Does Color Exist Without Light

JLN,

Okay...semantically "condition"-> "conditional"->"control". I suppose I would prefer the words "dynamic state" but I will yield the point.

Every day, every hour. The moon that illuminates the night gets it's light from the sun, but that is not to say that the light is a function of the moons reflective properties. The light is a result of the fire burning on the sun.

Colors are fractions of light, so it might be true that color is a function of basic reflective properties, properties of the object rather than of light itself.

Because light is neccesary for us to percieve colors it is easy to assume that they don't exist without light, as I have stated earlier in the thread. I now see that this may not be true.

I came to think about electrical systems. While it is completely obvious that they will not work without electricity, the electricity itself does not alter any properties of the machine exept to activate it. The same may be said about objects, their colors and light. In the dark any color of any object is indetectable. When light is introduced the properties of the object that define it's color are activated.

Cyracuz, I grant that without the sun we would have no light, but during full moons our nights are fairly bright. This means that on those occasions the reflective properties of the moon serves to provide light, and by extension, color. This is not negated by the fact that the sun which is not directly affecting our vision is a necessary cause of light on moonlit nights.
By the way, it has always been noted that we can close our eyes and "see" (imagine) colors. This is a function of memory, of course (a congenitally blind friend of mine cannot imagine colors; the concept even has no meaning for him). But I also see "colors" when banged on the head. If we grant that colors are experiences, the matter becomes more complex than when we take a simple materialist stance. In the example of light/color on a moonlit night, we also have a "dynamic state" (I think that's a proper application of Fresco's phrase), a process of light travelling from the sun to the moon to earth, not to mention the connection between "objective" and "subjective" facets of reality.

Maybe in the future we'll invent some other medium to convey color. I'll get to work on it.

So then, which instances are such that to view any colour, light and fundamental reflective properties are not required?

Intuitively, light, along with the physical property of reflection, is a necessary condition of colour- this is the case for us. It may be that other races either have eyes or not, and for those that utilize their eyes (since some races may have eyes though not in use), they may be capable of viewing colours without the use of light and its reflection. But this seems odd enough, since if their eyes utilize some sort of "brightener" or "optical enhancer," or night vision, this would imply the use of an inherent "biological" light and its reflective properties.

As for the races in which the eyes require light to view any one thing, the matter may resemble our own- the physical matter that is.

Any thoughts on this?

SCoates, I told you about your avatar: it seems that any one of your replies is coming from that cartoon.

I can not stop laughing...

That is true. If one considers that avatar to be speaking, it is too funny.

Twyvel, I concur

Cyracuz


[thumbs up]

Some qualification is in order, I believe.

This conditional seems to note that, "...moment to moment," existence and observations of any sort come and go, as smoke in the wind; more, they are unrelated to previous moments, and, for that matter, unrelated to possible moments in the future. That is, this conditional implies a "discreetness" of sorts- that existence as such and experience here and there are not continuous and correlated.

of course color exists without light, the real question is does light exist without color

Xgunner, I've never been comfortable with metaphysical determinism, but I do feel that our universe is unitary in the sense that everything is interdependent. Nothing exists in a vacuum, in a state of "self-being", as the Buddhist philosopher, Nagarjuna, called it. Everything is conditoned by everything else. This might be called metaphysical contextuallism. But it doesn't require a notion of "cause" in the sense of temporal antecedent determinant. Interdpendence can be simultaneous, synchronic, or diachronically non-linear.

-editied 5-29

how about, what color is light?

Light is said to contain all colors; they are separated by a prism.

what about blue light, that doesn't have all the colors

Good question, Xgunner. I have no idea what is the nature of blue light, but I suspect that it does not contradict the principle that "pure" light contains the entire color spectrum.

I a saw a guy kill someone yesterday, but he is not a murderer, because he is not currently killing anyone.

SCoates, I understand. We need to "essentialize" people. If a person once, stole, lied, killed, or saved someon'e life, he IS in essence a thief, a liar, a murderer, or a hero.

Blue light is fractured light. As is light of any color. The atmosphere fractures the light from the sun before it reaches us. No one except astronauts have seen unfractured sunlight.

Of course you can put a blue filter on a blank lightbulb, and you'd get blue illumination. But it would still be because the light is filtered through something to give it that color.