romansh wrote:No not all

It is simply trying to make a really trivial point, Which you seem to agree with but somehow completely escapes you.

Funny, I am getting the same feeling with you.

We're definitely talking past each other somewhere.

Scholastic
In your own words, what do you think my position is?

Just a quick question on the preservation of colour experience.

Exactly by what mechanism does evolution preserve identical or even similar internal experiences of colour?
We can't measure it. So how does evolution keep it?
Also what is the evolutionary advantages of identical internal perceptions/experiences of colour?
The only advantage is for an individual consistent internal colour representation.

romansh wrote:Just a quick question on the preservation of colour experience.

Exactly by what mechanism does evolution preserve identical or even similar internal experiences of colour?
...

It doesn't actually stay "identical" from the moment of birth, of course, because the cone cells are not sensitive enough at birth (being too small), and babies therefore thought to see almost in b&w in their first year or two. (Had a reference to that in an old thread, and I'll find it one day!)

EDIT: In later years, neither the photoreceptors nor their associated neural circuitry changes much, so there's not much change in perception either, barring damage due to disease or trauma (ie mechanical damage), of course.

romansh wrote:Just a quick question on the preservation of colour experience.

Exactly by what mechanism does evolution preserve identical or even similar internal experiences of colour?
We can't measure it. So how does evolution keep it?

This is very topical to why I keep bringing up the fact that the visual cortices are one of the highly conserved regions of the brain, and that there is a high correspondence, from brain to brain, in how cells are spatially arranged and interconnected as opposed to less conserved brain regions which are less likely to show such a correspondence. Vision is a complicated process, and allowing more plasticity opens the door to more failure, risking organisms with severely compromised vision.

The visual cortex is highly conserved because the senses, as I've already stated, are extremely important to the survival of organisms that have them. We find that, generally, the more essential a function is to an organism, the less variation we will see between individuals, and that remains true for the senses.

Also what is the evolutionary advantages of identical internal perceptions/experiences of colour?
The only advantage is for an individual consistent internal colour representation.

The evolutionary advantage of highly conserved visual cortices is that you wind up with fewer visual cortices with compromised functions or outputs which do not correspond with real things in the world. Our senses must allow us to avoid predators and other natural hazards while locating food and mates, with organisms which do so less readily suffering a reproductive disadvantage. The variability which would be necessary for each of us to have our own color experience opens the door to a higher rate of failure. Each human born a crap-shoot, with a higher probability of reduced visual function because you're basically trying out a novel wiring schematic every time rather than sticking with a known functional version.

We know that there are mutants who see differently, and that there are throwbacks who see differently. However, for most of us, given the tendency in living things for more essential functions to be highly conserved, and for deviant organisms to be strongly selected against when they display variation of essential functions, it is more probable that we see color quite similarly. It is the safer assumption, and more consistent with evolutionary theory as it stands. Keep in mind- again as I've pointed out previously- that human genetic diversity is quite small compared to the genetic diversity typically found in a species.

The only reason one should not assume that humans see color similarly is if one does not accept that the structure of the brain plays an essential role in the functions of the brain. Or if one adheres to the outdated idea that the mind is software running on the hardware of the brain. Or if one treats brains as a homogeneous black box, despite the advances we've made in understanding how the various regions of brains are structured, how those structures compare between brains, and what this means about their functions.

While my default position is I perceive red in a similar manner to everyone else, I can't see a way of demonstrating it.

In summary your position is: our perception of colour is similar because it would cost too much to in some way or another..
in terms of optical efficiency (sort of).

Also you did not answer my question:
In your own words, what do you think my position is?

romansh wrote:While my default position is I perceive red in a similar manner to everyone else, I can't see a way of demonstrating it.

In summary your position is: our perception of colour is similar because it would cost too much to in some way or another..
in terms of optical efficiency (sort of).

...

I know you didn't direct those questions to me, but I will answer the first one anyway.
Colour perception is ineffable, so we do not know for sure that red looks the same to everyone, even if they happen to have the same cone cell opsin genes. However, your new "default position" is correct, as SS has already explained. (I say "new" because it does not seem to have been your default position for many hours.)

romansh wrote:
Also you did not answer my question:
In your own words, what do you think my position is?

I wasn't certain enough about what it was to feel comfortable offering a synopsis of it. What bothered me about it was that you appeared to be leaving the door open to considering a more complicated conclusion from our absence of evidence than the Occam-approved position you've clearly come down in favor of now.

There's a tonne of evidence which, while not conclusively supportive of the proposition that we all see the same colors, is consistent with that proposition. I agree that it's reasonable to remain agnostic regarding all of us seeing the same colors, but it's not a binary thing in terms of the weight of evidence. There isn't a 50-50 probability regarding which one is more likely to be correct. It is most reasonable to be agnostic, but on the side of everyone seeing the same colors based on the available evidence. Just as I am agnostic, but on the side that there is no god with respect to my atheism.

In summary your position is: our perception of colour is similar because it would cost too much to in some way or another..
in terms of optical efficiency (sort of).

