Everyone Sees a slightly different world.

I was thinking about how some people are colorblind as a result of their genetic make-up, thus altering their perception of this world. I hadn't made the connection before, but does it not follow logic to assume that there are likely (or could be) other mutations which could alter a persons perceptions of dimensions to a certain degree?

This would account for varying perceptions of art, beauty, and etc. Maybe this is a no brainer, or inherent knowledge, but it hadn't occured to me before.

Thoughts?

I've been thinking a little about this too. I've been told that because of genetics and other factors, every person sees a slightly different color palette. This could be applied to other things such as what you're describing, but I'm unsure of how one could go about testing this.

To be honest, I don't think we could test it. The only means that comes to mind would be if we could program a computer to work as a "brain" and have it's inputs filtered by a persons genetic code. I don't know if that's worded very well, but I can't think of a better way to put it. Essentially simulating a persons brain exactly according to their DNA and producing a visualization.

I think an appreciation of aesthetics may have a large developmental component too. I don't think the majority of individuals vary much with respect to the actual data they receive.

Well, the stink of it is that we can't really test it to find out. True, It could simply be a difference in appreciation or predisposition, etc. However, if the case is as I've described, that appreciation would be derived from their version of reality, which would be different due to their genetic make up, which translates roughly into the same outcome perceptually.

I guess this argument is pointless? Hah

I think there is an element of objectivity though. I find it very mysterious, but everybody can intrinsically tell what is a valid 'catchy' melody and what is a random sequence of notes. It's hard to think of any biological advantage for this.

I dunno, there's a lot of music that people absolutely love and consider a catchy that I would rather vomit than listen to for more than a few minutes. Besides, I wouldn't say that these mutation are a product of selection, but merely mutations in the sense of random screw-ups that would result in harmless differences that would stick around. Selection itself could have weeded out in larger variations in perceptions, as they may not have done as well and died off without reproducing-- however those with the smaller variations from mutation would have survived regardless, but the trait would still be passed on.

The two of us are quite argumentative today eh Xei? Lol.

What can I say, you're a quality poster. :P

Whilst people do listen to different stuff, my point was that there is at least some basic content which everybody understands.

For example, everybody recognises that C C G G A A G (to the time of twinkle twinkle) is a catchy melody, whereas something like C E G F F A D D (random notes) is not.

Interestingly, unlike genres, what 'it is' about these forms cannot be quantified in the same way that genres can (loud, soft, fast, danceable, melodic, aggressive); it's inherent and ineffable.

or societal.

in modern western music, we have major and minor keys. C E G F F A D D is in the key of C major. in the majority of traditional eastern music, they used a completely different system that I couldn't begin to explain because I don't understand it.
that sort of music sounds entirely different, and unintuitive to my ears.
I can't tell you what makes something catchy, or what sticks in your head. I can say that it's not a universal thing, and is probably ingrained in our heads at a young age.

I don't think that's the case, Western style music dominates Eastern countries now.

And still, even if you just look at Western populations; there is still an inherent understanding of when a new melody is a valid one, despite there being no understanding of any underlying pattern.

I'd go as far to say that everyone potentially lives in a radically different reality. The subtlety and depth of consciousness is unquantifiable. A scientific genius doesn't live in the same inner reality as a school teacher, just like a terrorist doesn't live in the same 'world' as a saint. Everything that makes up our consciousness is reflected in what we are and what we do, physically, mentally and spiritually. We connect best with those that share our beliefs, but most of all, when our consciousness is open to that which it has the capacity to comprehend. If it cannot comprehend it or intuit it, that person says "I don't understand how that person can do such and such." The only person that truly knows is the one in subject; the one who shares such patterns/tendencies as an inner reality, because it is only then that it has the potential to reflect into the world.

Oh, I definitely agree that people have different overall perceptions of the world, conscious/mental that is. Without a doubt, everyone's "reality" is quite different depending on their thoughts, beliefs, and general attitudes. However, I was posing that visuals, their representation of the physical, are specifically may different. Doesn't sound far fetched (given the complexity of DNA, or the brain itself and its processing) that everyone, in a strict way, see's a slightly different world (colors AND possibly depth or dimensions etc) due to differences in mechanics/processing.

Genetically normal humans possess three types of cone cells (nerve cells in the eye) which correspond to perceiving red, green, and blue. Color blindness is commonly the result of abnormalities with one of more of these cone cell types. But there is evidence that a small minority of people possess a 4th type of cone cell with features that make it somewhere between the normal red and green cone cells. For some genetic reason or other, only women have been identified with this condition. It's hard to know for sure exactly how this affects their visual experience, but perceptual experiments have yielded evidence that these tetrachromats have unusually fine color discrimination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I think there is an element of objectivity though. I find it very mysterious, but everybody can intrinsically tell what is a valid 'catchy' melody and what is a random sequence of notes. It's hard to think of any biological advantage for this.

---

On a completely off topic and random note, happiness has a biological advantage

Just going with the music example: Modern western music uses a tempered scale. It is not the actual true notes based off of the progression of harmonics found in nature and in physics regarding wave frequencies. The reason this sounds good to us is because we have been conditioned since birth as well as our parents had also. Listen to some arabic or turkish music. Turkish music splits a tone into eight semi-tones where we only split it into two. We cannot hear these subtle differences but an Arabic person or Turkish musician would know that we were out of tune if we tried to play along with them. Indian classical music uses the same scale that we do, but they have in between notes called Shrutis. They have mapped it out like a science. Us westerners use vibrato to hit those shruti notes, but we don't know why we do it, we just know that it sounds good.
I believe that every mind experiences a different world. That is why communication is so hard. But as to why? Just because no two people can occupy the same place at the same time. Every fingerprint is different. Why not minds?
I always wondered about color perception since a child. How to test this?

Everyone could see a greatly varying world. Probably not. But if we did, you wouldn't necessarily know. We probably would know, but at some level it is all speculation.

We experience this way. You have sight, taste, touch, smell, and hearing. These are merely a way for your mind to re-create the universe! A hand touches a wall, this sends an electrical signal to your brain. Your brain re-creates the sensory input so that you can experience. This is how we perceive, so, yes it is possible we all perceive differently.