Okay, /b/
I have had this idea for a while now that everyone sees colors differently than each other. It's a little confusing to understand at first but once you really think about it, you will begin to understand what I'm trying to say. It's a bit difficult for even myself to explain it but I will try my best and hopefully you guys get what I mean.
So the idea goes that everyone's brain (I'm not a brain expert) receives the information from the eyes differently, so what may be RED to me can be BLUE to you. However, as we are raised and taught what colors are, we are told that a singular object is a certain color (such as a fire truck being RED). So what may be one color to me may be a different color to you, but we are told that it is the same, therefore we accept that we are seeing the same thing. But, we really do not know what the other person is actually seeing since our brains might not process the color the same way. For example, in my head I may be thinking that I'm seeing the fire truck as RED (your red), but I am actually seeing BLUE (your blue). My RED can be different from your RED, but we will think it's the same because we've seen it our whole lives and believed that it is RED. We believe that we are seeing the same color because we have Always thought that That color is the same due to being taught so.
So let's say you and I (as kids who are unaware of the names we have for colors) are looking at an orange. I'm seeing BLUE but am told it's ORANGE. You see ORANGE and are also taught that it's ORANGE. How would we know the difference? I know what I'm seeing and you know what you're seeing, so we will call this color that we're seeing "ORANGE" for as long as we live but we still wouldn't know that we are seeing a different color. So in the future when we see an "ORANGE" car, we will both say that it's ORANGE but I'm still seeing BLUE and you're still seeing ORANGE. We're agreeing without really knowing.
cont.
I have probably confused some of you with some of my repetition and use of different colors in different examples, but please understand that this is hard for me to put into words. So, in a nutshell, I see BLUE, you see ORANGE but we’re both taught that it is Orange. When we see the same color that we were taught is Orange, we will both agree that it is Orange because that’s the name that was given to the color we saw on the day we were taught. We, however, are unaware that the other is seeing a different color because we’ve always agreed that it’s the same. And there is no way to explain what a color looks or feels like because we’ll just attribute whatever we’re taught it looks or feels like to that color we see forever.
One last example, I see BLUE but call it RED. RED is usually attributed to being warm or having to do with anger. When I see my RED (which is actually blue) I’m gonna have the same explanation for it as a person who actually sees RED does. So we’re gonna agree that it is the same when really it’s not.
Sorry for how long and confusing this is but this idea is something I’ve had in my head for a long time and have wanted others to understand it the way I do. Do you guys agree? Can this be disproved? If so, please do so.
Bump for interest
Bumping
Thought about it too
>>677064445
Holy shit OP. I had this exact same thought when I was 5. I'm not even kidding.
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=719
Holy shit, I just got mindfucked.
Lucky for you, you are not the first person to think of this. And yes, it has been proven.
Also proven is the ability to train distinction between similar shades, eg some tribes in Africa can distinguish between tan and beige easier than blue and green, whereas westerners are the opposite.
>>677064445
>>677064488
You're making this more complicated than need be, anon.
>everyone sees colors differently than each other.
That may be so, but we've qualified colours scientifically as particular wavelengths.
A firetruck is RED, and will give off the wavelength of about 700nm.
A blade of leaf is GREEN in the spring, and will give off the wavelength of about 500nm.
The sky is BLUE, and will give off the wavelength of about 450nm.
So even if OP sees BLUE (450nm) but is taught that it's called "Red", then either he'll get called out for it, because when other people see BLUE (450nm) they call it "Blue", or everyone else calls BLUE (450nm) "Red" as well, because that's what they were taught.
Yes, this can be disproven, I just disproved it.
>>677067005
I don't know,>>677066046
Sounds like it proves it is possible.
>>677067418
They didn't prove it was possible, they just proved that people interpret colours differently. However, they're all SEEING the same colours. Their retinas are all picking up the SAME wavelengths. How our brains interpret it could be totally different.
If OP saw BLUE (450nm) but called it "Green", then everyone else would say, "OP, are you colourblind? That is clearly green."
OP would quickly learn that even though he cannot differentiate the difference between BLUE (450nm) and GREEN (500nm), others can differentiate the two colours. It's a matter of whether or not we all interpret it the same way or not. We can all have different interpretation, but there's no way that two people can look at a RED firetruck, and one person identifies it as GREEN, and the other as BLUE. The two people might be completely colourblind, but they're still SEEING the same thing.
