Before answering that question, be sure to read this text. I know that at a first glance, the answer to the question "Do you believe in colors?" is obviously "Yes," but in this case, things are a lot more complicated than they may seem.
In order to demonstrate how colors might not be real, I must first explain to you how language works; even though we use it every day, very few people have truly begun to dwell upon just how interesting it is. Firstly, consider names: I'll use my username, tanuki. When I call myself "tanuki," you all know that I am separate from my username. For instance, if my username was "raccoon" instead, I would still be who I am. This is true for words other than names as well; for example, if I call a tree a "zlorbapak" (which is a completely made-up word), you would still understand what a tree is. This is because words are not definitions, but symbols; when we use words, the real meanings of those words is simply something in our minds.
In other words, the word "tree" and trees themselves as a concept are distinct. When we use the word "tree" to refer to trees, we are using the word as a symbol to refer to all of the qualities associated with trees; it is perfectly possible to define the word "tree" without using the words "green" or "brown". However, colors are the opposite: it is impossible to define them without using real objects to map them on; this is why we can't describe colors to blind people.
But if colors cannot be defined without relying on other objects to define them, can it be said that they truly exist? Do you believe that colors truly exist?
Edited 11 months ago
Want to leave a comment?
colors are different wavelengths found in the visible spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. As such, colors can be defined along these lines, such as saying red is any kind of light that falls between this and that frequency. While it can be difficult to imagine what these colors actually look like given these descriptions, they are nonetheless definitions, same as those for ultraviolet or infrared light, both of which are not in the visible range, but are placed on the same spectrum and are generally considered to be real.
Yes, physical phenomena give rise to our perceptions of colors, but this doesn't mean that colors can be defined along these lines; if that were the case, all species would be able to see the exact same colors (in other words, a wavelength doesn't actually have a color until a being interprets it as having one).
what ymous said. you seem to be confusing definition with perception, or, perhaps more accurately, experience. It is possible to define something without ever really experiencing it. To go back to my example of the electromagnetic spectrum, there, iirc, some animals that can see in a different or simply wider range of light than humans can. The Mantis Shrimp, for instance, can see everything from ultraviolet to far-red. While we can never truly experience what it's like to actually see these colors, we can still know they exist and that some other being is experiencing them, because our definition of these colors are not entirely dependent on our experiencing them.
I have a feeling that you are confusing between "definition" and "perception". I see "definition" simply as a collection of symbols used to assign meaning to some particular symbol that we wish to define. "perception" on the other hand is the ability to recognize that a particular phenomenon is distinct.
I do not understand why being able to define colours in terms of wavelengths would enable all animals to perceive the same colours. We can define all our colour words in whatever way we want. These definitions will be useful as long as someone can interpret them (as long as they know what a wavelength of light is).
If colors had a real existence defined by their wavelengths, then all animals would see the same colors when looking at the same wavelengths, but this is not true. If an animal looks at a tree, no matter what color it perceives it as, it is still looking at a tree. But when an animal looks at a tree, and the wavelengths give rise to colors, they do not all see the same colors even if they are seeing the same tree. To elaborate, all animals would be able to look at a tree and know that it has leaves, but not all animals would think that those leaves are green. This means that when we say "the leaves of a tree are green", we are simply describing our mental understanding of it; my argument is that colors are mental, and lack a real existence, but they are still grounded in reality (that is to say, the greenness of a thing is simply our perception of certain wavelengths of light possessed by objects, which means that colors are not intrinsic.)
I would argue that "trees" are as mental as colours are.
Imagine a hypothetical animal which is a fish living deep in the ocean. Not a single generation of this fish has ever seen a tree before. What if someone catches this fish, puts it in a fishtank and then takes it for a walk in the park. Would the fish be able to differentiate the leaves of a tree from it's branches? Would it be able to tell that a tree is something separate from the ground that it grows from? Would it perceive a tree as a distinct object?
Yes I do believe colors exist.
Just because something can't be defined doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Take for example sound. Sound is simply a vibration that travels through the air or some other medium. Now how would you describe how does human voice sound like to a deaf person? Deep, high, perhaps pleasant? Those descriptions probably wouldn't help a deaf person understand how humans sound like but that doesn't mean that sound doesn't exist.
I think this question has a good potential for a deep philosophical discussion, however I don't quite understand a few statements that you are making.
You are saying
but is it possible to define anything at all without relying on other words?
I meant to say "colors cannot be defined without relying on other objects to define them", I edited the post.