A Question Regarding How the Brain Interprets Signals

[keltzkroz]

Hi people! I just need a little help with a question that has been at the back of my mind for some time.

Let's say I'm looking at a blue colored car. A buddy of mine is also looking at the same blue colored car. I tell my buddy that it's a blue car, and he tells me that it's a blue car. My question is this: How would I know if the "blue" that I see is the same "blue" that he sees? I'm not referring to shades of the same color. I'm referring to the way the brain interprets signals from the eyes. I hope that was clear enough.

[McCulloch]

Easy answer. You don't. Each person's perception may be individual. The perception of colour in the brain is subjective.

Only if you measure the colour with some device (let's say a digital camera in a place with properly controlled lighting) can you have any hope of an objective measure.

This distinction is important. Many believe in a god based on subjective evidence. But subjective evidence is not enough to convince rational others.

[MagusYanam]

This reminds me of a scene from the Matrix, when Mouse says, 'Do you know what it really reminds me of? Tasty-wheat. Did you ever eat Tasty-wheat?'

'No, but technically, neither did you.'

'That's exactly my point! Exactly! Because you have to wonder: how do the machines know what Tasty-wheat tasted like? Maybe they got it wrong. Maybe what I think Tasty-wheat tasted like actually tasted like oatmeal, or tuna-fish. It makes you wonder about a lot of things. You take chicken, for example: maybe they couldn't figure out what to make chicken taste like, which is why chicken tastes like everything!'

It's actually a common kind of philosophical problem. How would you know what 'blue' looks like? Maybe what 'blue' looks like to you actually looks to me like a shade of green or violet. Through the language we develop young a similar frame of reference: objects that reflect certain high-frequency EM waves in the visible range merit the label 'blue', but we learn to identify them through education in what the label 'blue' means.

But this changes with the language. For example, the Chinese term 'qing1' refers to the colour of the sky ('qing1 tian1 pi1 li4' meaning 'out of the clear blue sky'), to the colour of asparagus ('qing1 cai4' meaning 'green vegetables') and to the colour of bronze patina ('qing1 tong2' meaning 'bronze', but with the literal translation of 'green copper').

Only if you measure the colour with some device (let's say a digital camera in a place with properly controlled lighting) can you have any hope of an objective measure.

But even here you run into a problem. Take my avatar, for example. The moon's colour, according to my copy of Adobe Illustrator, is 26-22-0-0 interspersed with patches of 44-40-0-0. (The numbers refer to hardcopy percentages of cyan ink, magenta ink, yellow ink and black ink, respectively: 0 being none and 100 being full.) The figure of Janus, sickle in hand, ranges from its darkest at 76-77-42-74 to its most vivid at 91-89-0-0.

Yet what colour in English would you describe Janus, or the moon? I would say both Janus and moon are shades of blue, but someone else might say they are shades of violet. The measurement may be objective, but the individual perception of the colours is not.

[keltzkroz]

Thanks for the input people!

I'm wondering, is this somehow related to why some people or things are beautiful to some people, while they are not to others?

[McCulloch]

Thanks for the input people!

I'm wondering, is this somehow related to why some people or things are beautiful to some people, while they are not to others?

You figure that one out and you'll be up for a Nobel or an Oscar.

[Arya]

Thanks for the input people!

I'm wondering, is this somehow related to why some people or things are beautiful to some people, while they are not to others?

As for a similarity between your first post and this question, I would not know.

But I may have a thought on this question. I have taken many art courses over the years, and this may be a good subject to set an example.

During one of my art history classes we were in a museum studying a painting by Monet. The teacher asked a question to the class, "What are your thoughts on this picture"? The answers ranged from "beautiful" to "boring".

The teacher then asked the class to explain their reactions. The person who thought the picture was beautiful explained that she felt that way for the overall color scheme was different hues of blue, her favorite color. The picture also contained flowers, of which she finds to be very beautiful. She also mentioned that she found the entire scene in the picture to be very serene and peaceful. That is why she thought the picture was beautiful.

The other student replied that she thought the picture was boring for she does not like that particular style of art (impressionism) and never really understood it or considered it "art". She found the whole approach to this type of painting pointless and uninteresting. That person also did not like the color blue and feels that color to be depressing. Those were her reasonings for why she felt the same picture to be boring.

In conclusion I have found that two people can have two completely opposing opinions on the same object based primarily on their own specific likes or dislikes. The reaction is based upon a visual stimulus that evokes a particular reaction or emotion by the individual observing the object. To someone who likes the color blue, loves flowers and pretty sceneries that particular painting by Monet was very appealing.

But to the student who disliked impressionistic art the very same painting was considered "boring' or they just disliked it in general. Also the color scheme chosen by the artist was another factor that evoked the negative reaction from that student.

[Zarathustra]

That is a very interesting question, keltzkroz.

I've thought about it a lot (as a matter of fact I think I remember you saying the same thing in another thread, which got me thinking originally). It seems like most people would have similar perceptions of color; for example, if you got 200 people together to look at a clear blue sky I do not think that 1/3 of the people would see the sky as what you would identify as "blue", another third sees it as your "red", and the last third as some color you can't eve perceive. But, then again, that may just be because I can't even imagine perceiving the sky as a different color.

But, again, a very interesting question/topic. It falls in with the problem of applying tags to perceptions; for example, "good", "bad", "spicy", "loud". I suppose all the colors could fall into the same category.