19 May 2004

[poogie]

This question has some background to it. One day in the Army my friends and I were discussing colours and how we see them. One of my friends and I argued that there is no way to actually prove that we do or do not see the same colours because no matter what our brain processes it and could very well process it differently. Like we both say the sky is blue but my blue could be your red and we really have no way of knowing it.  
So the question(s) is(are):Do we all really see the same colours and is there a way to prove that? Or is it highly possible that we see totally different colours (not just different shades of the same colour) and call them the same thing because of something like "the sky is blue" or "the grass is green"?

/P

[Dissectica]

Well, this is a highly philosophical question indeed which makes it even more fun to answer.

I guess it´s really hard to proove that we see the same colours, and to be very sceptic it is even really hard to proove that there is a world outside our own mind. On the other hand, I'm not a solipsist so I may accept there is a world outside our mind (although I don't mind being sceptic to the opposite thought) and therefore I may even accept colours.

But what are colours then?? Well, maybe there are none colours at all, maybe the world is black-and-white or totally colourless, we could for sure never know. But, then again, we have physics who say that we see colour as materia reflects light. Then the brain and the eye cooperate so that we can see different colours. I think, if I remember correctly, that there are three colours that the eye is somewhat sensitive to and that is green, red and blue. The rest of the colours that we see is just combinations of theese three colours by a "visioncenter" in the brain. And so, theese combinations are said to be different from individual to individual, just like taste and sound and so on. So, to make the physics story short, people recognize colours slighly differently depending on culture, past experiences and stuff like that.

What would a philosopher say then? Hmm, well, I guess it depends. Colour is quite a big question in philosphy and I think many big philosophers don't take colours for granted. For example we have GE Moore who said that a colours isn't the same thing as the perception of the colour. He then states that the perception of a colour could be divided into two different parts, one constant part (consciousness) and one variabel part (the object). Since theese two parts is differing from eachother he then come to the conclusion that the perception of the object and the object itself  aren't the same thing.

I might agree on what Moore says actually which brings me to answer that since people will have different perceptions of colours (or matera in general) we canno't be sure that we "see" the same colour. Of course it could be that we "see" the same colour, but my opinion is that it would be quite impossible (yet) to proove it. I wouldn't say it's highly possible we "see" totally different colours, but on the other hand I wouldn't say it's highly possible that we do either.

[Carrion]

I _know_ we generally see 'the same colours', but I can't prove it And we have a long distance to proving it, I'd say, but finally we'll know how the brain works in more detail, and we'll be able to analyze our perceptions. Either that, or the germs will have taken over Gaia.

[NB. It's not a typo of germans above.]

[ladychris]

Hmmm, if we have such a question for colours, why not for sounds, tastes, shapes and so on?
Who says that what i perceive as the musical note A is a A for you as well? And what i consider sweet could be sour for another person, and when you say a "ball is round" you could actually perceive it as a square but call it "round" because so you were tought...
Luckily there are objective definitions that let us distinguish one thing from the other... then how we call it its just a matter of language.
So since a square has right angles and a circle doesnt, if my ball has not right angles (and i can feel it) then it cant be a square...
And sounds and colours are defined by precise wavelenght. 5000 Amstrong is yellow, no matter if you prefer to call it blue, it remains the colour of the radiation that comes from the sun. (Ok, dont start to argue that it is actually a sum of different radiations now, im trying to keep it simple, also dont argue on actual wavelenght value, i dont remember it by heart ). And since humans are more or less made same way (2 eyes, 2 arms, 1 heart...) I expect they react more or less same way to same stimulus... ofc we don't have a way to prove we react _exactly_ in the same way but thats philosophy, not physics


And ofc you can always brush up your Shakespeare

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet".  Romeo and Juliet ( Quote Act II, Sc. II).

[Carrion]

And sounds and colours are defined by precise wavelenght. 5000 Amstrong is yellow, no matter if you prefer to call it blue, it remains the colour of the radiation that comes from the sun.

I don't think many would argue about the definition The possible 'problem' is that what YOU perceive when seeing something yellow, _I_ could perceive totally diferrently (eg. what you perceive when seeing something blue)...

Mind you, I don't think such a large discrepancy exist, but the question is thoughtworthy.

[ladychris]

I don't think many would argue about the definition The possible 'problem' is that what YOU perceive when seeing something yellow, _I_ could perceive totally diferrently (eg. what you perceive when seeing something blue)...

Mind you, I don't think such a large discrepancy exist, but the question is thoughtworthy.

But in this case, would it really matter?
As far as we agree that both the sun and a grain field in june have the same colour, and that it is something else than the colour of the sky... and that they are both lovely although different, who cares how our brains perceive them?  

[Carrion]

But in this case, would it really matter?
As far as we agree that both the sun and a grain field in june have the same colour, and that it is something else than the colour of the sky... and that they are both lovely although different, who cares how our brains perceive them?  

There's philosophy for you! You can ponder about it, but it's nothing really to loose any sleep over!

[Qwer]

I couldn't answer that but in my oppinion that just doesn't matter at all. What does matter that we do see and make a difference between them and we can name them... so no issue at all

[Carrion]

Ooops, sorry, but I just HAD to post in a Poogie-question-thread today too!

[bahamet]

Well, I don't have the educational backgorund that most of you have    (oh I wish I did).  But I know that if you see a rainbow, it's not the rainbow that everyone else sees cause it's not the same drop... so then would it come to reason that you aren't seeing the same colour or view since you aren't in the same spot as someone else when you both look at the same thing? Could the colours be slightly different yet similar?

[Laysha]

I think we do see things differently, yes.
My dad, for example, is colour-blind and he says he can see very little difference between the colours purple, green and brown. However, if you were to lay a purple, green and brown coloured crayon in front of him, he could identify them correctly, he says they all just look like different shades of the same colour.
I spent ages testing him when I was a kid!  
So I do think that we see things differently, we are just taught as children that what we see has a certain name. We could teach a child that a dog is called a cat and that is what they would learn. So if we were to teach them that a certain colour is called yellow, thats what they will learn. Does that make sense?  
I dont think it matters that we see things differently, its just interesting to think that the world is a completely different experience for every person.
Laysha. xx