Why your color red is not my color red...

[Nova Andromeda]

--I'm splitting this topic off of this thread:
http://pup.phpwebhosting.com/~mrwong/vi ... b7d178c578

You still don't get it do you? I don't know that the color in my mind I call red is the same color you "see" in your mind, but that red exists can be verified objectively. In the same fashion I can objectively describe the behavior know as friendship and verify objectively that I show such behavior. What exactly I feel is irrelevant since I'm interested in objectively determining that the color red exists and not that it is the same thing you see in your head.

The color red is defined as light at a certain wavelength and frequency. A normal human eye will see the same color as another normal human eye.

--Perhaps this concept is harder to grasp than I thought. Okay, I see a color in my mind when my cones are activated by light of x wavelegth. The same is true for you. We both call this color red. However, here is the tricky part: we don't actually know that the color in my mind and in your mind are the same we have only agreed to call them the same thing. I have no idea what you actually "see." The same is true for things like emotions.

--Despite my explanation few seem to grasp the concept. Here is another way of looking at it. In your brain I replace the "red color" with the "blue color." I then modify all your memories such that when something was referred to as red you remember it being your new color red (your old color blue) and vice versa. Once I have done this you would not notice that anything at all had changed, yet your new color red would be your old color blue. From this analysis it is clear that we don't know what colors people really see in there heads.

[TheDarkOne]

Differences in perception of colour is irrelevant. It doesn't really matter if what I perceive red things to look like, is different then what you perceive red things to look like. I'm pretty sure, it's also impossibly to tell if it is the case that different people perceive colours differently.

[Durandal]

What you fail to grasp is that, barring all these ridiculous conditions, the color is the same. Everyone sees blood and ascribes the color red to it.

So, while there's no way to definitively prove it, it's pretty fucking likely.

[data_link]

Maybe, but since your reactions to red will be the same even if you percieve it differently because the emotional responces were programmed to the color you see in the same way they would have been programmed to the color I see then doesn't that make the experiences equivalent? I seem to remember someone once saying in response to solipism that if two realities match each other in every concievable way, then they are the same reality. So if everything in your experience acts the same way as everything in my experience, then that would make them the same experience.

[Darth Wong]

It is irrelevant. The objective colour red is defined by wavelengths, and can be digitized into a computer and converted to numbers. This makes it empirical, objective, and repeatable. You can give me any image, and I can digitize it into a computer using instrumentation which will give the same range of values for "red" every single time, regardless of who is performing the measurement.

It is completely irrelevant whether you subjectively perceive "red" in your mind the same way someone else does. The colour red is objective.

[Master of Ossus]

I once had a chemistry teacher who was asking us to describe different substances. We were saying things like "red," and he said, "No. Describe the color red." So we sat there and simply could not figure out how to say the word "red" without either using the name of the color, or invoking an example of something else that was red. Of course, it is impossible to do, but our chemistry teacher apparently hadn't figured that out. It was a very frustrating class period, IIRC.

[XPViking]

So it is a subjective term "red" being applied to an objective phenomenon, correct?

XPViking

[haas mark]

It is irrelevant. The objective colour red is defined by wavelengths, and can be digitized into a computer and converted to numbers. This makes it empirical, objective, and repeatable. You can give me any image, and I can digitize it into a computer using instrumentation which will give the same range of values for "red" every single time, regardless of who is performing the measurement.

It is completely irrelevant whether you subjectively perceive "red" in your mind the same way someone else does. The colour red is objective.

Yes; red will always be red, but there are those that will say it is orange because their eyes perceive it as orange, and not red. Same problem comes with the green/yellows and blue/purples.

[Darth Wong]

So it is a subjective term "red" being applied to an objective phenomenon, correct?

