How to visualize red and green all over

[@KaneB]

My video on possibilism, where I mentioned visualizing red & green all over: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y3Kvpnubg8Z1laM

[@rebeccar25]

You have dressed for the occasion!

[@KaneB]

I'm glad you noticed!

[@TheKingWhoWins]

Proper Gent I say 🎩

[@_LadyReya_]

As someone who deals with color theory all the time, I love this! This is a topic I deal with quite frequently and you are absolutely right because this really depends on you in all circumstances. it could be connected to how the brain processes the various hues of a daylight sky: Your visual system is looking at this thing, and you're trying to discount the chromatic bias of the daylight axis and you can play how you perceive an object based on wich side you discount. As an artist I often paint objects that are white as blue, if the background asks the viewer to discount the blue side, red (or pink) if the background asks the viewer to discount the red side, and yellow if the background asks the viewer to discount yellow side. But you could also be talking about processing translucency were instead of your brain seeing something like a person blushing as a shade of pink attempt to conceptualize them as both a browny-beige and red. We could also be talking a holographic color effect, were the light is being filtered, and different wavelengths are shown depending on the angle the light hits the surface same way (a prism works) and you can look at the object and see one color, but when you or the object moves, a new color is shown. TLDR: It is 3am where I live, I probably sound a little crazy (may even be wrong in some places), and you have made a very tired artist very happy.

[@babysharkdoodoodoo454]

And... a red and green outfit. Nice.

[@BraydenMallory-t9g]

Last minute blew my mind. The reference ive been using the whole exercise. I was already doing it. Great video

[@ratbullkan]

This is most interesting! I thought only people with dyschromatopsia actually experience this red-green doublecolor which is both at the same time. It never occured to me anyone could achieve this in his/her imagination. It would be interesting to know from an informatic perspective if in consciousness there's a raw color mush signal which has to be refined or separated into the specific colors or if it's the other way around, so as it would require an extra operation to mingle specific colors.

[@QuiVeutUneMerguez]

I know it was originally just an off-hand comment but this was so puzzling. Thanks for actually making this video. I have aphantasia (though I often merely say I think I do - because the skeptical part of my brain doesn't shut up) and it's endlessly fascinating to hear people with varying capacities for visual imagery describe this experience, it really doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Especially the wishy-washy way you talk about it here (how you think it's possible you're actually deceiving yourself, or that you can hold imagery in a sort of ghostly internal space). I don't understand if it's a vivid experience or if you're actually just thinking really hard lol

[@Altitudes]

I have aphantasia so after trying to visualise how to boost the algorithm I just made a comment.

[@danwylie-sears1134]

Another way of having incoherent visual information is what you do with those reverse-color images. A common one is a pattern of a US flag with green where the red would be, black where the white would be, and yellow where the blue would be. The idea is to stare at it for a while and then look at a white surface; the result is that you see an after-image in the regular colors. If, having gotten used to looking at afterimages on white backgrounds, you do just the first step, but pay attention to the results of the eye-fatigue the way you've gotten used to seeing them, you can see two opposite colors in the same place at the same time.

[@FreeWill_is_unintelligible]

After years of phenomenological practice… yes, it is possible to do that. It’s just incredibly hard!

[@angrymurloc7626]

In that original video I tried and immediately made it work. Have not watched this video yet, but the way I did it was change my viewing angle in the mental model so it was apparent the redness of my imagined ball was just a quirk of perception, and then it went green which was also just some subjective vision, and my mind concluded it must be red and green with my eyes incapable of directly observing it. Like a steel rod being continually and randomly heated outside of your control

[@momentum9489]

Just woke up & am very sleepy. I tried that dot optical illusion trick while I was half asleep and… I actually visualised red & green all over.

[@kattenelvis1778]

I have hyperphantasia so this is really easy, don't think I've ever had to practice mental imagery. Good video though!

[@Altitudes]

Red and green all over looks like the inside of my eyelids. Same as everything else I visualise.

