[Tres Juicy]

l.boyd, on 16 February 2012 - 02:32 PM, said:

If what you perceive to be blue is actually red, why would you also call what the other person perceive to be blue (which may very well be brown)...blue?
You already have your own perception of blue (which is red). If the person presented you what they perceive as blue, and if it's not red (your blue), you obviously won't "also call it blue."

Of course we will, we will have both been taught that the name of that colour is blue

I see the sky as red, you see it as brown. We were both told it's blue

[Santalum]

Tres Juicy, on 16 February 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

Of course we will, we will have both been taught that the name of that colour is blue

I see the sky as red, you see it as brown. We were both told it's blue

All this speculation about random individual colour perception is rather nonsensical.

We all have the same types of rods and cones in our our retinas, although the number and distribution of each might vary, and we all share virtually the same neural pathway structures in our brains.

This means, in all likelihood, our percpetion of 'red' etc is innate and not a learned behaviour. With the exception of those with colour blindness of course.

[DrmDoc]

Santalum, on 16 February 2012 - 10:13 PM, said:

All this speculation about random individual colour perception is rather nonsensical.

We all have the same types of rods and cones in our our retinas, although the number and distribution of each might vary, and we all share virtually the same neural pathway structures in our brains.

This means, in all likelihood, our percpetion of 'red' etc is innate and not a learned behaviour. With the exception of those with colour blindness of course.

I disagree; the autistic brain provides empirical evidence that our individual interpretation of sensory information, such as color, isn't uniform but rather dependent on how our individual brains process that information. There is evidence suggesting that the autistic brain does not integrate sensory data as effortlessly as a normal or average brain. This appears to explain why some of the afflicted with this condition have difficulty processing visual, aural, and tactile stimuli contemporaneously. Synesthesia is another good example or non-uniform perception and processing of sensory stimuli. Although we may share similar sensory structures (e.g., rods & cones) and neural pathways, there could be distinct variations in those structures and pathways that may significantly alter how we individually perceive and process color and other types of sensory information.

[Tres Juicy]

Santalum, on 16 February 2012 - 10:13 PM, said:

All this speculation about random individual colour perception is rather nonsensical.

We all have the same types of rods and cones in our our retinas, although the number and distribution of each might vary, and we all share virtually the same neural pathway structures in our brains.

This means, in all likelihood, our percpetion of 'red' etc is innate and not a learned behaviour. With the exception of those with colour blindness of course.

I disagree. And I'm certainly not saying that colour perception is a learned behaviour.

What I am saying is that, whatever your perception, the names of colours remain the same.

What part of this do you not understand?

[Santalum]

DrmDoc, on 23 February 2012 - 04:58 PM, said:

I disagree; the autistic brain provides empirical evidence that our individual interpretation of sensory information, such as color, isn't uniform but rather dependent on how our individual brains process that information. There is evidence suggesting that the autistic brain does not integrate sensory data as effortlessly as a normal or average brain. This appears to explain why some of the afflicted with this condition have difficulty processing visual, aural, and tactile stimuli contemporaneously. Synesthesia is another good example or non-uniform perception and processing of sensory stimuli. Although we may share similar sensory structures (e.g., rods & cones) and neural pathways, there could be distinct variations in those structures and pathways that may significantly alter how we individually perceive and process color and other types of sensory information.

That does not prove that an autistic brain can have a totally different colour perception to the norm, i.e. seeing blue as brown and red as green or what ever. All it proves is that autistic brains are incapable of integrating and coordinating sensory signals in the same way that a normal brain can.

Since colour perception, the neural pathways and the retinal cones associated withit are a fundamental inherrited trait from our fish->amphibian->reptile ancestors, as far as I can see, the only way that fundeamentally different colour perception could exist would be between different species that seperated from one another far back in evolutionary history. E.G. Insects and modern fish that can perceive ultraviolet radiation as a 'colour' and humans that cannot perceive it as a 'colour'......except for colour blindness in humans, where some colour perception is missing rather than fundamentally different.

