- Sophie Rand
- New York, NY
- United States
Student Engineering, The Cooper Union For The Advancement of Science and Art
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Can we ever know how another person "senses" the world?
In my Bioelectricity class this week, we learned about the cells
in our body that help us sense our environment: chemosensors in our
tongue that help us sense taste, for example, the photoreceptors in
our eye that sense light, and the hair cells in our ears that sense
the mechanical vibrations of sound, to name a few.
As a result, I recently revisited my answer to the age-old question of
“how do I know that the blue I see is the same blue you see?” that was
so startling and exciting to most 3rd graders playing baby Kierkegaard
a little bit differently. An answer could be that we just have to
trust that perception is guided by biology and that humans are
biologically identical to within 80% of our biological systems.
This answer, of course, raises new questions: even if you and I may
perceive the same blue, is that blue "real?" Where does sensation
leave off and perception begin, and how may we trust ourselves as we
try to compare them? Can we ever know how another person "senses" the
world? Would love to hear your thoughts!
Christopher Keeley
On that basis I think it's fair to conclude we must all have to some degree, knowledge of how we each experience/sense the world.
Stephanie Nugent
Lawrence Trevanion
We confront the mind-body problem in this understanding if we try to superimpose the experience of seeing something with the mechanism by which we suppose this seeing to occur. The problem is solved easily - quite simply, both are expressed in terms of our own perception: - we invariably get a mind body problem if we try to insert our experience as an entity into the real world (which is itself expressed in terms of our own perception). The mind body problem amounts to trying to put experience into itself.
If perception is about mechanism then we naturally suppose that if we replace the mechanism a tiny piece at a time we could theoretically replace the entire mechanism without altering perception. But we understand that the body itself actually does this at least to some extent. Whether parts can be replaced by different materials is moot - it is doubtful that a silicon based perceiver could be equivalent to a carbon based one.
Can we integrate mechanisms to experience as others experience? One would expect that it depends on how modular the perception is. I would guess that seeing something as I do and then seeing it as you do is NOT like looking from one painting to another. Our visual perception is vastly more complex than the immediate electromagnetic input. I would guess that a mechanism that is capable of remembering and comparing two sets of visual experience is vastly more complex than what we ourselves possess. I would guess that this problem of comparison applies even to ourselves from a time significantly in the past i.e. our identity is recognizable (to ourselves and others) only because it does not change very quickly (an issue related also to mechanism).
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
No it is not possible but I read plenty of studies and journals that are examining these phenomena of sensory awareness.... Groupthinking is the best example.
Cool videos on youtube: Eyeborg - about cyborgs living today
As far as what it would take to get to this point of understanding the brain... That I am still figuring out myself.
Good conversation!
Frans Kellner 100+
Therefore every person sees the same within the limits of its personal development.
You can see in your dream, some people can see visions and it can happen that you see through the sensory organs of another body/person.
I know that the common notion is another one and for that reason not very productive. The way we vision the world is developed over the span of our evolution in relation to our needs for safety and food finding and differs among species in accord with their sensory organs. The imagery that tell us what we see are present to be evoked as we actually make contact with the corresponding code our senses perceive. So our nervous system has a role to play, not to generate our vision but in mediating between the object which is a fraction of the subject which is the center we all share.
Elizabeth Gu 30+
So, this reply is for your previous comment.
"It is seen with chimps in the wild that the young eat what mother give them. The first taste of any leave or fruit is tasty as it comes from the mother. When not it taste nasty."
"Impressions also are associated with emotions. A bad emotion provoked with an event associated to a color, word or taste can be revived any time the same color and the like appear."
Great point! I agree and love the way you explain it.
"It is natural to return to the trees with the delicious fruit and to avoid the snakebite by following our emotional memory."
Emotional memory....is it related to experiences?
But I think it’s because every creature has a basic instinct.
You know, an instinct for survival, something like that.
Or what you mean is that instinct is also related to emotional experiences?
I hope you answer for this question because I'm really curious about it.
Thanks for your reply, btw.
Joanna Cruz
I wanted to answer your question from a more personal perspective especially since it is a question that I have wrestled with for many years. Hopefully it is not too repetitive but I would love to share with you my opinion and how it became so.