Frankly, this is just a mutation upon the "if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears, does it make a sound" question. The answer: of course it makes a sound; don't waste my time with philosophical bullshit

In other words, the colour red is identical for every observer, even if they may process it differently in their own minds. For example, let's say your mind processes red the way my mind processes blue. Does it change anything? No. You will still have a response in your brain to the colour red, and it really doesn't matter whether my brain responds to it differently; we both identify it as a particular colour, and it is repeatable. If we both see an object which is red, we will both agree that it is red because we have associated the term "red" with the brain impulses caused by receiving that particular group of wavelengths, regardless of what those particular brain impulses are.

Let's look at this from a different angle: a digital camera processes colour much differently than a film camera does. Does this mean that the colour red is subjective to the cameras? Of course not; their inner workings are irrelevant. A red object will always produce the same kinds of reactions in either camera, so their internal differences have nothing to do with the objectivity of the colour red.

[Darth Wong]

Yes; red will always be red, but there are those that will say it is orange because their eyes perceive it as orange, and not red. Same problem comes with the green/yellows and blue/purples.

You're talking about colour-blindness, which is simply defective equipment. No one looks at a camera which is out-of-focus and says that this casts doubt on the objectivity of visual images in general.

[haas mark]

Yes; red will always be red, but there are those that will say it is orange because their eyes perceive it as orange, and not red. Same problem comes with the green/yellows and blue/purples.

You're talking about colour-blindness, which is simply defective equipment. No one looks at a camera which is out-of-focus and says that this casts doubt on the objectivity of visual images in general.

nonono.....there are cases where I have non-color-blind friends that will argue with me where there is blue and they say it is purple or vice versa.

[data_link]

Yes; red will always be red, but there are those that will say it is orange because their eyes perceive it as orange, and not red. Same problem comes with the green/yellows and blue/purples.

You're talking about colour-blindness, which is simply defective equipment. No one looks at a camera which is out-of-focus and says that this casts doubt on the objectivity of visual images in general.

nonono.....there are cases where I have non-color-blind friends that will argue with me where there is blue and they say it is purple or vice versa.

That's a problem with having weird friends.

[XPViking]

Frankly, this is just a mutation upon the "if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears, does it make a sound" question. The answer: of course it makes a sound; don't waste my time with philosophical bullshit

In other words, the colour red is identical for every observer, even if they may process it differently in their own minds. For example, let's say your mind processes red the way my mind processes blue. Does it change anything? No. You will still have a response in your brain to the colour red, and it really doesn't matter whether my brain responds to it differently; we both identify it as a particular colour, and it is repeatable. If we both see an object which is red, we will both agree that it is red because we have associated the term "red" with the brain impulses caused by receiving that particular group of wavelengths, regardless of what those particular brain impulses are.

Let's look at this from a different angle: a digital camera processes colour much differently than a film camera does. Does this mean that the colour red is subjective to the cameras? Of course not; their inner workings are irrelevant. A red object will always produce the same kinds of reactions in either camera, so their internal differences have nothing to do with the objectivity of the colour red. - Darth Wong

Fair enough. I thought the quibbling was over the terminology used to describe a phenomenon, which is subjective. That is, whether we call it "red", "blue" or whatever won't change the fact that the objective phenomenon interacts a certain way with light. It's all in what we call this objective thing.

If I'm understanding this correctly, it doesn't really matter how we arrive at the conclusion because we arrive at the same conclusion?

XPViking

[Master of Ossus]

I once had a student ask another student, who was red-green color blind, whether he saw red when everyone else saw green, or saw green when everyone else saw red. [slaps forehead with hand]

[The Dark]

Yes; red will always be red, but there are those that will say it is orange because their eyes perceive it as orange, and not red. Same problem comes with the green/yellows and blue/purples.

You're talking about colour-blindness, which is simply defective equipment. No one looks at a camera which is out-of-focus and says that this casts doubt on the objectivity of visual images in general.

nonono.....there are cases where I have non-color-blind friends that will argue with me where there is blue and they say it is purple or vice versa.

That's a difference in definition of colors. Each person splits where a color is blue and where it is purple differently. Since it's basically (IIRC) red/orange/yellow/green/blue/purple/red, all the colors are objectively the same, but people might divide where one color becomes another differently. The wavelengths and perceptions are still the same.

