Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I was thinking about this. What if we each see colors differently? I mean we have been taught what each color is, but what if each of us sees them as different colors, but we have all been taught that they are the same thing? I dont know if this is possible, but it seems interesting.

What is it with color blindess today?
Seriously what color is the X button next to report?

Personally, I see a middle shade of red. Not really dark or light

Should we make a poll out of it?

That really starts to get into a discussion of perception.

Such as: What if we all see things differently but only appear to perceive them the same because we can't perceive them any differently than that of which we know. When infact, someone else is seeing it differently.

EG

"That sign is red."

"Yeah it is."

Is it actually red or is the person only hearing that because it's the only way they perceive, when in actual fact, the other person is pointing to a yellow bus.

-AC

Humans generally don't see colors differently compared to others. Unless suffering colorblindness or some other malfunction in the eyes (or brain). Normally, every human eye has the same amount and type of light-recipients, passing the same data to the same kind of brain and thus projecting the same image.
There are however major differences in how humans and animals see colors and shades, like dogs and cats see far less color, but way more contrast. Some insects can even see light in whole different spectrum's, like infrared.

You cannot realistically say humans do not see things differently because it's something we will never discover.

It's impossible to prove for or against. Also, if you're about to say "We both see the same" then I could always raise the argument I did in my first reply. Not saying it's definite but you can't be sure. If we're discussing perception, agreement could be considered to be a lack thereof.

-AC

we do see colour differently.
I mean red is red. but everyone sees it with diffferent shade of red.

also it's proven that girls generally perceive colours differently than guys.


and I know only one guy who knew actual difference between salmon and peach colours

Originally posted by Clovie
we do see colour differently.
I mean red is red. but everyone sees it with diffferent shade of red.

also it's proven that girls generally perceive colours differently than guys.


and I know only one guy who knew actual difference between salmon and peach colours

Salmon is pink

Originally posted by T.M
Salmon is pink second guy who knew the difference. clapping

For the record "ladies", salmon and peach aren't colours.

They're a fish and a fruit.

-AC

They're also names for shades of pink and red, respectively

Anyway, I think that people do register shades of colors differently.

Originally posted by Clovie
second guy who knew the difference. clapping

yey me

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
For the record "ladies", salmon and peach aren't colours.

They're a fish and a fruit.

-AC but they're also a colours with shades of this fish and fruit. (Lana said it already )

Ironic how two ladies say that .

Well then they're just lighter/darker shades of pink and red aren't they? Who come up with the idea of naming it salmon and peach?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Ironic how two ladies say that .

Well then they're just lighter/darker shades of pink and red aren't they? Who come up with the idea of naming it salmon and peach?

-AC

some fool i think giving different names to colours that are slightly different is stupid

Hell if I know, blame crayola and all their crayons.

I never really bother to differentiate shades with names, with the exception of saying that blue-green is teal, purple-pink is magenta, etc. Ones where you can't really call it one color or the other.

I don't know hwose idea was it
but it is more comfortable to say salmon and peach than to say something between orange and pink, but more pink... when you can simply say salmon

i hate these topics

yes, its unprovable, so whats to discuss?

I just say pink, because give or take lighter or darker, that's what it is. I don't need to say "That's light/dark pink" to someone. They can see.

Also, how do you define what is lighter or darker of ANY colour? Is there a definite middle to which colours must be lighter or darker than?

-AC

As I was just telling Lana, I've always wondered this question.

What if what I see as red could look yellow (in my eyes) to someone else, but they know it as red also because that's what they were taught. Like AC said, it's all about perception and it is truly unproveable. Still it's very interesting to wonder.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I just say pink, because give or take lighter or darker, that's what it is. I don't need to say "That's light/dark pink" to someone. They can see.

Also, how do you define what is lighter or darker of ANY colour? Is there a definite middle to which colours must be lighter or darker than?

-AC dunno.
but you see if it is dark or light. so you can say if it is dark or light
and I have always problems with expressing the exact shade of colour i'm seeing and when there are more names it's easier.

This is more a thread for the philosophy forum.

As PVS said, it can't really be proven.