“It seems to me I am trying to tell you a dream—making a vain attempt, because no relation of a dream can convey the dream-sensation, that commingling of absurdity, surprise, and bewilderment in a tremor of struggling revolt, that notion of being captured by the incredible which is of the very essence of dreams. . . No, it is impossible; it is impossible to convey the life-sensation of any given epoch of one's existence,—that which makes its truth, its meaning—its subtle and penetrating essence. It is impossible. We live, as we dream—alone. . . ” This quote is from Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness and it has been something that I have taken to heart. No one can relate completely to another’s experiences. No one can articulate one’s emotions in a way that another can feel exactly all that person feels. It has been one of my goals to express myself so that hopefully others can understand and empathize.
Andrew Leader 50+
We can define "sensation" in a number of ways, or at different points along a spectrum, from the very physical (i.e. intensity of heat, light, or sound) to those much less physical (i.e. emotion). It is straightforward to conceive how we might reproduce those sensations that are the most physical (touch your hand to a hot stove to understand heat, look at the sun to understand brightness). Those sensations that are less physical, particularly the ones which are caused by social or cultural situations, must be the hardest to reproduce or understand.
Of course, the following is science fiction, but stay with me...
Consciousness is an emergent property of the firing patterns of our neurons (ok, ok, or God, please no angry comments. I concede, this can be a controversial topic, but that's for another TED thread.) What if each emotion, say happiness, is the result of a given firing pattern, that could be read from one person via either direct neural recordings, EEG, or fMRI, and then directly reproduced in a second person? The connectivity of our nervous systems is unique to each of us (see TED talk I Am My Connectome http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0). But since we all feel happy sometimes, perhaps these firing patterns are universal enough that they can be reproduced in most humans.
Now take it one step further. Someone asks you, "How did you feel on the day of your daughter's wedding?" Words cannot describe your feelings. You put on a hat. Take it off. Pass it to your friend. They put it on. "WOW. I am so happy for you," they say.
S. N.
Lawrence Trevanion
The age-old question of “how do I know that the blue I see is the same blue you see?”contains a flaw. In general we answer the question "Do person A and person B see the same X?" in terms of the real world, and we will use real indicators to verify that they do indeed see the same X. There is no such X as blue. X may be a blue flower and in such a case we may verify that both A and B see a blue flower. Person A can imagine in terms of its perception what B sees and B can imagine in terms of its perception what A sees and we conceive of the whole scenario in terms of our own perception.
The problem is not specifically a color problem. A completely color blind person could wonder if another such person sees the way they do. It is more easily expressed as a color problem because of the color wheel (that is a product of our mechanism of vision).
Our method of answering such questions is through the analysis of mechanism. The extreme cases are:
I see a blue object now in the way I see a blue object now - because the input and mechanisms are identical.
No one sees the blue object in complete darkness - there is no mechanism .
So we assert that similar inputs and mechanisms are a similar kind of perception. And if color wheel translation occurs we would expect it to evident in the mechanism.
Andre Allen
sensory perceptions, consciousness and subconsciousness, emotions...It's interesting how other factors play into such a question: How can we actually 'feel' another person's perceptions?
As some have stated, why would it matter- what joy or pain would that give us? And, if we felt anything at all (I doubt we won't) from "knowing exactly" how they felt in direct response to "what we actually felt"-- why should that do anything to us, according to the reality which we currently live all the while "apart" from knowing that possible experience? If we do 'feel' or 'sense' or even display the exact quintessence of their experience- should we say that we are now "them"? Or-- have we then engaged in some form of transcendental embodiment- in which we have or (possibly have) "become" greater than their actual being? such a question (and series of questions apt-to-be following) dictate that this question of the "'possibilities' of inter-subjective perception" is no longer in the realm of biology (as is asked)--- as biology is (if I'm correct)- strictly related to the applicable science of observable knowledge of living organisms. Am I right,
Now... to answer (or presumably tackle) the first part of this series of seemingly unruly and somewhat meagerly-apt-to-be-justified probabilities (if they are not just questions, that is)- (in part, does it bring pain or joy): if pain or joy is (shall we say- variables of the two most extreme emotions)- why should we search for these extremes just to prove to ourselves the (currently doubtful) chance of our beings being given to another being's sensory perceptions? and for what--- a greater realization of self? is there such a belief, if the axiomatic response is discreetly directed towards the already standardized, and controlled reality that we currently live in?? Thereby, I'm saying, it is all very interesting, but there are other factors which downplay the endeavor.
Christophe Cop 500+
Our perception arises from external information and memory (in a constant loop).
And our perception of the world is therefore a representation. (As for how color and flavor coding goes... it gives us the ability to differentiate and respond in biological apt ways).
when applying correspondence theory of truth,
one can make estimates of the truth value of your inner representation (of the world, cosmos,...). It will never be a 100% correspondence, but we can see probabilistic differences (50% vs 80% vs 95% correspondence is quite different).
