h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

the key is in the translation

As someone whose job, for about 20 years, was to match colours, I know a fair bit about the perception of colour. You can see what it's like to be colour blind @ http://www.tsi.enst.fr/~brettel/colourblindness.html



Alji

In the discourse, the meaning's may be very similar, and for the more mundane elements the slight differences may be like the mass of an electron: negligable.

But following the Physics analogy a little further as you reach into the more complex discourses, the rules change, at the edge of meaning particularly those concepts which approach the rareified air of abstraction, or which deal with conundrums raised by the novelty of the new, or symbols deeply embedded in a cultural perspective (that some might argue you need to be born into to understand) then the meanings become unclear and cannot be easily read simply by reference to behaviour. (Although I acknowledge that much communication is as a result of behaviour {As distinct from direct communication[which is of course a form of behaviour]}) In this context meaning is meaning but within a systems of meanings which is essentially in flux. and no closer to actually referencing the referent.

Observable meaning in a discourse is the observers interpretation. If the observer is able to interpret objectively then they may nearly be right. The apparrent agreement of the participants in a discourse cannot necissarily be taken to mean that they genuinely agree, certainly not wholey, ant at times not evn in part, we can reference the signs and the meaning attributed to those signs to the non verbal communication which takes place, however that non vebal communication is itself composed of signs however subtle they might seem. Other behaviour not intended to represent anything may still contain meaning but does not necissarily signify meaning the meaning is then supplied by the interpreter or observer even if that is the self observing the self.

Oh God another epistle Sorry, in essence there may be many tests, but the tests are a means to an end i.e. clarifying the discourse, unfortunately the most effective way I have found to test meaning in discourse is through further discourse, and you end up with the confusing state of affairs that the subject of the discourse is not only its object but also its means which results in convoluted constructs which attempt to describe themselves even in the act of being formed.

Gosh, how sad it would be never to be able to see red! That was also one of my first questions to myself when I was a kid - about whether people saw colours in the same way I did. I also used to wonder if food tasted the same to everyone.

az

Alji

Interesting looking site, But can you show a colour blind person what a person with normal vision sees? Looking at the site I can see a shift towards light and dark, I didn't look at the dots I've seen enough of them to last me a lifetime.

Incidentally most colourblind people can percieve the more extreme shades of their merged spectrum, the difficulty emerges for most as the shades reach middle intensities.

Mine for instance isn't enough to prevent me driving, but is enough to prevent me getting a pilots licence, joining the Navy, or beccoming an electrician.

Difficult for me to get much out of that link as I'm colour blind already. Mainly I think what happens is that shortage (but not absence) of one of the colour receptors tends to push the perceived colours "closer together" and reduces fine colour discrimination.

Noggin

Why 'Bows head' Crazyhorse?

Interestingly I had at one time some sucsess selling acrylic paintings, I used to diligently read the colour off the tube and mix them using the kind of formulaic reasoning you might imagine.

Most people who bought them said they liked them because they were unusual. I entered a few into local competitions but lost heart when I didn't even get highly recomended ect, I asked why and the answer was that the colours were too bright.

SD. Yep. If you subjectively get what it is like for me to see orange when you look at blue, and vice versa, then we have no way of knowing it - as I suggested. I guess that is part of the reason why Wittgenstein and others suggest that the referent of colour words like blue is the colour of the summer sky or whatever, rather than the private sensation we have.

However, it seems to me to be useful to assume that we are as much alike as possible. Quite why this should be known as 'the principle of charity' I don't know. Other people could be superior to oneself, after all! Anyway, Davidson relies on it considerably and he's no slouch. Not that I'm making an 'ad hominem' point, before I get so accused.

Noggin. I've found a good paper on Quine's theses of indeterminacy of radical translation and reference which seems to me to be relevant to this topic. http://www.nickbostrom.com/old/quine.html

Not for the faint hearted, however.

toxx

SD. Having just read your latest message, that paper is now compulsory reading for you.

toxx

Looks quite weighty, toxx

I'll have a read when I've caught up with the blog.

Noggin

out of respect

"(Even I don't think Shergar is alive after all this time )"

I looked up Shergar when I wrote the bit about Lord Lucan. Apparently, it was killed within a week of being abducted. I don't remember that at all.

Try these tests @ http://www.biyee.net/v/color_vision_test/index.htm

I got 100% on the first two and 98% on the third.


Alji

"As someone whose job, for about 20 years, was to match colours, I know a fair bit about the perception of colour. You can see what it's like to be colour blind "

Oh. That's a bit dismal for those of us without colour blindness.

The upside is, if you're born with it, it only becomes a problem when society produces something dependent upon a 'normal' colour range - such as litmus paper.

IIRC, Oliver Sacks wrote an article about a painter who became completely colour blind - only saw greys. He painted beautiful pictures of great subtlety, because he was observant about the different shades - something often lost in colour. For those years when I developed my own film, I preferred B/W photography, because so much subtlety was lost in colour. Looks at Adams' work.

"Oh God another epistle Sorry, in essence there may be many tests, but the tests are a means to an end i.e. clarifying the discourse, unfortunately the most effective way I have found to test meaning in discourse is through further discourse, and you end up with the confusing state of affairs that the subject of the discourse is not only its object but also its means which results in convoluted constructs which attempt to describe themselves even in the act of being formed."

Ever tried reading the Cistrine rules on debate concerning taking proposed amendments to an agreed amendments to the substantive motion? I've known experienced chairs get into knots on that one.

"I got 100% on the first two and 98% on the third."

Phew! Took nearly 190 choices on the first test before I realised it would go on until I pressed 'finish', and so only took 75 on the second. 98 and 95. Didn't try the third... ran out of stamina.

Woo. Couldn't hack that *at all*. Most of the time there was only one box How are you supposed to select from one box?

Noggin

Sounds as if you've got problems Nogg!


Alji

Yeah.

And my colour vision's none too good either

Noggin