What does blue look like to a person who is colorblind

[Skepdick]

That's not how light particulate matter moves though. Colors are based on wavelength. It doesn't matter which direction you move or rotate that wavelength, it's going to appear as 'red', 'green', 'blue' in any direction of perception. That's why the subject-object distinction is confusing to most people.

The reason for the confusion is much muuuch deeper than that.

Length is subjective. Therefore wavelength is subjective. But if we agree on the units of measurement then we agree on the measurements then it's inter-subjective (which is what scientists mean by "objective".)

Science is founded upon the consensus theory.

[Maia]

I don't think there's any reason to believe that when someone "sees" red they're actually seeing anything at all. It's just the brain firing neurons.

But "firing neurons" would be what "seeing" is.

I mean, we could take your sentence and plug in some different words to undermine any mental experience, right?

Replace "see" with "hear", I don't think they're hearing anything at all, it's just the brain firing neurons.

Or feeling pain, I don't think they're feeling anything at all, is just the brain firing neurons.

Or having thoughts, I don't think they're thinking anything at all, it's just the brain firing neurons.

Either none of those things ever happen, OR the brain firing neurons IS those things happening

With hearing, though, there are no bands with names. We perceive sound as a continuum. There are musical notes, of course, but these don't account for most sound. Do you ever see anything that hasn't got a colour?

[Wizard22]

I don't doubt that colours exist in the sense that the brain has evolved to assign certain colours to certain wavelengths of light. Is this just completely arbitrary, though?

The exact opposite, it's not "arbitrary" at all.

Different species of animals recognize more detail at some wavelengths and not others, corresponding to their direct and immediate environments. There are direct survival purpose and consequences of animals perceiving certain colors or wavelengths. It can be... it is in fact, the difference between life and death.

People who imply it's "arbitrary" are Subjectivists who don't understand Physics or Science.

[Maia]

And yet people who can see colours have a pretty good general agreement about them.

Sure. Because it's an approximation. 550-750nm. +-5%

But this is a linguistic agreement. It doesn't mean that you and I are having the same experience when we use the word "red".

You are having whatever experience you are having when you see this color.
I am having whatever experience I am having when I see this color.

As long as we keep using the word "red" when we are having our respective experiences - we are all good.

That's the point, though. Are people who see colours having any experience at all, let alone different ones.

[Wizard22]

The reason for the confusion is much muuuch deeper than that.

Length is subjective. Therefore wavelength is subjective. But if we agree on the units of measurement then we agree on the measurements then it's inter-subjective (which is what scientists mean by "objective".)

Science is founded upon the consensus theory.

Yes, using a yardstick, or a meter, is subjective. What these measure and refer to, the "phenomena itself", is not subjective though.

[Skepdick]

With hearing, though, there are no bands with names. There are musical notes, of course, but these don't account for most sound.

It's exactly the same. Music theory (and music notes) are analogous to color theory and colors.

Do you ever see anything that hasn't got a colour?

That's just a quirk of our bodies (as sensors). Light is only the visible part of the electro-magnetic spectrum.

There are wavelengths you can't see using your visual system, but you can definitely feel using your other senses.

Your skin detects infrared light. Heat.

[Maia]

I don't doubt that colours exist in the sense that the brain has evolved to assign certain colours to certain wavelengths of light. Is this just completely arbitrary, though?

The exact opposite, it's not "arbitrary" at all.

Different species of animals recognize more detail at some wavelengths and not others, corresponding to their direct and immediate environments. There are direct survival purpose and consequences of animals perceiving certain colors or wavelengths. It can be... it is in fact, the difference between life and death.

People who imply it's "arbitrary" are Subjectivists who don't understand Physics or Science.

Those things are certainly not arbitrary. But is what your brain is showing you arbitrary?

[Skepdick]

Yes, using a yardstick, or a meter, is subjective. What these measure and refer to, the "phenomena itself", is not subjective though.

Yeah - they are. You can't examine a phenomenon if you aren't experiencing it.

What phenomenologists call "bracketing" is exactly quantising. Isolating a part (of reality) from the whole.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracketin ... omenology)

[Maia]

With hearing, though, there are no bands with names. There are musical notes, of course, but these don't account for most sound.

It's exactly the same. Music theory (and music notes) are analogous to color theory and colors.

Do you ever see anything that hasn't got a colour?

That's just a quirk of our bodies (as sensors). Light is only the visible part of the electro-magnetic spectrum.

There are wavelengths you can't see using your visual system, but you can definitely feel using your other senses.

Your skin detects infrared light. Heat.

Musical notes only account for a tiny fraction of the sound that we hear. This is not the case with colours.

[Flannel Jesus]

I don't think there's any reason to believe that when someone "sees" red they're actually seeing anything at all. It's just the brain firing neurons.