So can we know what another person senses? we can be quite sure about it (i.e. 60%+) but never completely sure.
And we are constantly advancing and querying these questions (psychology, neuroscience, biology,..), so we can come up with a high likelihood that blue is blue us blue across humans (and maybe some animals, and except the color-blind)
And as for trusting our senses: it is good to know they are very reliable, but still prone to illusions.
Bernd Fesel 30+
"How do I know that the person I see is the same person you see?"
During my last three years in the Ruhr Region I worked in many cities with a large migrant population - at least for Germany - of 20 - 30% of the inhabitants. You learn quickly that you have totally different views on reality: Blue is never ever blue.
So we - the European Capital of Culture - startet a film project where former migrants talk about their lives - and home: the old home they left and the new home they won. And of course now they are not at home in the old sphere they left.... blue in between blue? Understanding perception in this case is not only an intellectual matter, it decided over social peace or urban conflicts.
By the way: the migrant film project was done by an artist - a specialist on failed communications so to speak:
http://www.2010lab.tv/en/video/100-lights-100-faces-william-tarr-liberia#
I hope this real-life adaption of our great blog debate "blue is not blue is blue" might be inspiring to you all.
Aidan Parchelo
I'm further intrigued by the hard neurosciences trajectory of this thread. To expand on the concept of nurture, while sensory exposure in the early years allows those crucial senses to develop (and vice versa), it springs from one element of perceptual selectivity. I am constantly receiving sensory input from my body, but my brain has to work to determine what is relevant to my awareness. As such, even if we take in the same images, the same colours, textures, contrast, movement and so on as sensory input, an enormous deal of it may not make the VIP list into our consciousness (so to speak) and that selection process vary will in many ways, depending on genetic predisposition and environmental exposure.
Further, it pays to consider mental priming. If you, my closest friend and I are having a conversation together, I will likely be able to "read" her better. So, while we sense the same things in terms of wavelengths, light level etc., I will be more perceptually aware of her through experience, and thus will actually "see" more. In a different example, those being robbed at gunpoint typically give very poor descriptions of the suspect - often because all they were really looking at was the gun.
I believe that this trust you mentioned is our perpetually evolving schema of what it is to be a person. I can only see your world through my window of experience, and thus can only relate to you through my terms. Think of it like speaking two perceptual languages. How much gets lost in translation, then, is anyone's guess.
Jon Miner
Perhaps you can only understand another's 'inner world' or emotional world or conceptual world' based on your own experience, but there is an overlap of shared external reality as well as a collegial agreement about reality that mitigate or minimize our misunderstanding of reality in the larger context. There are innumerable "terms of agreement" that enable and encourage understating between people. For example Helen Keller would not have been able to understand our reality if it was not also her reality, regardless of perception.
Timothy James
When science has advanced to the point where we understand how the brain is constructed, we could theoretically modify some of the brain's circuits, thus solving this dilemma. The medium itself is completely different, but the actions performed would be similar to swapping out IC chips on a motherboard. If you can figure out which chips should be substituted where, it is possible that the motherboard would still function the same, even though the chips chosen might be completely different. Since the brain is more fault tolerant than a motherboard, you should also be able to swap in a set of circuits which are functionally similar, but ultimately different. After the brain has adapted to the new input and output created by the modified function, you might see things from a different perspective.
You could use this knowledge to change how a person's brain processes information, thereby bridging the understanding gap without subjecting a person to the events which created the circuitry in question. For example, you could make a petty thief decide on their own that stealing is wrong; just modify the circuits related to theft, and make them feel revulsion rather than enjoyment. However, abuse of such a technology carries equally weighty implications, which makes understanding the human brain a dangerous endeavor. If negative modifications could be easily scaled and propagated, the result might be worse than an atom bomb.
Eric Chen
We sense things only because a certain number of parameters exist in our bodies - our nervous system, more precisely - and the cells in this system react in generally the same way from human to human. Let's not forget that the DNA across humans is actually very similar. Furthermore it is actually very similar to the DNA of other organisms.
I would say that we do have the ability to perceive the world as another person does; for example, what if some day we could take a machine like an EEG and connect it between two people, causing the electrical impulses to travel between the two people. I am positive that this achievement would be extremely difficult, but I am not at all convinced that it is impossible.
