Traffic lights, for some reason, look different. Red busses and grass don’t. It’s all about the hues.

Maybe I can see things you can’t. I can see the difference between camouflage and trees really well.

How do you know it’s not what we see? And what makes what ‘we’ see the only thing to be seen?

My mother has one eye (in-the-middle-of-her-forehead *stobbit sooz!*).. ahem… errr one eye which is green and one which is hazel. She had operations to correct her crossed eyes when she was a child.
She can’t match colours to save her life - yet she thinks she can! She’ll say ‘that’s the same colour as this’ and it’s sooo not! She seems not to see toning colours yet sees the basic named colours.

Do you drive? Do you know when traffic lights go the appropriate colours to go and stop at?

Did Monks write colour-definition charts for us to agree with?

It’s all subjective, I think. Colors are a high concept and my red may be different from your red even though we both call it the same red. THough the scientists have got colors measured into certain wavelengths of the lightwave cycle, and this is supposed to be the exact standard, if this is the case, then it is no longer a visual experience but a measured and calibrated one.

Oddly, I don’t feel bad for Cliff missing out on the beauty of color, because I don’t doubt that he can see very colorful beauty as well as I can. It’s just that his sunsets and cherry blossoms and things might not be beautiful, but maybe his blue skies and sun-over-the-oceans are just as beautiful .

None of us can see the big bang, but we use scientific discovery and thinking to build up a theory.

Just because you can’t see red and green, doesn’t mean you can’t prove their existence through other scientific means.

There are many things in science we can’t literally see, or physically experience, but which we can know they exist through other means.

That’s why atheism is the logical assumption, until the day there’s the tiniest shred of evidence.