A crazy thought!

[jbronson]

When a person is born, they learn a colors name because of what someone else tells them, right?

Well, is it possible that different people see different colors, but are told that that color is bright, or that that color is blue when they are of a young age? Maybe people dont see the same thing as everyone else, but are taught that it is the same. Is this probable?

[moonlord]

This is exactly the topic of a conversation I had with some fellows a month ago. We came to the conclusion that the sensorial perception may be dramatically different between individuals, but education (i.e. the negotiation of a protocol) induces the corresponding logical links.

For example, when I see red I might have the same sensation you have when you see blue. But I constantly identify that sensation with the one a certain color induces, upon which we agree it's the same color for both of us. So you actually see what I'd interpret as blue, but you interpret it as red.

Colors are agreed upon by comparison. If we compare the different but consistent sensations and agree it represents the same 'color', then our color systems are compatible. The only way to prove or disprove this theory is to compare the brain EM reactions to a certain color. Taken into considerations colors can trigger sympathy/antipathy as well as memories that differ from individual to individual, there is a large margin of error here, that can render the experiment indefinite.

[jbronson]

Wow moonlord, im glad to see some one else has thought of this topic as well and i was glad to see your input on the subject. I will be sure to keep an eye out for the topics you post... but im afraid there's not much more we can theorize on this idea.

[bo198214]

This is the philosphical problem of subjectivity vs. objectivity.
If you have two persons, how do you find out how they perceive things?
There is no way to jump into the skin of the persons and perceive things how they perceive it.
Even neurology does not help with it, you can only see how neurons fire or how areas in the brain are activated but you cant actually perceive like the person perceive it.

So you have to interpret the expressions of the person or have to rely on what they tell you. Speech can only evolve because there seem to be similar perceptions in different humans, to which they can refer by the same name.

What regards subjectivity its also a kind of relativity theory, what you can test for (quite) sure whether people can perceive *differences* in their perceptions (for example testing color blindness). And how perceived difference causes other perceived differences.
But the absolute quality of a subjective perception you can not measure or reproduce in others. (By philosophical consideration. Technological issues are not even considered.)

The only way to prove or disprove this theory is to compare the brain EM reactions to a certain color.

But this assumes that same brain waves imply same sensations (whatever same brainwave anyway should mean in different brains). How will you know? (See also my other posting to the same question)

[jbronson]

I am new, of course. I had confusion, I apologize for any inconvenience.

[Hugh]

The visible colors can be linked to specific wavelengths (about 400 - 700 nm I think), and can be verified by instruments, which rely strictly on science.

http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/Wavelengths_for_Colors.html

[moonlord]

The only way to prove or disprove this theory is to compare the brain EM reactions to a certain color.

But this assumes that same brain waves imply same sensations (whatever same brainwave anyway should mean in different brains). How will you know? (See also my other posting to the same question)

That is also correct.

The visible colors can be linked to specific wavelengths (about 400 - 700 nm I think), and can be verified by instruments, which rely strictly on science.

http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/Wavelengths_for_Colors.html

We do not discuss here what a color is, but how one perceives it.

[Nick]

The visible colors can be linked to specific wavelengths (about 400 - 700 nm I think), and can be verified by instruments, which rely strictly on science.

http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/Wavelengths_for_Colors.html

Subjectivity vs. Objectivity? How about SCIENTIVITY, Bo?
Science is the winnAr!

[bo198214]

sorry Nick, but you neither got the problem nor the answer.

The question/problem is, how you find out, what another being perceives.
Subjectivity refers to what a being perceives.
Objectivity refers to what is independent of individual perception.

So how can the problem be solved by science in your opinion?

[Nick]

sorry Nick, but you neither got the problem nor the answer.

The question/problem is, how you find out, what another being perceives.
Subjectivity refers to what a being perceives.
Objectivity refers to what is independent of individual perception.

So how can the problem be solved by science in your opinion?

I was being sarcastic. I tried to make it obvious with all caps, made-up words and capitalizing "A" in winner (even though there is no 'a').

As it was said before, sarcasm doesn't work on the internet...

[houserichichi]

I've had this conversation with my girlfriend who is more versed in this corner of the sciences than I and we came to the same agreement. One could, by pure choice (and I think it's already done) choose a certain wavelength in the electromagnetic spectrum to be "red" and another to be "blue", etc. The continuum that falls between are completely up to the invidual and make some colours difficult to discern (like "orangey-red", etc). I believe "red" is on the order of 650nm and violet somewhere over 400. After that you're no longer in the visible spectrum. So to be true a group could choose what "pure red" is and it's just semantics for the rest of us peons afterward.

But I do agree that what you see as red and I see as red may be similar but never exact. I'm also male so that leads me to being prone to colour blindness which would also screw things up for us.

[wendy]

Colours are learnt, and can easily be relearnt, if one cares to.

Take blue for example. Russian does not have this as a single colour, but as two distinct colours (navy vs sky). In the tropics, one is less inclined to see blue, and elsewise blue objects are typically merged to neighbouring colours, like grey. I have seen this happen!

If one cares to, one can learn orange as a shade of brown. That is, orange and brown are shades of the same colour as sky and navy are of blue. When one sees this, then one groups the two together, and identifies them as shades of the same colour.

It is also useful to note that the historical meanings of colours do change. Gold (metal) was formerly described as 'red', where we see the same colour in the yellow spectrum. Gold and Yellow are derived of the same stem.