Tres Juicy, on 23 February 2012 - 07:15 PM, said:

I disagree. And I'm certainly not saying that colour perception is a learned behaviour.

What I am saying is that, whatever your perception, the names of colours remain the same.

What part of this do you not understand?

Clearly you do nor understand that the fundamental parts of our neurocircuitry that result in components of our perception, e.g. perceiving 'red' and all agreeing that it is called 'red' or what ever in other languages, are genetically determined and inherrited from our distant fish ancestors.

Let me give you a another related example that I saw in a documentary I recently watched.

A scientist drew a billowing cloud shape and an irregular pointed star shape on sperate cards. On two other cards he invented possible names for those shapes - booba and kiki.

He then went out on the street and proceeded to ask random people which shape was called booba and which shape was called kiki.

99.9% of the poeple he asked called the star shape kiki and the cloud shape booba.

Why? Because 99.9% of people have language and shape percpetion circuitry that immediately associate the sharp points of the star shape with the sharp sounds of the work 'kiki' and conversely associate the curves of the cloud shape with the smooth sound of the word 'booba'.

This experiment shows that language in humans did not develop totally randomly and that in fact the above innate tendancy was necessary for agreed language to develop among large numbers of people.

I put it to you that colour perception and agreement on what is red and what is blue is similarly innate and is very unlikely to be randomised among individuals who then simply learn to go against what their brain circuitry is telling them by calling what they perceive as green red in order to coform with other members of society.

It is VERY likely that much of our perception and cognition is innate and hard wired into our brains, and subject to various genes.

Are you suggesting for example that it is equally possible that some people might perceive sweet as bitter but simply learn to call it sweet and enjoy it because that is the accepted thing in society????

I don't think so.

Again, taste perception is innate and hard wired into our brains. Unless some one has a taste defiecit of some sort, everyone agrees on what substances are sweet and enjoyable and which substances are bitter and not enjoyable.

[zapatos]

Tres Juicy, on 16 February 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

Of course we will, we will have both been taught that the name of that colour is blue

I see the sky as red, you see it as brown. We were both told it's blue

I tend to think you'd quickly run into problems if this was true.

For example, let's say that I perceive the apple as red and am told it is red. You perceive the apple as black but are also told it is red. All other colors we perceive the same and have the same name for.

We are now asked to pick from a color pallette the color which seems to be a lighter shade of the color of the apple. I pick pink, which we both agree is pink, and you pick gray, which we both agree is gray.

At that point we realize that we perceive colors differently.

I think if we perceive colors differently we would have people constantly criticizing the clothes we picked for the day.

Which is exactly what happened with my dad who was color blind. It was obvious to the whole family that he did not perceive colors as we did.

[Santalum]

zapatos, on 24 February 2012 - 03:03 AM, said:

I tend to think you'd quickly run into problems if this was true.

For example, let's say that I perceive the apple as red and am told it is red. You perceive the apple as black but are also told it is red. All other colors we perceive the same and have the same name for.

We are now asked to pick from a color pallette the color which seems to be a lighter shade of the color of the apple. I pick pink, which we both agree is pink, and you pick gray, which we both agree is gray.

At that point we realize that we perceive colors differently.

I think if we perceive colors differently we would have people constantly criticizing the clothes we picked for the day.

Which is exactly what happened with my dad who was color blind. It was obvious to the whole family that he did not perceive colors as we did.

They key point about human colour blindness is that it results in a deficiency in perception and not from a fundamentally different form of colour perception.

People who speak different languages have totally different labels for the colour 'red' etc. But if language independant tests were conducted, such as chosing a colour card that most closely resembled the colour of an abstract object (rather than a known object that has a known colour) given to the test subject, then 99.9% of the human race would undoubtedly agree on what the closest matching colour card is. That would be undeniable evidence that, not withstanding colour blindness, colour perception is innate and hard wired rather than learned or variable.


http://www.decodeme....aste-perception

Quote

Taste perception and the genetically determined human response to bitter-tasting foods may have a considerable effect on nutrition and health.

