colour theory works the same to everyone because it works entirely with how colours relate to each other

if you saw colours rotated on a colour wheel 180° - so that your green is my purple - we wouldn't know

the only difference would be in the hue (difference between green and purple), which isn't all that important. there are plenty of videos on youtube with artists drawing using random hues but with correct values (difference between black and white) and once they switch their work to colour it all just looks, good, a bit abstract for sure but still good

besides, colour theory picks colours that go together well based on their relative position on the colour wheel. teal works well with orange because they're complimentary, opposites on the spectrum. neutral colours are neutral because they're desaturated regardless of hue, neon colours are very saturated regardless of hue

maybe in objective reality we all like the same exact hue of colour, but in our brains we all call it a different word, we'll never know

the logic might be the same, the perception may not

Kinda true but kinda not. Language alone can affect our perception. Some don't have a word for green or blue, and orange is indistinguishable from light brown given context.

Even when we are almost definitely seeing the same things, there's a lot that can differ.

that's not really a good study for the issue in question since getting a control group of people who never formed associations between colours and ideas would be rather difficult

even a day old baby would begin forming their first associations - yellow is warm because the sun is warm

has the study included totally colour blind people? (like literally blind to colour, full monochromacy) and if so how were their results interpreted?

there is some evidence in our pre-history that we used to experience the world without the layer of abstraction

cave paintings at one point became... different. at first they represented reality - various animals - in absolutely amazing detail, down to depicting which muscles tensed as an animal ran, then they stopped. just around the same time as we began depicting ourselves in more detail. when we noticed ourselves it seems like first layers of abstract interpretation of reality began forming

here's a cool video on the subject (the title is rather click-baity but it is a good video, trust)

Brother, I don't ever want to know what a low dose of mushrooms feels like...or 2cB or DMT or LSD or 4aco DMT or

I don't think I'd be able to agree with that last sentence. Like if our universe is contained within another one and there's no way for us to "escape" the constraints of this universe to test that, it wouldn't be less true, it's just not knowable through any real means. Best we can do in that regard is either choose to believe it or not or leave our mind open to the possibility that it may or may not be the case.

It's kinda like your other point except applied to things well beyond our senses and any additional ways to measure things via science. Whatever is going on outside of this is still going on whether we know about it or not.

Though in all the thinking about it, entertainment is one of the top reasons I can think of for why we might exist. It's the only non-circular one that has occurred to me (ie, the others tend to beg the question "if this is for something else, then what is that something else for?", and we circle back to where we started, just with a bigger picture of what's up). Though circularity doesn't imply it is wrong or incorrect, it's also possible we are in an arbitrarily deep set of nested simulations, each trying to reveal information about the sim one layer up to the simulants in that layer while those one layer above them watch to see what they figure out.

And this isn't an anti-science stance, I just think that there's a bunch of things that are unknowable (to us with our current limitations, at least, as another part of my pet idea is that we created this to entertain ourselves). And, no, despite my name, I don't think spirituality can give any answers, though it can make a lack of answers more comfortable, and philosophy does have much wisdom to offer (which is more why I chose this name because enlightenment is real, though it doesn't turn you into some all-knowing guru and has many forms).

There are no interpretations of quantum physics that require consciousness for observation, so maybe you should look a little closer at what it actually does say? You can pick and choose the science you want to subscribe to of course, but it's been making verifiable predictions for a hundred years now. If you ignore it because it disagrees with your preconceptions... well, that's called religion. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I agree with you. The "It" in my sentence isn't clear so I'll explain.

"Reality" in the sentence "reality is a shared hallucination" (or similar) means "reality as it exists in their brain.

People instead interpret "Reality" as "[Physical] reality is a shared halucination which is very different. I was pointing out a more real/visual example with digital cameras.