Andrew Tam
I agree, I believe that in the future, it may totally be possible to know exactly how another person senses the world. You already listed a couple examples disproving the limits of knowledge, and here is yet another one: http://www.ted.com/talks/sheila_nirenberg_a_prosthetic_eye_to_treat_blindness.html
In this video, Sheila talks about the signals produced by the retina, and how new technology has been developed that actually mimics these signals and transmits them to the brain, so that people with deteriorating retinas can effectively see.
For the question at hand, this is very encouraging. While complex at its own level, the solution seems simple -- we just need to determine where in the brain our senses are and where our perceptions are formed, and how we can interact with these parts.
The dangers of this, as Timothy James has pointed out, however, are numerous. With the the power to change how someone perceives something comes a bunch of ethical responsibilities. Suppose someone didn't like eating their vegetables - all we would have to do is implement our findings and change their perception: vegetables taste good, not bad. Alright so maybe that wasn't so bad. But imagine the exploitation of such power in the military, that's where things can get scary.
In my opinion, I don't think this is a road we should travel. To be able to alter someone's perception like that seems inhumane. By doing so, we remove identity. People would not be themselves, but who we want them to be. While I believe it can be possible to see how another senses the world, I don't think we should go about finding out how because the results could be more harmful than beneficial.
Eric Chen
If used for the purposes of gaining information, then yes, I certainly agree that this technology is a bad idea. However, if used to achieve a greater sense of understanding between humans… well, that could be a very good thing. We have to consider which of the options outweighs the others, taking particular notice to whether the dangers justify the possible good.
Nicolette Sinensky 50+
i definitely agree with you that the knowledge to understand human perception is within our grasp given enough time. Sheila Nirenberg's talk about prosthetic eyes to repair retinas was mind blowing. It's incredible to imagine having the ability to recreate the complexity of visual perception.
While, yes, such science could lead to dangers, can't all realms of science? We can't hinder scientific progress and discovery because we're scared of how people might abuse it. There will always be those who try to exploit technology for their own personal gain, and it is up to us as a society to protect the purity of science and use it only for good.
Comment deleted
Maria Georgescu 50+
Matthew Wieder 50+
Andrew Petts
So having never found a case similar to mine on the internet, I'm drawn to the conclusion that I am very unique in the way my world is compared to yours, even if it's unique in a minor way. At the same time though, my mother having the same synaesthesia shows me that as unique as it is, her visual blue is probably the same as my visual blue based solely on the fact that her tasted blue is the same as mine.
Elizabeth Gu 30+
It may not be helpful at all, but for me, we can never know exactly how another person sense the world.
For example, remember when you first tasted Sushi?
When I first tasted it, it was just okay. But for my father, he said that it was really, really delicious.
As time went by, I've been getting familiar to the taste of sushi, and nowadays, when I eat sushi, I can really enjoy the taste of it.
The taste of sushi can vary depending on the people who taste it.
And the way you sense the world even can change as time goes by.
All we can do is just guessing people's mind according to scientific methods and experiments.
Let me give you another example for understanding.
When I see the green color of my album, I feel comfortable.
I sense the color as a humble and familiar thing.
But for my friend, she said that it looked ugly.
I think she senses it as a dull color as long as all she’s talking about exactly reflects her “sense”.
So, all I can do is just trying to feel the same way—which can also not be exactly same as her feelings.
Anyway, there’s no scientific proof for my opinion.
So, feel free to disagree with it and give me any suggestion so that I can learn more about this question.
Veronica Shalotenko 50+
I think that your example is actually an excellent addition to this conversation in the context of the previous comments. There are two different ways in which we can think about the senses (taste, for example) – the “scientific” and the “psychological.” From the scientific viewpoint, all human beings sense in “approximately” the same way. There is an excellent TED talk by Sheila Nirenberg dealing with the senses from the scientific standpoint (http://www.ted.com/talks/sheila_nirenberg_a_prosthetic_eye_to_treat_blindness.html). To the scientist, the senses are nothing more than sequences of code that are sent to the brain as electrical signals. When looking at the senses as mere decoding systems for electrical signals, it is plausible to assume that the senses are not too different from one person to the next. However, if we look at the senses from the psychological viewpoint (as you have done), senses change, not only from one person to the next, but also with time. The way that our brain interprets a “sense signal” is based on our history and experiences. For example, your opinion of sushi changed over the years, thus changing the way sushi tastes to you.
Elizabeth Gu 30+
Your comment is thought-provoking and very interesting!
