Is anything really the way we interpret it?

Question

Basically, we only know that an orange is orange because we, like all generations before us, have been taught that colour. Somebody who is colourblind could probably still distinguish certain colour even if they looked similar. Is it possible that everybody sees completely different colours and we all reach the same conclusion through teaching? Can this be used as a tactic?

Answer 1

Yes I agree with you 100% ... infact that was one of my earlier questions that I posted here.

Answer 2

Good question! My guess is that most people do perceive the colours in similar ways. Colour vision in humans is achieved through the use of three different kinds of colour receptors (known as colour cones) in the human eye. Each type responds best to a particular wavelength of light (ie a colour). The signals from these receptors then go through a series of very complex processes before finally reaching the back of the brain. I would imagine that in most individuals this processing is very similar (with some exceptions such as colour blindness where one or more of the receptors are defective), leading to most colours being perceived similarly.

Answer 3

Yeah, it's possible ... but I don't see how it is useful as a tactic (I assume you mean, is it a useful point to support an ontological philosophical argument). My perception of orange is different from yours in particular since it is my experience and not yours; that's more fundamental than whether orange would look any different to you "if you were me." I guess it might be useful in an epistemological argument, but I'm not sure.

Answer 4

Yes, everything is exactly the way one interprets...whether it is correct or incorrect is relative. We can not trust everything we see - our senses can fail us. Most times the truth is found in the unseen. Socialized education can be parochial if one submits to that authority resulting in following blindly. I am not sure if I would go as far as saying it is a "tactic" maybe more lack of knowledge of oneself - the confidence to rely on ones own thought process.

Answer 5

When you were a kid, you did not simply point to an apple and say "red." You also had a red crayon in your box of crayons, and it said "red" on it. So yes, we do have some objective standards of what colors are.

When I was in kindergarten, my teacher did a little screening test to learn how much we already knew. She held up one fat crayon after another, asking for the name of the color. I got them all right, and she said, "Well, that was fine. How do you remember them all?" I said, "I don't have to remember. It's written right on it." She'd been holding them so the label showed, so obviously all I had to do was read the name.

It wasn't until years later I realized that none of the other kids could read the names in kindergarten.

Answer 6

I have always wondered that too-for example, lets say we both see an orange. we would both call it orange. but what you're calling orange is what, if I looked through your eyes, would call green? its all so confusing-I don't really know how to explain it, but I tried as best as I could. this could be true, or it might be completely wrong, but we'll probably never know.

Answer 7

Ahhh! So I am not the only one. But I don't understand the question, "Can this be used as a tactic?"

Answer 8

It all depends on, how closely the model of reality in our heads, conforms to the 'actual' reality.

Answer 9

Great thought. I agree.

Answer 10

try this the moon,-queen of swords, ace of wands