One does not learn to respond to bitter tasting foods by emulating the behaviour of others. The response is innate, perhaps even an involuntary reflex action.

Human colour perception is little different to this and everyone's perception of the various colours is more or less identical, except when colour blindness deprives us of some of that colour perception.

http://www.scienceda...51026082313.htm

Quote

Each subject was asked to tune the color of a disk of light to produce a pure yellow light that was neither reddish yellow nor greenish yellow. Everyone selected nearly the same wavelength of yellow, showing an obvious consensus over what color they perceived yellow to be. Once Williams looked into their eyes, however, he was surprised to see that the number of long- and middle-wavelength cones—the cones that detect red, green, and yellow—were sometimes profusely scattered throughout the retina, and sometimes barely evident. The discrepancy was more than a 40:1 ratio, yet all the volunteers were apparently seeing the same color yellow.
"Those early experiments showed that everyone we tested has the same color experience despite this really profound difference in the front-end of their visual system," says Hofer. "That points to some kind of normalization or auto-calibration mechanism—some kind of circuit in the brain that balances the colors for you no matter what the hardware is."

In a related experiment, Williams and a postdoctoral fellow Yasuki Yamauchi, working with other collaborators from the Medical College of Wisconsin, gave several people colored contacts to wear for four hours a day. While wearing the contacts, people tended to eventually feel as if they were not wearing the contacts, just as people who wear colored sunglasses tend to see colors "correctly" after a few minutes with the sunglasses. The volunteers' normal color vision, however, began to shift after several weeks of contact use. Even when not wearing the contacts, they all began to select a pure yellow that was a different wavelength than they had before wearing the contacts.

"Over time, we were able to shift their natural perception of yellow in one direction, and then the other," says Williams. "This is direct evidence for an internal, automatic calibrator of color perception. These experiments show that color is defined by our experience in the world, and since we all share the same world, we arrive at the same definition of colors."

Is there really any point in arguing your view any further Tres Juicy? Clearly it is not consistent with legitimate science as demonstrated by the above research.

This post has been edited by Santalum: 24 February 2012 - 08:30 AM

[DrmDoc]

Santalum, on 24 February 2012 - 12:58 AM, said:

That does not prove that an autistic brain can have a totally different colour perception to the norm, i.e. seeing blue as brown and red as green or what ever. All it proves is that autistic brains are incapable of integrating and coordinating sensory signals in the same way that a normal brain can.

Since colour perception, the neural pathways and the retinal cones associated withit are a fundamental inherrited trait from our fish->amphibian->reptile ancestors, as far as I can see, the only way that fundeamentally different colour perception could exist would be between different species that seperated from one another far back in evolutionary history. E.G. Insects and modern fish that can perceive ultraviolet radiation as a 'colour' and humans that cannot perceive it as a 'colour'......except for colour blindness in humans, where some colour perception is missing rather than fundamentally different.



Clearly you do nor understand that the fundamental parts of our neurocircuitry that result in components of our perception, e.g. perceiving 'red' and all agreeing that it is called 'red' or what ever in other languages, are genetically determined and inherrited from our distant fish ancestors.

Let me give you a another related example that I saw in a documentary I recently watched.

A scientist drew a billowing cloud shape and an irregular pointed star shape on sperate cards. On two other cards he invented possible names for those shapes - booba and kiki.

He then went out on the street and proceeded to ask random people which shape was called booba and which shape was called kiki.

99.9% of the poeple he asked called the star shape kiki and the cloud shape booba.

Why? Because 99.9% of people have language and shape percpetion circuitry that immediately associate the sharp points of the star shape with the sharp sounds of the work 'kiki' and conversely associate the curves of the cloud shape with the smooth sound of the word 'booba'.