Some languages divide the colour spectrum into two (dunn = green/blue/purple) and fire (red/yellow/orange). The original rainbow in germanic languages was three colours (red, yellow, blue). The colour wheel uses six (add orange, green, purple), but when the rainbow is described presently, seven colours are used (add voilet). The addition of the seventh colour is more to do with numeric asthetics than visual.

Another thing is that one of the american tribes describes black/white check (as woven by alternate black and white chords), as a different and single colour.

So there it goes.

[jbronson]

Yes i agree! But I think that Orange doesnt have to just be relearned as a "shade" of another color(brown), but i think orange can be relearned as blue.
My point is we could see different colors when we are little, but we all learn the colors by the same name. "Blue" could be brown in your eyes, and purple in mine, but we both learned it to be blue, and we both learned it to be sorta bright.

[Hugh]

The fact that the different colors have verifiable associated wavelengths would lead me to believe that the people who can see the different colors actually do see the same ones for the same various wavelengths.

Now, different people may be taught different names for different colors but the point is that the color associated with the wavelength itself is what really matters here.

[houserichichi]

I see it this way...red (electromagnetic radiation with wavelength 650nm) is the same everywhere and anywhere. The only thing that would make one call such a wavelength by another colour is

a) a "problem" with the eye, brain, or something in between (colour blindness, for example)
b) semantics. They know "red" as EM radiation of wavelength 640nm or 645nm, for instance
c) what they're looking at is not actually "red" (EM of wavelength 650nm)

[jbronson]

I think maybe colours are the same on the outside, but everyone may perceive them different, regardless of whats there.

[wendy]

Colour is not a matter of wavelengths, but a matter of receptors in the eye, and then the grouping of these stimulii into named centres.

Natural things show a mixture of different wavelengths, which is why we don't find colours like mission-brown or pink on the spectrum. A given stimulus will affect all of the receptors in the eye, and a mixture of these stimulii is passed to the brain.

The vast bulk of people are tricromatic: there are three different kinds of stimulii in the eye. Colour blind people might have just two: some animals have two colour receptors, and a much more tuned black/white one (for seeing at night).

Tetracromatic colour vision sees different colours where we see the same colour. This is because there is more to differentiate on. (All tetracchromatic people are female).

One needs to also understand that the same thing can appear different under different lights, because a different spectrum falls on it, and therefore the reflected light (which we see) is also different. Things can change colour under different lights, eg at night.

The warmer climates tend to differentiate against blue. Blue is a different colour in the tropics than it is in the temperates. It may be something to do with the heat, i might guess.

[Keiji]

All tetracchromatic people are female

Any scientific reasoning for that?

[wendy]

It [tetrachromatic vision] is apparently carried on the X chromosome, and not displaced by the Y chromosome.

In any case, tetrachromatic vision means that you see the world in extra colours, and colours that trichromatic people think match are quite different to tetrachromatic vision.

It is like living in a world where most people are red/green colourblind. Most people would horribly mix red and green, because these are seen as the same colour. But you would see them as terribly different colours, and assume that most people have hideous colour sense.

[zero]

My point is we could see different colors when we are little, but we all learn the colors by the same name. "Blue" could be brown in your eyes, and purple in mine, but we both learned it to be blue, . . .

Maybe what you perceive as "purple" today and call blue, you will see as "green" tomorrow, and then remember yesterday's purple as today's green -- still calling it blue all along. You could rotate through the entire spectrum daily, or hourly, or every tenth of a second in some crazy-kaleidescope of varying perceptions that you do not remember because your memory goes through the exact same changes at the same rate of fluctuation.

The following two questions apply to this concept involving only one person as they do to the concept involving multiple people:

1. How would you know?

2. What difference would it make?

[papernuke]

initial post: when people are born, they learn colors yes.. but even if someone teaches them wrong colors-- for example, your red is my blue-- it doesnt really matter. thats because no matter your precision of the pigment, the pigment is still the same. another E.X. , you think black is white, and someone thinks its blue. it doesnt matter what you think. the black material absorbs heat better than white material or blue. or, if you think red light is blue light, your thought doesnt affect what physics says. blue light has a higher frequency, and red has a lower one..

[Tessa]

The problem I see with this is that if one person saw orange as "red" then he would have noticed something wrong in art class, don't you think? Red mixed with blue makes purple. But what if the color he called "purple" was really blue? And what if the color he called "blue" was green? Then when he mixed "red" and "blue" he would get brown (orange mixed with green). Not purple (which he would see as blue, not brown).

[zero]

There are primarily two separate issues being addressed here. One is purely semantic. It doesn't matter what you name a color -- so long as everyone more or less follows the same naming convention, it works out. This could also be seen as a translation issue between different languages.

The other issue is more problematic, asking whether one person's subjective sensations are the same as another person's (presumably with with the simplifying assumption that they are working with the same equipment, and do not have different physical abilities to discern colors). But how does one meaningfully compare subjective sensations? Ater some analysis, I see this as an artificial and ultimately meaningless question as is

But can we salvage the meaning, or at least explore variations to see if that helps at all?

Here's a similar "crazy thought." How do you know that your very own perception of, say, the color red is the same sensation today as it was yesterday? Sure, you might look at a red object and remember it looking the same to you now as it did before, but if the subjective sensation you perceive is different when produced by the object, then why ot when produced by a memory of the object? Is there any way to settle that similar question? I like taking the extra person out of it to help with clarity.