The Couch

Perception - Colors

Comments on Perception - Colors

KinNaoko90
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 21, 2008
Location: Fulton County, NY

Total Topics: 36
Total Comments: 298
Posted 06/25/10 - 4:39 PM:
Subject: Perception - Colors
As suggested to me by Thinker13 I am posting a long time What If of mine.

What if what I saw as red, you saw as blue, but we both called it red?

It seems completely possible to me, but just as impossible to prove.

Any thoughts/comments?
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
Posted 06/25/10 - 9:52 PM:

hi KN90,

i don't think it's impossible. but for starters, what factors do you suppose could cause such a scenario to happen?

cheers,
smiling facelib
KinNaoko90
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 21, 2008
Location: Fulton County, NY

Total Topics: 36
Total Comments: 298
Posted 06/25/10 - 11:08 PM:

I'm not quite sure how to explain it. I guess I'd have to say I have no clue as to what your interpretations of the world I perceive are. I don't think it's so much as to what could cause this (if it were true) as to it just being that way. In your opinion what you saw you would still call red if I was somehow able to see through your eyes and see that it wasn't 'my' version of red.

Does that make any sense at all?

It's a 'what if' that probably wouldn't create any problems if it were true... well.. except to us philosophers. It's just interesting (in my opinion) to think about.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
Posted 06/26/10 - 1:36 AM:

i think i know what you're saying. i would not at all be surprised to discover that something like this exists. neuroscientists encounter many bizarre differences in the way people experience the world, and of course their work is to try to pin down what's going on in the brain to cause these differences. have you heard of synaesthesia? it's an unusual phenomenon in which, let's say, individuals hear sounds but their brains register them as colors - this is just one of example of it.

getting back to the opening question - instead of red and blue, let's use red and green as examples, since they're the colors on a traffic light. it's entirely possible that what one person thinks is red would come out looking green to someone else if you could somehow project what was going on in their brains onto a wall for everyone to see. so, for example, Alfred sees a traffic light and the color on top that means "stop" to everyone else actually looks green in his mind, but he calls it red and has been calling it red his whole life because that's what everyone else calls it. something like that would be really tricky to pin down... i mean, what kind of problems would the person have to encounter in life, in order for that kind of difference in perception to be discovered?

a trippy question, thanks for posting it!
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 06/26/10 - 8:57 AM:

What if what I saw as red, you saw as blue, but we both called it red?

It seems completely possible to me, but just as impossible to prove.



It is the most natural thing that happens, as far as my perception is concerned. It has never been the other way round for me ever. Though not convinced, still it seems that later or sooner most of us come to realize that we live in different universes. Do not get me wrong. When I say that we live in the different universes, it does not mean that there is not an objective universe consisting Sun, Earth, plethora of planets, galaxies and all. It simply means that there is hardly, if any, individual who perceives this objective universe. (Again: How can I be an authority, even to assert that there is not any individual who is an original observer of the objective universe, if I am not privy to all the universes, that is, if I am not privy to all the Psyches.)(Again: Whether I am making any sense/non-sense is not clear to me!).


So, the perception that we are inhabiting subjective universes which overlap, is just something very tangible. Why all of us do not tend to call them different is something else. To see something red, which is seen as blue by others is most natural, but until you know the way to describe your perception(or the difference in the two perceivers(red/blue))---there is no way that both you call it something else. It is, just the deficiency of the language. Language limits our world.


Psychology is a pseudo-proto-Science, because you cannot weigh someone’s psyche in a significant way. No matter what you say.



The question which you have put has been asked by me, so many times, in a different manner:


My question is: Suppose both of us are suffering from some pain. Suppose both of us want to express our pain. I say to you: “ I am suffering really very bad.”

You say to me: “I am suffering too much.”

Still, we are not able to fathom the depths of our suffering.

There is no way to measure these.


In order to make myself more tangible: I Say: “I am suffering too much, as much as enough to force me to commit suicide immediately.”

