top | item 46425146

(no title)

kshahkshah | 2 months ago

Some people are colorblind. Some people have more or less cones and rods. Our interpretation of colors is certainly not the same

discuss

order

mrbungie|2 months ago

You should steel-man the argument. GP is talking about qualia, obviously for the sake of the argument you assume the comparison is between two people with similar eyes.

hyperhello|2 months ago

Steel-man is such a weird expression. There are no steel men. How about saying "The opponent's best argument".

nawgz|2 months ago

The wild success of traffic lights disagrees with your statement.

inetknght|2 months ago

The wild success of traffic lights is only wildly successful to those who aren't color blind. Do some reading.

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness

> The colors of traffic lights can be difficult for red–green color-blind people. This difficulty includes distinguishing red/amber lights from sodium street lamps, distinguishing green lights (closer to cyan) from white lights, and distinguishing red from amber lights, especially when there are no positional clues (see image).

Publication from 1983: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1875309/

> All but one admitted to difficulties with traffic signals, one admitted to a previously undeclared accident due to his colour blindness, and all but one offered suggestions for improving signal recognition. Nearly all reported confusion with street and signal lights, and confusion between the red and amber signals was common.

nickthegreek|2 months ago

The wild success of traffic lights comes from having 3 colors at fixed positions. You put those 3 colors in a single color changing light and I would assume the accident rate would measurably increase.

evilduck|2 months ago

The fact that a single emitter traffic light that simply varies its color doesn't exist also disagrees with your statement.