But what if the reason why the taste of sushi can be different from person to person is because of some hereditary factors? Take my dad and brother, for example, they do not like pork(not hate but) since they say it tastes too greasy. They believe that it’s because of my granpa who also didn’t like pork. My dad thinks it must be genetic. If it’s true, then, we can’t be sure that it’s because of psychological or historical factors.
Since I’m not a scientist I’m not sure if I’m right, please correct me if I’m wrong about this.
I really want to learn more about this.
Best,
Elizabeth
Frans Kellner 100+
It is seen with chimps in the wild that the young eat what mother give them. The first taste of any leaf or fruit is tasty as it comes from the mother. When not it taste nasty. So it happens that among groups there exist cultural differences. Apes from one group that eat a kind of leaf that another group never will touch. With human beings it isn't much different.
Impressions also are associated with emotions. A bad emotion provoked with an event associated to a color, word or taste can be revived any time the same color and the like appear.
It is natural to return to the trees with the delicious fruit and to avoid the snakebite by following our emotional memory.
Veronica Shalotenko 50+
I'm also not much of an expert when it comes to the senses. However, at first glance, it seems that what you're referring to as a hereditary sense could be grouped together with what I referred to as the psychological. Perhaps, if a person grows up hearing that a certain food is not tasty, he or she will develop a subconscious prejudice against that food. Then, his or her brain might interpret the taste of that food as unpleasant - not because of genetics, but because of memories and experiences.
David Hawthorne
Benjamin Trnka
What I mean to say is that it isn't important if my shade of indigo looks the same as your shade of indigo - what is important, however, is that we both sense the same difference between indigo and blue, which is a product of the physical nature of those colors.
Additionally, we may not even call two colors the same way, or we may split them up into different categories. Some cultures have only three commonly used color words in their language, whereas some have additional words for certain shades of colors. Even though one may be more sensitive to these difference in experiments, it has been shown empirically that all people are still able to tell the differences between two colors.
Finally, I'd like to point out that there are many similarities between the mapping of outside sensory stimuli on regions of the brain across individuals. However, the brain exhibits a lot of plasticity, and many differences between people, so certainly there should exist variability among individuals. Until the regions directly implicated with perception are identified and studied, we may not know if these physical differences actually result in different perception.
My point still remains, however: It is not the perception of point A and of point B that is the same between people; rather, it is the difference between point A and point B that we are all able to perceive similarly. Thus, it doesn't matter if we all see all colors differently because we still have the same perception of them relative to one another!
Perhaps this logic can be extrapolated to all sensory systems.
Any thoughts?
I'm anticipating that color-blindness may be a counter-argument to my claim, but I don't know enough about its neurological basis to comment on it at the moment.
Sophie Rand 50+
great comments so far..
One thing I have noticed throughout the conversation is that some people comment on the interpretation of sensory perception, while others are commenting on strict perception-- that is, how we see brightness or color, not how we interpret color. I replied to some people who responded in the vein of the former, saying that it is easy to argue that interpretation of sensory perceptions are different between two people, but that we are trying to talk about something more difficult to ascertain-- sensory perception itself and how that might be different. It's a nuanced thing, but it helps to think of it on a time scale-- FIRST we perceive a stimuli (usually filter it with our sensory organs and the brain puts together the perception), and only THEN does our brain take the time to 'think'-- that is, to interpret what it saw, to form an opinion, etc.
I'd like to draw everyone's attention to a comment made by Marina Najdoska. Marina highlights an interesting point, which is that maybe there is memory in sensory perception. This leads to another question: if I have seen the same exact blue over and over again,and you have seen it just now for the first time, which our perceptions be different because I've seen it before. Likely our conscious or subconscious mind is at work to help us form an interpretation of the stimuli, but will we literally see the stimuli differently if we've seen it before?
Consider neural adaptation, when our senses respond differently over time to a stimulus that is constant. This is similar except rather than the stimuli being constant, the stimuli has popped up in our lifetime numerous times
Ashok Vuppala
Why is it important to answer this question?
Bernd Fesel 30+
Image we all could sense the same blue - and everybody knows from the other that he senses the same blue. Where is the thrill of communication?
Communication is about narrowing the gap of the different - just a love is not about finding the same or a second me, but a different which is affect to me.
So let us enjoy the differences of perception to learn about realiy and its many dimension and sides. a puzzle.
The only thing missing now is safety and security that understanding is possible. .... this feels not so good, but historically we must admit that despite constant misunderstanding ( be it on society level (war) and or personal level (divorce) ) mankind still progresses... a least that is my reality.... smile.
