Posted: Feb 29, 2016 6:32 pm
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.