Once we can model the inner workings of the eyes, and optics of the physical world on "small" scale, accurately enough, it will be possible to collect lots of data on data. Consequently, an analysis of whether two invididuals of same skin color, medical profile (e.g. no cataplexy) and proportionally similar facial and body anatomy, that have near identical eyes, see colors differently in a laboratory environment. How can we make them to see colors differently by only making optical changes to the environment? Will we discover that species, age, sex or some mutation affects their "sensitivity" so that for some factors slight change can make colors seen differently?

The pattern: Control experimentally (IE slightly opposed to "statistically" where done afterwards) for the confluencing factors that seem obvious but you are uncertain are complete (IE can you "find / make two test-subjects significantly more identical with a reasonable amount of effort?"); choose something that can be observed in laboratory setting by the invididuals such that you can replicate the same environment for both of them; and now study this changing this thing the invididuals supposedly observe similarly at least in this and that environment by only changing the observed thing; seems to be more general, EG applicable to taste, smell. This may also actually not provide that much new scientific information.

What is the best neuroimaging definition for color that can be made? IE, a program that gives a probability of what seeing colors differently causes in the brain. I think we should, because our intuition is to teach children that animals also see colors at least partially, have the program be such that it is reasonably species agnostic. Surely the patterns one will need are out there...

Yet, it turns out to be more likely that we will end up with different definitions for all bugs and all big land animals or something similar. Then we would want to turn that into two different vocabularies. But we realize that how MUCH DOES EVERYTHING MAKE SENSE once we go that route and what we can see will no longer be what defines how we speak. The Urdu decided to base their vocabulary primary on this and that qualia research and the Latinists have developed a thousand times larger dictionary from the fact they prefer to highlight small taxonomical details even when the effect is small, and are now proposing based on neurological twin study of the differences between these two groups a new addition to the Esperanto language for describing how the musical experiences of speakers of both languages differ. Sixteen years later Urdu and Latin both have developed many new layers on top of their descriptions of the Esperanto research.

What new artifical languages will qualia research give birth to?

Will homoiconic programming languages have an application in cybernetics EG the program modifying it's internal structure based on how an implant detects your definitions and other patterns in thinking to change? And actually, what is the cybernetics of this: when a person given implant that reads and writes into their consciousness "need" to explicitly communicate that "No, I want THIS thing, THAT is my expression self, not what you the implant will read" to prevent "bad" loops?

Will these sorts of languages converge?

The language that "universally" describe "baseline" human experience are a sort of exit condition that prevents an endless recursive complexity from drowning us. I believe that for the sake of sanity once we have the cybernetics to ascend this should be kept as separate language aside the new languages that might araise, which could be launched from dead languages. This will probably occur naturally because the group that does not have cybernetics will retain their tongue; but imagine getting ripped of your cybernetics and due to your lack of knowledge of the baseline language being in a state of linguistic disability.

DNA modification may lead to the baselanguage rupturing, EG the babies who as I wrote this on 2024-07-12 were inside their mothers might have few who have been modified to gain a vision that also expands their gamut, or least alters it. This one could argue will not be a problem because we have always had color blind humans: but color blindless has always be a problem; and DNA guaranteeing perfect eyesight at cost of altered
but not disable color perspection is NOT a maldaptive mutatition.

There is another safe anchor, more powerful than retaining baseline language, called computability theory. For the moment, no sapient creature on earth has even approached this, but eventually computational limits will force different languages arising from hopefully endless storms of the conscious experiencs to converge. If the irony that the AI zombie problem exists in philosophical literature is put aside, eventually with (if) multiple SAIs are sitting around Tellus and Milky Way talking to each other and modelling what is happening in the other's brain, they might reach a state where the rational action is to start unifying many languages speaking of the same topic instead of languages of qualia on top of each other. It might as well be that they are all versions of the same successful blueprint for being a SAI and there is not much difference in their "minds" because any would be an inefficiency.

Half of this is meaningless, but only because I had several things to express and don't stress about being wrong.