[Nova Andromeda]

--Ah, it appears people now get it. It is true that what I perceive red as and what your perceive red as may be different, but it has no effect whatever on objective discourse about the light that generated those perceptions. This is an important thing to know so one doesn't think that everyone perceives the same exact thing (which is what it looked like to me in several instances).

EDIT: When I say perceive the same exact thing I mean assumming the
stimulus is the same and the person is not handicapped.

[XPViking]

Nova,

I want to make sure I understand where you are coming from. The whole idea about perceiving the color red is that you are trying to establish an objective criteria when dealing with your subjective perceptions. That is, making sure what you "feel" is indeed "accurate". Is that right? So in relation to the other thread that you linked, you are trying to build an objective criteria on more abstract thoughts such as "love" and "friendship".

Let me know if I'm off base.

XPViking

[Master of Ossus]

What he's saying is that the only way we can describe colors is by using other colors, so we have no method of confirming that what I see as red isn't someone else's green.

[pecker]

I've been wrestling with this question since I was like 8. I decided it didn't really matter, although quite intriguing if you think about it.


The actual wavelength is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the 'red' I see in my head is the same 'red' you see. My red may eb your green. The wavelenght is the same, but our brians may represent it to our consciousness differently

[Nova Andromeda]

--That is correct I'm trying to distinquish between things we can objectively determine and things that we cannot. It involves a little more thought, but we can apply similar logic to things like "love" and "friendship."

[Zoink]

I've been wrestling with this question since I was like 8.

Well then let me solve the problem. We are all the same species and its unlikely, unless you have a visual or brain disorder, that color is percieved differently. The mechanisms, nerve reactions, brain structure, etc, are the same for both of us.

However, wavelength is the issue. If red is light between 600-700nm (just guessing for arguments sake) , then whatever I percieve light of that frequency to be *is* red.

[pecker]

I've been wrestling with this question since I was like 8.

Well then let me solve the problem. We are all the same species and its unlikely, unless you have a visual or brain disorder, that color is percieved differently. The mechanisms, nerve reactions, brain structure, etc, are the same for both of us.

However, wavelength is the issue. If red is light between 600-700nm (just guessing for arguments sake) , then whatever I percieve light of that frequency to be *is* red.

By wrestling, I mean I thought of it when I was young at it confused the hell out of me

[Slartibartfast]

You know, when I got together with friends and we got really wasted on booze, this kind of question would always pop up, and we'll say a lot of nonsense and repeat ourselves a lot of times, toasting each time of course and drinking more booze.

But in the end when we were sober the reaction was always the same: who the hell gives a shit!

Okay, here's the real answer: my red isn't the same as your red, because it's MINE and I sure as hell won't let you have it so FUCK OFF!

[XPViking]

Nova,

Okay. Kind of like saying what makes a good girlfriend. 36C 24 34.

Mind you, to be a little more serious, I do recall a study being done by scientists that tried to measure beauty. They took small babies and would have them look at various computer images of people, ranging from plain to gorgeous. The babies would tend to look at the beautiful people longer and apparently, good-looking people have a more symmetrical face. I think the study mentioned that even a couple millimetres could make a difference.

XPViking

[Slartibartfast]

Nova,

Okay. Kind of like saying what makes a good girlfriend. 36C 24 34.

Mind you, to be a little more serious, I do recall a study being done by scientists that tried to measure beauty. They took small babies and would have them look at various computer images of people, ranging from plain to gorgeous. The babies would tend to look at the beautiful people longer and apparently, good-looking people have a more symmetrical face. I think the study mentioned that even a couple millimetres could make a difference.

XPViking

Yeah, the concept of a beautiful woman's body supposedly is because the shape of the body is ideal for having children. (wide hips, for instance) and of course our instinct when we were breast fed when babies (men like big boobies, whee). For some reason that is also related to simmetry.