Because according to you, color is not something that exists in the world. So why should filtering out some of the wavelengths of light that hit his eyes cause any particular experience in his brain?
The brain is getting a different neural signal from the eye. Therefore it is making a different experience.
The person has all the mechanisms in the brain to create red. But they never got the proper signal from the eye to cause the brain to create red.
They are experiencing red for the first time. That makes grown men cry.
No, you are still confused. The person has the necessary cone cells in his retina to see red (or "create red" as you would confuse it). He has seen red before, and his brain is perfectly capable of experiencing red. The problem with that type of color blindness is that the two types of cones that are sensitive to red and green wavelengths are closer than normal to each other: hence they have a harder time distinguishing these two colors than the average person. But not impossible.
A person crying is not evidence that he is experiencing something new. I can show you videos of people speaking in tongues or doing other emotional shit because they think they are being touched by God, but it's not proof that God exists.
The glasses change the neural signal the brain is getting from the eye.
And when the brain gets a different signal it creates a different experience. Color is not the signal. It is not the stimulus on the eye. It is the experience.
The glasses change the color of light that passes through them, and consequently hit the person's eyes. And that's where the signal comes from: different color causes the cone cells in the retina to fire differently, which results in different signal being sent to the brain, which results in a different experience. The signal is not the color, but color information is encoded in the signal. How the brain experiences this is up to the brain, but that's not the color either. It's just an experience of the color.
Our experience of shape is an experience. But it is an experience of something in the world.
Just like color. But the experience of color is not the color itself, just like experience of shape is not the shape.
Absolutely not.
The shape can be tested.
Color can be tested too. Any digital camera can do it. With specialized detectors you can even get more color information out of the light than a human eye. Some animals (and very rarely some humans) have four kinds of cones in their eyes, and they can see more colors than you or I. But with technological aides I can objectively and reliably detect and measure exactly the same color information without having to resort to subjective experience.
If you bump into the object but don't want to you are not experiencing the shape correctly. The object is there.
If you fall over the cliff you did not see the shape of the cliff correctly.
The animals that don't make a good representation of shape will not survive as well as the animals that do. The experience of shape is self correcting. It gets better and better because the better you approximate shape in your experience the better you survive.
There is no way for an animal to approximate the proper color. There is no such thing as the proper color. Color is arbitrary.
In terms of mammals and apes like humans it is good for survival if the skins of fruit are vivid colors like red or yellow. Therefore the animals who by chance makes yellow out of the light reflected off bananas will survive better than the animals that makes grey out of that light.
So you agree with me: there is objective information in light reflected from bananas that our eyes can detect. This information is called "color".
Just like color. Traffic lights would not be very effective if people could interpret "red" and "green" in ways not corresponding to the actual color of the light.
That just shows that the same species makes the same experience of color when exposed to the same colorless energy.
The fact that humans share the same experience of color is due to their genetic proximity.
It is not evidence in any way that color is out there. What is out there is energy that has no color.
You can play these word games with shape of weight as well. We have "the same experience of shape" when exposed to the same shapeless objects. Or that our brains "create weight" when exposed to the same weightless masses. But that's just semantic gobbledygook. You might as well say that the things have shapes and weights. And color.
Color is not a property of the objects that reflect color, it's a property of light.
Anthropocentric nonsense.
"Light" is simply the small part of the spectrum that excites the human eye. "Light" is an anthropocentric concept based on human experience with energy.
You think that the arbitrary manner in which humans experience energy is some universal. That is anthropocentric nonsense.
There is no way for a brain to know which color it is supposed to present to consciousness based on the frequency of energy. The colors created are the colors that helped with survival the best. They have nothing to do with the world and everything to do with evolving organisms trying to survive.
There is nothing in my definition of color that is human-centric: color is a distribution of wavelengths of light. Only thing that you could argue about there is that "light" seems to imply a particular band of electromagnetic spectrum, but you might as well extend it to infrared and ultraviolet, or the entire spectrum if you will. But we are talking about bands that living organisms are able to sense through their eye-like organs, which typically rules out radio and X-rays.
The colors that we can see are only a subset. A tetrachromat can distinguish colors that look the same to us regular folks, just like we can distinguish mixtures of red and green that look the same to a color blind person. But an inability to see a color doesn't mean the color doesn't exist.
