In terms of pitch, yes we do hear the same pitch. But there might sometimes be a difference of opinion as to the source of the noise as ChimmyBear explained. If the source is moving however, then it's a whole different story depending on the position of the two listeners. As for sight, we don't all see the same thing. Even color is different for everyone. A rose may be red for two people, but it might look redder for one person than another. Everyone has different retinas with a different amount of cells responsible for detecting color, so it's only natural we all see different shades of the same object.
And another question pops in mind. Pain Say Chimmybear bangs her knee and then Eoz Bangs her knee in the same place on the same item. Do they feel the same kind of throbbing pain or is the concept of the pain they are feeling different. The trouble with one question more tend to follow.
Ah the "Do we see the same colour?" thought, one which greatly interested me when i was younger lol Obviously everyone agrees that red is red and blue is blue, but without a real way to describe a colour without relating to something else that is coloured, we cant really tell if we are actually seeing the same colour. What someone else calls red might be what you call yellow. Right? Maybe it is impossible to disprove this speculation, but i believe that everyone definitely sees the same colours. There is no doubt that light of a certain wavelength is agreed to be of a certain "named" colour. But does everyone "see" the same colour? Well, our sight really comes from the optic nerve leading to the brain. And since everyone's optic nerve, and indeed everyone's brain, is essentially the same thing, there is no reason to suspect that they dont work in the same way (i.e. that they dont interpret a certain wavelength of light to be the same "colour"). Im not trying to say that everyone thinks in exactly the same way, but the basic processes of the brain are not completely and drastically different for every individual. So as far as im concerned, this applies to everything from seeing red as red to feeling pain when you bang your knee. Perhaps there will always be that miniscule doubt that these sensations are interpreted differently in each brain, but seen as there isnt a scrap of evidence, i am fine with dismissing that theory as false. Also i would say for the "imagine a completely new sense" thing, i cant even think of a "completely new sense" to be had. At its simplest level, "Touch" is basically detecting a combination of changes in pressure and temperature, while "Hearing" is a more intricate detection of minute changes in pressure (i.e. sound waves). "Taste" is the reaction of certain chemicals with taste cells they come into contact with, while "Smell" is just an extension of that applied to substances in the air. "Sight" is the detection of photons striking the optic nerve. I cant really think of anything else that can be detected to be regarded as "completely new" for a new sense to be based on. For example, your ability to detect deadly radiation is basically an extension of "Sight" as it involves basically the same thing except the photons detected are of a higher frequency. And the simple truth is that there is not a way to detect the object in the dark room using anything short of some sort of magical or psychic power. You aren't talking about "Echo Location" or anything of that type, but to detect something far away from you you will have to use some method of reflection. "Sight" is essentially the same thing as echo location, except the things bouncing back are photons rather than sound waves. So without something travelling from the object to you, whether photons (i.e. sight) or particles (which would be pretty similar to echo location) there is no way to detect it.
Also forgot to add, there might be a possible way to test the whole "do we see the same colour" thing. Each colour spreads over a different proportion of the visible spectrum, i.e. there are far more wavelengths of photons that are "red" than there are "blue". That would mean in theory that there are more shades of the colour red than there are of the colour blue. So it should be impossible for someone to see what everyone agrees is "red" as "blue" because there arent enough shades of blue to cover all the wavelengths that are called red (though im not sure if this is making sense any more lol ). Of course, that only really applies if we are talking about interchanging "existing colours". I cant even begin to think on how to try and deal with other people seeing completely "new colours" lol
I'm wondering if this might be an example of some basic personality differences. One of the Meyers-Briggs letters separates Intuitive personalities from Sensing personalities, with the former being primarily focused inward, into their own world of thoughts and ideas, and the former being focused outward, into the world of perceptions and physical objects. My answer to every single one of Raven's questions has been: "It doesn't matter; we call them the same name, so what difference does it make what color they actually are? As long as the world seems real to me, then why worry that it isn't?" I also score almost one hundred percent Intuitive on the M-B profile test; what's important to me is what's in my head, not what's out in the world. Points like Wreybies', however, or ChimmyBear's, which involve interpreting the sensory input and the assumptions people make, interest me greatly. I'd far rather speculate about how different types of people might interpret a given event or stimulus; again, what's important to me is what's in THEIR heads, not the actual event itself. So Raven; have you ever taken a Meyers-Briggs test? If so, were you an S or an N?