This is because colours can only be described nominally (given that frequency doesn't confer any extra meaning as regards this problem).

Originally posted by Clovie
dunno.
but you see if it is dark or light. so you can say if it is dark or light
and I have always problems with expressing the exact shade of colour i'm seeing and when there are more names it's easier.

Yes but what I'm saying is, if it's light pink why is light pink? How do you know it's not normal pink and every other pink is just brighter/darker?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes but what I'm saying is, if it's light pink why is light pink? How do you know it's not normal pink and every other pink is just brighter/darker?

-AC coz it is lighter
you just know

How? Do you know what NORMAL Pink is?

I'm sure there are people who would disagree with you on what normal pink is.

-AC

you can't define normal exactly
but when it is light it is light. I can't explain it. you just see it.

Uh oh.

Originally posted by Clovie
you can't define normal exactly
but when it is light it is light. I can't explain it. you just see it.

Yes, exactly. You can't define normal, because there isn't one. Or is there?

My point was, how do you label a colour light or dark variant when you don't even know what normal is?

Eg: We can say things are above and below sea level because we know what sea level is. How can you say a colour is lightER or darkER when you don't even know what the normal base is?

-AC

gonna be literal now, I'm afraid.

but.
I don't say it is lighter. I'm saying it's light and it is light when it is not dark
when you have the two of them, you can decide easily which one is dark and which one is light, right?
and the one in the middle is the 'just' pink.
something like that

I thought about this question a few years back in highschool and it opened up a can of worms...

How do we know any of this is real and your brain isn't just making it up??!?

OOhhh....Quantum Physics...

Originally posted by Clovie
gonna be literal now, I'm afraid.

but.
I don't say it is lighter. I'm saying it's light and it is light when it is not dark
when you have the two of them, you can decide easily which one is dark and which one is light, right?
and the one in the middle is the 'just' pink.
something like that

You're always literal.

I was saying, how do you say something is lightER or darkER? How? To do that you must have an idea of the original colour. How do you know what the original colour is?

If you say there's light pink and a dark pink, there must be a normal pink. Same with any colour. So how do you find the normal? How do you decide? Because I'm sure it's different for everyone.

-AC

It's only unprovable if you reduce reality down to a matter that nothing is certain, which is never a helpful position

Fact is, science tells us that humans see all the same colours (shades not withstanding; don't want to get into that). Doubt that and you may as well doubt all that science has achieved; philosophical scepticism is the nursery school of thought- page 1 is Descartes; move on, folks.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You're always literal.

I was saying, how do you say something is lightER or darkER? How? To do that you must have an idea of the original colour. How do you know what the original colour is?

If you say there's light pink and a dark pink, there must be a normal pink. Same with any colour. So how do you find the normal? How do you decide? Because I'm sure it's different for everyone.

-AC so you got already used to it?

so I have the idea of the original colour... and generaly everyone seems to have some similar one, coz when I'm asking a friend to pass me the light pink crayon (we're making drawings during classes baby) she is giving me the light pink one and not a blue one, or a normal pink one and neither the dark pink one

and I don't understand where is the problem. so you can assume I'm totally stupid etc.

It's one of those things that look pointless to doubt but can't be factually proven and are therefore worth the discussion, I would imagine.

I'm not sitting here thinking we all do, but I'm not denying it because I can't.

-AC

Originally posted by Clovie
so you got already used to it?

so I have the idea of the original colour... and generaly everyone seems to have some similar one, coz when I'm asking a friend to pass me the light pink crayon (we're making drawings during classes baby) she is giving me the light pink one and not a blue one, or a normal pink one and neither the dark pink one

and I don't understand where is the problem. so you can assume I'm totally stupid etc.

Luckily I only read the last post...so this was probably said before....

The Light Pink one might in your friends mind look like the Dark Blue one you imagine but because that "Dark Blue" was called "Light Pink" ...she'll give you the right colour.....

But I think you could maybe say that there is something that is always considered light and something that'S always considered dark...how that actually looks is not knowable....