This experiment shows that language in humans did not develop totally randomly and that in fact the above innate tendancy was necessary for agreed language to develop among large numbers of people.

I put it to you that colour perception and agreement on what is red and what is blue is similarly innate and is very unlikely to be randomised among individuals who then simply learn to go against what their brain circuitry is telling them by calling what they perceive as green red in order to coform with other members of society.

It is VERY likely that much of our perception and cognition is innate and hard wired into our brains, and subject to various genes.

Are you suggesting for example that it is equally possible that some people might perceive sweet as bitter but simply learn to call it sweet and enjoy it because that is the accepted thing in society????

I don't think so.

Again, taste perception is innate and hard wired into our brains. Unless some one has a taste defiecit of some sort, everyone agrees on what substances are sweet and enjoyable and which substances are bitter and not enjoyable.

Perhaps you misunderstood my point; if we can prove that the human brain may not be uniform in its interpretation of sensory information from person to person, then it is also possible that our individual interpretation of color may not be uniform. Although autism is a good example of non-uniformity, conditions like synesthesia and dyslexia prove that how we individually interpret sensory, such as color, may not be the same. Dyslexia in particular is a condition that can go undiagnosed for years because the sufferer isn't aware that his interpretation of visual information does not conform to the norm and we, as his peers, do not perceive his disorder in his behavior. Regarding the color analogy, the idea is that the aberrant perception of red as green infers the reverse--that the individual also perceives geen as red. The individual may perceive all other colors as you or I with the exception of these two. If the individual experiences that his green perspective of red is commonly coordinated with the colors commonly coordinated with red, then he may never learn of the distinction in how his brain interprets red. This is not about the commonality of sensory organs (rods & cones) but rather about the individuality of the organ (brain) that interprets the sensory.

[Santalum]

DrmDoc, on 25 February 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

Perhaps you misunderstood my point; if we can prove that the human brain may not be uniform in its interpretation of sensory information from person to person, then it is also possible that our individual interpretation of color may not be uniform. Although autism is a good example of non-uniformity, conditions like synesthesia and dyslexia prove that how we individually interpret sensory, such as color, may not be the same. Dyslexia in particular is a condition that can go undiagnosed for years because the sufferer isn't aware that his interpretation of visual information does not conform to the norm and we, as his peers, do not perceive his disorder in his behavior. Regarding the color analogy, the idea is that the aberrant perception of red as green infers the reverse--that the individual also perceives geen as red. The individual may perceive all other colors as you or I with the exception of these two. If the individual experiences that his green perspective of red is commonly coordinated with the colors commonly coordinated with red, then he may never learn of the distinction in how his brain interprets red. This is not about the commonality of sensory organs (rods & cones) but rather about the individuality of the organ (brain) that interprets the sensory.

I understand essentially what you are saying, but you are refering to the way that the brain puts together all that sensory information into an internal model of the external world.

Yes! That can vary and widely and indeed bizarely as synesthesia proves.

But synesthesia does not prove that the way we perceive actual colours varies in any way through our visual systems........apart from colour blindness.

For example, colours that synesthetes see in response to words or letters are believed to result from cross connections between language circuitry and visual circuitry, i.e. the language centres of the brain do not generate the sensation of colour but merely trigger parts of the visual system via these cross connections as they are carrying out language processing.

I have previously posted a specific experiment where it has been proven that 99.9% of the human race all agree, to a fairly high level of precission, as to which wavelengths give us the sensations of red, yellow and blue etc. I have no doubt that if synesthetes were given the same visual (not language) test then they would also agree on which wavelengths give them the sensation of red, yellow and blue etc.

Quote

IN THEORY, some individuals with visual dyslexia have an excess of L (red) photoreceptors in their eyes. The excess of red photoreceptors cause a visual dissonance when reading. A measureable effect is an increased ability (hypersensitivity) to see a Blue Dyop™ on a Black background more easily than they can see a Green Dyop™ on a White background.

