• NielsBohron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 days ago

      I get that it’s a joke, but bottom line? The names of colors are just the way our brains interpret specific wavelengths, and wavelength is objective. So it doesn’t really matter, because the wavelength of the photon is the same regardless of how our brain perceives it

      • Dasus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        16 days ago

        Wavelength may be objective, but the signal that a brain receives may be different if the cells which are supposed to receive that objective wavelength aren’t functioning correctly.

        Like if I make you wear rose coloured glasses, it doesn’t matter what colours I show you, you won’t be able to name them correctly because the objective stimulus is literally coloured before it makes it to your brain.

        • NielsBohron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          16 days ago

          Except the rose-colored glasses example doesn’t really disagree, because the colored glass is absorbing all the photons except the pink ones, so you’re really just further making my point.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        16 days ago

        But that’s correlation, the way the brain conceptualizes it into a “color” in the mental model, well that’s the qualia stuff referenced in another comment.

    • lad@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      16 days ago

      I think this is exactly what is called qualia, what you see may be different from what I see, and there’s no way to ever tell.

      As a kid, I thought colour blindness/deficiency worked like that, until I learned that in this case people have trouble distinguishing colours, not naming them