Like I say, deny that and you are only in a field where you must always doubt anything you cannot implicity prove- i.e. that you exist, which is the only thing. It's brains in jars, and if you want that you should be heading off to Philosophy.

No-one can prove a negative. But there isn't a single reason to think that it is possibly true- so why consider it?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Luckily I only read the last post...so this was probably said before....

The Light Pink one might in your friends mind look like the Dark Blue one you imagine but because that "Dark Blue" was called "Light Pink" ...she'll give you the right colour.....

But I think you could maybe say that there is something that is always considered light and something that'S always considered dark...how that actually looks is not knowable....

I know it hurts you to read my posts..but if you wanna reply to them it would be better to at least know the general idea

Originally posted by Clovie


I know it hurts you to read my posts..but if you wanna reply to them it would be better to at least know the general idea

Wha`? ...I read yours....I didn't read any others though....I just gave my <opinion and then agreed with you partly, since we obviously all have siimilar notions of light and dark....

Originally posted by Bardock42
Wha`? ...I read yours....I didn't read any others though....I just gave my <opinion and then agreed with you partly, since we obviously all have siimilar notions of light and dark.... and it has nothing to do with the fact that AC was trying to tell me that there is no normal pink?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Like I say, deny that and you are only in a field where you must always doubt anything you cannot implicity prove- i.e. that you exist, which is the only thing. It's brains in jars, and if you want that you should be heading off to Philosophy.

No-one can prove a negative. But there isn't a single reason to think that it is possibly true- so why consider it?

Why not? Reason enough to think it might be true is the fact that it can't actually be proven wrong. I enjoy discussing it, not saying I believe it.

Clovie:

I'm not gonna continually say what I've said multiple times, only to have you miss it again, sorry.

-AC

apparently I'm too stupid to understand your point, tut mir leid.

Originally posted by Clovie
and it has nothing to do with the fact that AC was trying to tell me that there is no normal pink?

Yes, right....since I didn't adreess the whole thread but just what I figured you might be talking aboot..... .....and there is not actually a normal pink ..... (although I don't know what ACs reasoning is....)

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, right....since I didn't adreess the whole thread but just what I figured you might be talking aboot..... .....and there is not actually a normal pink ..... (although I don't know what ACs reasoning is....) doesn't matter.

I wasn't trying to say there's no normal pink, was I? Jesus.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I wasn't trying to say there's no normal pink, was I? Jesus.

-AC right..you were saying thet I can't be using temr like light and dark pink, because there is no normal one, which can be related to the dark and light ones.
and as I said before. I'm too stupid to understand you.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I wasn't trying to say there's no normal pink, was I? Jesus.

-AC

But there is no "normal" pink ....

I think Ush is countering Bardock's point (and the point of the whole thread).

The side issue between AC and Clovie regards not 'is that pink?', but 'is that light pink?'

Given various shades of pink, how do we know which is the normal shade?

I suppose it's essentially a sense-based perception. The lower limit of pink becomes white, the upper limit becomes red. The middle position is normal pink.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I think Ush is countering Bardock's point (and the point of the whole thread).

The side issue between AC and Clovie regards not 'is that pink?', but 'is that light pink?'

Given various shades of pink, how do we know which is the normal shade?

I suppose it's essentially a sense-based perception. The lower limit of pink becomes white, the upper limit becomes red. The middle position is normal pink. and it is what i've been all the time saying!


or trying to say and failing

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why not? Reason enough to think it might be true is the fact that it can't actually be proven wrong. I enjoy discussing it, not saying I believe it.



No, that is absolutely inept reasoning. That something cannot be proven wrong is not in any way at all a reason to think something might be true.

It is a fundamental cornerstone of reason that things MUST be proved positive, not negative. You cannot prove a negative, nor is it the function of any logical process to do so.

Every piece of evidence we have tells us that we would see it the same. To deny it is counter-logical and entering, as I mentioned, into the realm of the purely philosophical until, as I also mentioned, we are back to brains in jars.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, that is absolutely inept reasoning. That something cannot be proven wrong is not in any way at all a reason to think something might be true.

It is a fundamental cornerstone of reason that things MUST be proved positive, not negative. You cannot prove a negative, nor is it the function of any logical process to do so.