In OP's posts, OP is making it out as if two people could say, "That firetruck is RED", but person 1 means 450nm and person 2 means 500nm.
There's a difference between interpreting colours and knowing what they're called, and physically seeing them with your eyes.
>>677068035
I fucked up, I NOT mean
>"OP, are you colourblind? That is clearly green."
I meant
>"OP, are you colourblind? That is clearly BLUE."
>..clearly BLUE."
>>677068035
Ok, so please teach me more because I don't know much. I'm just an idiot with a question. Please bare with me.
So if two people both see 450nm, (BLUE according to you) is there a chance that one can interpret it differently and see it as a different color?
>>677068035
>>677067005
this.
A colour of an object is its physical property, the name of an object is an unimportant semantic detail. You can name the colours whatever you like, but RED is just that, RED, the same way COLD is COLD and VACUUM is VACUUM. You may call RED - DOG, COLD - PUSSY, VACUUM - YO MOMMA, but that still wouldn't stop yo momma from getting her pussy eaten by a dog.
ITT
You have reasonable suspicions OP. Special for you:
https://youtu.be/evQsOFQju08
>>677064445
dude thats fucking crazy I've been having the same idea for ages, but I didnt ever tell anybody.
I know exactly what you mean.
>>677068633
>bare
>please bare with me
>So if two people both see 450nm, (BLUE according to you) is there a chance that one can interpret it differently and see it as a different color?
Yes. Do drugs enough and you'll probably start to visually see sounds, feelings and thoughts. You may interpret everything as color.
Further reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_color
>>677068658
so much gay in that video...
>>677068739
>>677065918
ITT positive moronism encouragement.
Ancient Greeks didn't have a word for the colour blue. Perhaps they hadn't evolved enough to see the colour blue. Perhaps they didn't need to have a word for it. Perhaps they were too busy sucking cock to care.
>>677068818
only to you.
>>677068641
/thread
>>677068990
blue is overrated as fuck. I wish we too didn't have a word for blue.
>>677068641
>A colour of an object is its physical property
In fact colors didn't exist in objective universe. They exist only in humans brains.
>>677068658
Well this pretty much answered it for me, thanks anon
>>677068633
>450nm (BLUE according to you)
BLUE according to all the empirical tools we use to measure the colour.
ANYWAY
> if two people both see 450nm
>is there a chance that one can interpret it differently
Yes, if Jack goes up the hill and stares at the sky, he'll either say, "Hey, the sky is so blue today!" or, "Hey, the sky is so green today!". The former if his parents taught him that everyone calls 450nm BLUE, or the latter if his parents taught him that everyone calls 450nm GREEN.
Jill was also on the hill, and looks at the sky when Jack makes a comment about its colour. She will either say, "Yeah, it sure is!", or "Jack you dipshit the sky isn't green, it's blue!"
The former if Jack called the sky (450nm) "blue", and the latter if Jack called the sky (450nm) "green."
>see it as a different color?
No. At least, it hasn't been proven, and I don't think it will because it'd go against all logic. Jack might not be able to differentiate between GREEN (500nm) and BLUE (450nm), because he's colourblind. However, his teacher told him that one bucket of paint is GREEN and the other is BLUE. Even if he thinks they look the SAME, his RETINAS (the bits of our eyes that capture colour light) will still be hit with 450nm and 500nm. His brain just might not be able to differentiate the two, or his retinas might not be picking them up.
They won't see it as a different colour. They'll either be unable to distinguish colours, or they've been taught the wrong names for all the colours and no one's bothered to correct them. It's not possible that one is able to distinguish and differentiate all the "common" colours (ie Red, Yellow, Green, Blue, Brown, Black, Grey, White), and seeing them differently as other people.
>inb4 black, grey, and white are shades
What if, instead of thinking about how we interpret colours, we observe nature. i.e. those little fucking sandflies that swarm to bright colours like yellow. They probably don't have a name for it, but they all swarm towards it because it reflects a shitload of light.
Fuck! I tried explaining this to my wife and she looked at me like I was fucking stupid!
>>677069729
Yes, I understand that colors are what they are. Some people are color blind and can't differentiate some colors due to their brains misinterpreting it. The eyes will see the actual color, but your brain may interpret it differently, right? (I hope I'm actually understanding what you mean)
But if one person who is Not color blind and a person who Is color blind are both taught what a color that they're both looking at is called at the same time, they both will call that color which their brains interpreted differently by what the person who taught them said it was forever. Whenever they see that color which they saw that day, they will say the name of it by what they were taught. They may be seeing different colors, but as long as they don't know that, they will both make themselves seem like they're seeing the same thing by using the same name of the color, right?