I don't think it's "impossible." "Red" and "blue" do not exist independently of the mind. Electromagnetic wavelengths of various amplitudes, frequencies, and lengths are interpreted as "red." It wouldn't be "impossible" for someone to perceive various wavelengths differently than someone else, because no color has been assigned to that wavelength in the physical universe extrinsic of the mind. Perceptions can be greatly altered or "distorted" (if it is even a distortion) through the exploration of consciousness. Alter the mind, and you alter the manifested world. There aren't more wavelengths that are red. No wavelengths are red. You perceive more wavelengths to be red, and categorize them as such based on like properties. Red is nothing. Red is a subconscious mental device used to categorize like properties in order to construct some degree of order in the midst of a vast array of pulsating energy in a world of entropy. How would it be impossible for someone to assemble an equal number of wavelengths with perceived like properties into the perceived category "blue"? Your sight does not come from the optic nerve; it comes from the occipital lobe at the rear of the brain. The optic nerve is merely a vessel for transmitting sensory information so that it may be interpreted by the occipital lobe and constructed into a physical manifestation. The "physical" world that you see through your vision is a fabrication of the cerebral cortex. The optic nerve can be seen as a highway of sorts that carries messages to the master operator. Chairs don't exist exoterically of the human mind. There is only a conceived, somewhat flexible, template of requisite properties that we have elected to categorize as chairs. Using this template, all chairs are similar, but they could be categorized entirely differently based on other properties.
That’s not what I'm saying. I'm saying these 'requisite properties' have nothing to do with whether a chair is a chair- I'm saying that a chair is a chair because we've all the same idea, and have been taught all the same idea as to what a chair is. 'Chair' is an idea, it's a concept, which of course doesn't exist out of the human mind, that's what I'm also trying to say, that objects exist as ideas that we've created and taught to one another, in that turn we've created reality. And chairs would not change if their properties changed, a chair could still be a chair even if looked like a table- it's only when our IDEA of what makes up a chair changes, when the object itself changes to become categorised as something else. Pluto existed as a planet for what, 80 years, until a bunch of scientists decided Pluto wasn't a planet and instead was a something else, like a spherical mass of iced-up rock. It's not that Pluto's physical properties changed and therefore was categorised as something else, it’s that the idea of what a Planet was and what a mass of iced-up rock was, changed and therefore the actuality of Pluto- although, even now, scientists are still arguing as to the true definition of a planet.
I wasn't arguing with you. That's exactly what I'm saying. What we consider to be "chairs" exist regardless of what we perceive them to be. They don't change regardless of our ideas. We can call a chair a computer, but the object itself has not changed. But it is a chair only because we have been taught that such a collection of properties constitute a "chair." A "computer" is not a "chair" only because we do not consider it to fit our idea of what a "chair" is. The reality of the idea of a "chair" has been constructed by consensus of its definition. Likewise, "reality" is only an idea fabricated as a consequence of our consensual definition of this apparent state of existence. It's an abstraction that can only be made concrete through our attribution of its definition.
One way of looking at this question may be- that an object's reality is the utility we perceive in it. For example a one person may look at a handful of grain and see that night's dinner. A farmer may see the seeds for next season's crops. A child may see something to play with. An artist may consider a handful of seeds to be the material for his next installation art. A chair is a chair, but it becomes a table if we place a coffee mug and the book we are reading on it.
Each person responds to the stimulus of a particular wavelength of light as associated with the word "red" (or a direct translation in whatever language). However, the internal encoding is probably arbitrary. The neurons that make up the perceptual center of tghe brain are undifferentiated relative to one another. They only form cognitive patterns in raltion to other cognitive patterns, all of which are dynamically programmed (learned) as the brain builds its store of associative linkages. Because the individual encoding is arbitrary, like enum values in a programming language, one person's "red" encoding could well be someone else's "salty" encoding.
Hmmm....I would go with different. I know with child birth, the pain is different for each woman. I was able to get through the birth of all four of my babies without any pain killer at all. My sister-in-law, however, couldn't take any pain. She said it was killing her. We had babies which weighed right at the same...we were both pretty much the same shape and size, but she struggled. I think, for the most part, pain is a mental process as well as a physical. The nerve receptors send out a chemical to the brain which once it hits the thalamus, sends it back to the spinal cord. Of course I am making a long story short. The point is, pain is felt according to how it is received. This is a mental factor which even scientists don't understand. What happens mentally when pain is felt...that is an individual perception and nobody can say but the person who feels it.
