9
   

What if the colors you see are different than what I see?

 
 
nap40
 
Reply Sun 6 Apr, 2014 10:28 pm
For instance what if how I saw blue is how you see green? You would never be able to tell unless we switched eyes. And if you remember that all color is the reflection of light, wouldn't people with different eye colors reflect away different shades of light, almost how chlorophyll reflects green light away from plants so they never absorb it???
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Apr, 2014 10:38 pm
@nap40,
nap40 wrote:

For instance what if how I saw blue is how you see green? You would never be able to tell unless we switched eyes. And if you remember that all color is the reflection of light, wouldn't people with different eye colors reflect away different shades of light, almost how chlorophyll reflects green light away from plants so they never absorb it???


Nope it doesn't work that way. Only the light entering through the pupil get's collected and transformed into data. The iris is on the outside, it doesn't have any impact on actual vision other than to open and close the pupil. So the fact that it reflects a certain light to give the iris color in no way effects the person's vision or color perception.

Here is the thing about color and why what you suggest is not the case.

Every color has a wavelength and it can be monitored. For example the color blue doesn't give off the same frequency that red does. They each have their own distinct frequency and wavelength.

Now with being color blind the problem has to do with the light sensitive cones in the retina. There are millions of these light sensitive cones and each one has a color specific purpose. Which are either green, blue, or red. This means that if a person lacks a certain number of cones of a particular color the data for that color will be limited. This causes either partial color blindness for that color or complete color blindness for that color. This is why green and red are the most common forms of color blindness. Followed by blue.

This is how we know that everyone sees the exact same color. So when you see red, it is the same color that I see. It isn't some magical thing happening where you are actually seeing blue but have learned to call it red.

There are color tests that have determined this is the case. Which uses the wavelength to cut out all colors except a certain wavelength and then it is exposed to the person who then says what color they see. Unless they are color blind for that color they always pick the same color as everyone else.
nap40
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Apr, 2014 10:49 pm
@Krumple,
What if like taste or hearing, you can receive the same information, such as flavor of food or the sound of music, but your own brain interprets it differently which is why you prefers some food or music that others don't. In that same way you take in the same frequency of light but your brain makes its personalized interpretation of it that cant possibly match another person's experience of the same phenomena.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2014 12:01 am
@nap40,
With apologies to Krumple who this time is incorrect...it is a futile question because we can only measure physical or behavioral responses, not perceptual ones. i.e. we cannot exchange heads !
In general it is known that what we call "color perception" (aka "response to color") in humans does not merely depend on wavelength or physiology. It also depends situation, culture and language. (Ref:Valera et al).
Note that the microcosm of "color perception" has been a central issue in philosophy and psychology regarding the nature of "consciousness". For example, it was consideration of this very issue that prompted Wittgenstein to reject aspects of his own acclaimed Tractatus and instead focus on language as instrumental in the construction of "reality".
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2014 01:50 pm
@fresco,
I rather concede that social "languaging" trading, talks about focus of perception, but not straight about inability at perceiving...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2014 01:59 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Moreover, there is a distinction to be made between the full field of de facto perception regarding observing something, and the social relevant cultural focus that descriptions portray about meaningful percepts while reporting them. (symbolism)

Perception is filtered by reason, as awareness is focus and selective information arrangement, but the eyes keep seeing what they see.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2014 02:07 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Thumbing down the thread does not make a sensible reply option. Only laziness at work. Cool
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2014 02:20 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
The difference is that focus ability can change with time. After all the brain is a plastic organ. Actual inability at perceiving would require a subject inability at evolving its perceptual standing point. So that settles it quite easily !
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2014 02:22 pm
I've got four words for ya from Homer: the wine dark sea.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2014 02:31 pm
@Setanta,
If I punch you in the eye you won't see much either would be Jonny Bravo adequate reply I reckon... Laughing
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2014 02:35 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
For the matter at hand (colour) it is important to make a clear distinction between perception and individual percepts.
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2014 02:36 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

With apologies to Krumple who this time is incorrect...it is a futile question because we can only measure physical or behavioral responses, not perceptual ones. i.e. we cannot exchange heads !
In general it is known that what we call "color perception" (aka "response to color") in humans does not merely depend on wavelength or physiology. It also depends situation, culture and language. (Ref:Valera et al).
Note that the microcosm of "color perception" has been a central issue in philosophy and psychology regarding the nature of "consciousness". For example, it was consideration of this very issue that prompted Wittgenstein to reject aspects of his own acclaimed Tractatus and instead focus on language as instrumental in the construction of "reality".



You are absolutely wrong because you haven't done any research. If color was subjective then colorblindness would be erratic. It is not because we all see within the same frequencies. There is a finite range of frequencies that the brain interprets for color. Each color has it's own significant frequency. You can't just jumble the frequency and get a mix up, where one person experiences the color red and another person experiences the color blue for the same object color. IT NEVER HAPPENS. It is impossible. Lab tests prove it never happens. This is how they have determined colorblindness. If experiencing colors was subjective then there would be NO WAY to determine color blindness at all period.

