[MacDorcha]

What shade of green?

I believe the bit you are reffering to is Alamo's point of universality.

She is referring to (correct me if I'm wrong here A-G) the "perfect" green. There are many represnetations of green, though to see it we

a) need to get a shade of green.

and

b) need to place the green on a medium to percieve it.

Care to show us just "green" js?

Not text colored green. Just green.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply!

Indeed, "green" is a universal. Likewise "olive green" is a universal. "Hunter green" is a universal.

For some people, colors are easier to make the point about universals. But we could have also used "chairness" or "threeness" or "female" or "pi" or "triangle" to make the same point.

[Right Wing Professor]

Neither you nor Alamo Girl evidently understand the physiology of color vision. Most of us have three color pigments, which absorb light maximally in the region of red, green and blue. Those three pigments are the reason why there are three primary colors, and why any color can to human senses be reproduced by three primary colors. But that's just to human senses; we can easily create two colors that look identical to people but are entirely different to a machine, to another organism, or even to a human being with a particular kind of mutation is a gene for one of the color pigments.

[js1138]

Care to show us just "green" js?

I know what green is. Green is a word people use to describe a perceived property of objects. Aside from the fact that my definition is off the cuff and is probably flawed, there is no other meaning of green, as a color. The notion that there is a Platonic green is just stupid.

there is no wavelength that is green. There is not even a range of wavelengths that can absolutely be called green. And worse yet, not everyone has the brain structures required to form the perception of green. Green requires some rather specific activity in the brain. There is no green "out there."