> Rod Speed
gmail.com> wrote>> zinnic
gate.net> wrote>>> Publius
nospam.comcast.net> wrote>>>> John Popelish
rica.net> wrote
>>>> innews:2LCdncPkf4WMiDPVnZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com>>>>>> There's nothing subjective about "red."
>>>>> The experience of red is what is subjective. There is no
>>>>> way to know that anyone else experiences red exactly as you
>>>>> do. I suspect that most people experience red about like I
>>>>> do, but I also suspect there are some interesting (various
>>>>> flavors of colorblindness) and even some extreme exceptions,
>>>>> especially in those who experience synesthesia.
>>>> Quite correct, although we really have no basis for an assumption that
>>>> others' experience of red is anything like ours. It is an assumption
>>>> of convenience only, and harmless for the most part.
>>>> There is even some empirical evidence that different persons experience
>>>> red differently. The gene for the red photopigment is carried on the X
>>>> chromosome. There are two variants of this pigment, due two variants
>>>> of that gene, which respond optimally to slightly different wavelengths.
>>>> Men have only one X, so they carry one version of this gene or the
>>>> other (and presumably perceive the same frequency differenly).
>>>> Women, however, have two X's, and so may possess both versions
>>>> of the red pigment, making them quadchromats. Their color perception
>>>> may be quite different from us "normal" trichromats.
>>>> Green is also carried on the X. but there is only one version of that pigment.
>>> I do not believe that there are genes for colors.
>> You're wrong. Color blindness is indeed genetic.
>>> There are multiple genes that control electrochemical neuronal patterns
>>> responding to an eye cell's reaction to impingement of light frequencies.
>>> There is no reason for different brains to respond identically to signals
>>> from eye cells.
>> Have fun explaining genetic color blindness.
> You totally miss my point!
Nope, you missed mine!!!
> Color blindness usually has to do with the inheritance of a gene that produces
> an abnormality in the photoreceptor pigments in the cone cells of the eye.
Irrelevant to your stupid claim that has blown up in your face and covered you with black stuff, again.
> Read my post again
It wasnt even worth reading the first time, its just mindless silly stuff.
> and you will see that I discuss responses of brain cells to whatever signals
> are carried from the eye by the optic nerve (axons of ganglion cells)!
Like hell you did in that first steaming turd of yours I commented on.
>>> That billions of neurons make identical connections in
>>> every brain is IMO impossible. A specific stimulation induces a
>>> neurochemical pattern that is unique to that stimulation and to the
>>> connective pattern of a specific brain. Repetition of the same
>>> stimulus and its corresponding neuronal pattern, cements the two
>>> into recognition.
>>> That cemented neuronal pattern of one brain function is not necessarily
>>> identical to the cemented neuronal pattern of a different brain.
>>> Thus one brain may recognise red with a neurological pattern that
>>> difffers from that recognised as red by a second brain. The ony
>>> requirement is that each brain remains consistent in the recognition
>>> of its neuronal pattern code. No is no in English, Nien is nein in
>>> German.. The Morse and Semaphor codes are totally different
>>> patterns, yet they can signify the same.
