all 60 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 60 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Indefinite?

indefinite /ĭn-dĕf′ə-nĭt/ adjective

  1. Not definite, especially.
  2. Unclear; vague.
  3. Lacking precise limits. "an indefinite leave of absence."
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    This one’s for me! I saw a new color the second time I broke through on DMT! I can still see it in my imagination. I’ve broken through since and haven’t seen it again.

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I know I heard about a group in Africa (IIRC) where they have a lot more words for greens, but they don't have a word for blue, or something like that. When given a test to identify the odd color out, when it's a very slight tint change of green they identify it quickly, but most westerners take a lot longer. When all of them are green, but then there's a blue one, they take a long time, but westerners see it instantly.

    It's why IQ tests are fundamentally flawed. Just our launguage can shape our recognition of the world. Imagine how much the rest of our culture, education, and surroundings influence us. None of these make us better or smarter than anyone else, yet they'll all make us better or worse at different things. They're all valuable, and it's part of why diversity, equity, and inclusion are so important. These different points of view can bring so much value to us

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    It’s why IQ tests are fundamentally flawed.

    Since you have failed to correctly define the words “highfalutin”, “dogsbody”, “apiary”, “valise”, “collet”, “haruspex”, “threnody”, or even “copse”, we regret to inform you that you are functionally illiterate and likely mentally disabled.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    highfalutin

    Person that farts a lot

    dogsbody

    Body of dog

    apiary

    BEES

    valise

    That stuff that reduces friction

    collet

    Piece of meat

    haruspex

    Protagonist no. 2 of Pathologic, and protagonist of Pathologic 2

    threnody

    Made up word

    copse

    Corpse without r

    😎

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    The same is true for English too.

    Brown and orange are different brightness levels of the same colour. Brown is dark orange and orange is light brown. Yet people experience brown and orange as separate colours, because we have separate words for it, while we experience light blue and dark blue as different brightness levels of the same colour, because both are called "blue".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago
    [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I had the hood of a car come down on the back of my head when I was taking out an alternator.

    I saw all kinds of new colors!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago (20 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    how the color is represented in the mental image you have in your head.

    That's not a color, its an abstraction of a memory

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Which is the point of the meme

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    The task isn’t about physically creating a color but about imaging it.

    How on earth do you tell someone they haven't imagined a new color? That's quite literally impossible to assert or deny.

    You made it into a counting problem

    It is inherently a counting problem because of how sight and color recognition functions.

    It’s even impossible to imagine.

    It is impossible to for a second party tell a first party that they have been unsuccessful in imagining something.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    It is impossible to for a second party tell a first party that they have been unsuccessful in imagining something.

    Looking at the last panel, I can say with certainty, that dude failed at the task.

    It is inherently a counting problem because of how sight and color recognition functions.

    It's, again, no question of sight and color recognition but about imagination.

    You're still looking that the comic from a very wrong angle and say "it makes no sense". Well, from my angle, it does.

    It's a thought experiment, reminds me of zen Buddhist koans. "What is the sound of one clapping hand?" or "What did your face look like before your parents were born?" don't have an answer. You can tell me you know the answer and I can't proof you wrong but that's not the point. It's about making people think. "Imagine a color you never saw" is the same. You can tell me you made it and maybe that would mean enlightenment for you but it's beside the point. It's a thought experiment obviously meant to have no answer (again, look at the last panel). The more you tell me that makes no sense and there is no answer, you're proofing my point. The comic makes it explicit that there is no answer. You impose a very different meaning onto it that doesn't lead to anything and say "the comic doesn't lead to anything".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Looking at the last panel

    The last panel is a fantasy by the artist.

    It’s a thought experiment, reminds me of zen Buddhist koans. “What is the sound of one clapping hand?” or “What did your face look like before your parents were born?” don’t have an answer.

    You can answer these questions. People just get anger when you do, because they want the question to be mystical rather than nonsensical. When they get silly-but-correct answers, it denudes the questions of their woo-woo faux-wisdom.

    So you have to fall back on even vaguer and more imprecise language, to try and obscure the original badly worded riddle.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The last panel is a fantasy by the artist.

    This might come as a surprise, but the whole comic is. If you read the first 3 panels as being historically accurate, I see where your confusion comes from.

    Anyway, you have a very unimaginative and literal approach to all this and that's just not the layer the comic communicates on. Maybe at least acknowledge that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • Anyway, you have a very unimaginative and literal approach to all this

    The one thing I really dislike about lemmy in general is that there are sooo many people like this here.

    No fun. No whimsy. All philosophical challenges are puzzles meant to be conquered by misinterpreting the point and then writing a 4-line python script. It's linux people, man, I swear.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    If you read the first 3 panels as being historically accurate

    The first panel is a challenge by the author, which is real at least in so far as it's a sentiment the author actually has.

    The next two are filler.

    The fourth is an invented response.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Epic Its like a purple, blue, pink, but more vibrant with sparkles. Similar to what is used for epic level items in games, hence the name.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    For this to be a color, it needs to be even at all points, so no sparkles!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    No, no, they have a point - if they can imagine something that's perfectly uniform and sparkly, then that'd actually be something novel

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    Also a cool thing about imaginination, is you don't have to stick to or define all the parameters to imagine it. You can go like, I'm imagining in this imaginary senario I've figured that part out, and just run with it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (4 children)

    True, but when we say we can't imagine something, we don't mean a mental construct that we don't think through, we mean something tangible. In case of color, it means actually visualizing it mentally, not imagining there could be something.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Nah, just two different meanings of "imagine".

    One is to imagine a color

    And the other to imagine there is a color.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Not really seing how those are different forms of imagination. And also, still imagining the color, just ignoring the limitations or letting them fill themselves in.

    I can picture a solid color that sparkles evenly, or even that has just one shimmer evenly across the whole surface, however the initial premise was just the limits of imagination, and you don't need to self-impose a bunch of parameters onto it like you're engineering something in real life. You don't need to imagine it 100% accurate to the point where you could reconstruct it, even partially imagining something is still imagining it, and you can even expand on it over time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    In the first case, you can visualize it, at least mentally, like, actually see it.

    In the second, you just imagine it could be a thing.

    For me at least, these are two wildly different concepts.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Trying to imagine objects in higher than 3 spatial dimensions.

    Imagining 2 or more temporal dimensions.

    Designing a system of governance that is fair to all constituents, physically realizable, and marketable enough to convince future constituents to follow it.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Imagining 2 or more temporal dimensions

    This one's actually kind of easy. The plot of Back to the Future (and every other time travel story where changing the past is possible) doesn't work unless there's more than one timelike dimension.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Ehh 4 dimensions can be bootstrapped off of 3 dimensions. 2 or more temporal dimensions is even easier. Cant really say anything to the third one lol. I think if youre dumb its probably easy to convince yourself that you did just invent such a system tho.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Trying to think of a new colour after turning off my mental safeguards felt like I was a computer dividing by zero. Honestly, would not recommend.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Octraine it is a kind of greenish-yellow-purple

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment