I think about legacy often enough. But statistically after 200 years no matter what we do there will be no record we ever existed. And even if we define our deeds as good we have to tie our deeds individually to the value of being human in general? We certainly do much for ourselves, but what do we do for our world?

Are blackholes proven? I think Stephen Hawking concluded that there is no reason why they need to exist.

Well consider that different angles and faces and shapes have different emotional effects on us. For whatever reason the golden ratio is most desirable. We can't describe why it is, but it is a state of a shape and we can on average agree on a psychological effect it may have. The basis for psychology is studying opinion and behavior. That is the only known measure of the mind in terms of experience. These things are more complex than colors, but we can make conclusions about them outside of particular contexts. Am I right?

Interesting. Didn't know Dr Jay Neitz talked about tetrachromic vision. I think he may have cured color blindness in squirrel monkeys though.

Tetrachromic people do not see more colors over all. They just have more distinctions around the middle of the spectrum. They can't see a factor of 100 more colors than trichromic without literally that many more cones. Eagles only have 5x as many cones as us. I am strictly talking about trichromics who have healthy eyes.

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? Why vary? Why should our experiences differ too much if it can be helped? Provable or not.

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, and hopefully the same perception of those colors. Some think most humans used to be tetrachromic and lost a cone unlike many fish which still have 4 cones. 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.

Animal eyes aside, assuming that ones vision quantitatively keep getting more information and we focus within the human wavelengths. I want to assume we all as a species get closer to the same perceptions of each color. As for the dresses that had to do with sense of contrast and possibly a bad photo. That was a mental recalibration which might be more accurate if we had more cones to identify color.

What do you mean? I am referring to the concept and specific impression of the color red.

Cool thanks.

I agree that without the impression of "I" there would be no problem. But since there is, there must be a reason for it.

Memories seem to get updated and altered, but the brain is imperfect and perhaps a mind outside of the brain records everything perfectly as perhaps the universe itself may

What good is a sense of meaning that is deleted upon death? It was just a super sophisticated motivation to keep going. Evolution pushing us to serve our biological purpose. The mind has many tricks to keep us going. But that doesn't mean we exist for a particular meaning beyond the ecosystem. Everything else must just be ego to think we are special without proof.

I referred to a fictional immortal being in reference to those concerned with boredom of an immortal existence. I don't believe bored would be a forgone conclusion

Why does it matter how the universe, particles, and mud came from if it is unable to recognize its own existence. The mind is the only thing I want to know is special.

I am not assuming anything about the duration of time or the finite or infinite nature of the universe.

My definition of meaning isn't about profit in a next life or ethereal afterlife. It is about being more than the matter I am made of. Being able to be aware that I am made of matter seems irrelevant if I can only ever be made of matter, and be destroyed as easily as anything else made of matter. The mind must prove to be greater than matter. Enough so to exist without matter. That is why I don't think life can matter without a new phase of existence afterwards.

I do recall an episode of Voyager in which one of the Qs (an immortal being) wanted to end his existence. Apparently he had done everything and seen everything. I feel everything is in the scope of our mind. Our strongest memories tend to be the earliest ones. But over time they are harder to locate, but as far as I can tell are still there. The awe of life isn't from seeing everything. It's from appreciation of things much larger than us. Limits to our intellect are important. It's a ratio. And each experience of previously experienced things will always be unique.

As far as I can tell we live and when we die our very mind ceases to exist. Even if we created a sense of meaning and purpose those lessons are not applicable if nothing comes next. We are equal to worms. We simply produce a ton more dopamine than the next animal so that every small thing seems like an accomplishment. But when we die statistically most of us won't exist on paper after 200 years. No record we ever existed. That can't be a satisfactory outcome in existence?

The afterlife is presumed to be everlasting. I wasn't assuming there was an after. But if existence is building blocks from what came before, and nothing comes after, and all we've accomplished is what lesser beings have done, than how can we feel special? Not by virtue of uniqueness, but by being more than here and now and having little control over that much.