Our eyes and brains interpret frequencies. — turkeyMan
But our eyes and brains interpret a world of objects. If representing actual frequency were so important, why would the eye sample the world at just three wavelength peaks?
Evolution could produce a vast array of photopigments. But it seems to want to use as few as possible. Explain that.
Cameras see your red as my red however i suppose its possible i see red as blue and you and a friend of yours sees red possibly as someone elses yellow. — turkeyMan
But cameras see those colours because they are also designed to capture light using three "pigments" with the same very narrow response curve. We designed that wavelength selectivity into them so we would get a result that was tailored to our neurobiology.
Get real close to any TV screen. The only colours you can see are the three different LEDs.
Where did all the pinks, yellows, turquoise and a million other discriminable hues go? They aren't in the actual light being emitted by the screen. What now?
And to the degree we all share the same neurobiology, it is at least more plausible than not that our inner experience is going to be the same. We have that weak argument.
Then we can make a stronger argument in terms of our ability to discriminate hues - to be able to say the same thing in picking out the reflectance properties that make one surface vividly unlike another. — apokrisis
Tetrachromic people have more distinction in the yellow/green parts of the spectrum. Like I said more color information can maybe lead to more exact information, — TiredThinker
It is also said the color blind people (2 fully functional cones) can see camouflage better than normal visioned people. But that is likely a matter of needing less brain power to identify with less vision. — TiredThinker
I know you can't "prove" that one person's red is the same as the next person's. But is it conceivable that the brain tries to keep sensory sensations efficient as the collection of wavelength information itself? — TiredThinker
They can't see a factor of 100 more colors than trichromic without literally that many more cones. — TiredThinker
This sounds suspicious to me. Why would the number of distinguishable colors be a linear function of total cone counts? (Incidentally our cone counts are asymmetric; roughly we have on the order of 3.5 million L cones, 2.5 million M cones, and 0.5 million S cones... the distribution along our retina is asymmetric as well).They can't see a factor of 100 more colors than trichromic without literally that many more cones. — TiredThinker
Primary properties it seems enter into discussion in a quite different way to Secondary properties - the simplest way to set this out is to say that the later is More subjective. — Banno
The non-sensory matter that is the hypothetical source of signals and phenomenal matter belong to different worlds and we have no evidence at all for any resemblance between them. [...] Ideas of space, time, matter and motion accurately predict the transformations of our ideas, but within virtual reality we have no reason to believe that our idea of space resembles physical space, that our idea of time resembles physical time, that our idea of solidity resembles physical solidity, or that our idea of motion resembles objective physical motion. From the standpoint of human knowledge we have to treat the real world as if it had a completely non-sensory nature. — Gamez
Tetrachromic people do not see more colors over all. They just have more distinctions around the middle of the spectrum. — TiredThinker
This sounds suspicious to me. — InPitzotl
Red is the 'same' for everyone who can see and say that London buses are the 'same' colour as tomatoes and blood. — unenlightened
And that we can see them.Notice that we can only see if people experience the same distinctions if there are other people. — Banno
But what is the difference between the information that pops out vs the information that doesnt if not a difference in wavelength? What is it that is so important to be aware of? It seems like shape provides one bit of information while the color provides a different bit. The size of an apple isn't dependent upon its color and vice versa. Large apples that are ripe have a different color than those that are rotten. Being able to distinguish between ripe and rotten is useful.This is bang on. It is not about seeing "colour" as it is in the world. Reflectance is simply a valuable property to make things in the world "pop out". — apokrisis
What do you expect from someone that thinks language is a game?But you keep avoiding direct questions. — apokrisis
The analytics - that would be Wittgenstein, Austin, such like folk. — Banno
It seems like shape provides one bit of information while the color provides a different bit. — Harry Hindu
While we might agree to disagree about its colour, that would be more problematic for its mass. — Banno
Reasoning involves mediation, and this mediation requires that the object be not given in contemplation. This thesis is exemplified by Peirce through the case of tactile perception, where feeling a piece of cloth actually requires the comparison of different moments of the experience of the piece of cloth and the comparison is achieved by moving one’s hand over it:
17 EP1: 15.
A man can distinguish different textures of cloth by feeling; but not immediately, for he requires to move his fingers over the cloth, which shows that he is obliged to compare the sensations of one instant with those of another.17
For Peirce, cognition, at every level, is always the product of inference, and the basic structure of rational thought is already at work, albeit unconsciously, in sensation. Empirical research in this context is used to illustrate and support a radical philosophical thesis: that all knowledge is mediated and the product of some previous cognition; and that to talk of an absolute start or first cognition is both intellectually and perceptually unintelligible.
Okay, but that would be wrong too. We have tests for deuteranopia (a particular form of "anomalous dichromacy") that don't involve slicing somebody's eye apart and putting it under a microscope... the common ones just have a bunch of dots with some symbols like numbers displayed in them in a "different color".So i'll read TiredThinker as saying that they do not see into other parts of the spectrum, hidden from us muggles, but are capable of greater nuance over the same colour range. — Banno
So, it's not so much that "my red is the same as yours", more that there's enough interactional stability that we can find coherent ways to talk about it. — jorndoe
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.