I'm sorry if I did miss what you meant. Like I said, I'm an idiot
>>677069055
erm, nope. The guy is literally gay.
>>677064445
This isn't unusual.
There are several people who could not differentiate green from purple. That's why in a lot of older poems you get "wine colored oceans". there wasn't a word for green or blue. A lot of Chinese people still have issues when you try and show them certain shades of blue and green.
There are actually people who can see more colors than others, referred to as Trichromats. They literally can differentiate between colors other people can't tell apart, like two shades of teal, certain violets and purples, and even shades of yellow.
>>677069438
Nope. It does exist. Physically, a "color" is the spectrum of radiation reflected and/or emitted by an object or a substance, by definition. In lab setting, e.g. you shine a spectrally flat (white) light on it, you set a bunch of detectors for different wavelengths (e.g. R/G/B matrix), you combine the results, you get the colors. You don't need a brain to distinguish colour - cameras & CV applications do that all of the time.
Source: not being a moron + MSc in Applied Physics.
>>677071483
>Trichromats
you mean *tetra*chromats? Trichromatism is present in >99% of the population , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichromacy
>>677064445
Looked this up before the I see blue as blue but to someone else who grew up seeing blue as your red. It's debunked since specific receptors pic up color and the reason we see green in a plant for example is becuase it's has all the colors that reflect off the Suns rays but an absence of green therefore we see green. It's real complicated. Tl;dr we have specific receptors that pick up the certain color
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-blue-and-how-do-we-see-color-2015-2?IR=T
It's quite simple, you perceive colors as you are taught basically. Which means - yes, someone in your family sees the same colors. Might be slightly different to someone in another city though, same as language slightly varies.
Want to be mindfucked? Colors are just a construct of the conscience to translate data into a percevable form, means that essentially it's anyway just bongo bongo in your brain that tries to make some sense out of the world
>>677071177
>The eyes will see the actual color, but your brain may interpret it differently, right?
Yes
>But if Jack was colour blind and Jill not was colour blind, and they were both taught at the same time that the colour they were looking at, 450nm, is called BLUE, they will both call 450 blue, even if Jack cannot differentiate 450nm from 500nm. Whenever they see 450nm, they will both call it BLUE. Jack might see 500nm one day, but since he can't tell the difference between 450nm and 500nm anyway, he'll still call it BLUE.
Yes.
However, with this logic, Jack will very quickly realize that 450nm and 500nm are different colours with different names, even if HE himself cannot tell them apart.
Say Jack and Jill go up a hill where Mother is teaching them colours.
Mother points to the sky (450nm) and calls it BLUE.
And they both associate the name BLUE with 450nm.
Mother points to the grass (500nm) and calls it GREEN.
Jack will immediately be confused, because to him, Mother LITERALLY just said the sky (450nm) was called "BLUE", but then is now calling the grass (500nm) "GREEN." To Jack, the sky and the grass are the same colours, and he cannot tell the colours apart (maybe he can tell one's darker and one's lighter, but that's it, just like how one can tell the difference between a lighter grey and a darker grey). Jack will quickly realize that he is colourblind, and his brain (or retinas) cannot interpret colours properly and cannot differentiate between 450nm and 500nm.
Some people might see 450nm as "Sky Blue" while another might see 450nm as "Baby Blue", but they both see that it's BLUE and not RED. So there will definitely be variance, but if we were taught the generally accepted names for each individual colour, we won't see two completely different different colours (like yellow and purple) and go "it's GREEN".
You need to relax anon
>>677064445
Your reality exists mostly in your own brain. All your senses are just raw inputs collected and simulated your brain. This is referred to as qualia.
It can go even farther to people seeing colors that don't exist for you. Or one person experiences taste how another person hears sounds. Even farther down the rabbit hole they experience stimuli in ways you have never and will never experience it.
It really doesn't matter though because we can't share that information, so we will never know. It's also unlikely to be true.
>>677072506
Yeah, sorry. I just don't know enough, I guess. But another question, if you don't mind. Can some people misinterpret two completely different colors (like Blue and Orange)? Because you guys have already told me about colors that people usually mistaken, but what about two colors that may be unusual for one to mistaken?
