Your country

>your country
>what color you see this dress

green and violet

white and gold

Petroleum blue and venice black

Black and blue/purple

white and gold

blue and gold
then again, i'm colorblind

blue&black

flag
black and blue

what color?

Im fucking blind browsing this site with text-to-speech

Only brown-eyed subhumans see the left version

Light blue and like dark gold.

I'm green eyed though...

White and gold.

white and gold

the only thing the brown eyed subhumans see in this picture is a white woman in need of a black cock

Blue eyed people: White and gold
Shit eyed people: Black and blue

but...it was blue and black

what if I have seen both

black, red, silver and little bit of gerbertian bluellow

white and gold naturally

You're mixed.

On a serious note though, I was trying to do that. Do you just have to stare long enough?

same blue and gold

I HAVE GREEN EYES SHUT UP

Are you retarded?I see two white woman in need of a black cock

Light blue and dark gold

This was like a fucking year ago.

if you squint hard, it turns blue and black

Asians therefore have superior vision

I honestly don't know, it just happened. I was super surprised myself

I first saw it white and gold, then saw it again on another website and saw it black and blue, first thought it was a Gif or something but it wasn't.

Spooky af desu

oh shit I see that too now!

is this a 4D chess thrad?

Fuck of faggot, I see white and gold and I don't have gay eyes.

I'm too white for this shit.

For those who see it white and gold what color are the lines?

>tfw green eyes
>mfw see both depending on which one I think
This whole dress thing fucked with my eyes when I first saw it

blue and dark gold

fill in the background of both frames with black


which colour is it now?

as in open with paint and fill

>he blacks out the white skin


ay FUCK YOU racist

still blue and gold to me
im the green eyes poster

guess she got


BLACKED

at least she want gayreeked

the dress was already confirmed to be actually black and blue a long time ago, just sayin

because the skin actually turns a different colour unlike the dress

...

wrong you stupid viking

>everyone saying white/gold or black/blue
>I see blue/gold
Is this Amerimutt crossbread powers at work?

There are lots of people ITT saying blue/gold

just saw this and i wasn't impressed

I skimmed too fast, are the people saying white actually seeing white or just a light blue?

White and gold

that's white and gold are you stupid
also i'm burgetfatishartistani

I remember when I first saw it when the meme first started it looked almost pure white (perhaps slightly bluish) and gold. But now it looks blue and dark gold to me. So I wouldn't be surprised if there are people who see it as white and gold.

r u impressed now?

...

ahahahah what a funlandish picture to post

truly u r 100 funlandish

what did he mean by this?

cyan and golden
but the lighting is low enough to think they're blue and brown

BLUE
AND
BLACK

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

I've seriously tried to see it in any other way, I've really kept my mind open and tried to understand how anyone sees anything different, but I don't understand, I just don't fucking understand.

Blue and black

its blue n gold

no, because you're either a tryhard or a Turk, both miserable categories

the light is on it there
it's black

White and gold
I can kinda see blue but black I can't see.

>t turbofin

but if no light, everything blac

It's black and blue.

The debate isn't about the colour of the dress itself, it's about how it appears in that particular photo, which is undoubtedly blue and gold.

White & Gold

Light Gray and dark gray

How a thing appears is not the same as its colour. The eye and brain account and adjust for surroundings and lighting. Those who see white or gold have "malfunctioned"; the dress is, and should appear to be, a black and blue dress affected by yellowish light. Those who claim to see black and blue are telling you, correctly, what colours would be seen in neutral light.

im colorblind and see black and blue without any doubt

I know, and the debate is about how the dress appears.

>Although the actual colour of the dress was eventually confirmed to be black and blue,[3][4]
colorlets BTFO'd

Unimportant. We aren't talking about the dress; we're talking about the image of the dress, a completely separate concept. The physical object the image is based on has no bearing on the "correct" interpretation of the photo. The image is not under any lighting. It is, in fact, a light source itself, because it is being viewed on a screen. The pixels of said screen are emitting yellow and white light. Therefore, the image is white and gold.

Im colorblind so I never understood it anyway

This. People who see blue and black aren't right either, their minds have also "malfunctioned" as he put it. The only correct answer is blue and gold.

white and beige

I'm coffee eyed (not special snowflake eyed), and I see the white and gold version.

Actually, I see it blue and gold

No, the minds of those who see black and blue have functioned correctly, not malfunctioned, because the dress is, in fact, black and blue. The relevant function of the mind is not to determine colours as affected by surroundings and lighting but in isolation, but to isolate colours from surroundings and lighting. Do you understand the difference?

>the dress is, in fact, black and blue
But we aren't looking at the dress. We are looking at a set of pixels being displayed on a computer screen.

So then you are not answering the question, as worded in the OP, of:
>what color you see this dress

Nor:
>what colour should you see this dress to be?

Nor even:
>what colour is this dress?

