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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
Looking at the last panel, I can say with certainty, that dude failed at the task.
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”.
The last panel is a fantasy by the artist.
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.
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.