Colours in general do not actually exist. They are a concept that our brains make up.
Using a color grid notation (i dunno the actual values), #f74fff will always be #f74fff, regardless of how someone sees it. If we look at the exact same red apple from the exact same perspective, you might see some yellow undertones, I might see some purple…but the identity of that apple’s color is unique to it, with respect to the lighting conditions it is placed in. If the conditions remain unchanged, nothing we observe about the properties of the apple actually changes its color.
That is the case when you look at an object with a spectrometer that tells you wavelengths.
Colours OTOH are all made up stuff from our brains to label certain wavelengths or mixtures thereof. It’s not even the same from person to person.
Yeah, I figured that wasn’t gonna land…
2 Thanks
This is a tough room.
My friends and I often quote from the Charlie Murphy videos specifically, and Chappelle’s show in general, so I sometimes think everyone knows every bit of dialogue from them, too. 
1 Thank
My buddy and I do the same thing with Monty Python.
1 Thank
Sigh. Semantics at play again. The very property that defines color is not limited by human conceptualization. THAT is not based on semantics.
By the way, my favorite Firefox theme is Tokyo Night Dark Theme, which has mostly blue text on a purple background, though purple isn’t real, of course. 
Exactly, it’s semantics. 
There is no purple. Only human semantics agreeing on that particular mix of wavelengths being purple. 
This is a bit reminiscent of the metaphysics portion of philosophy class, another context where there is a tendency to focus on creating distinctions between our experience of a thing or a properties of a thing, and the thing itself.
In this form it is speculating about differences in individual experiences of the same thing.
Amidst all of that, there is an objective reality of the spectrum of light falling upon an object, which is the color of the light. There is an objective reality of the amount each wavelength of light the object reflects, which is the color of the object. There is an objective reality of our eye’s sensitivity to the wavelengths of light reaching it, which is the color we see. There are objective ambient lighting conditions, which play a role in the relative appearance of all of this. Each of these are real effects that are observable, measurable, and reproducible.
You might be able to convince me that what one person visually experiences looking at an aquamarine Crayola crayon illuminated by 2700K incandescent light and laying on a white sheet of paper with nothing else in their field of view to affect the objective perception of it is in some meaningful way different than what a 2nd person experiences in the same conditions. I can’t rule out some difference in the visual experience, so I don’t reject speculating on the possibility, but speculation is not convincing.
I don’t know how a case would be made that after both individuals have learned what aquamarine looks like, even if both really do have a different visual experience in their mind of the color, that their experience of the color being different means the color isn’t real. Show it to them under the same conditions again, and it will look the same. Show it to them under different conditions, and it will look different (eg - against a deep blue background, aquamarine will probably look more grey). Show them a different color crayon, and it won’t look like aquamarine.
Put another away, I don’t know how a case would be made that something that is objectively observable, measurable, and reproducible is not real, without digressing into semantic arguments about reality and color (“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”).
Which is what happened in the metaphysics portion of philosophy class - the professor led us through the history of philosophers thinking of and trying to answer the question of what it means to exist. After mentally flipping over the tables holding up the innate understanding of existence most people take for granted, he then challenged the class to explain what it means to exist. There was no agreement (seemingly to the enjoyment of the professor, whom I’m sure saw the same dynamic play out every semester). Being now very dissatisfied with the clumsy, intuitive, and difficult to support definitions of existence we all started with, a portion of students seemed to feel a need to fill the void with ideas even more difficult to support than those we started with, including classics like “nothing actually exists,” or “existence is defined by having been perceived,” or “Cogito, ergo sum.” That set the stage for some to then suppose the physical is less related to existence than the conception of it.
3 Thanks
If you didn’t have a name you wouldn’t exist either. You don’t exist because your name is a human construct. Agreed?
If so, nothing you say here on out actually matters, because you don’t exist because your name is a human construct, and even if we see you we don’t really see you.
That’s a hellova post. I stand in awe(actually sitting but you know what I mean). Well spoken indeed.
Chat GPT is amazing isnt it.
I used to type like that for clarity, but I have since found that it’s easier to truncate, then correct any kneejerk reactions that people have due to misunderstanding or miscomprehension.
**lucky seems to be very passionate about that particular topic, can’t fault him(her?) for being enthusiastic about it.