Sight Color Hypothesis

[bbouch111]

I have a hypothesis regarding our eye sight and what and how we see color. My hypothesis is that if we all learn from a young age through relating items and colors to a word, and since we can't see through some one else's eyes, do we all see the same color to it's name?

Explanation:

Color Variable₁: (X)

Color Name To Variable₁: (X²)

So we learn that if we see the color (X) that we relate it to the name (X²).

Color Variable₂: (Y)

Color Name to Variable₂: (Y²)

So we learn that if we see the color (Y) that we relate it to the name (Y²).

If we learn this way, which as far as any person knows, we do.

How don't we know that if we say (Y²) one person doesn't see (X) and another person doesn't see (Y)?

I think that we can find a hidden trait on the X chromosome that shows this, because the color blind and normal sight traits are on the X chromosome of your Gametes (Sex Chromosomes).

[insane_alien]

well, we can actually tell that everybodies eyes respond to colours the same way(well excepting those with colour blindness or tetrachromacy but even those are consistent) so any difference will be in the interpretation by the brain.

 

so the image i get in my brain from being exposed to yellow may be the same as the image you get in your brain for blue but the signal into the brain is the same.

 

There isn't really a way to verify if this is indeed the case however.

 

I know we've managed to pull images from the brain of a cat but they were black and white. If this technology gets better and can pull colours then we might get somewhere

 

I have a feeling that it is one of those things that needs to be calibrated for each individual however leaving us where we started.

[bbouch111]

 

 

well, we can actually tell that everybodies eyes respond to colours the same way(well excepting those with colour blindness or tetrachromacy but even those are consistent) so any difference will be in the interpretation by the brain.

 

so the image i get in my brain from being exposed to yellow may be the same as the image you get in your brain for blue but the signal into the brain is the same.

 

There isn't really a way to verify if this is indeed the case however.

 

I know we've managed to pull images from the brain of a cat but they were black and white. If this technology gets better and can pull colours then we might get somewhere

 

I have a feeling that it is one of those things that needs to be calibrated for each individual however leaving us where we started.

 

Do you believe then that I am on to something different and could be someday proven true?

Edited October 24, 2011 by bbouch111

[Arete]

It is plausible that functional genetic differentiation between individuals could result in your hypothetical observation.

 

Say two people are observing the same object (subject A and B). It's reflecting a certain wavelength of light (Y). Light of wavelength Y is being absorbed by the eyes of subject A and B. Information pertaining to Y is gathered by the eye, transported to the brain and interpreted. In your model, it is then conveyed verbally between A and B. An assumption of the test you seem to make is that the verbal conveyance of either/both A and/or B will =/= Y.

 

There's a number of plausible reasons for observing this result (if in fact you do observe it) all equally plausibly attributable to the environment or genotype.

 

a) Phenotypic differences in A and B's eyes.

b) Phenotypic differences in the transportation from the eye to the brain in A and B.

c) Phenotypic differences in the brain's interpretation of information from the eyes in A or B.

d) Cognitive/Learned differences in interpreting the brain's perception of Y.

e) Cognitive/Learned differences in communicating Y.

 

If you could control for environment (not sure how'd you'd manage this with human subjects), then get a positive result for the experiment (one twin verbally relates the observation of Y to be not Y) you could start trying to isolate the physical/cognitive cause of the discrepancy through examination of functional gene regions from each subject.

 

Supporting the hypothesis relies on the assumption of a positive test and a genotypic explanation of the observation, however, so I personally wouldn't consider the hypothesis - as posed to be a great research concept in itself as making assumptions regarding the outcome of an experiment to pose new hypotheses and outcomes can bite one in the behind.

Edited October 24, 2011 by Arete