See: Frank Jackson and his description of "Qualia".

Ah Sh!t I'll just give you the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

This is the knowledge you get when you spend money on a philosophy degree; practically useless but infinitely interesting.

 

That won't help. Without cheating, quickly name the predominant tone of the following Crayola colors:


1) Cornflower
2) Raw Umber
3) Timberwolf
4) Best Friends
5) Famous
6) Inch Worm
7) Periwinkle
8) Thistle
9) Orchid
10) Wisteria


Yeah.

 

Would it freak you all out if I told you see into the future and not the present? What you see is processed by the mind in an anticipatory basis, or foresight. For instance....a car coming at you....you see its image in the future to avoid an accident, as an example.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361623,00.html

 

That's just fox news bashing on liberals again.

 

I don't think those colors come in the basic box of 8.

 

I've thought of this before and also decided it's not important.

However, on the color spectra question (what would it be like seeing a new color), I'd bet it would compare to people having a different range of hearing--no real value or difference unless you've never seen it before.

1. on hearing, people don't use near-outlying frequencies for anything, so you'd hear extra noise and catch some musical nuances.
2. what's the difference in 20/20 and 20/10 in practice?

to me, a better related question is more like 'how do people with autism perceive the world differently from me?' the ability to think "better" (however you choose to define it) is more powerful/valuable than the ability to perceive better IMO.

another interesting question to me is: how does the structure and innate strengths and weaknesses of a particular language affect the thinking and development direction of its society? as i spoke fluent finnish, i know that comparing the two, english has amazing precision in nouns and adjectives, while finnish (old finnish anyways) is much weaker in precision. finnish also has much better verb expressions.

 

They would if I designed it. And they'd all be black as night.

 

Generally, humans are able to see wavelengths of light between 380nm to 750 nm with peak sensitivity around 550nm (green). It's pretty consistent. Taking that into consideration, I'd gather we see colors the same (excluding those who are colorblind).

After all, we hear tone the same way. If you hear A440, you can usually mimic it. If you heard A440 differently from other people, you would be way off when you hummed it. It's all just wavelengths...light and sound behave similarly.

 

Hmmm interesting point.

So you're saying that when people are tone deaf and sound like poop singing something back, it's because their voice can't mimic correctly, not because their ears don't know the difference?

 

AGAIN:
For every trite thought... somebody has spent a career analyzing it using science:

"Painstaking experiments have yielded response curves for three different kind of cones in the retina of the human eye. The "green" and "red" cones are mostly packed into the fovea centralis. By population, about 64% of the cones are red-sensitive, about 32% green sensitive, and about 2% are blue sensitive. The "blue" cones have the highest sensitivity and are mostly found outside the fovea. The shapes of the curves are obtained by measurement of the absorption by the cones, but the relative heights for the three types are set equal for lack of detailed data. There are fewer blue cones, but the blue sensitivity is comparable to the others, so there must be some boosting mechanism. In the final visual perception, the three types seem to be comparable, but the detailed process of achieving this is not known. "