This Square is Yellow

I appreciate the fighting spirit for you have put your finger directly on the crux of the debate. That will be up to the voters. When the picture is examined at an elemental level, we both agree it is red and green.You said: “You can clearly see, as you said, that the yellow is created through the illumination of red and green.“ “I agree it is fair to say that it is made of red and green” “the light directly goes to our eyes with all of these tiny little red and green waves” That is what I’m asserting. I could claim victory from concession at this point, but you have another argument and that would be a risk. I’ll acknowledge the agreement in principle. This debate was designed to identify a delta between reality and perception that is the most fundamental concept in digital art. The artist creates illusion and the mind believes. However, like a stage magician, the illusion still is only manipulated perception, not reality. Let me provide an analogy. Remember those paper Red-Blue 3-D glasses? Imagine I folded those glasses in half, right along the bridge of the nose so the translucent panels overlapped. Then I placed a light on the opposite side of those. Now, I ask you question, “What color is the plastic?” You may say, “The plastic is purple.” I say, “That is incorrect! The plastic is not purple.” You may say, “Purple is what is truly received by my eyes. If I believe my mind, the plastic must be purple.” At this point, I unfold the glasses and show you the plastic is both red and blue. Neither piece of plastic is purple. Our mind is easily fooled. It is limited. Our eyes make assumptions and interpretations to function in reality. They are quite remarkable yet not entirely precise. Above you argued, “Yellow is what is truly received by our eyes” For the sake of objectivity, this is actually a true statement. I’ll acknowledge my agreement in principle. The problem with that assertion is that is not my debate premise. I did not posit: “This square appears yellow” Or “This square looks yellow” or “The light rays blended to form yellow”. No, the object on the screen IS red and green. At the smallest scale, there are only two frequencies emitted. It only appears yellow because our eyes are imperfect. You bring up an artist’s palette. It’s not a bad example, but it’s flawed. First, they behave fundamentally different. When using light, red and green make yellow. When using pigment, red and green make a muddy brown. When using light, all colors make white. When using pigment, all colors make an ugly gray. Pigments blend at a molecular level, meaning that the light is absorbed (and reflected) at a far finer resolution than a pixel. It may be a fascinating discussion to argue that reflected pigment colors represent some blend of individual molecules and not the aggregate average, that’s outside the scope of the debate. Second, light emits energy. Pigments absorb energy. That goes a long way to explaining the first difference above. While light is defined by the emission, a pigment only takes on a color if an external light source is present (as anyone who has ever stepped on a Lego brick in the middle of the night can attest). Third, light rays combine frequencies. Multiple light sources blend like a stage production at a rock concert. The high-intensity lamps fly around the stage in choreography with the music. The light colors exist only in their fundamental RGB states. The reflection upon the stage flutters in a psychedelic mix of hues. It does not change the color of the original source light. The image above is millions of tiny stage lights, none of which are yellow, shining directly at you. Congrats, you’re a rock star. Thank you for the debate.