Every piece of evidence we have tells us that we would see it the same. To deny it is counter-logical and entering, as I mentioned, into the realm of the purely philosophical until, as I also mentioned, we are back to brains in jars.

But that#S not true..there's no evidence for that at all...it's easy t go that way..but there is absolutely no reason to believe so....

There is absolutely TONS of it!

Light isn't a vague concept- it's an existing thing, that has been analysed and discovered. The scattering of light and the way it produces colour (and why, and what the underlying difference is) is a matter of scientific record. The way that our eyes act as lenses to see that scattering (no different, fundamentally, to the way camera lenses work) is a matter of scientific record, as is the way that information is then transmitted to our brains.

Colour is a matter of fact, not supposition. Making a hypothesis that people see colours differently with no proof for it and plenty against is futile.

Originally posted by Clovie
right..you were saying thet I can't be using temr like light and dark pink, because there is no normal one, which can be related to the dark and light ones.
and as I said before. I'm too stupid to understand you.

No no no. For crying out loud.

I was saying IF you use light and dark terms, how do you KNOW there's a normal one? What do you use to deduce that? Jesus. It's actually like talking to a brick wall.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, that is absolutely inept reasoning. That something cannot be proven wrong is not in any way at all a reason to think something might be true.

I was speaking in relation to why some people might believe it, because as you will have noticed, I followed it with "not saying I believe it." It can't be proven or disproven and regardless of how likely or unlikely it is, I enjoy discussing it. It's not antagonistic discussion purely for the sake of, it's because I find it to be an interesting concept that I neither confirm or deny.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It is a fundamental cornerstone of reason that things MUST be proved positive, not negative. You cannot prove a negative, nor is it the function of any logical process to do so.

I didn't say you could prove a negative, I said it can't be proven for or against purely because the very essense of the question cancels out anyone else saying "I see the same as you." It'll always come back to someone saying "Well what if that's not what you see/are saying, what if I'm just hearing it that way?" and due to the fact that it isn't provable (either way) nobody can say "Well you're wrong."

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Every piece of evidence we have tells us that we would see it the same. To deny it is counter-logical and entering, as I mentioned, into the realm of the purely philosophical until, as I also mentioned, we are back to brains in jars.

Right, and I'm not denying that we might very well see it all the same. If anything that's what I would believe. I prefer to think though, as opposed to dismissing something that might possibly make for some interesting discussion purely because you or a few others can't be bothered to let others indulge their imaginations.

It's a sad day when ninety Spelljammer threads are left to clog the forum up but when one decent thread arises, it's attempting to be quashed. You think it's stupid to discuss, fine. Why are you here?

And as for colours being a matter of fact, they only exist because of light. If you put a green, blue and red sweater in a closet with no light, what colours are they? Have you ever stood in the dark?

-AC

Because I am here pointing out why it is stupid to discuss.

Your mistake is assuming there is no evidence for colour being perceived the same and so that it cannot be proven. There IS evidence for it, and as I say, it is counter-logical to believe otherwise, unless you are returning to philisophical scepticism.

Your logic is flawed at a very basic level. And your final paragraph strikes me as totally irrelevant.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Light isn't a vague concept- it's an existing thing, that has been analysed and discovered.

Here is quick little trick question for all you followers of Hume's empiricism...

How do you explain colors to a person that has never seen colors in their life? (i.e. born blind)

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Because I am here pointing out why it is stupid to discuss.

You've done so. Why are you here? Is it such an annoying occurance that this forum has taken a turn toward discussing something above trolling? I don't actually see why you are trying to stomp on this thread purely because you think it's stupid.

Why don't you go and stomp on the entire OTF and it's countless "Win a date with..." threads?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Your mistake is assuming there is no evidence for it and so that it cannot be proven. There IS evidence for it, and as I say, it is counter-logical to believe otherwise, unless you are returning to philisophical scepticism.

If there is factual, undeniable evidence, then show me it. Because the fact that the very nature of this topic lies in the negative and not being able to prove it wrong, shows otherwirse.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Your logic is flawed at a very basic level. And your final paragraph strikes me as totally irrelevant.

