Mark A. Freeze wrote:
I have no scientific basis for my thoughts on this matter, however, my opinion is this: Being punched in the eye and seeing color is entirely different than recognizing that the can of Coke on my desk is of a red color.
I think what is meant is that you call it "red" because everyone around you calls it "red". On the subject in red in particular, there are two different variants of a gene that plays a role in the construction of red reciptors in the retina. It's attached to the X chromosome, so men have one and women have two. The cells assembled from the two variants have two slightly different sensitivities. Men either get one or the other, while women might get one or the other or a combination of both (which has a slightly different response curve again). But (and this relates to what Mark was saying), it doesn't make the slightest difference that people are generally divided into three groups who would perceive a given shade of red (all else being equal) as different - not without conducting experiments in getting people to match colour samples, or retinal transplants.
I think that in this case everyone may be right. That some color is waveform, some is imagined, and some are derived from visual trickery like the spinning wheel effect.
And who said any different? Morgan L. Owens "If you could see what I have seen with your eyes."