Sophie Rand 50+
great comment. if you're interested, read the rest of the conversation and you'll read about similar ideas about language and communication, its limitations, and the answer to a question someone asked to the effect of 'why am i asking this question?'
the answer was essentially the last thing you said-- that humans are essentially lonely beings, which makes connecting to other people so vital, which is why we are interested in confirming our life experience by understanding how others experience it
Bernd Fesel 30+
If I reflect on how we connect I was brought up and raised in school & university with the idea that connecting & communication is verbal & is about exchange of knowledge and information. Now after 30 years in profession and experience I believe it is most of all non-verbal communication we connect by.
In my professional field of urban change I experience that art and culture are sometimes even transmitters and mediators which are absolutely necessary for urban progress -since verbal and non-verbal communication often breaks down between the special interests groups in cities. often verbal communication is an endless loop of mis-perceptions and prejuidices within the city - the outsider view of an artist is the distraction out of the vicious cycle - or into new options to act.
I wonder if you have similar experiences in our association on art & science?
Eunhee Kim
Kathy Castle
Dialogic communication, or dialogue, is the process by which individuals come together to create new meaning. In other words, each communicator comes into the interaction with their own percpetions grounded in their own experiences and positionality within the social context in which they exist. Their social positioning impacts the way they perceive the world, and this impacts their approach to communicative interactions. In other words, their perspective is uniquely shaped by their identities and how those identities are perceived within a specific historical and social context. All of this shapes the way they perceive the world.
Contrary to popular ideas about communication, rather than seeking to impose a particular perspective, dialogue would prescribe that individuals seek to not only understand one another's perspective, but then be open to how all perspectives involved in the exchange will influence the meaning that emerges between the communicators. We are not attempting to compete with one another to have our perceptions of the world accepted as preferable...we are simply attempting to share our perceptions and remain open to others so we can negotiate a sense of shared perception that emerges from our communication about individual perception.
It's discussions like these that remind us of what communication is really supposed to be about--opening us up the the world around us rather than imposing our perspective on the world around us.
I offer a more in depth example of what I mean in my blog: http://kathy-momphd.blogspot.com/2011/10/our-responsibility.html
Sophie Rand 50+
what do we think of that, people of the TED world?
Kathy Castle
As you mention, each communicator will impact the other, and often social positioning and varying degrees of power within the interaction can lead to an unequal influence. This is precisely why we have an obligation to better understand and embrace dialogue as we interact with others. We have this responsibility to ourselves, to others and to the world that we co-create in our communicative processes. As we strive to understand our world, we communicate with others, some of whom share similar and others who share completely different perceptions, but all are unique--and all should be regarded as being of equal value. For me, that's one of the most beautiful aspects of our humanity--when we engage it and embrace it.
natasha nikulina 50+
One should cease to be 'me' and stop viewing somebody as 'other'.
I think, it is not intellectual, but spiritual endeavour.
Sophie Rand 50+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
As to what people are perceiving. Suggest we have a general idea if we share the same senses, similar biology, same physical stimulai - light sound touch etc and similar reference points. Suggest twins might have the closest mutual understanding.
If we see the same picture we may perceive it somewhat differently but there is usually a lot of commonality if people described the scene.
Even someone saying a sentence or humming a tune -we can repeat it back. It might be perceived somewhat differently in each others heads, but for practical purposes there is enough repeat ability in the experience and interpretation and shared symbolism or language to interact in a meaningful way and receive feedback that usually indicates we understand to some extent. We can agree what is blue even if it is perceived differently. In fact language is probably a bigger factor than any difference in perception. In Russian there are two distinct words for lighter or darker blues. When they get close one person might say the darker blue the other the lighter.
Suggest it gets a bit harder when some senses are lacking, and others perhaps others develop to compensate. The world probably seems very different to a blind person.
Recall reading about sensory maps. Obviously most humans have a weight to the visual sense. I guess the world is perceived very different by dogs with a greater sense and weighting towards smell.
Bernd Fesel 30+
reality - if it ever is a same "blue" - is for sure never a stable perception; it is moving - every instance - by all the weighted senses and of course in aging also, since even in an individual person the senses will weigh different with 50 than with 25....
If you think about it:
the strange thing is that communication still works at all - given the diversity and problems of a reality concept....
Harnsowl Ko 50+
Diego Lugo
Asha Singh
joan fuster
Moreover than the "physical" differences in one of each sense, we must to include the difference "mental" interpretations from our physical senses report us. If we mix that it´s impossible that two different people have exactly the same perception from same situation.
Phillip McKay
Sophie Rand 50+