Well if it can be proven, it would be undeniable. So considering the fact that some of KMC's more intelligent people have posted in here wanting to discuss it, suggests that you either need to prove us all wrong to the point that we can't deny it, or move it to the philosophy forum (which is where I and others believe it should be).

-AC

Originally posted by Ushgarak
There is absolutely TONS of it!

Light isn't a vague concept- it's an existing thing, that has been analysed and discovered. The scattering of light and the way it produces colour (and why, and what the underlying difference is) is a matter of scientific record. The way that our eyes act as lenses to see that scattering (no different, fundamentally, to the way camera lenses work) is a matter of scientific record, as is the way that information is then transmitted to our brains.

Colour is a matter of fact, not supposition. Making a hypothesis that people see colours differently with no proof for it and plenty against is futile.

But no one doubts light or colour...but what evidence do you have that our brains see it similar......that#S not provable..we cannot test that....we see it for the same reason, that is a fact but how we perceive it is just a wild guess..and although I agree that the easiest is usally the best I don't know if it is the truth....

Originally posted by WindDancer
Here is quick little trick question for all you followers of Hume's empiricism...

How do you explain colors to a person that has never seen colors in their life? (i.e. born blind)

I think blind people know objects only based on the touch. If they got their sight back, they would need a long time to understand what an object is without touching it - simple objects, such as ball. If a blind since birth person, saw a ball after they got their sight back (assuming) they wouldnt know what it is, until they touch it.

As for colours, once they establish the differance between a picture and a 3D withouth touching, im assuming their colour teaching will be the same as everyone else.

No matter how easy it is to get two or ten people in a room and have them say "The wall is blue" and believe that's all there is to it, anyone can always raise the "What if it's just perception?" argument and no matter how sure you are, you can't prove them wrong.

If you could, the debate and subject would be void. But it's not.

I'm by no means saying that they are as likely, the perception theory is outlandish even by my standards. That doesn't mean I'm dismissing it because I enjoy discussing the possibilities of it.

-AC

Originally posted by WindDancer
Here is quick little trick question for all you followers of Hume's empiricism...

How do you explain colors to a person that has never seen colors in their life? (i.e. born blind)

What do you mean...someone that has never seen and still cannot. ....or someone that used to be blind and now does see?

I'm afraid I have to go with the mods on this one. Seeing different colors would really be a trivial demonstation of perception, if thats what you're trying to argue. The word 'red' exists to symbolise red, not the other way around. Everyone else with normal sight, seems to see red as red. With miniscule differences. We do not believe that red is red, we see red is red.
Either their are certain rules to light or we are all equally 'delusional'.

Maybe they are simply colour-blind.

The fact which everyone is trying to get across is that light is non-nagotiable. Ray of light is not nagotiable - its a scientific fact. Remember physics class?

I think this is what Ush is getting at - prism adn reflection of light...

http://gallery.hd.org/_exhibits/natural-science/prism-and-refraction-of-light-into-rainbow-2-AJHD.jpg

You are sitting there saying "We do not believe that red is red, we see red is red."

I'm not disagreeing but someone might and you couldn't prove them wrong.

How can you prove something that you don't have the power to see? You can't see with anyone else's eyes. So until you can, it'll never be absolute.

Milla, I've not come across anyone trying to nEgotiate the existance of light. The only point I ever raised was that either way, perception (individual) is never absolute. Until we can see for each other or see what each other sees. Light exists, of course. Colour only exists because of light though.

-AC

Originally posted by jerlark386


I'm afraid I have to go with the mods on this one. Seeing different colors would really be a trivial demonstation of perception, if thats what you're trying to argue. The word 'red' exists to symbolise red, not the other way around. Everyone else with normal sight, seems to see red as red. With miniscule differences. We do not believe that red is red, we see red is red.
Either their are certain rules to light or we are all equally 'delusional'.

But that'S the thing....we obviously call it the same..and it obviously ios the same..but do we perceive it the same?Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Maybe they are simply colour-blind.

