4 ms·

how do I even know my red is your red I get why kids ask this. I don't get why adults ask this. If you have normal color vision and don't have a tumor in your

by causi 3y ago

how do I even know my red is your red I get why kids ask this. I don't get why adults ask this. If you have normal color vision and don't have a tumor in your visual cortex your red is as close to my red as the red subpixels are on two units of the same television. Sure, you can't look at them and positively measure their identicalness, but they're being generated with the same hardware.

fsckboy 3y ago
sorry, you assume that, you hypothesize that, but you don't know that. people like different colors, people like different tastes. according to you, "no, same hardware"
messe 3y ago
> Sure, you can't look at them and positively measure their identicalness, but they're being generated with the same hardware. But to continue your analogy, after so many years of experiencing the world differently—different pasts, upbringings, worldviews—are they being interpreted by the same software? And that's the question that the paper really poses: are qualia real, and if so, is it ever possible to conclude that two individuals experience qualia in the same way?
- The_Colonel 3y ago
  My intuition says yes, they are basically perceived the same way. Color recognition is so elementary it seems more hardware-based than software-based. I think there are better examples for the point (which I assume it's trying to make). Take a piece of rock, does it look the same way to different people? (there the answer is IMHO no).
  - messe 3y ago
    > My intuition says yes, they are basically perceived the same way. Color recognition is so elementary it seems more hardware-based than software-based In which case you're missing the point of the fucking example. Colour is just being used as an easily definable (to some extent) sensation. "What is it like to perceive this particular rock" doesn't roll quite off the tongue so well, and intuition is exactly the aspect that this discussion attempts to avoid in order to be as objective as possible with regard to an inherently subjective experience.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    I would assume the answer is probabilistic and likely follows something like a bell curve.
notahacker 3y ago
I mean, the existence of significant numbers of people who don't have "normal colour vision" is a pretty good indication that different perceptions of red is an actual thing. Seems far more childish to insist that that everyone's perception is either identical or impaired. If it is possible for human perception of colour using similar hardware to be so different that they subjectively experience 550nm and 700nm wavelengths as identical in appearance, it is surely possible for the minds of that people who can reliably distinguish between the two don't necessarily perceive them exactly the same way you do or I do. Apart from anything else, it would explain a lot of people's decorative choices! Even the "same hardware" argument doesn't stack up because even if it turns out you're actually my identical twin, our visual cortexes and brain structures and chemistry that parses, interprets, emotionally responds to and stores images evidently aren't the same.
nocoiner 3y ago
I see different color temperature casts in each of my eyes. So, depending on the eye, my red isn’t even my own red! Seems like a perfectly valid question given the complexity of the human vision system.
lubujackson 3y ago
The interesting thing is that so much of color (and vision in general) is software, not hardware. Our eyes don't see color and light the way we we perceive them at all, it is a composite of multiple sensors each doing different things. Colors like magenta are almost entirely constructed by our brains in software because we don't physically register them but recognize their presence. Then there is the element of how we define colors at all - some languages have no word for blue, for instance. People can see and distinguish the color but without context along the spectrum they way they understand the color is definitely influenced by lots of contextual factors. So from that perspective, we certainly do not all perceive colors the same.
kirkules 3y ago
The existence of "The dress", which is seen by different people or the same person in different states of mind as white/gold or blue/black, and other such illusions, would seem to invalidate your perspective. Or if that's not persuasive, just consider different software versions, different video drivers, etc. running on the same hardware. Or consider that if you believe a tumor in your visual cortex could meaningfully change color perception in your model, then why wouldn't a difference in cortex structure have some effect too? I'm willing to bet no two humans have ever had or probably will ever have the same arrangement of visual cortex neurons and other relevant brain biology. Do you think you know enough to say any such variation is irrelevant?

by causi 3y ago

fsckboy 3y ago

sorry, you assume that, you hypothesize that, but you don't know that. people like different colors, people like different tastes. according to you, "no, same hardware"

messe 3y ago

> Sure, you can't look at them and positively measure their identicalness, but they're being generated with the same hardware. But to continue your analogy, after so many years of experiencing the world differently—different pasts, upbringings, worldviews—are they being interpreted by the same software? And that's the question that the paper really poses: are qualia real, and if so, is it ever possible to conclude that two individuals experience qualia in the same way?

The_Colonel 3y ago
My intuition says yes, they are basically perceived the same way. Color recognition is so elementary it seems more hardware-based than software-based. I think there are better examples for the point (which I assume it's trying to make). Take a piece of rock, does it look the same way to different people? (there the answer is IMHO no).
- messe 3y ago
  > My intuition says yes, they are basically perceived the same way. Color recognition is so elementary it seems more hardware-based than software-based In which case you're missing the point of the fucking example. Colour is just being used as an easily definable (to some extent) sensation. "What is it like to perceive this particular rock" doesn't roll quite off the tongue so well, and intuition is exactly the aspect that this discussion attempts to avoid in order to be as objective as possible with regard to an inherently subjective experience.
- pixl97 3y ago
  I would assume the answer is probabilistic and likely follows something like a bell curve.

notahacker 3y ago

I mean, the existence of significant numbers of people who don't have "normal colour vision" is a pretty good indication that different perceptions of red is an actual thing. Seems far more childish to insist that that everyone's perception is either identical or impaired. If it is possible for human perception of colour using similar hardware to be so different that they subjectively experience 550nm and 700nm wavelengths as identical in appearance, it is surely possible for the minds of that people who can reliably distinguish between the two don't necessarily perceive them exactly the same way you do or I do. Apart from anything else, it would explain a lot of people's decorative choices! Even the "same hardware" argument doesn't stack up because even if it turns out you're actually my identical twin, our visual cortexes and brain structures and chemistry that parses, interprets, emotionally responds to and stores images evidently aren't the same.

nocoiner 3y ago

I see different color temperature casts in each of my eyes. So, depending on the eye, my red isn’t even my own red! Seems like a perfectly valid question given the complexity of the human vision system.

lubujackson 3y ago

The interesting thing is that so much of color (and vision in general) is software, not hardware. Our eyes don't see color and light the way we we perceive them at all, it is a composite of multiple sensors each doing different things. Colors like magenta are almost entirely constructed by our brains in software because we don't physically register them but recognize their presence. Then there is the element of how we define colors at all - some languages have no word for blue, for instance. People can see and distinguish the color but without context along the spectrum they way they understand the color is definitely influenced by lots of contextual factors. So from that perspective, we certainly do not all perceive colors the same.

kirkules 3y ago

The existence of "The dress", which is seen by different people or the same person in different states of mind as white/gold or blue/black, and other such illusions, would seem to invalidate your perspective. Or if that's not persuasive, just consider different software versions, different video drivers, etc. running on the same hardware. Or consider that if you believe a tumor in your visual cortex could meaningfully change color perception in your model, then why wouldn't a difference in cortex structure have some effect too? I'm willing to bet no two humans have ever had or probably will ever have the same arrangement of visual cortex neurons and other relevant brain biology. Do you think you know enough to say any such variation is irrelevant?