You also say: “ I will also commit suicide immediately, because my pain is not bearable.”

Now: Though both of us have expressed ourselves using same analogy, it cannot be said that we are suffering to the same degree.


Why?

Because: May-be you commit suicide at the 10 degrees(imaginary).

I commit suicide at the 12 degrees(imaginary).


Therefore: There is no way to know whether we are suffering to the same extent.


This is the inherent limit of Psychology and expression.

This is the limit inherent in the subjective universes.


Let me know your views.
Reflection of Shadows
New
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 28, 2010
Location: NY

Total Topics: 1
Total Comments: 6
Posted 06/28/10 - 1:35 AM:

The perception of you identify an action with a name is normal, we speak different languages or slangs that stand for the same idea. Of course, though if your saying the same words are used to described different things, then the perception is more of physical perception than communicative cognition. With both things being said, if a common thought is represented differently mentally, over time this difference will correct itself threw experience. Comprende clap
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
Posted 06/29/10 - 12:21 PM:

Reflection of Shadows wrote:
With both things being said, if a common thought is represented differently mentally, over time this difference will correct itself threw experience.

or else through entropy. smiling face it may be a very lengthy process though. meanwhile, some differences in language and cognition are deliberately preserved through a valuing on cultural traditions. a selective prejudice, perhaps, in some cases. a tendency toward elitist mindset ("my way of thinking is better than yours, why should i compromise").

Thinker13 wrote:
The question which you have put has been asked by me, so many times, in a different manner:

My question is: Suppose both of us are suffering from some pain. Suppose both of us want to express our pain. I say to you: “ I am suffering really very bad.”

You say to me: “I am suffering too much.”

Still, we are not able to fathom the depths of our suffering.

There is no way to measure these.

from a practical standpoint, i think it helps to question what impact it would have to be able to measure such things.

if what i see as red, you see as green but call it red, what does it matter? not that it doesn't matter, but if it does, how?

if your suicide threshold is the theoretical 12 degrees, and mine is 10 degrees, what does it matter? or more to the point, *how* does it matter?

food for thought..

Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 06/29/10 - 1:37 PM:

libertygrl wrote:

from a practical standpoint, i think it helps to question what impact it would have to be able to measure such things.

if what i see as red, you see as green but call it red, what does it matter? not that it doesn't matter, but if it does, how?



It matters a great deal IMHO, lib. What a great advantage it offers to be able to realize(truly realize!) that someone is ecstatic or someone is suffering. It is really a shell of boundary casted by the ego that we cannot realize the suffering/joy of others to the full because we can never become the 'other'. A Buddha, a Tathata, a realized being, is said to be one who is acutely aware of the feelings of others. The one who has realized his self(they say) is able to get Neptunian dissolution of the boundaries casted by ego, and hence, able to realize the true state of the other 'egos'. Just imagine how much it changes your functioning if you become acutely aware of the pain or pleasure of each and every sentient being. This is what is coming to my head right now lib.

Still, please do not think that it is only Buddhist stance from where I had these ideas. When I first started to question about our inability to be acutely aware of the disposition of 'others', it was, because of some original experience.

You may contemplate the practical utility from some other view points too. A psychopath, for example, is not able to clearly perceive the feelings(pain mostly) of others. This hinders him from being really humane. More often than not, those who can easily understand the true level of suffering of others, are at advantage; though, whether they use it for the betterment of others or for their selfish gains, is an entirely different affair.



lib wrote:
if your suicide threshold is the theoretical 12 degrees, and mine is 10 degrees, what does it matter? or more to the point, *how* does it matter?

food for thought..



It matters in the context of the original proposition. If Our suicide thresholds are 10 and 12 degrees respectively, it suggests that we cannot use suicide as a good measurement for addressing our problems of suffering. Moreover, there cannot be any other measure because every measure has the same problem.

