that they have been unsuccessful in imagining something.
I feel if I do that, I would been seeing the same color for a while