Assuming there is scientific credibility to this theory, some forms of dyslexia are caused by an imbalance in the colour information coming in from the eyes but it is not caused by a difference in how the colours are perceived, i.e. what sensations each wavelength/ retinal cone induces.

This post has been edited by Santalum: 26 February 2012 - 12:35 PM

[DrmDoc]

Santalum, on 26 February 2012 - 12:27 PM, said:

Assuming there is scientific credibility to this theory, some forms of dyslexia are caused by an imbalance in the colour information coming in from the eyes but it is not caused by a difference in how the colours are perceived, i.e. what sensations each wavelength/ retinal cone induces.

So, theoretically, if I understand correctly, there could be an "imbalance in the colour information coming in from the eyes", which could go undiagnosed as dyslexia, resulting in a distinction in how an individual might perceive certain visual information? Doesn't this suggest the possibility of non-uniformity in how we may individual perceive and interpret visual information?

[dimreepr]

DrmDoc, on 27 February 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:

So, theoretically, if I understand correctly, there could be an "imbalance in the colour information coming in from the eyes", which could go undiagnosed as dyslexia, resulting in a distinction in how an individual might perceive certain visual information? Doesn't this suggest the possibility of non-uniformity in how we may individual perceive and interpret visual information?

In a recent bbc program called “how to grow a planet” the colour perception is a result of evolution coming to distinguish fruit that is ripe and so is uniformly recognised in the human brain, any difference would result, Naturally, in extinction. Our society of course doesn’t allow this, but it doesn’t make it any less true.

[Santalum]

DrmDoc, on 27 February 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:

So, theoretically, if I understand correctly, there could be an "imbalance in the colour information coming in from the eyes", which could go undiagnosed as dyslexia, resulting in a distinction in how an individual might perceive certain visual information? Doesn't this suggest the possibility of non-uniformity in how we may individual perceive and interpret visual information?

Are you denying that the re-posted experiment below proves that 99.9% of the human race all agree on what colour sensation each wavelength induces?

I not then I fail to see how you can come to your above conclusion.

All dyslexia proves is that sufferers have a problem in processing visual information in terms of written language due to an imbalance in the colour sensations coming in from the eyes. It it does not indicate the surfers have different colour sensations for given wavelengths.

Even if suffers in theory would see everything slightly......say........redder than everyone else because they have far more red cones in their retinas than blue and green cones, please note what the experiment below says about in built filter circuitry in the visual cortext that compensates for this. Like when you are wearing coloured goggles in the snow fields. In the end red objects still cause the sensation of red regardless of your skewed colour perception due to the goggles.

http://www.scienceda...51026082313.htm

Quote

Each subject was asked to tune the color of a disk of light to produce a pure yellow light that was neither reddish yellow nor greenish yellow. Everyone selected nearly the same wavelength of yellow, showing an obvious consensus over what color they perceived yellow to be. Once Williams looked into their eyes, however, he was surprised to see that the number of long- and middle-wavelength cones—the cones that detect red, green, and yellow—were sometimes profusely scattered throughout the retina, and sometimes barely evident. The discrepancy was more than a 40:1 ratio, yet all the volunteers were apparently seeing the same color yellow.
"Those early experiments showed that everyone we tested has the same color experience despite this really profound difference in the front-end of their visual system," says Hofer. "That points to some kind of normalization or auto-calibration mechanism—some kind of circuit in the brain that balances the colors for you no matter what the hardware is."

In a related experiment, Williams and a postdoctoral fellow Yasuki Yamauchi, working with other collaborators from the Medical College of Wisconsin, gave several people colored contacts to wear for four hours a day. While wearing the contacts, people tended to eventually feel as if they were not wearing the contacts, just as people who wear colored sunglasses tend to see colors "correctly" after a few minutes with the sunglasses. The volunteers' normal color vision, however, began to shift after several weeks of contact use. Even when not wearing the contacts, they all began to select a pure yellow that was a different wavelength than they had before wearing the contacts.

