|
Whenever I try to, I usually associate the "color" with some other physical interaction (such as causing tingling in my eyes). I suppose that might be the color of some radiations. 
|
|
|
|
|
There are people like that. And we call them Dyslexic[^].
Don't see them as disabled and they have their own way of seeing the world.
I guess you are talking about similar kind of people.
..Go Green..
|
|
|
|
|
Not at all... Look at some of the other posts in this thread, and you'll get the idea...
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, lets put it to the test. Describe the colour Red to me, then the colour Blue and see if your descriptions agree with mine 
Steve Jowett
-------------------------
Real programmers don't use PL/1. PL/1 is for insecure momma's boys who can't choose between COBOL and Fortran.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, thats not really very philosophical. Thats just colour blindness, and there are tests of course for this.
The fact is a species of animal does see the same colours. Bees for example. If not they would be incapable of seeing the same type of flower collectively, which would render coloured flowers useless.
It is therefore likely that man too sees the same colours (except for the afore mentioned colour blindess present in a small part of the population).
If you want philisophy, how about the way we ss things with our perception? Now that does vary man to man.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
|
|
|
|
|
fat_boy wrote: The fact is a species of animal does see the same colours. Bees for example. If not they would be incapable of seeing the same type of flower collectively, which would render coloured flowers useless.
How do you know if they actually SEE the same colors? An animal would just be taught, either by experience or by others, "Flowers that look like this are good".
I'm not talking about inability to distinguish colors. I'm talking about what colors actually look like to you. You and I can both look at a stop sign and agree that it's red, but who's to say we both SEE the same color? Who's to say our brains are processing the stimuli the same way, and presenting the same "image" to our brains? The colors could all be reversed, and we would never know, because we've been taught that "This color is red," regardless of what color we actually see.
|
|
|
|
|
Like I said, not perticularly philosophical.
Try paranoia. Asutralia doesnt actually exist. You are on the reveiving end of the worlds biggest joke.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
|
|
|
|
|
As an occasional insomniac, or severe night owl depending on ones view point, I've considered this many times. The world we inhabit is only that which we perceive through our senses, and those senses are ours alone.
|
|
|
|
|
It's not just a philosophical problem, culture and genetic play a big role (and are debated heatedly). As you probably hear from others, it's not really a NEW thought - but one wiht fascinating background if you dig deeper. What we do know is that we don't understand color vision very well.
Some things I recall (though I don't have links ready):
Homer used color names that, for todays understanding of ancient greek, are completely off.
Historic data about color perception is thin and inconclusive. Color vision may have changed significantly in the lte thousands of years.
Different color vision doesn't mean "color blindness" necessarily, two slightly different types "red" sensors are common, with a roughly 40% / 60% distribution. They act at slightly different frequencies and can be detected e.g. by asking to name certain types of brown/orange.
Different cultures have different "granularity" in colors, but the sprectra "develop" in certain pattern (soething along "after black & white, the third color is always red, fourth and fifth are either yellow and blue or blue and yellow" etc - that's not the exact pattern, but something like that.)
|
|
|
|
|
This is exactly why mathematics is considered a "universal language." (i.e. for communication with some alien species) The underlying concepts remain the same throughout the universe, no matter what symbolism you choose to impose on them. In this case, all that is needed is the physical ability to perceive the spectrum well enough to divide it up into arbitrary bands.
Years ago I taught basic computer development classes in school, and when starting off binary numbers when trying to get students to think in terms of abstractions vs concretes (needed for classes vs. instances later), I would do a talk about how numbers were assigned ten different symbols 0 through 9. At this point the students would be thinking "he thinks we're all idiots." But then I would throw them a curve ball: I would ask them, "Why ten symbols?" At first they didn't understand the question, so I would hold up one hand, as if prompting them to raise their hands if they knew the answer, and asked "Anyone?" Most classes got it at that point. But when I held up both hands and splayed the fingers out, all classes got it: Humans have ten fingers, so their most popular numbering system has 10 symbols - it's completely arbitrary and could have any number of symbols. To flesh that out a bit, I usually discussed the Roman numbering system with its Xs and Vs and more complex structure.
Before .NET 4.0,
object Universe = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
Hired Mind wrote: To flesh that out a bit, I usually discussed the Roman numbering system with its Xs and Vs and more complex structure.
Babylonian is another complex one, but it's base 60. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_numerals[^]
And I'm pretty sure that there were mixed base systems with a combination of 12 and 60. It seems odd to me that things were more complex in the past.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book,
only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
|
|
|
|
|
Andy Brummer wrote: It seems odd to me that things were more complex in the past.
My guess would be that in the past these more complex numbering systems could only be used by the highly educated, who devoted a larger portion of their lives to their study. By becoming less complex over time, they became adopted by less educated people and so more popular.
Before .NET 4.0,
object Universe = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
Sergeant joke of the day
It was early morning at the military base, and the first sergeant was calling out names for the daily work parties listed on a piece of paper:
“Ames”
“Here!”
“Jenson”
“Here!”
“Jones”
“Here!”
“Magersky”
“Here!”
“Seeback”
No answer.
“Seeback!”
No answer was heard again.
“SEEBACK!!!” The troops remained totally silent.
At that point, someone whispered into the first sergeant’s ear.
He looked again at what the last name really said, quickly turned over the list and continued calling the names printed on the other side.
|
|
|
|
|
G - roan
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
A word in Private, that gag should not have been for General consumption.
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
|
|
|
|
|
A major faux-pas!
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
I shall Marshall my resources before replying to that.
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
|
|
|
|
|
That joke didn't Warrant a reply and you should suffer Corporal Punishment for it!
|
|
|
|
|
It certainly didn't command any respect!
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for bringing it to my Attention.
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
|
|
|
|
|
I salute your humor, sir!
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
Right, Wheel out the Big Guns now. It is somebody elses go, since it is all About Turns.
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
|
|
|
|
|
Admirable statement so you don't need to be so private.
Okay, okay, 'admirable' is a stretch but I think it works.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
Is this the Standard we have come to expect?
I'm going to beat the retreat from this thread if it carries on.
|
|
|
|
|
Somme people get so entrenched in their need to reply to these jokes.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