[@papayathief2629]

I am able to visualize objects of novel colors by imagining a gradient from red to green, then extending that gradient mentally to get a color different from green in the same way green is different from red

[@KaneB]

Interesting. I'll have to play around with that. When I try to extend the gradient, I just get yellow. I guess I should be extending the gradient "in a different way", but I'm not sure what that means for colours.

[@Moley1Moleo]

I have experienced a 'migraine aura' once, which was a strange clash of visual experience. I percieved it as a zig-zag of an impsosible colour. I'd say it was certainly dull, like a grey. However, it was also certainly vivid, like a purple-rainbow that was all colours. These are contradictory, and the result of some sort of misfiring in my brain, but it shows that these mental states are not impossible. So, it is plausible that one could imagine themselves into a similar state.

[@inoculatedcity]

super fun video! I’ll try this!

[@InventiveHarvest]

What? A blue circle in the red triangle factory?

[@M0ONCommander]

"goes in the square hole"

[@WillyWanka456]

guess we're doing blue circles now

[@darabunbeans]

People have always claimed to me that it's impossible to taste in dreams, but there's plenty of times where I've gone without a particular treat and missed it a lot, like saltwater taffy, only to have a dream where I eat saltwater taffy, and I have a distinct sensation of eating the particular flavors, black licorice, banana, peach, cotton candy, etc.

[@KaneB]

I've had vivid experiences of all the senses in dreams. I suspect that we could induce taste in the dreams of people who say that this is impossible by putting strong flavours on their tongues while they sleep.

[@mauvaisepoire]

at first I thought you were gonna suggest something like second-order visualisation ("visualise a white sheet of paper, now imagine that in this imagined scenario you visualise a blue patch or whatever overlapping with the sheet") and then argue that higher-order visualisation just collapses into first-order visualisation or something

[@theograice8080]

I see patterns at night when I go to sleep. Two recurring ones are: high-contrast black sparkles on black background, and red-green sheen in front of a purple background

[@jonasjensen9305]

Just look at a green object, but holding a red tinted piece of class over one eye.

[@quippits3201]

What makes it easier to imagine for me, is to imagine a translucent green object laid on top of a red object, or vice versa. In real life, the colors would combine in some way and produce only one color in the visual field. But for some reason, I can mentally picture a situation in which the colors don't combine, and instead I can see both green and blue at the same time.

[@KaneB]

That's an interesting way to do it!

[@luszczi]

I tried explaining why, despite my best efforts, I couldn't create a mental image of a double-color using your method, but my explanation turned into a hot mess. Basically, when I put a mental image over a percept (imagining an actually seen piece of paper blue) those colors don't mix, because I have two distinct mental objects: a percept (paper) and an imagined percept (the color blue). Pushing both of them "one step further into imagination" doesn't remove the fact that they are two distinct images, only obscures it - this time we are overlaying an imagined imagined (sic) percept onto an imagined percept. Are you visualizing more vividly or am I conceptualizing more clearly? Yeah. Those kind of conversations are pretty hopeless - are there genuine differences between us or are we talking past each other? I'm very skeptical if even concepts like "aphantasia" are well-defined, not to mention proven to exist. The psychometric tools used to study it make some very questionable assumptions about introspection (just read these questionnaires if you don't believe me). They may be internally reliable, but their external validity is definitely open to interpretation. Schwitzgebel shares my skepticism - it's a very unfashionable view now, but reasonable people can hold it. Seems like the more they mull over the problems of introspection, the more they are inclined to hold it. Also, try doing the eigenblau letters thing when you're wide awake. If you can't, maybe it's just hypnagogic imagery? So what you have then are hallucinated percepts, actually brought about by trying to imagine them. In that case, there is a clear boundary, you just don't notice that a percept follows an imagined percept, just like the experiment you mentioned, and the feeling of a lack of a clear boundary can be eliminated. Or maybe it's a spectrum, without a clear boundary. Still, that doesn't mean that different parts of the spectrum mix in the way you (seem to) conceptualize. I'll keep practicing though, it would be soooo cool if I experienced a qualitative shift in my mental imagery.

[@KaneB]

I'm not sure what an imagined imagined percept is. It seems like the visual image of the visual image of a blue square just is the visual image of a blue square. What could be going is that I'm conceiving of the visual image of a blue square, without actually having the visual image. But then I don't have two distinct images, since mere conceiving presumably doesn't involve imagery. As for the eigengrau letters, yes, I can do this while wide awake. If I close my eyes while sitting down, wide awake, and focus for a few minutes, I can impose letters on the visual field. But then it might be that these are hallucinated percepts in this case as well. Or it might be that I'm merely imagining the letters, and I'm mistaken about the contents of my visual field. I don't really have strong opinions about any of this; like you, I share Schwitzgebel's skepticism of introspection.

[@Tracequaza]

interesting, I think it's difficult for me because I don't have a good concept of what 2 colours simultaneously is meant to be, one option I thought of is like a holographic surface where at different angles of reflecting light it changes colour but besides that i'm not sure. I find myself to be a decent visualiser otherwise and I do agree about the practice part, especially before bed as that kind of activity can help me sleep and almost fall into a dream I suppose so I do that often before bed. What you said about practicing it also reminded me about some aspects of hearing perception that I had to train myself into but was hard to understand at first, mainly with tuning. When you're tuning an instrument you're listening for the combination of 2 waves to be as in sync as possible, and mathematically what's happening is you have the pitch you want to tune to, and the pitch you're playing, and if they're not perfectly overlapping or in a small integer ratio, there's going to be a phase made from the interference and basically an intermediary wave is created from the superposition; the closer they are in tune the longer this wave gets (ad infinitum), so what you're listening for is a "wah wah" beating effect that is basically the peaks and troughs of the superposition wave, and this is something that took me a really long time to actually hear but now that I know what to look for it feels like I unlocked a new ability almost

[@aYoutubeuserwhoisanonymous]

I love this, I have been wondering about training this skill systematically. Like I don't understand how I end up doing it while solving maths or physics problems, but it's mostly intuitive. My skill about the details in the imagery is a bit low although my visual memory is good.

[@anthonyspencer766]

I disagreed! Thanks for wearing two shirts that are not red and green composites ;). I completely agree with you that a lot of this hinges on the 'queerness' of our conceptions. They are kind of language-y and kind of picture-y. Do we actually visualize the tiger stripes? Or are we satisfied with a kind of understanding that the tiger has stripes - but this seems more like 'know-that' rather than resolving the images. The tiger image seems like it oscillates between being a picture and an idea in the understanding. Someone might ask, "Does your tiger have stripes?" You say, "Sure it has stripes!" Does it really, or do you just know that tigers have stripes? I enjoyed this discussion, though. Very interesting. I will continue trying to mess around with this exercise you described and see what I come up with. Cheers.

[@veganphilosopher1975]

I think we have a somewhat overlapping visual field for ideas and impressions. While you're overlapping red with green, would you notice if the red object did become tinged with the same shade of green?

[@KaneB]

Do you mean that when I'm looking at a red object, and imagining green in the same place, it might be that the red visual becomes green instead? If that's what you have in mind, then I'm pretty sure that doesn't usually happen. It would be more likely, I think, that I'm mistaken about my mental imagery - even though I take myself to be mentally imaging green, I'm failing to do so.

[@PeterBarnes2]

@@KaneB I think the question was to do with the real object changing, perhaps because of a change in lighting or emissive properties, in the real/external world. I remember reading in Descartes' Error that cortices in the brain do back-track in certain ways, particularly to affect recall; but it would be rather something to have those back-propagations make their way all the way to the retina. If, likely, not, then perhaps there's an intermediate place for visual perception to take, right as visual information makes it to the occipital lobe, perhaps to be initially "translated" or "normalized" in some mostly linear process, but specifically some process inherently outside of consciousness, but which nonetheless can be mapped into. Such a place could allow for intensive (in something like the sense of being intentional) hallucination, to the effect of positively perceiving the different color at the same place as some given color. While this is egregiously hypothetical neuropsychology, it's interesting that it would not necessarily negate the possibility of double-coloring: it would be more as if to see both the front and back of a paper with different illustrations on either side, but then supposing each image was very slightly bleeding through into the other in a uniform way. Basically to find chartreuse and orange when looking for green and red. Though, within the mind's eye alone, you can probably 'correct' and 'extrapolate' back to pure and unbled colors.

[@OHKV10]

I was quite interested in what you said about thinking you had aphantasia as I think I might have it. I can't quite find the right words to describe it, but I don't 'see' anything, in fact I kind of struggle to think where people 'see' their mental imagery (such as when at 5:24 you refer to this 'visual field'). I just can't see any colour, but I still understand what the colour is when I think about it! Did you have this and how did you get better at it?!

[@KaneB]

Here's what I wrote to a friend, very shortly after I had my first experience of what I'm confident was mental imagery: "so ever since having this discussion [about mental imagery] i've been thinking about what's happening in my mind when i imagine things. anyway i started to think about how i would describe films. because with many films, i'm impressed by aspects of the visuals -- say how the camera moves, or the lighting, or whatever. when i think about a film, what's happening in my head? then i thought about your description of viewing derek jarman's blue in a cinema. i thought, "what would it be like to watch blue in a cinema?" anyway, as soon as i had that thought, there was a flash of blueness except i didn't see anything blue. my visual field did not change at all. it was as if there was blueness somehow "behind" my visual field, like as if i had eyes in the back of my head. it was a deep, bright, vivid blue. i didn't see anything blue. i find this very weird because how can there be blue that is an unseen blue? that makes no sense lol. but i'm pretty sure it happened. it was actually somewhat startling. unfortunately, i can't get it to happen again. i'm thinking about the jarman film right now, and i'm not getting unseen blueness." These days, I can get "unseen blueness" pretty much whenever I want. I practiced it by closing my eyes, while switching between thinking about blue in the abstract and thinking about various vivid blue things. That would occasionally prompt a flash of mental blue. Doing it while in bed, drifting to sleep helps a lot, probably because this is a context where the visual experience shades into mental imagery. Beyond that, I don't have any suggestions I'm afraid.

[@juliohernandez3509]

Imagine a red circle in front of a green background. Now imagine a red square that fits perfectly inside the circle such that the four corners are touching the circle. Now take the parts of the circle that are not covered by the square and make them both red and green all over. You have just imagined an object that is both circular and square. The circular square or squarish circle is red and the background is green

[@KaneB]

All I get when I do this is a red square on a red & green circle. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the directions.

[@juliohernandez3509]

@@KaneB umm I think observation is theory laden. So your interpretation is as correct as mine. One could also view it as a red square next to 4 seperate shapes that are red and green all over. But my point is that a square circle would be a shape whose boundries would be those of a circle and a square simultaneously. The only way this makes sense to me is if a certain patch of colors has two separate limits simultenously. So in this case the boundary between what is red and green exists in two separate locations. Between the purely red square and everything else AND the red and green circle and everything else. Sorry for being a bother.

[@RossPfeiffer]

Counting the stripes is a good test

[@РоманКосицын-у4г]

I think a simpler and more robust way to experience what you are describing is to print two of the same shape (squares, circles etc.) on a sheet of paper such that one is green and the other is red, and then cross your eyes while looking at it so that (say) your left eye is looking at the red shape, while you right eye is looking at the green one. When I do it, I feel like the part of the figure I focus on has a definite color (red or green), but the fringes do not - they kind of flicker.

[@KaneB]

I've tried this kind of thing, but what I see when I do this is a surface that changes colour from red, to green, to grey, to an odd "reddish-green". But I never seen clear red, and clear green, simultaneously on the same surface. Perhaps this method will work for others, though.

[@perplexedon9834]

​@@KaneB How do you know that is not simply what it'd be like to look at such a surface? The relationship of colour to consciousness may be such that consciousness can only handle one colour at a given perceptual point, and so looking at a double colour object would see you experience it as arbitrarily shifting from one to another.

[@megg.3933]

My eyes my eyes!!!!!

[@gh0s1wav]

I definitely got a picture of the tiger in my head but then you asked how many stripes does it have lol. I dont know i just have a tiger in my head.

[@TheoEvian]

Instructions unclear, I visualised a square circle.

[@Polaris_Videos]

what's black and white and 'red' all over? a newspaper or a penguin in a blender

[@InventiveHarvest]

Stop

[@M0ONCommander]

oh, that's not-

[@poketoscoparentesesloparen7648]

If the blender is on then it's also red.

[@InventiveHarvest]

Technically, white light and black objects are red and green all over (blue too)

[@GottfriedLeibnizYT]

Instructions unclear. Mind stuck in the 73rd dimension.

[@aike3121]

When I try to imagine a double-colored object the image I get is something that I would see if i wore glasses with the other lense colored. The colors don't mix to make a new color but are just kind of transposed onto each other transparently. I'm not really able to fully focus on them both at the same time though. It's like one has to be dominant (I guess It's like in real life if I wore those glasses?)

[@italogiardina8183]

White is not a colour though the metaphor of rubber hitting the road is more about functional structuralism within a social system as when driving a car or if the car is automated then so long as the car functions within the rules it could be absent of qualia or have ' oscillating qualia' as in rapid oscillation so as the invisible spectrum of light as say 'radio waves' register as red and green to human perception but are actually neither or gamma rays as violet blue. The other feature is to do with colour science as capturing images in 8 bit with millions of parameters entails blue and violet are like in the same town but in 10 bit the colours seem like from different countries with a billion parameters and 12 bit with 68 billion parameters the colour distinction are like our sun's luminosity to a sun with a billions of luminous power than the sun.

[@mablak2039]

I still think this is illusory, our mental imaging is so blurry and vague that it's easy for us to imagine seeing something we're not. For example, couldn't we just be holding two different ideas in mind at the same time, a red surface and a green one, or even switching between them back and forth? I can look at an object and simultaneously think about what it would look like if it were a totally different color, but this to me is just splitting my focus between two separate images.

[@KaneB]

Could that be what I'm doing? Well, it doesn't seem that way to me. I can switch between visualizing a red surface and visualizing a green surface, and that seems very different that the visual image that I create when I take myself to be visualizing red and green simultaneously. But of course, I could be mistaken about all this. I'm not really sure where to go at this point, though. All I can do is explain how things seem to me, and suggest ways that others might be able to have the same experience. Ultimately though, I'm skeptical of everybody's judgments (even my own) about what mental imagery is like.

[@whycantiremainanonymous8091]

Look what you've done! I spilled my coffee, and now my white shirt is brown all over! Also, after watching another philosophy-themed YT video, I've become very good at visualizing five-sided triangles. That's really simple. I can even draw them on a piece of paper.

[@eliaperli2485]

I'm not sure we don't have any experience of something like that. If you put glasses of different colors on your eyes you see everything of those two different colors simultaneously. I think the best experience is when you keep the glasses for a while and take them off when your brain has adjusted. In this case the effect doesn't seem artificial at all. But maybe it's not what you're experiencing

[@yyzzyysszznn]

This disproves Wittgenstein☝️

[@benney9908]

this though that metnal visualisation is something that can be trained has been interesting to me for a while but i can't seem to get started. like, how do i practice when i'm stuck on visualising a line drawing or even just a dot. like the closest thing to mental visualisation i seem to be able to do as of right now is sort of drawing using the center of my vision as a brush more or les (not sure that's an understandable description)

[@wenaolong]

Of course you can. It would be brown. My icon is "all over" a combination of red and green, ergo it is "red and green" + "all over". But it is not in each part red and green "all over" per part. That's going to be brown if that were to happen, if these two colors were perfectly mixed. Red is distinct from green precisely as that primary color which is not a part of green. Essentially, brown is a mixture of all three primary colors, by mixing a secondary with a primary that is not included in that secondary. Indeed, green is just whatever is yellow and blue "all over" in this sense. Black is presumably every shade of color "all over" (due to light being absorbed completely) and white is every shade of color "all over" due to total reflection of them all from the surface. Or am I missing something here?

[@KaneB]

When people expressed surprise at my comment that I could mentally visualize a surface that is red and green all over, they probably weren't expressing surprise at the idea that a person could mentally visualize brown. The tricks I've described in this video probably aren't designed to help people mentally visualize brown. So yeah, the way that you've framed this is probably missing something. I agree that red is distinct from green. That's why it's interesting to mentally visualize a surface that is red and green all over. I can mentally visualize a surface that is two distinct colours at once -- and I suspect that, if you're open-minded about this and practice the techniques I describe, you might be able to do it too.

[@andreasplosky8516]

To my surprise, I discovered I can not visualize colours at all. Is that a brain defect?

[@toa12th4]

Do you imagine the colours at different levels of elevation? I can imagine something that's red and green over the red, and see both at the same time, or something that's green and red over the green, but not with them both being exactly equally at the same level. That's at least how I interpret what I'm imagining

[@KaneB]

I don't have any impression of elevation. I'm not sure what difference this makes anyway. Two squares of the same size at the same distance would appear the same as two squares such that one is twice as large but located twice as far away.

[@GeorgLobanov]

- Make a video essay on “How to visualize a surface, which is red and green all over simultaneously” - Proceed with 15 minutes 40 seconds long verbal explanation on visualization of such surface - At no single moment of the whole video clip depict anything remotely close to aforementioned colored surface - ??? - Profit

[@renovatioimperii3431]

Depict?

[@StefanTravis]

So... you can keep seeing what's in front of you, while simultaneously visualising a different image? I can't do that, and it's surprising to me to learn that someone else can - or at least, believes they can. For me, when I imagine something, my vision cuts out - at least I think it does. This shouldn't be hard to test - just program a computer to display a random number for 5 seconds after a delay of 10, then look at the screen while visualising something, and find out whether I can remember what the number was. This ability of yours, paired with your ability to visualised double coloured objects, makes me suspect what you're doing is not visualising at all, as I understand the term. This also should be testable: just present a series of randomly generated colour fields, and ask whether any of them resemble a completely red and completely green field. If Kane B identifies purple as resembling his red-and-green object, then he *is* visualising in the sense of replacing sight with imagination.

[@pookz3067]

I think your experience and definition of visualization is very different from the one being used in the video here. I do not think visualization is replacing sight with imagination. To me it’s any phenomenological experience of sight with imagination. From that perspective, an illusion of visualization something is visualization of that thing, whereas for in your case, you are only considering it a visualization of it is only using the parts of your brain that model visuals in the first place. I don’t think his dialing your test would prove what you’re saying. You can definitely create more experiences with imagination than with things you can actually see, because you can purposefully make your model inaccurate and then use heuristics to create illusions in ways that are completely in line with what typical use of the word “visualization” entails.

[@BumbleTheBard]

Given that computer and TV screens make us see yellow by displaying red and green simultaneously, would you count an item that emits red and green photons as something that is red and green all over, or are you concerned only with phenomenal red and green? If the latter, then the fact that an item cannot be red and green all over is merely a contingent fact about how human vision works and would hardly qualify as necessary.

[@KaneB]

I'm only talking about phenomenal red and green - and yeah, I agree that this seems to be a contingent feature of the way our visual system works. Still, even people who agree with this might not be able to mentally visualize red and green simultaneously. It might be thought that mental imagery is constrained in some way by what can be visually experienced, so that if our visual system precludes phenomenal double colouring, then we won't be able to mentally image this either. But I think it can be done, and I wanted to suggest some tricks that might help others do it.

[@Visualent.]

How high was this guy when he made this video bro…

[@dennymcbride8640]

Can you do a video on mctaggarts unreality of time?

[@problemsolver3254]

i am completely unable to impose images on to my field of view.

[@KaneB]

Have you ever seen the image of three "pacmans" arranged so that the mouths of the pacmans look like the vertices of a triangle? Just type in "pacman triangle" on google and it should come up. Try focusing on the impression of a triangle -- where is it? Most people can get the sense that they can experience a "completed" triangle, even though they are not visually seeing a complete triangle. Then try making the gaps larger (you should be able to do this with a simple image editor, just reduce the size of the pacman shapes or cut bits off them), while imagining a triangle. To be clear, the idea is not that you change the colours on your visual field. Rather, you just imagine things in a particular location. When I imagine a red square on the wall, it's not that the wall becomes red. The wall is white; I just imagine a red *there*, as opposed to, say, a red square on the table, or a red square that has no determinate location.

[@poketoscoparentesesloparen7648]

weirdly enough i feel like i can imagine things in a much more visual way in situations like the pacman triangle, or looking at a grid of squares. Under normal circumstances, the thing i imagine are not seen. They have no determinate location. When i try to imagine an apple on top of a table that is in front of me, i can kind of put it there but it is still not close at all to sensory perception: it is not as if the apple was transparent on top of the table, but as if i was imagining an apple that just so happens to be located in my FOV where the real perception of table is, they are not mixed at all. (sometimes i try to do this and instead i imagine the apple on top of an imaginary copy of the table) For me this is not the case with the pacman triangle or even with a grid of squares. When i look at the pacman triangle it seems that i can "see(?)" the interior of the actual triangle as litterally lighter than the surrounding. In a grid, i can make certain squares pop by focusing on them: i can see them with more precision than the others, and the borders between them and the others are much more important, perhaps litterally wider, than the borders between squares "of the same type". I'm not sure about the better precision tho, it might just be that i tend to look at the squares i try to focus on and so they're near the center of my vision.

[@quixotik1021]

I can do this too, but it is easiest for me with Teal and Brown.

[@kewtolstoi6927]

Nice haircut mate!

[@niket527]

And tips for getting more out of fiction books when they describe imagery in vivid detail?

[@KaneB]

I don't read fiction, so unfortunately not. (I have nothing against fiction. I just don't have time to read it.)

[@leohuang2610]

I think 10 year old me would've had an easier time doing this. Right now I'm getting a square made of tiny red pixels interspersed with green ones. But I am out of practice. I wonder what lessons we can draw from this case. If a philosopher says that some idea is incomprehensible or unimaginable while another says they can make perfect sense of it, do I chalk it up to a skill issue? On which side do I bestow charitability? I for one am quick to give others the benefit of the doubt when they say they can understand things that I can't. Maybe I should challenge your claim to be able to imagine the red-green shape, but I won't.

[@tunahankaratay1523]

If this is indeed true, our theory of color is flawed. For natural light, each frequency in the visible range has one color and one only. For displays etc designed specifically for human eyes, we use a mixture of red, green and blue. Each RGB value (kinds of receptors on the retina) corresponds to one color and one only. This means that red and green are distinct spots on a vector space. Therefore, a color that we see can only have one color and one only. This makes total sense when perceiving the outside world. If two colors at the same time is indeed possible, our visualisation is very different to the outside world, e.g. it has more color dimensions than the outside world or something weird like that. If this were indeed true, I’d expect much more of this weirdness creeping into our daily life. So I’m much more inclined to think that you’re somewhat mistaken. Though I’m sure that we can visualise some really weird stuff with techniques like this.

[@pookz3067]

Eh, he’s saying that it has more dimensions only in the sense that you can visualize two things simultaneously and mistaken them to be the same image in your head in a way that you can’t in real life. That’s not an addition of dimension that seems that unbelievable or seems like it would come up in day to day life. When talking about what one is experiencing. If you’re considering sight to be the part where light enters the eye, it’s different from if you consider sight to include the brain’s interpretation vs the raw input. If I see an apple and thought it was a pear, I would say I experienced seeing a pear. Someone would say I experienced seeing an apple and mistook it for a pear. You could argue which one is right, but both usages are pretty common even in formal philosophy.

[@tunahankaratay1523]

@@pookz3067 Sorry for not explaining it thoroughly enough. There is a difference between the interpretation in the moment and the vivid short term memory that you experience afterwards. My argument is that each moment has one color. If there is a vague memory of it feeling like I experienced both at the same time, it doesn’t count. In the current theory of vision, Green is a subset of Not Red. If you are claiming that it isn’t, you need something more substantial, something that contradicts current theory. The current theory can easily explain this particular example, i.e. the experience is an illusion caused by fast switching of the two images.