"Over time, we were able to shift their natural perception of yellow in one direction, and then the other," says Williams. "This is direct evidence for an internal, automatic calibrator of color perception. These experiments show that color is defined by our experience in the world, and since we all share the same world, we arrive at the same definition of colors."

This post has been edited by Santalum: 27 February 2012 - 10:55 PM

[DrmDoc]

Santalum, on 27 February 2012 - 10:49 PM, said:

Are you denying that the re-posted experiment below proves that 99.9% of the human race all agree on what colour sensation each wavelength induces?

I not then I fail to see how you can come to your above conclusion.

All dyslexia proves is that sufferers have a problem in processing visual information in terms of written language due to an imbalance in the colour sensations coming in from the eyes. It it does not indicate the surfers have different colour sensations for given wavelengths.

Even if suffers in theory would see everything slightly......say........redder than everyone else because they have far more red cones in their retinas than blue and green cones, please note what the experiment below says about in built filter circuitry in the visual cortext that compensates for this. Like when you are wearing coloured goggles in the snow fields. In the end red objects still cause the sensation of red regardless of your skewed colour perception due to the goggles.

http://www.scienceda...51026082313.htm

I disagree; dyslexia proves that certain sensory and neurological abnormalities can cause non-uniformity in how we may individually perceive and interpret sensory information. Although a color imbalance from the eye could result in some forms of dyslexia, such an imbalance cannot account for the more common symptom of word reversal and an inability to discern right from left. Regarding the study you cited, what was the sampling of volunteers? Was the sampling large enough to include aberrant subjects? For example, if the sampling involved 10 participants, where less than .05 percent of the area population is of aberrant vision, then the sampling was not large enough to include data relevant to the whole of that population location. Did the study include aberrant vision participants such as synesthesia and dyslexia sufferers? Although your study appears to account for the norm, it may not be inclusive of the abnormal. Again, my position is that a condition (neurological, physiological or psychological), which renders a distinction in how we may individually perceive and interpret our surroundings, supports the possibility of an aberrant distinction in how we may individually perceive visual information. For me it is simple, you are suggesting that we all see the same thing in the same way; whereas, I am suggesting the possibility that we may not.

This post has been edited by DrmDoc: 29 February 2012 - 06:59 PM

[Santalum]

DrmDoc, on 29 February 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

I disagree; dyslexia proves that certain sensory and neurological abnormalities can cause non-uniformity in how we may individually perceive and interpret sensory information. Although a color imbalance from the eye could result in some forms of dyslexia, such an imbalance cannot account for the more common symptom of word reversal and an inability to discern right from left. Regarding the study you cited, what was the sampling of volunteers? Was the sampling large enough to include aberrant subjects? For example, if the sampling involved 10 participants, where less than .05 percent of the area population is of aberrant vision, then the sampling was not large enough to include data relevant to the whole of that population location. Did the study include aberrant vision participants such as synesthesia and dyslexia sufferers? Although your study appears to account for the norm, it may not be inclusive of the abnormal. Again, my position is that a condition (neurological, physiological or psychological), which renders a distinction in how we may individually perceive and interpret our surroundings, supports the possibility of an aberrant distinction in how we may individually perceive visual information. For me it is simple, you are suggesting that we all see the same thing in the same way; whereas, I am suggesting the possibility that we may not.

Well with all due respect I would sooner accept the findings of a reputable scientific study on the matter rather than your personal opinion.

Anyway from information on Dyslexia Australia's website:

Quote

Will coloured lenses help?
Dyslexia Australia will successfully correct perceptual distortions of words or symbols (known as Perceptual dyslexia) without the use of glasses or coloured lenses.