The fact which everyone is trying to get across is that light is non-nagotiable. Ray of light is not nagotiable - its a scientific fact. Remember physics class?

I think this is what Ush is getting at - prism adn reflection of light...

http://gallery.hd.org/_exhibits/natural-science/prism-and-refraction-of-light-into-rainbow-2-AJHD.jpg

And I totally agree, Light Exists, Red exists (well Objects only reflecting Red Light exist) and I am not as much a skeptic to doubt that (I go with Kalr Popper on this one, Its reasonable to just go with it) .... but what I wonder, and I know there can not be an answer to that is if you see what I would call blue as the same thing...or another question if your miond would perceive the colour I see similar...would you still agree it's the same colour?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No no no. For crying out loud.

I was saying IF you use light and dark terms, how do you KNOW there's a normal one? What do you use to deduce that? Jesus. It's actually like talking to a brick wall.


-AC and I said that you compare the light shade to the dark shade and the lighter one is light and the darker one is dark

and thanks it's one of the biggest compliments I've been given recently.

Forget it, actually forget it.

-AC

Originally posted by Clovie
and I said that you compare the light shade to the dark shade and the lighter one is light and the darker one is dark

and thanks it's one of the biggest compliments I've been given recently.

Now that's right, you can say Lighter and Darker...but you cannot jsut generally say that is light and that dark..and you can't really decide what is a "normal" colour....

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You are sitting there saying "We do not believe that red is red, we see red is red."

I'm not disagreeing but someone might and you couldn't prove them wrong.

How can you prove something that you don't have the power to see? You can't see with anyone else's eyes. So until you can, it'll never be absolute.

Milla, I've not come across anyone trying to nEgotiate the existance of light. The only point I ever raised was that either way, perception (individual) is never absolute. Until we can see for each other or see what each other sees. Light exists, of course. Colour only exists because of light though.

-AC

Color exists becuase of way light is reflected off or through objects. Light can be measured. There is really only a narrow margin for perception because there is only a narrow range of light we can see in the first place. How do think programs like Adobe Photoshop could survive if it had to custom its colors to everyone's 'perception'. This is'nt like taste, where one type of food can taste bad one and good to another.

Originally posted by jerlark386
Color exists becuase of way light is reflected off or through objects. Light can be measured. There is really only a narrow margin for perception because there is only a narrow range of light we can see in the first place. How do think programs like Adobe Photoshop could survive if it had to custom its colors to everyone's 'perception'. This is'nt like taste, where one type of food can taste bad one and good to another.

I never said colour was non-existant, I said it exists because of light. Which it does.

Resorting to flawed analogies doesn't prove anything either. As sure as you are, you can't prove to me what I'm seeing. Because you don't know for sure. You're just very confident.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Forget it, actually forget it.

-AC so I'm not a brickwall now?



Originally posted by Bardock42
Now that's right, you can say Lighter and Darker...but you cannot jsut generally say that is light and that dark..and you can't really decide what is a "normal" colour.... and I can't assume that the medium one is pink, without any lighter/darker adddings?


and before someone yells at me. yes i'm stupid. if you don't wanna talk to me/see my posts etc there is ignore button, thankyouverymuch.

Originally posted by jerlark386
Color exists becuase of way light is reflected off or through objects. Light can be measured. There is really only a narrow margin for perception because there is only a narrow range of light we can see in the first place. How do think programs like Adobe Photoshop could survive if it had to custom its colors to everyone's 'perception'. This is'nt like taste, where one type of food can taste bad one and good to another.

You totally misunderstand the point. I accept that everyone sees the same...but does it well.."feel" the same?

Your Photoshop example is wquite stuoid since it doesn't proof anything...

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri


Milla, I've not come across anyone trying to nEgotiate the existance of light.


I haven't come across anyone trying to nEgotiate the existEnce of light either.

Originally posted by Clovie
so I'm not a brickwall now?



and I can't assume that the medium one is pink, without any lighter/darker adddings?


and before someone yells at me. yes i'm stupid. if you don't wanna talk to me/see my posts etc there is ignore button, thankyouverymuch.

I don't think he meant that.

