🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep30.201632.75690@Cookie.secapl.com> frank@Cookie.secapl.com (Frank Adams) writes:

<It is easier to imagine the red/blue interchange, because red and blue are
<rather similar feelings, and ones don't have nearly as strong behavioral
<implications. But I think there are differences in behavior caused by the
<differences in the feelings in this case, too.  They're subtle; but pretty
<much everyone agrees that red is a "hot" or "active" color, while blue is a
<"cool" or "passive" color.  I don't think this is a purely conditioned
<response -- babies seem to react the same way.

Another way to distinguish between red and blue is that blue seems
"close" to green.  It's easy to imagine a continuum between blue and
green, but between red and green the best possible seems to go by way of
the rainbow---red to orange to yellow to chartreuse to green.

The Hardin book _Color_for_Philosophers_, mentioned already by Dave
Chalmers, is excellent reading, and dispels naive notions about color
(e.g., identifying color with certain EM frequencies) very quickly.