Coloured lenses are for a condition known as Irlen or Meares-Irlen Syndrome (aka scoptic sensitivity syndrome) NOT for dyslexia. The Irlen Syndrome is a condition characterised by visual distress. Some of the problems associated with this syndrome are sensitivity to light or colour, poor depth perception, lack of facial recognition and visual distortions.

it looks as though this notion that colour perception problems cause dyslexia is nothing more than psuedoscience nonsense!

This post has been edited by Santalum: 29 February 2012 - 10:32 PM

[JohnStu]

Are you talking about understanding of the structure of the brain or the psychology of humans?

I think studying the structure of the brain first would help studying the psychologies of humans later on. Well, psychology is more like a result of years of brain activity. So I guess studying children or fetuses or other animals' brain would do better.

[Santalum]

JohnStu, on 1 March 2012 - 12:06 AM, said:

Are you talking about understanding of the structure of the brain or the psychology of humans?

I think studying the structure of the brain first would help studying the psychologies of humans later on. Well, psychology is more like a result of years of brain activity. So I guess studying children or fetuses or other animals' brain would do better.

Clearly the way we perceive colours IS directly related structure of the brain, i.e. the arrangement of neural circuitry.

[DrmDoc]

Santalum, on 29 February 2012 - 10:22 PM, said:

Well with all due respect I would sooner accept the findings of a reputable scientific study on the matter rather than your personal opinion.

Anyway from information on Dyslexia Australia's website:



it looks as though this notion that colour perception problems cause dyslexia is nothing more than psuedoscience nonsense!

Well, with equal respect, I don't blindly worship at the alter of a study's findings without a critical analysis of its scope, content, and procedures regardless of its reputation. All that I have suggested is a possibility based on known sensory processing abnormalities that provide clear evidence of non-uniformity in how we may individually perceive and interpret visual information. Although I understand your passion, we are all merely rendering our "personal opinion" based on our individual perspective and study of the available research. Clearly, we perceive this subject differently--which, again, is all I am suggesting.

Also, on a separate note to all, I do not engage the point/reputation option on this board as I have stated elsewhere. Should anyone find their comments rated, it was not my doing. That option, as I have learned, is a meaningless popularity game that at least one particularly vindictive and ego obsessed juvenile anonymously plays here to often pit one poster against another in the mistaken belief that reputation points equal credibility. I should think that commentary enveloping substantive study encompassing many years and multiple desciplines rather than artfully appropriated Wikipedic references equal credibility. Nevertherless, should I agree or disagree with any comments here, I will express my opinion in words rather than points.

[Santalum]

DrmDoc, on 1 March 2012 - 05:43 PM, said:

Well, with equal respect, I don't blindly worship at the alter of a study's findings without a critical analysis of its scope, content, and procedures regardless of its reputation. All that I have suggested is a possibility based on known sensory processing abnormalities that provide clear evidence of non-uniformity in how we may individually perceive and interpret visual information. Although I understand your passion, we are all merely rendering our "personal opinion" based on our individual perspective and study of the available research. Clearly, we perceive this subject differently--which, again, is all I am suggesting.

Also, on a separate note to all, I do not engage the point/reputation option on this board as I have stated elsewhere. Should anyone find their comments rated, it was not my doing. That option, as I have learned, is a meaningless popularity game that at least one particularly vindictive and ego obsessed juvenile anonymously plays here to often pit one poster against another in the mistaken belief that reputation points equal credibility. I should think that commentary enveloping substantive study encompassing many years and multiple desciplines rather than artfully appropriated Wikipedic references equal credibility. Nevertherless, should I agree or disagree with any comments here, I will express my opinion in words rather than points.

Look I agree that our perception of colour is not uniform. The study I cited clearly stated there was a high degree of accuracy in the matching of colours by different test subjects, but clearly there was not unaminity on the exact shades.

But I find it VERY hard to believe that there would be fundamental differences in perception of colour, as opposed to deficits due to colour blindness.

My general knowledge of evolution and genetics is telling me that fundamentally different colour perception would be equivalent to a fith limb or a third eye.

Such a radical difference in neural architecture cannot just appear from no where.