Well i guess it's my mistake I have to clarify.....you personally can decide that one Shade of Pink is "normal" but there's no reason to assume that it is the "normal" pink...it is just another color and in no way special...you yourself can use it as a reference point but that won't make a difference to any other being in this world (except if that other being agrees with you on that definition).....

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I think blind people know objects only based on the touch. If they got their sight back, they would need a long time to understand what an object is without touching it - simple objects, such as ball. If a blind since birth person, saw a ball after they got their sight back (assuming) they wouldnt know what it is, until they touch it.

As for colours, once they establish the differance between a picture and a 3D withouth touching, im assuming their colour teaching will be the same as everyone else.

Experience and observation tells us what thing looks like. In the case of a blind man who's been blind since childbirth his senses tell him how a thing is shaped and how it feels. However, since a blind man hasn't experience or seen colors in his life he may have difficulty understanding. Now, that doesn't mean he will never understand but it will take time (i.e. a learning process) for him to understand.

A better illustration is Plato's allegory of the cave:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_allegory_of_the_cave

Another reason why Plato PWNED Nietzche.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I haven't come across anyone trying to nEgotiate the existEnce of light either.

That was a good movie...you misspelled it though...it was "eXistenZ"

Trufax.

Still knowhere near as bad though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That was a good movie...you misspelled it though...it was "eXistenZ"

What are you talking about, Bardock?

-AC

Originally posted by WindDancer
Experience and observation tells us what thing looks like. In the case of a blind man who's been blind since childbirth his senses tell him how a thing is shaped and how it feels. However, since a blind man hasn't experience or seen colors in his life he may have difficulty understanding. Now, that doesn't mean he will never understand but it will take time (i.e. a learning process) for him to understand.

A better illustration is Plato's allegory of the cave:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_allegory_of_the_cave

Another reason why Plato PWNED Nietzche.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom

This is because colours can only be described nominally (given that frequency doesn't confer any extra meaning as regards this problem).

Originally posted by WindDancer
Experience and observation tells us what thing looks like. In the case of a blind man who's been blind since childbirth his senses tell him how a thing is shaped and how it feels. However, since a blind man hasn't experience or seen colors in his life he may have difficulty understanding. Now, that doesn't mean he will never understand but it will take time (i.e. a learning process) for him to understand.

A better illustration is Plato's allegory of the cave:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_allegory_of_the_cave

Another reason why Plato PWNED Nietzche.

Mr. Nietzche was friends with Hitler you know.

-AC

Originally posted by WindDancer
Another reason why Plato PWNED Nietzche.

You are a Plato Fanboy schmoll


Anyways...Plato is alright..but Nietzsche PWNS him big time....although one might say they were different kind of Philosophers ....hmmm.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Mr. Nietzche was friends with Hitler you know.

-AC

He was also an extreme misogynist. Hes not my fave but I do like some of his ideas.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Trufax.

Still knowhere near as bad though.



What are you talking about, Bardock?

-AC
there was a movie called eXistenZ...was funny.....

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Mr. Nietzche was friends with Hitler you know.

-AC

Yep the last ten years Nietsche lived in the Mental Asylum he was friend with little baby Hitler (by the way I know he wasn't in a mental asylum...DO NOT BOTHER ME)

It was a Ricky Gervais reference.

Wasn't being serious. I agree though.

-AC

Considering Nietzsche died in 1900, and Hitler was born in 1889, that must have been a weird friendship.

Originally posted by Clovie
and thanks it's one of the biggest compliments I've been given recently.

Good one, Clovs!


And for whoever was talking about that movie called "Existenz" or whatever, it was that Dennis Rodman movie in Outer Space a few years back.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Considering Nietzsche died in 1900, and Hitler was born in 1889, that must have been a weird friendship.

Oh here he is again Mr. "I make Bardocks statements more obvious" ....

I think is fair to say that this question can be approach in two different ways. One is philosophical and the other is scientific. Quite frankly the philosophical approach can be more debatable. I choose the philosophical one because is more fun to discuss.

