How Does A Green Apple Turn To Red?

[xyz]

In a world looked at in pictures in the mind, we subjectively ''see'' a green apple turn into a red apple, likewise we can see this of Bananas but obviously green to yellow.  

Subjectively I do not notice any change in the light , but I do notice a change in ''colour'' of the apple or the Banana.  

 

 

 

 

delta (green) to red = ?

 

delta (green) to yellow = ?

 

 

 

 

added - an apple remains red even in the shade and a banana remains yellow. 

Edited June 19, 2016 by xyz

[exchemist]

In a world looked at in pictures in the mind, we subjectively ''see'' a green apple turn into a red apple, likewise we can see this of Bananas but obviously green to yellow.  

Subjectively I do not notice any change in the light , but I do notice a change in ''colour'' of the apple or the Banana.  

 

 

 

 

delta (green) to red = ?

 

delta (green) to yellow = ?

 

 

 

 

added - an apple remains red even in the shade and a banana remains yellow. 

In your view, does a red apple remain red in the dark? Or in blue light (which will make it look black)? 

[xyz]

In your view, does a red apple remain red in the dark? Or in blue light (which will make it look black)? 

Does a red apple remain red in the dark?  An answer subjectively or objectively I would not know. 

 

 

Or in blue light it may look black?   Interesting,  but by adding blue light are we not creating observer effect and changing the context of the ''natural'' question ?  

[pzkpfw]

... Subjectively I do not notice any change in the light ...

That's where you are wrong. A change in the light is what that colour change is.

 

Colour is well understood. Put simply ...

 

Light has a frequency, we've evolved the ability to detect light of different frequencies as colour. (See: "rods and cones").

 

The colour of an object comes from what frequencies of light it reflects.

 

As a banana or apple ripens, there are changes to the chemical make-up of its skin, so there are changes to what frequencies of light it reflects.

 

No mystery, and many many experiments show how this works.

 

Edit, links:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoreceptor_cell

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color#Color_of_objects

 

https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/bananas-change-colour-upon-ripening.html

Edited June 19, 2016 by pzkpfw

[xyz]

That's where you are wrong. A change in the light is what that colour change is.

 

 

As a banana or apple ripens, there are changes to the chemical make-up of its skin, so there are changes to what frequencies of light it reflects.

 

 

 

You say I am wrong, subjectively we do not see any difference in the light, objectively we see a difference in the light, they way light works is of objective thoughts, subjective is just the visual picture you see in your head. 

 

However you did give an objective answer about the chemical of the skin, this I must consider as subjectively I could not prove that to be in error. 

 

 

So you are saying that a change in the chemical in the skin changes the way light reacts with the apple and is observed?

 

 

How do we know that the apple just does not turn red and is red in reality outside of our minds and perceived image?

 

 

And are we really saying that without light that colour does not exist as an entity in the Universe?

[pzkpfw]

If there's no light, you can't perceive any colour.

 

But of course, the chemicals that make an apple green or red are still on that apple, whether or not you can see it.

 

 

This is again where you start getting into the tree-falls-in-a-forest thing.

[A-wal]

And are we really saying that without light that colour does not exist as an entity in the Universe?

Colour is due to the wavelight of light, so no light means no colour, obviously.

[xyz]

Colour is due to the wavelight of light, so no light means no colour, obviously.

No light means it is relatively dark, we would not know if there was still coloured objects in the dark. 

[A-wal]

No, colour is due to the wavelength of the observed light, so no light means no colour, obviously.

Edited June 19, 2016 by A-wal

[xyz]

No, colour is due to the wavelength of the observed light, so no light means no colour, obviously.

You are certainly not thinking objectively and only considering dark by what you perceive it to be when dark.  There is ''light'' in the subjective darkness such as radio waves, CMBR, the invisible spectrum. 

 

 

How can you possibly conclude from an objective view that there is no colour in the Universe when it is subjectively dark?

[pzkpfw]

I'm regretting showing you the words "subjective" and "objective".

[xyz]

I'm regretting showing you the words "subjective" and "objective"

Thank you , those words did ''enlighten'' me. 

[A-wal]

:doh: Colour is due to the wavelength of light that's in the observable part of the light spectrum, so no observable light means no colour, obviously.

[xyz]

:doh: Colour is due to the wavelength of light that's in the observable part of the light spectrum, so no observable light means no colour, obviously.

You keep repeating your answer and avoiding the question,from an objective view and theory point of view the visible spectrum is colour , however from a subjective view the apple is just a red apple. 

How do you know that the red apple is not just a red apple and how do you know that the red apple is still not a red apple in the ''dark'' if you can not ''see'' that apple in the dark  to evidently say it is no longer a red apple?

 

Are you suggesting that everything in the universe is black in natural ''colour'' just because it is subjectively dark?

[pzkpfw]

...

Are you suggesting that everything in the universe is black in natural ''colour'' just because it is subjectively dark?

Nobody thinks that, any more than they think their house vanishes when they close their eyes.

 

A red apple, in complete absence of light, will still have the molecules that make it red when in light.

 

In that sense, a red apple in complete dark is still a red apple.

 

But if there's a complete absence of light, nobody can see that the apple is red.

[A-wal]

Are you suggesting that everything in the universe is black in natural ''colour'' just because it is subjectively dark?

Black isn't really a colour, it's a lack of colour. Ironically, the lighter your skin, the more 'cloured' you are.

 

I'm suggest that in the absence of visible wavelengths of light, everything in the universe is black, yes.

 

It's not a red apple in the dark. It's what would be a red apple if there were white light reflecting off of it.

[xyz]

Nobody thinks that, any more than they think their house vanishes when they close their eyes.

 

A red apple, in complete absence of light, will still have the molecules that make it red when in light.

 

In that sense, a red apple in complete dark is still a red apple.

 

But if there's a complete absence of light, nobody can see that the apple is red.

Well obviously in ''darkness'' nobody can see that the apple is red, in fact we can't even see the apple, but by the very fact we cant see if the apple is red in the dark, gives us the objective question of whether or not the apple is still red in the dark.  

The apple stays red in the shade but is less illuminated, but we can still see it is red, if we were to turn the light down more, we can still see it is red, so why we would we think it wasn't red in the dark?

I observe the apple only needs illumination to become visible but does not need anything to be red?