[@mustyHead6]

this is not related to the video itself but would you like to read and work on works of nathan cofnas? he is bit controversial but i think it will be fun to see different perceptive

[@tovialbores-falk3091]

Someone tell me what an igen growl is.

[@scartinojoseph1407]

These comments were made in a light yet sincere spirit. Nothing negative, condescending intended. I add this caveat because, as u will see my orientation is Wittgensteinian, and as he said, I think lamentingly, "I destroy, I destroy, I destroy" So enjoy... 1. Please contact pms hacker immediately:-) 2. Isn't the outer the criterion of the inner? 3. No no one can count tiger stripes from a mental image. 4. U can push mental imagery into your visual field? 5. 'connect the dots' in American English 6. There is no such thing as a visual impression of whiteness. 7. Is a mental image an experience? 8. Take the whiteness and put it into the mental imagery space? So, thru empirical means conceptual nonsense can be overcome? 9. Sounds like you're arguing for the reality of empiricist ideas and impressions? 10. So you're seeing red and visualizing green? Then I would say u are neither seeing red and green all over, not visualizing it. 11. Merely conceptual?? A tsk from pms hacker...

[@KaneB]

1. No. 2. No. 3. Sure they can. It's easy to mentally visualize a tiger with just two stripes. Then I can count those stripes. It's just that usually, when people visualize tigers, they will take the tiger to have the normal amount of stripes. 4. Yes. It's common for people to visualize things in a way that uses actual objects as props. I might visualize a tiger on the bed, where I'm looking at my actual bed so I don't need to generate that part. I take the bed that I'm looking at and mentally place a tiger on it. 5. Nice to know. 6. Call it what you like. We can see white objects. I say the experience that results is a visual impression of whiteness. If you prefer different terminology, that's fine with me. 7. Yes. 8. I don't think there's any reason to take seriously Wittgenstein's judgments about what counts as nonsense. (Though as it happens, yes, sometimes empirical progress comes from saying things that are nonsensical under accepted conceptual schemes.) 9. No. 10. I agree. Seeing red and visualizing green is neither seeing red & green, nor visualizing red & green. But seeing red and visualizing green, while attending to the redness of the percept and holding the mental image clearly in your mind, might be a trick you can use to develop the skill of visualizing red & green. 11. I don't know what "merely conceptual" is in reference to here.

[@scartinojoseph1407]

I was joking about contacting hacker. As for the 'mere concept', I think u used that phrase towards the end of your video. Hacker has a specific argument against those who use , 'mere concepts' or ' mere language ' against concepual or linguistic analysis somewhere in his human nature tetrology.

[@but1z]

found the rabbitohs fan

[@ignotumperignotius630]

You mentioned an "indeterminate stripeyness property." You might have heard of Josh Parsons' talk of "distributional properties," one of which stripeyness must be. Your mental imagery thought experiment is kind of interesting, but I think it violates leibniz' law. We can explain how you appear to (but don't really) violate LL by saying you are swapping out the object of imagination: an object that is wholly colour 1 and then that object being wholly colour 2, but not at once. This isn't to suggest Leibniz law is something we need to save from the phenomena, but rather that your explanation suggests something odd obtains.

[@KaneB]

I'm not seeing how Leibniz's law is incompatible with double-coloured objects. Could you elaborate?

[@solomonreal1977]

Huh 🤔 what a nice young man

[@johnsmith4602]

Are you sure that you're not converging parallel images?

[@A3Kr0n]

Red Green More Animated: New Series Coming Soon! RedGreenTV 429K subscribers

[@TheAntira]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_color#Colors_outside_physical_color_space has some pictures and mentions a study where people report seeing a colour thats both red and green at the same time

[@InventiveHarvest]

The example mentioned in the previous video, but never gone into detail was the one where sometiing is taller than itself.

[@KaneB]

Perhaps the Penrose stairs?

[@InventiveHarvest]

@@KaneB good answer