>>677073512
It's quite unlikely. Most colorblindness types are commonly red-green and blue-yellow.
Unless you have a rare condition where you can't actually see any color, you can tell blue from red.
Blue has the shortest wavelength and red has the largest wavelength.
http://www.somersault1824.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/color-blindness-palette-e1423327633855.png
The most common colorblindness is difficulty telling red and green apart. To simulate this to people who see color they both look yellow. Yellow can be created without a true yellow wavelength of light, if you receive some red and some green information. The yellow light from your monitor does not have a yellow wavelength, the R and G subpixels are lit and B subpixel is blocked.
Most colorblind modes for games use red and blue. There are some types of colorblindness that make red difficult to see though such as Protanopia. That means they have no red cones and red looks black. In those cases the best contrast is to use Blue and yellow.
>>677073512
>Can some people misinterpret two completely different colors (like Blue and Orange)?
Is it possible? Yeah. Just like how someone who's really shit at singing can't tell the difference between say, a low E and a high B sharp.
Is it likely? No, because Blue is 450nm and Orange is 600nm. Their retinas could suck and might not be sensitive to 50nm differences, like blue and green, but if they couldn't tell blue and orange apart, they probably only see shades (total colour blindness, monochromacy), like black and grey and white, because not being sensitive to 150nm difference means their retinas are not normal at all.
If both blue and orange are affected in colour blindness, it's very probably that they can tell them apart, but mistake them for OTHER colours.
I don't think there's been a case of someone misinterpreting blue for orange and vice versa, but what the hell do I know, I study mental health and biology, I don't specialize in optics.
You are not the first one thinking about this useless topic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
>>677074879
You aren't either.
See >>677072518
paintings, art, etc wouldnt make sense
im sure colour is a vibration of light? if so its fixed, and any reciever (eye) picks it up the same
this has been going on for years, why not make it and meme?
>>677064445
>I see blue, but call it red
So if you see what color it is, why are you retarded? Thread is shit
Funnily enough I see most people's blues as purples a d vice versa my girlfriend hates it when I confuse her with it
>>677075798
No you see blue but say it's purple because you're retarded and your girlfriend should leave you
>>677071491
No shit idiot. Wavelenghts are different from perception of color. Theyre all dark which when protons bounce off off, do so differently and the brain interprets wavelength as color.
>>677068758
This and OP stop this moronic thinking
Ive pondered this back since 3rd grade or so and its been shown that while possible its unlikely amy normal functioning human would have this happen
>what are wavelengths?
>what are lightcolor-human emotive response tests?
Did PCP laced weed once and saw feelings and smelt colors and all kinds of quasi-meta anomolies and shit and logic went out the door for eons(minutes) but the universe is pretty objective.... Things have an order and stop looking for excuses to be a catalyst for chaos
>>677076361
>Protons bounce off
Nigger do you think light is a fucking particle accelerator?
>>677064445
Grue and Bleen
>>677064445
>>677066046
Besides some differences in photoreceptors, OP's point seems to be more about the qualia of color. This is entirely different from different people disagreeing about what to call colors, where exactly to draw distinctions between colors, color blindness, etc.
More explicitly, the question is about whether different people with normal eyes experience the same sensations of color when presented with the same physical stimulus. This comes down to how the brain interprets information to generate a sensorium. Indications are that the brain is built to find patterns in arbitrary nerve input and build cognitive maps to make sense of them. There have been experiments with plugging in cybernetics to give new senses, and it works once the brain has time to get used to the signal.
Regarding sight, the visual cortex comes with a bunch of circuitry for sight (humans have massive brain resources dedicated to sight compared to other animals, which lets us do things like see right through just about any camouflage easily). One thing it apparently lacks is a method for tying particular kinds of photoreceptor to a particular kind of output signal. How it works seems to be just a gigantic pattern matching system, where the brain tracks which photoreceptors signal together, and builds those patterns into a framework that is interpreted as different colors. In such a case, it's inevitable that different people would experience colors differently. However, relaying this experience to other people would require a much more advanced understanding of the brain and its workings than we currently have.
>>677064445
First of all, no. Colors are not abstract unicorn farts. They exist for very scientific reasons. If two normally functional humans see something, it will be the same color to both.
Second, congrats on getting to like 5th grade. Or high. Because that's when people think this.
