My logic teacher believes so... I don't. Color is contingent upon light, and light is contingent upon sight. And what's light to a blind man?... nothing.
I think I answered wrong. I put in NO. "Color" is a description of the wavelength of light. Light can be measured without human eyes, and consists partly of waves, which have a length whether a biological or mechanical eye is making the measurement. The wavelength and amplitude of a sound can produce a physical sensation despite a person having the lack of hearing to sense it with their ears, it is there regardless just like light waves. If radiation waves depended on biological eyes to sense it, your radio, cell phones, wireless networks, bluetooth, etc. would not function.
Yes, color isn't an attribute of light, but, its manifestation, in appearance, is definitely enabled by light... and that's why color is contingent upon light.
The different colors are human definitions of wavelength ranges of light. You could program a machine to pick up the different ranges of colors, and identify them in whatever human language you desire, including many descriptions that human eyes can't even see. You could tell the computer to make its own definitions, but aside from it choosing random numbers or alien words (or more likely just exact measurement ratings) it measure the same light we do. If you were to say that "blue" is only a human invention, that isn't true. The light is there, whether we call it "blue" or "azul" or if a computer calls it "475nm."
Okay, I understand what you're saying, and I've put it under the crucible of my reasoning, solemnly, out of respect; so, I have a two part question - Is this light eternal?... and if not, is color able to exist without light and perception?
I can't answer whether light is eternal with certainty. I do know that electrons can interfere with the light spectrum, which suggests that light can be interrupted. But the process of doing so energizes the electron, which has to release that energy again as radiation... so the interruption is not diminishing the total radiation (at least, in my limited understanding) but just changing the overall nature of it. Entropy would probably claim light at some point in heat death, but as far as I know that's basically an extrapolation of physics. What we define as color might continue to exist after the end of all light for as long as a generation of people remains alive to recall the experience. The memory and imagination can continue for those people. If your definition of perception includes hallucination, then perception of it would continue for as long as people remember a previous encounter with light. The direct experience of light, however, would not continue for anyone if there was no light left. Except for the color black, which I might argue is only a description for a lack of light.
For a generation of human beings born in darkness, I doubt it. Born into black, there is no need for a definition of black. The previous generation might define color as just slightly more color than black, but the generation born in darkness would have no way of understanding what they mean.
So... ultimately, color is contingent upon light, and thus perception(sight), for its manifestation, right?
Color is light. Whether there is light or not, a biological eye and a machine will measure the same thing. If there is light that an eye can't see, but a machine still can see, the machine would register a wavelength we define as a "color" that we can't see (like microwave or ultraviolet). If there is no light, neither a biological eye nor a machine will measure the waves. Perhaps I misunderstood your point. I'm saying that if a person is blind, but there is light about, there is color whether or not the blind person can see that color. The blind person is basically a biological machine incapable of making a measurement of light waves.
Okay, I see what you mean; my bad for the ambiguous phrasing... but yea, I meant to ask, is color still "real" if there is NO ONE there to perceive it, due to there being no light - no sunlight?
[quote name='"DeadRock"']I went with Fuck You and your Color! because FUCK YOU AND YOUR COLOR![/quote] Shh rocky its okay uncle bubbas never gonna touch you there again
If we assume that star light is the product of an objective reality, then color must be real even if there never existed a single being to give words to define specific wavelength ranges. It just refers to a section of light spectra. The definition is subjective, that's true, but the light itself isn't. If we make that assumption. And I do make that assumption, as it's easier than the alternative.
An objective reality exist, but it is nothing like the world we experience in appearance and representation. Color and light, as we know it, is a product of both the noumenon and the subjective mind converging to constitute its appearance.
My bad, I didn't meant to write that, weird... I meant the thing-in-itself; and you, most likely, also don't know what that means, so nvm... good chat, bro.
Basically depends on your stance in Quantum Physics. You're essentially asking whether anything exists without perception. Which is a question I can't answer. The Buddhist in me says no. The Historian in me says yes. The Physicist in me says no. So, in the end I've established that my answer is conclusively: fuck you and your color.