I know this subject well because it is part of my job. I do case study on people who are subjected to chemical exposure on a daily basis. We constantly interview both types of individuals for select groups, such as a control group of people who have never been exposed to the types of chemicals that we are testing for and the reported groups of individuals who are. We test them on a wide range of exercises and one is visual feed back. If there was not a standard by which to measure visual acuity there would be NO WAY to determine any effects. Just look at a seeing eye chart.

You want to suggest that a person looking at the letter E would see a W instead. NEVER happens yet you want to think that is possible for color. NO it doesn't happen that way. It is a farce created by philosophy majors who have never actually studied ANY medical research in the field of human vision.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2014 02:44 pm
@Krumple,
I bet he is trying to refer to some African tribes that a biased pseudo study claims to not be able to distinguish certain groups of colour.
My interpretation of that study is that social cultural focus narrows the meaning usefulness of some of the colours to the point they are not worth mentioning.
Social reason, common sense, rather then perception is the filter at work.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2014 02:58 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I bet he is trying to refer to some African tribes that a biased pseudo study claims to not be able to distinguish certain groups of colour.
My interpretation of that study is that social cultural focus narrows the meaning usefulness of some of the colours to the point they are not worth mentioning.
Social reason, common sense, rather then perception is the filter at work.


I can understand how culture can play an impact on how we lump experiences. I don't remember what culture it was but they have very specific words for all the different types of love, such as love for life, love for nature, love for a family member, love for a romantic partner, love for a pet, ect. They have distinct words to describe them all, where as in English we have only one vague word for different types of love. The context is important and we seem to have the ability to rationalize the difference. You wouldn't really mix up if someone said they love children and they love their wife. Well hopefully they mean it in a way that is not confusing but even that example shows how the interpretation of the meaning can be lost due to the vague definition.

I think the same is true for cultures and color.

In fact the word Orange didn't exist until the 19th century. Well not in English anyways. Everything that was "orange" was considered a shade of brown. Once colors were examined more they realized that orange is not a shade of brown so a new word was used and they decided to go with the name of this bright fruit called an orange.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  3  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2014 03:08 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
you haven't done any research.

I have had research published in psycholinguistics journals, and lectured on the philosophy and psychology of perception. Subjectivity and objectivity are simplistic terms. Read Varela, Rosch et al.
Your medical research appears to be about the functionality of responses. I have not said that wavelength and physiology are not factors in perception. I have said they are insufficient to account for it.


0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  2  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2014 03:18 pm
Last night's Cosmos episode should clear things up.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  2  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2014 03:30 pm
@Krumple,
Actually, I see colour slightly differently with each eye.

One eye sees things in "warmer" colours than the other eye.

I wouldn't be in the least surprised if those of us with normal colour vision see things slightly differently, though I agree that our experiences are likely to be extremely similar.

Not that it matters.

I'm interested in what makes our appreciation or dislike of certain colours so strong. For instance, a friend of mine loves a certain combination of dark green and a deep, blue based, red that makes me extremely uncomfortable. It's interesting that we can have such different emotional reactions to colours.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2014 03:43 pm
I think no one is arguing against distinct colour perception when framed from the pov of a disturbance of the perceptual apparatus...
Personally I disagree culture can change raw perception. Although I agree culture can change n filter the rational framing and focus of perception.
I also agree perception without a rational filter/ordering is not much as it lacks meaning.
...nevertheless n given the fantastic extent of the claims in this thread the distinction seems worth mentioning.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2014 03:44 pm
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:

Actually, I see colour slightly differently with each eye.

One eye sees things in "warmer" colours than the other eye.


Actually this is very common. I have the same condition. It has to do with eye dominance. Also the number of cones in the eye are not equal for both eyes. So one eye will always have slightly more ability to pick out certain colors. So for example if your left eye has fewer green cones than the right but both eyes have very close to equal of the other cones, ie blue and red then you will have a hue difference between them because of the imbalance of fewer green cones. This can make things appear more blue in one eye. It can also be related to the rods as well, since the rods only are sensitive to light. If you have fewer rods in one eye you won't receive as much "light data" as the other eye so things could appear darker in one eye.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2014 04:02 pm
@dlowan,
Quote:
I'm interested in what makes our appreciation or dislike of certain colours so strong. For instance, a friend of mine loves a certain combination of dark green and a deep, blue based, red that makes me extremely uncomfortable. It's interesting that we can have such different emotional reactions to colours.

Yes. This is precisely an issue which illustrates the inadequacy of a traditional "data processing" model of perception. Perception tends to be active, not passive.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What if the colors you see are different than what I see?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/22/2019 at 12:00:37