Debate Is what we see exactly what others see?

Well actually, since i'm using the oldschool theme, my colors are different.

/meh

Of course we all see the same thing. If this were not true science would not be able to operate correctly. I'm pretty sure after many years science has determined some things.

 

I was thinking like this this morning when an annoying kid left our table, then I said I will kill myself out of joy, like tears of joy on a higher level if he never comes back, then someone said what if he comes back? won't you kill yourself from sadness then too? Then I am screwed. But, what if I killed him, then I would kill myself, that means killing him would be killing myself, that means I am him and he is me. That means if I ever left the table, then I myself would die, if I never came back or came back, so I could never leave the table. But, then the kid came back so that meant that he was still there which meant he was me and I was him still so I had to kill myself since I was him, which would mean he would then die too, but he could kill himself first, so we waited to see who killed themselves first. So while waiting I concluded red=purple and yellow=9 and Cow=&

 

But, how can you describe a color, well that apple is red. But, what you perceive as red might be different then what others see as red. The apple IS red, therefore whatever you see the apple as is now YOUR red, the one you think that red is because the label put onto red is by things that are red, and not an actual color.

Edit: sorry for the double post

 

I've pondered this before. It is possible that we all see the color wheel differently, but the colors are all still correct compared to each other. For example, take the color wheel below and rotate everything 90 degrees.


I doubt it, though. Although it is possible, there is no evolutionary or scientific reason for it to occur. Your red is my red.

 

To say that what color I see is different than your's is to say that einstein's theory of relativity is false, and that the concept of light is flawed.

 

Well not really, are eyes are the same, but that only takes in the light that is color, but we all clearly think differently, so why not think and PERCEIVE this color differently, since it happens with most everything else. No body thinks the same as anyone else, so probably the same for color.

How, what makes you think that, how do you know it's right, evidence? Also Einstein's theory is not about spectrum and color jsyk

 

If you didn't know this:

Light = color

i'll add more innabit, just got into BTB

 

I know light = color I am not stupid,
but,

1. The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another (Galileo's principle of relativity),
2. The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the source of the light.

From Wikipedia, we all see the same light, and it acts in the same way for everything, but all are brains do not work the same way, so the Theory of Relativity does not prove anything.
and King10011 thats what I am trying to say,

 

You can see it from a different perspective, but we all see the same thing.

Wait wait wait wha-? I don't understand you here. How do our brains work differently? Other than having different thoughts there really is no difference unless we are talking about disorders/diseases and such. Our eyes are all the same when it comes down to it. All light must be tracked back to an arbitrary reference point.. that point being your eyes.

Like I said earlier, if everything we saw was different than the next guy's, then science wouldn't work. I can draw a triangle, and look at it from the base. However someone can come over and see it from the other side. He still sees a triangle, but it doesn't change color.

What i'm trying to say is that light doesn't change because of your perception.

 

We all agree on the same points, we are just saying it differently.

If one person sees a wall, they are seeing light waves that the wall puts out, and then their brain (and their rod & cone cells) are formulating this into an image. The light from that wall is the same for everyone.
We are also agreeing that it is possible, although unlikely, for our brains to each perceive each color as looking different. For example, if you were to 'swap brains' with somebody, you would see green clouds only because YOU label them green, while the other person may see that same color as being white. So long as all colors are shifted the same distance around the color circle, and not just randomly swapped, it is impossible to test if our theory is true or not.

 

Well, your white/green example instantly fails on the color wheel, because white is a mix of the other colors in terms of light. But were white replaced with red or purple or something, the point stands. Nobody knows if what they see is exactly the way everyone else sees it.

I would contest white/black though, those have to be constants for everyone, because they are simply the presence or absence of all other colors.

 

you all fail at thinking outside of the box.

ladnil, if somebody perceives their whites as your greens and their greens as your whites then it doesn't fail on the color wheel. Their green is their white and represents all colors in terms of light, so it still applies to the rules of known science. Science proves NOTHING in this argument.

*IMO* it's very unlikely that the way we perceive things is drastically differently from others considering we're all the same species but their are bound be be slight changes with people of other races and such.*IMO*

 

You see color almost exactly the same way I see color.

Red is red, blue is blue. You can't change that, because it is simply an impossibility. You say that your purple is my green, or your black is my white, but you'll be lying everytime.

Colors = Visible Light.

Visible Light = The only Electromagnetic Radiation visible to Humans. Because the pupil in a human eye has a specific part used to see light, and thus see color.

This part is a common part of the human body, and thus the only people on Earth that see colors differently, are people with damaged light receptors in their eyes.

Regardless, these people are usually blind, or very close to it.

 

It is possible that I may percieve visible light to the right of the spectrum as blue, you may see it as yellow. But we will both call it red, so what is the difference.

As far as our brains are concerened, they will see the same input data, they will store and process the data the same way. It is just when our visual cortex renders the image for our conscious brains that things may not be the same between individuals.