I do not like this summary of my position, but I suppose it's close enough, and that I'm probably happier with it than you would be with my summary of yours. I feel that it leaves off a lot of the nuances of what I was trying (but will admit I may have failed) to convey.

SS, let's not get too hung up on what you are supposed to think romansh's position is, because frankly, who cares? The site does not revolve around romansh, and I don't see why you should have to play 20 questions with him about what his position is.

DavidMcC wrote:SS, let's not get too hung up on what you are supposed to think romansh's position is, because frankly, who cares? The site does not revolve around romansh, and I don't see why you should have to play 20 questions with him about what his position is.

I give primary consideration to the weight of the evidence, as it's available and/or presented. Which is why I will often press for evidence of some sort when a position is hotly contested. I'd rather follow the evidence than stick to my guns. I understand this may not be consistent with your subjective experience of all of our interactions on this forum. It is certainly my goal, though.

But consideration should always be given to the views of our interlocutors as well. We are having discussions, not shouting monologues at one another. At least, not ideally.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:SS, let's not get too hung up on what you are supposed to think romansh's position is, because frankly, who cares? The site does not revolve around romansh, and I don't see why you should have to play 20 questions with him about what his position is.

I give primary consideration to the weight of the evidence, as it's available and/or presented. Which is why I will often press for evidence of some sort when a position is hotly contested. I'd rather follow the evidence than stick to my guns. I understand this may not be consistent with your subjective experience of all of our interactions on this forum. It is certainly my goal, though.

But consideration should always be given to the views of our interlocutors as well. We are having discussions, not shouting monologues at one another. At least, not ideally.

I was not suggesting ignoring everyone else, just suggesting that you could get over-concerned by clashes with people who may be attention junkies.

DavidMcC wrote:
I was not suggesting ignoring everyone else, just suggesting that you could get over-concerned by clashes with people who may be attention junkies.

Who is to say that ignoring attention junkies wouldn't be hypocritical behavior on my part?

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
I was not suggesting ignoring everyone else, just suggesting that you could get over-concerned by clashes with people who may be attention junkies.

Who is to say that ignoring attention junkies wouldn't be hypocritical behavior on my part?

Hypocrisy doesn't come into it. Time spent on derails about what you are supposed to think someone else's position is can become significant if you let it.

DavidMcC wrote:
Hypocrisy doesn't come into it. Time spent on derails about what you are supposed to think someone else's position is can become significant if you let it.

It's not a derail for as long as we're discussing the topic, attention junkie or not. The topic of this thread is "Color." It's such a vaguely defined topic that I cannot think of a terribly effective way to derail it.

I regard getting bogged down in playing twenty questions about someone else's position is a kind of derail, even though it's not strictly off-topic.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
Hypocrisy doesn't come into it. Time spent on derails about what you are supposed to think someone else's position is can become significant if you let it.

It's not a derail for as long as we're discussing the topic, attention junkie or not. The topic of this thread is "Color." It's such a vaguely defined topic that I cannot think of a terribly effective way to derail it.

Telling one how one should post and how one should respond Are good ways to derail any thread.

Anyway, there are objective, empirical methods for gauging how creatures, especially humans perceive color.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

romansh wrote:
I wasn't certain enough about what it was to feel comfortable offering a synopsis of it.

Yet you seem to think I am wrong somehow?

There is a tonne of evidence that we perceive the "visible" part of the spectrum and people see similar parts. This is not an issue and never has been.

romansh wrote:Yet you seem to think I am wrong somehow?

How about you stop being coy, state your position, and we find out whether I think you're wrong.

There is a tonne of evidence that we perceive the "visible" part of the spectrum and people see similar parts. This is not an issue and never has been.

It is tautologically true that the part of the spectrum we perceive is the visible part of the spectrum.

OK I will try one more time and officially give up ...
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/color/#ProCol

One of the major problems with color has to do with fitting what we seem to know about colors into what science, particularly physics, tells us about physical bodies and their qualities.

Not only does the scientific mainstream tradition conflict with the common-sense understanding of color in this way, but as well, the scientific tradition contains a very counter-intuitive conception of color.

romansh wrote:OK I will try one more time and officially give up ...
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/color/#ProCol

One of the major problems with color has to do with fitting what we seem to know about colors into what science, particularly physics, tells us about physical bodies and their qualities.

Not only does the scientific mainstream tradition conflict with the common-sense understanding of color in this way, but as well, the scientific tradition contains a very counter-intuitive conception of color.

I find it notable that, of the experts named in your link who are purported to support the concept of color as not inhering in objects, but being attributed by the human brain to an essentially colorless world, only one of them is actually qualified to have made such a claim with any sort of professional authority. And that one (Semir Zeki) isn't directly quoted as making such a claim, nor am I able to find any of his work which supports such a claim, except perhaps through the lens of confirmation bias.

Every other "expert" listed is either an expert in a field which includes nothing having to do with human color perception, or predates a modern understanding of the brain, and usually both.

Always, always, always check up on a philosopher when they're trying to say something profound and counter-intuitive about what scientists say. Because there's a very good chance they've fucked up.