And yes! eXistenZ is kick ass sci-fi movie.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh here he is again Mr. "I make Bardocks statments more obvious" ....

You edited that in afterwards, you common criminal.

Originally posted by WindDancer
I think is fair to say that this question can be approach in two different ways. One is philosophical and the other is scientific. Quite frankly the philosophical approach can be more debatable. I choose the philosophical one because is more fun to discuss.

And yes! eXistenZ is kick ass sci-fi movie.

True...I mean I think we all agree with the Scientific Approach...

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
You edited that in afterwards, you common criminal.

I should get the credit anyways....

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It was a Ricky Gervais reference.

Wasn't being serious. I agree though.

-AC

Hahaha.

Agree with what?

I wonder if you don't sometimes think 'If I talk two lots of nonsense, maybe it will work like a double negative.'

Come on kids, the eyes were one of the first organs going through thorough research in science. Ok, maybe boys and girls experience slightly different interpretations of colors, but those are mostly neglectable. Red is red, blue is blue, some might see a brighter or darker shade, but no way without any disorders one human sees red in a color while another sees green.
Impossible. The whole primal feeding is based on colors, red is good, green is not ready yet. Pink means flesh AKA a nipple or plain food to take a bite out of. Colors are way to important for survival to let nature slip in the possibly to make em random for each eye.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Hahaha.

Agree with what?

I wonder if you don't sometimes think 'If I talk two lots of nonsense, maybe it will work like a double negative.'

I was using the cook pass technique, you shit-deliverer.

-AC

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Considering Nietzsche died in 1900, and Hitler was born in 1889, that must have been a weird friendship.

Its a clear sign of reincarnation.

And dont you find weird and Mussolini died 1 day after Hitler!!

CONSPIRACY!!

Where is Deano?

Originally posted by Pandemoniac
Come on kids, the eyes were one of the first organs going through thorough research in science. Ok, maybe boys and girls experience slightly different interpretations of colors, but those are mostly neglectable. Red is red, blue is blue, some might see a brighter or darker shade, but no way without any disorders one human sees red in a color while another sees green.
Impossible. The whole primal feeding is based on colors, red is good, green is not ready yet. Pink means flesh AKA a nipple or plain food to take a bite out of. Colors are way to important for survival to let nature slip in the possibly to make em random for each eye.

thats not what im saying

Weve all been taught that a stop sign is red. We all know what red looks like. But what if red to you looks like blue to me? We would never know the difference, because we both have been taught that it is red. You cant really prove this, unless you could take control of someones eyes or something.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You totally misunderstand the point. I accept that everyone sees the same...but does it well.."feel" the same?

Your Photoshop example is wquite stuoid since it doesn't proof anything...

"Feel" the same? Since when do you feel color? Are you trying to say if I don't like the color green, it'll more look more orange or some other crazy bs like that.

Doesn't prove anything? It proves we all see the same color or so close to seeing the same color that noone else cares.

My example is 'stuoid'? If theres anything thats 'stuoid' its you saying that proof is'nt proof. Either a color is a color or everyone is lying here.

well, these color blind subjects are great cause they stress something other than politics and it's cool finding out that i'm not the only one, but anyway. the perception thing is true especially if your perception changes either from a brain injury or an optic nerve injury. usually it just results in a blue yellow color blindness but sometimes it really can scrambe your colors. furthermore, there are some disorders where people mix senses and percieve both sounds and smells visually. I know people who think that "Mark" is a very red name, for example.

Originally posted by jerlark386
"Feel" the same? Since when do you feel color? Are you trying to say if I don't like the color green, it'll more look more orange or some other crazy bs like that.

Doesn't prove anything? It proves we all see the same color or so close to seeing the same color that noone else cares.

My example is 'stuoid'? If theres anything thats 'stuoid' its you saying that proof is'nt proof. Either a color is a color or everyone is lying here.

Red Alert said it right

Originally posted by RedAlertv2
thats not what im saying

Weve all been taught that a stop sign is red. We all know what red looks like. But what if red to you looks like blue to me? We would never know the difference, because we both have been taught that it is red. You cant really prove this, unless you could take control of someones eyes or something.