Again: The example was taken for addressing a more complex problem, that is, the problem of knowing the exact universe which others inhabit, which is, not the universe I inhabit. This is all relative to one absolute reality, where there are, no subjective universes, and hence only universe is, objective one, and hence, only one reality which is not shaded by any particular mould, but rather consist in it all the moulds possible. Something inhumane, to be practical and tangible, or rather, something superhumane.


To be honest(and this is exactly where I am going to obfuscate it further)- we just experience one universe that is, our, we just have one story, surrounded by 'I'/'me'/'mine', rest all are characters appearing and disappearing in our story. We cannot know their stories(or better say we cannot 'realize' their stories). We can just make stories of others, a part of our own but it remains a fact that only story we truly have is one in which we are the central figures. Therefore, what X, Y or Z perceives can never be comprehended until I become X/Y/Z. Moreover, to be able to comprehend entirely all such stories, I have to simultaneously become all X/Y/Z.

Practically, may-be it is not very useful to know the exact disposition of the other psyches, but like many Philosophical questions, it is, ultimately connected to one core question, that is, to the question of the happiness. These questions are all somewhere driven by unhappiness, these are, borne out of unhappiness.


Thinker13
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
Posted 07/01/10 - 4:28 PM:

Thinker13 wrote:
More often than not, those who can easily understand the true level of suffering of others, are at advantage

it would certainly help in cases of malingering & psychosis, and other such cases where the truth is wittingly or unwittingly obscured. but these are typically the exception, not the rule. i think we can generally take it on faith as being sincere when other people express pain or suffering, would you agree?

Thinker13 wrote:
It is really a shell of boundary casted by the ego that we cannot realize the suffering/joy of others to the full because we can never become the 'other'.

i think the stringent reliance on scientific evidence as the only valid form of measure is just as great an obstacle to our ability to realize the suffering or joy of others, if not more so. even though we can never "become the other" in exact form, we always have the opportunity to establish common ground, which is meaningful and valuable.

if two individuals express that they have suffered to the extent of reaching their suicide threshold, which is more helpful: 1) to acknowledge that they have reached a relatively dangerous threshold and to try to help them recover? or 2) refuse to trust their expression of suffering until an exact measure can be found?

the search for ways to validate and measure this information is definitely useful, i don't deny that. but in the meantime we are not entirely in the dark, either.

what are your thoughts?
Zum
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 21, 2009

Total Topics: 23
Total Comments: 420
Zum
#10 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/01/10 - 11:38 PM:

Hi, Thinker! You expressed an idea I've also heard elsewhere: that extreme spirituality, or enlightenment, enhances intuition and empathy. I think that these qualities exist to a degree in ordinary people also. I've seen children cry when their siblings were injured. A kid I was tutoring wept copiously as she read a story called "The Battle of Manila" by Laura Kalpakian. Read it: you'll cry, too! At times people choose to suppress empathy. At other times, they work to enhance it as they can. All works of imagination--acting, fiction writing--require it. Love is a condition in which the other's suffering--even the other's prospective suffering-IS one's suffering. So the boundaries are permeable.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#11 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/02/10 - 11:23 AM:

libertygrl wrote:

would you agree?


I do.


Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#12 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/02/10 - 11:25 AM:

Zum wrote:
Hi, Thinker! You expressed an idea I've also heard elsewhere: that extreme spirituality, or enlightenment, enhances intuition and empathy. I think that these qualities exist to a degree in ordinary people also. I've seen children cry when their siblings were injured. A kid I was tutoring wept copiously as she read a story called "The Battle of Manila" by Laura Kalpakian. Read it: you'll cry, too! At times people choose to suppress empathy. At other times, they work to enhance it as they can. All works of imagination--acting, fiction writing--require it. Love is a condition in which the other's suffering--even the other's prospective suffering-IS one's suffering. So the boundaries are permeable.


Indeed. Welcome back Zum.smiling face. Happy Couching.


Thinker13
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.