But only:
>what colour are the pixels?

A boring question worth neither asking nor answering, because we can all use MS Paint ourselves.

Light blue and goldish brown.

All of those questions are unanswerable, because we have no data to base our conclusion on but a single, badly-taken photo. We can't see the dress. We can see the pixels. Any answer other than what is objectively displayed would be conjecture or reliant on outside knowledge, and a question that can't be answered without outside knowledge is just shitty "Gotcha!" bait not worth my attention.

So then you are not answering the question, as worded in the OP, of:
>what color you see this dress

Nor:
>what colour should you see this dress to be?

Nor even:
>what colour is this dress?

But only:
>what colour is this dress when viewed directly in real life and not via a photo on a computer screen?

A boring question worth neither asking nor answering, because we can all look up the answer on Google ourselves.

They are not unanswerable questions. They are questions which are either subjective or which require assumptions to be stated. There is nothing wrong with conjecture, either.

>They are questions which are either subjective or which require assumptions to be stated
Unfounded assumptions are never valid.

>There is nothing wrong with conjecture, either.
There is everything wrong with presenting a conclusion based on conjecture as anything but a guess.

Not really, though. Because knowing what colour the dress actually is doesn't change how we perceive it in the photograph, it opens up avenues of discussion about how and why we see things a certain way. This is in fact an interesting topic and is precisely why the stupid picture became a le epic meme in the first place - not because of autists using the ink-dropper on pixels.

I'm not sure how your clever new fourth question is distinct from the third question, either.

You need to do some revision on logic. By definition, all assumptions are unfounded. If they require foundation, then they are not assumptions at all.

>guess
Guesswork needn't be random and needn't be left alone; random and abandoned guesses are worthless, true. But statement of fact and reasoning open to assessment, criticism, and counter-argument by others is not mere guess-work, even if it does involve conjecture. When we go beyond what we surely know, it behoves us to consider what we more information or proof we would need to have knowledge - how can we turn conjecture in to knowledge? These are not trivial or boring matters.

>I'm not sure how your clever new fourth question is distinct from the third question, either.

>I'm not sure how your clever new fourth question is distinct from the third question, either.
It's not really, I just didn't want to disturb the autistic formatting of your post so my point would be more clear.

Let me try to make it more clear for you. You think that the only correct answer to the question is blue and black because that's the true colour of the dress itself. I think that the only correct answer to the question is blue and gold because that's the true colour of the dress in the IMAGE, which in theory is all we should have to judge our opinions on.

You think this is stupid because it's not answering the question as worded in the OP. But by this logic, your answer is wrong as well, since the OP question was not asking what the TRUE colour of the dress is, but rather how you interpret it to be.

Identifying the colour of the pixels defeats the purpose of the question, I agree. But so does researching the true colour of the dress and forming an opinion based on that.

>the true colour of the dress in the IMAGE
There is no dress in the image.

Looking up the real colour and leaving it at that is not worth doing. I agree. This is not what I proposed and neither is it what I did in my post. What I proposed was, armed with our own perceptions of the image in context, AND knowledge of the real colours, we can THEN consider WHY we see things differently - which, granted, is not the question in the OP, but most certainly is interesting and relevant.

The only answer.

>What I proposed was, armed with our own perceptions of the image in context, AND knowledge of the real colours, we can THEN consider WHY we see things differently - which, granted, is not the question in the OP, but most certainly is interesting and relevant
Fair enough, and I definitely agree that this is more interesting. But as you admit yourself, it's not the question in the OP either.

Allow me to synthesise/summarise:

1) the dress is really black and blue

2) the pixels are blue and gold and obviously so in isolation

3) in context, with background and lighting visible, the image can appear either as:
a) an image of a black and blue dress, or
b) an image of a white and gold dress

4) this is despite (2) - both (3)a) and (3)b) contain colours not actually in the pixels (black and white respectively)

5) the eyes and brain deal with input such that background and lighting are accounted and adjusted for in final perception

6) the process described in (5) produces a perception of (3)a) when functioning well and (3)b) when malfunctioning

How? Why? Can the malfunction be remedied?

I don't think there's anything else to be said. Actually, granted, the pixels are useful (but either (1) or (2) with nothing further are both boring).

>3) in context, with background and lighting visible, the image can appear either as:
>a) an image of a black and blue dress, or
>b) an image of a white and gold dress
Well there's also a third option, blue and gold, as multiple people have said ITT.

>6) the process described in (5) produces a perception of (3)a) when functioning well and (3)b) when malfunctioning
Not necessarily. Without knowing the true colour of the dress, there isn't a "correct" answer. People who see it as white and gold interpret the light as being "blue", whereas people who see it as blue and black interpret the light as being "yellow". Without knowing the true colour of the dress, neither way is a malfunction, they're just different ways that the human mind can interpret isolated images.