 

lol you wouldn't say that because the idea is that you wouldn't know. you would've learned purple as green and black as white, no difference.

 

What we're really talking about here, when you get down to it, is how different brains may interpret the same inputs in a different way.

At the basic level it makes sense. Someone tells me a joke, I find it funny, I make a loud laugh. That same person tells someone else the same joke, they don't find it funny. OMG THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE IT'S THE SAME JOKE LOL, the inputs are EXACTLY the same! HAX

So yeah, the same inputs can be interpreted differently by different brains, so theoretically the same input of light could be perceived differently in the brain.

HOWEVER...

We're talking extremely base level here for someone to perceive a colour differently (and note the importance here that we're saying "perceive", we agree that the colour is the same, but how is it perceived?). So at this extremely base level it would have to be genetic differences that cause our perceptions to change, which can more naturally occur as a disease...

You get people that are colour blind. They can see colours, but there are some colours that they dont see, they just appear grey. So perhaps that's a form of proof? who knows...

But what we're also saying here means a fundamental difference in the way some brains perceive input. You'd have to be getting your wires crossed, like if someone stabs you with a knife it tickles instead of hurts, that's the level we're probably talking about here.

The science of light doesn't come into question here, or physics in general really; we're talking more about biology here, and chemistry I suppose.

 

I've restrained myself from actually arguing in the debate section since its inception, until I saw this post.

True, receptors in the human eye ARE common to all (or nearly all) humans.

However, that is not to say that what we see is the same.

Currently, and in direct opposition to your thought, is the presence of two theories that explain how we see color.

The Trichromatic Theory of Vision relies on the idea that there are receptors for three types of colors (like primary colors) and all pigments fall somewhere/derive from those colors, thus allowing you to see the colors we can see.

The Opponent Process Theory on the other hand states that we have receptors and counter-receptors of sorts, like yellow and blue counteract each other. This is why those weird color photos that turn black in white in reality cause you to see a photo-realistic image.

Now, you claim that having these receptors makes us all see the same pigments. However, the fact that we have two conflicting (and sometimes paradoxically supportive) theories suggests that humans do not have a thorough understanding of why we see what we do.

Furthermore, I present an analogy in terms of pain management.

Assume that we have two people, one with a high tolerance for pain, one with an extremely low.

Now, these two people STILL share the presence of nerve receptors throughout their body, does that mean the latter "feels" pain more than the former? No, "tolerance" and "feeling" are two separate things. Technically speaking, if the stimulus was identical in every facet as well as the spacing and placement of receptors on the body, the two people feel the same amount of pain. However, the former can deal with it better because they've grown used to it, or just have that mentality where that pain is minimal at best.

Which brings me to my next point, is the body not affected by mental thought? The mind and biology (in current thinking, which supports the Diathesis-Stress Model of viewing things) are connected, and an environment/stimulus may trigger some inborn trait, but thats beside the point.

According to this, the (or an alteration to) the mind can bodily function. This idea supports the randomstances (random happenstance XD) of cancer patients on a deathbed can go into remission because of positive thinking, or the overall survival rate of happy patients who are "terminally ill" versus their pessimistic peers.

Effectively, this means that people's thoughts shape how they interpret data (and I mean that in the sense where it enters the body through sense receptors, before it is "used" by the brain). So you may see blue, and I may see green, yet we both call it red. Why? Because we were trained to believe that the color we see is red, thus our thoughts instantly shift to that word as soon as that stimulus is presented.

Now, assume that entire theory is complete and utter bullshit, as we can't prove it quite yet. Then I refer you to my earlier bolded statements.

These two MUST be present to ensure that two people are seeing the same. You can present the same stimulus in relatively the same fashion (sure variables such as the time of day, deterioration of laboratory test lights, etc cannot be completely controlled as everything from its inception is in a state of decay, well nearly everything, but thats a side argument), thats easy, however, humans are not identical.

"sure they are", bollocks.
There are tall people ,fat people, stupid people, people with illnesses. The implication that everyone is equal in terms of bodily function is unfounded, otherwise everyone would react to everything in the exact same way (oh and nobody is truly unique either, but once again, thats an argument for another day)

The bit about the "receptors on the body" can refer to color receptors or cones (if im not mistaken) in the eye. Assuming everyone has the same-size eyeball (which nobody does), whats to say deterioration of the eye itself, or the optic nerve, or whatever will not have an effect on perception? You said yourself that "blind people" see it differently.

In short:

• the presence of the trichromatic and the opponent-process theory supports that we do not truly understand the eye and how it "sees" things, thus allowing thoughts such as "is everything as it seems" still viable
• the diathesis-stress model, the widely-accepted theory of viewing the effect of the mind on the body (well thats ONE small part of it) suggests that thoughts alter perception.
• the fact that nothing can be truly identical, experiment, body or otherwise, disavows the notion that we see everything the same.