But "firing neurons" would be what "seeing" is.

I mean, we could take your sentence and plug in some different words to undermine any mental experience, right?

Replace "see" with "hear", I don't think they're hearing anything at all, it's just the brain firing neurons.

Or feeling pain, I don't think they're feeling anything at all, is just the brain firing neurons.

Or having thoughts, I don't think they're thinking anything at all, it's just the brain firing neurons.

Either none of those things ever happen, OR the brain firing neurons IS those things happening

With hearing, though, there are no bands with names. We perceive sound as a continuum. There are musical notes, of course, but these don't account for most sound. Do you ever see anything that hasn't got a colour?

Hearing and colour are pretty much exactly the same in that regard actually. Both can be digitised and quantised and "pixelized". We've created computer screens with little tiny pixels to simulate the sort of colour experiences we see in the world, and thus we can break down any visual experience into a set of pixels and show it on a screen.

Sound works the same way, though a lot of people don't know this. MP3 files encode "pixels of sound" in exactly the same way jpg files encode pixels of colour. Every unit of an MP3 file is merely a moment of pitch+intensity, in the same way that every unit of a PNG or jpg is a pixel of red+green+blue.

Sound is not fundamentally different from colour in this way

[Skepdick]

Musical notes only account for a tiny fraction of the sound that we hear.

And colors account for a tiny fraction of the light we see; and the electromagnetic spectrum we experience.

This is not the case with colours.

It's absolutely the case with colors. Light is a spectrum. Assuming infinitely sensitive measurement apparatus there are (uncountably) infinitely many wavelengths.

Colors are discrete. So even if there's infinitely many of them it's only countably infinitely many.

Countable infinity < uncountable infinity.

But of course the human eye is NOT an infinitely sensitive measurement apparatus. The maximum humans can distinguish is around 10 million colors. Call it 16 million so we work in neat powers of 2.

So the human visual system has max capacity of about 24 bits. 2^24 = 16777216

[Maia]

But "firing neurons" would be what "seeing" is.

I mean, we could take your sentence and plug in some different words to undermine any mental experience, right?

Replace "see" with "hear", I don't think they're hearing anything at all, it's just the brain firing neurons.

Or feeling pain, I don't think they're feeling anything at all, is just the brain firing neurons.

Or having thoughts, I don't think they're thinking anything at all, it's just the brain firing neurons.

Either none of those things ever happen, OR the brain firing neurons IS those things happening

With hearing, though, there are no bands with names. We perceive sound as a continuum. There are musical notes, of course, but these don't account for most sound. Do you ever see anything that hasn't got a colour?

Hearing and colour are pretty much exactly the same in that regard actually. Both can be digitised and quantised and "pixelized". We've created computer screens with little tiny pixels to simulate the sort of colour experiences we see in the world, and thus we can break down any visual experience into a set of pixels and show it on a screen.

Sound works the same way, though a lot of people don't know this. MP3 files encode "pixels of sound" in exactly the same way jpg files encode pixels of colour. Every unit of an MP3 file is merely a moment of pitch+intensity, in the same way that every unit of a PNG or jpg is a pixel of red+green+blue.

Sound is not fundamentally different from colour in this way

The brain doesn't assign arbitrary bands, which language then names, to different frequencies of sound.

[Wizard22]

With hearing, though, there are no bands with names. We perceive sound as a continuum. There are musical notes, of course, but these don't account for most sound. Do you ever see anything that hasn't got a colour?

Mirages can be 'seen' but are not colors. This refers to, on a hot day, heat rises from pavement on the road, and it appears "wavy" to the observer.

This demonstrates the prismatic effect of light through an environment with inconsistent temperatures. The same phenomenon is "seen" in water.

These disruptions prove why Subjectivity is erroneous and Perception is flawed. There are further, objective phenomena that the human senses cannot detect, such as x-rays and radio waves. You cannot see, nor hear either. But using technology, like a radio, we can convert these waves to the audible range of human sensation.

[Maia]

Musical notes only account for a tiny fraction of the sound that we hear.

And colors account for a tiny fraction of the light we see; and the electromagnetic spectrum we experience.

This is not the case with colours.

It's absolutely the case with colors. Light is a spectrum. Assuming infinitely sensitive measurement apparatus there are (uncountably) infinitely many wavelengths.

Colors are discrete. So even if there's infinitely many of them it's only countably infinitely many.

Countable infinity < uncountable infinity.

The brain treats light and sound very differently.

[Wizard22]

Yeah - they are. You can't examine a phenomenon if you aren't experiencing it.

Yes you can. That's what Science is and does. Science studies phenomena which humans cannot sense with our body's alone.