Third, even if you were right it would be completely irrelevant. Nothing whatsoever would change. The only way it would matter in the slightest is if you could correct it. But see my first point. Color blindness is as close as it gets.
>>677077955
And even so? To what end would we need to do this we have a pretty good system of determining shared info and communicating it back without validation that its percieved exactly the same way? Its commonly called spirit
That extra sense of when you all know eachothers "Got It"
And if everythings subjective than why bother "trying to learn the truth" as we understand human brains thry can understand a lot less than the ffort required to do so or the human "heart"
>>677078275
> Colors are not abstract unicorn farts.
Yes they are you dumbass.
Colors don't exist. Wavelengths of light exist. Color is the interpretation of wavelength and is an imaginary personal experience.
>>677078649
See where that logic gets you then? Its the same catalystic behavior that got lucifer kicked out of paradiso ya fuckin mongoloid
>>677078275
>correct it
There isn't anything to correct. It's like the brain spins a color wheel and throws a dart to see what qualia it will assign to 500 nanometers, say. Everyone throws their own dart, and none is more correct than any other. Just probably different, but in a way that we can only speculate about at present.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-inverted/
>>677078958
Man you really belong on that tumblrina special snowflake genderfluid triggurrred site causw you have this obsession that quallia.must be real
If you insist okay, but see how you function living like that... I mean jesus, we keep telling you no thats not how it fucking works and if it is then.why ponder it but you have to go on
So fine
Go ahead
Become a Bum who cant function in normal society where all of us percieve along the same universal guidelines.just because colors got you scared and confused you infuriating twat
>>677064445
HEY! VSAUCE! Michael here...
VSauce also has the asnwer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evQsOFQju08
>>677079497
asnwer... ye sure... learn to type nigfag
>>677079452
>you have this obsession that quallia.must be real
As a subjective experience, of course they're real. Exactly as real as the sensation of hunger, pain, etc. Is your position that people do not have subjective awareness?
And neurologically, that does seem to be the way it works. There isn't any mechanism that would assign the same sensation of color to a particular wavelength.
It's hard to tell if you're just projecting or if the April Fools joke is getting to you, but kindly get it together.
>>677080251
A true king doesn't argue with pheasants.
>>677080251
>no mechanism
We dont even understand like 80% of the brains mechanisms?
>projecting
You lost nigga
Use of tgat term is subject to godwins law
Youre done
You lost
>>677064445
>>677064488
>>677065057
Damn the new layout is working, now we also have the pseudo intellectuals from reddit posting.
Is 4chan the new reddit? I think so
>>677064445
Had the same thought, its not true but i was thinking like how would we know if we did.
doesn't matter how you interpret colors. The basic fact that you are taught 'red' is how you interpret red is always going to mean red is red.
There may be (and can be) differences in interpretation, but the teaching process ensures that what you interpret as green is the same as what I interpret as green.
Meanwhile, how does a blind person know when they have finished wiping their ass?
>>677081317
they lick the paper to check if anything is on it.
>>677067005
The problem here is perception what if the way I visualise the hue of 500nm is different. I call 500nm green be use I've been pointed to a picture of 500nm and told it's green but is it the same as you see it?
>>677080788
Interesting factoid: Humans have nearly the sharpest eyes in the animal kingdom. Birds of prey have pretty good sight, but only the largest-eyed ones can resolve sharper images than a 20/20 human.
>>677080811
>We dont even understand like 80% of the brains mechanisms?
Even though the neurology of sight happens to be one of those things that's understood?
>>677064445
We don't know what colour we're looking at ourselves.
The "blue" tiles on the top face of the left cube are the same colour as the "yellow" on the top of right
Oh OP, this isn't even something new!
Obviously its possible as perception is subjective to the user and you can't probe other people's thoughts and see what they see. Its entirely possible that we are all colour blind and only see our version of stuff (it doesn't just rely on colour by the way). Certain parts of our eyes are actually proven to be different so its not only possible but also very likely that what we perceive is subjective to only ourselves.
>>677064445
When you consider color is determined by wavelength of light reflected this becomes pretty retarded.
Vsause covered this a long time ago
Copycat confirmed
>>677075963
Kek
>>677064445
Vauce's "Is my red the same as your red" and you'll have everything there. Peace !
It's called qualia, nigga
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
>>677064445
So one person may see this thread in the old non-cancerous colours?
>>677084444
The blue dress that faggots saw as gold
>>677064445
This is proven. We see the same shit.
