CopperLine wrote:They cannot be green until they have reflected the green of the spectrum, which our eyes pick up and our brain tells us is green. Without white light shining, cucumbers do not have a colour (weird).
Hence, cucumbers ARE green BECAUSE they reflect the "green" etc etc
Phoenix, I've got to say that I disagree with you for committing an epistemic fallacy. Light and cucumbers exist independent of our sense-perception so irrespective of whether anyone sees the light falling on the cucumber the cucumber is green.
To this you might object that to label a colour 'green' instead of 'red' must surely require a sense-perceiver, in other words, there's got to be someone there to see the light falling on the cucumber and thereby detect the reflection of the green part of the spectrum, hence being able to say 'cucumbers are green'. But the name we give to particular and different parts of the visible spectrum is not to be confused with the existence or otherwise of that part of the spectrum.
Consider this : green is part of the visible spectrum and we can call it that, but phases of the red part of the spectrum are invisible. That they are invisible and we therefore do not/cannot have a name for them does not mean that they do not exist.
in conclusion, things exist prior to knowledge of their existence.
Claptrap and balderdash!
We have rods and cones that detect different wavelengths and we perceive the greens and reds etc.
Lions for example, looking at the existential, said cucumber, will only see grey because they have monochromatic vision.
The same thing can exist in the known universe, but is perceived in a completely different way.
Please concede, I'm beginning to see moving spots before my eyes.
Pip-pip
Phoenix