Dont mess with sience
>>677078275
There are experiments for colour perception. Our perception of colour is tied very closely to the language we have for colours. In the experiment in question, there's an African tribe which has no separate word for the colour blue, but they have several dozen different words for different shades of green.
People from the tribe were shown several squares of the same colour, except one square was a different colour.
When they were shown green squares with a blue square, they took a long time to pick out the different colour, even getting it wrong quite often.
When they were shown green squares, with the different square being an almost identical shade of green, every single person in the tribe picked it out immediately.
>>677064445
I made a whip at work
>>677084993
But what about this>>677082633
We don't see the same colour the same in our own head never mind other people.
>>677064445
Besides color being something that can be objectively measured, meaning the wavelenghts. Certain colours also invoke reactions in the brain. For example red is used as warning colour, and you also have cold colours such as blue, and the warmer colours, going to red. These are used universally because they work for everyone. If someone would interpret these colours differently we would allready would have known.
>>677064445
i always thought so since i was about 4.
>>677068886
this
Is that you ANTHONY? We've had this conversation before!
>>677085233
Coulers are waves of light dipshit...
>>677085499
So what about that illusion? Why aren't you responding to that?
>>677085114
But then you are talking about how accurate someone can perceive colours, which doesn't neceserily says something about the color being perceived differently. You also have people who are trichromatic who can make much sharper distinctions between gradients of colour. Women also tend to make a better distinction between certain gradients, that doesn't mean they see blue as red.
>>677064445
congratulations you've realised something that I realised when I was 8 years old.
>>677085611
Gawd when u see trhu the tint diffrent wavelengths of light hit ur eye... its the same for every observer
>>677064445
I am colorblind, so I get the feel. I am almost 100% sure I see colors different than everyone else.
>>677085821
They're are the same colour, not the same colour with a different tint, exactly the same.
>>677082373
You never heard of a mantis shrimp.
>>677086002
Eigther u see thru a tinted glass or there is diffrent lighting in theroom -.-
>>677064445
All you need to know. While the landscapes are somewhat identical, you immediatly know the top one is warm, and the bottom one is cold. Meaning everyone interprets the warm and cold colours the same.
>>677064445
>>677064488
I've thought about this many times too, but you're describing it in a terrible way.
>I'm seeing BLUE but am told it's ORANGE. You see ORANGE and are also taught that it's ORANGE.
No, both of these people are seeing ORANGE, everything you see is subjective to you so whatever colour you see is that colour. They may be seeing different colours to each other but both are looking at the same colour, ORANGE.
Think of it this way, a blind guy can't see anything. Does that mean everything is one or none colour. No, they are still that colour, he just doesn't see it.
I had this idea when I was 5. No one gives one
>>677085114
It's more like our language and colour are derivatives of the same logical framework. It's a form of cognitive bias.
>>677086098
Sure I have. They probably have about the best color perception in the animal kingdom, but their sharpness sucks. Look up diffraction limit. The sharpness attainable by a lens is related to its size, and the optics of compound eyes are very small.
Op listen. I thought about this too but see: this is inpossible because every colour you see has a certain speed in wich the light wave travel aoround. Those are just some colours that we can se and there are many more that we didnt name after colours because we dont see them as colors such ar infrared or gammarays (doesnt sound like a beautiful colour does it?). But when it comes to the colours we see theyre always the same. My red is your red because our brain processes the wavespeeds and those are always the same. Sorry to destroy your ideas
>>677064445
This is so fucking stupid, what the fuck.
Put three colours in front of three different people and ask all of them to pick green. I guarantee you they will all pick the same colour.
If you disagree due to the sample, use a hundred people, and they will all pick the same colour.
>>677064488
I always thought how nice it is , then it becomes abandoned on Furry . Only at this point is taken and then look closer to the corral where the man says that hell is not a place to stay and thought it was a joke when Tom said the Juke is so good . revolver occupied revolves around the sun. I tried with a friend once, but all he got was the scourge of the old store. I do not think all that well if you think about when you're his brother . but hell, that everything can be when forced to Friday. Everything in the book is read once and made a video channel on youtube that thinks it's a good idea to fool and his gloopy . that part of the climb back down.
>>677088366
That isn't what he was saying. He was saying that we might see green differently in our minds. Green is still green but I might interpret it different in my brain. This to some degree would explain why some people like certain colour schemes while someone else might hate it.
