We cannot know whether you and I see red the same. (Maybe this is a paradox). It makes no difference how much you describe your red, it's always going to coincide with my red, but without proving they are the same. If you describe your red to someone who was blind from birth, you can only do so using references to other sensations that you cannot be sure you feel in the same way.

When I first mentioned this to my daughter she was quite terribly disturbed by it, even upset. It seemed to make her feel very isolated, in a "Man is an island after all" kind of way.

As for seeing colour, we have to be equipped with the correct cells. In the back of our eyes are cells classed as rods and cones. Cones enable colour vision and rods don't - I'll let someone else pick up that baton.

I agree with Pete as far as he goes. Part of the existential problem is the fact that, although we often can make a useful attempt at matching our objective experiences, we have made no significant progress (and I cannot foresee any) in matching our subjective impressions. You and I and no doubt Pete, certainly see the same light as red, as long as our eyes have the same normalities and abnormalities, but what red looks like to you, I have no idea.

To prove that we see the same things in matching (if not subjectively identical) ways, experimental psychologists simply present us with questions based on what we see in matching views. A simple example is the deck of cards with numbers represented as patterns of coloured spots. People with what we commonly call "normal" vision agree on which numbers appear on which cards. People with other visual pigments agree with each other, depending on which class of aberration occurs in their cone cells.

As for other animals, there are many schemes of vision based on many different combinations of visual pigments. Some can see more colours than we can, and some fewer. Some can detect subtler differences and some not. By and large, humans have unusually good vision in many respects, but in every respect that I can think of some animal or animals are better endowed.

Such differences can be deduced from anatomic and physiological studies of eyes, from the kind of thing that the eyes are adapted to distinguish, from behavioural studies, and from actual comparative tests of which colour combinations and levels of light particular animals react to.

The answer to the first half of your question is that we do not see colors quite the same. Now or course, there is some general agreement, we all know what red is , what green is and so on. As to the actual exoerience that we each have, it will be different.

Normal human color vision uses three cone receptors. Each of these receptors is sensitive over a range of wavelengths with a peak sensitivity at one wvelength. It is nice to think of these cones centered on red, blue and green. In actual fact it is more like yellowish orange, indigo or violet and darkish green. Now, the actual range of wavelengths and center wavelength for each cone varies from one individual to another. This means that a single wavelength that stimulates more than one cone, although called the same name by different people, will give rise to different signals being sent to each individual's brain.

Further, the number of cones of each color is not the same in any given individual and the ratio of, say, red cones to blue cones is not the same in any two individuals. There are also some people who only have two working cones, this is due to a genetic defect. Strangely, about 20% of all women have an extra set of cones centered at a different wavelength.

It is reasonable then to aqssume that you and I do not have the same experience when viewing the same colour.

Colour vision is not the norm amongst mamals. Those mamals that do have colour vision generally only have two sets of cones. We know this from examining dead ones. If you look on the web you can find various reports on experiments to measure the degree of colour vision in animals. A few years ago my daughter tried to teach our dog to recognise colours. All I can say is that colour was not an important part of that dog's life. He did however manage to learn four letters of the alphabet.

Ah this is a long talked about debate and one that may be proven shortly through new brain wave monitoring technology. I know I am going to be repeating what the bright people above me already said but i like this question so I am going to shed my opinions on it anyways.

First of all it is quite accepted that we do not see colors the same as people. For example people growing up in ireland can see more shades of green then someone from say egypt. This has been proven in studies so we can establish that fact anyways. If we were to simplify things and say that there is only one shade of green and red etc. then the common theory is the colors are associated with emotional responses and this dictates how "strong" and "vivid" they appear to each individual. For example red is generally regarded as the strongest and most powerful color. This can be for many reasons but the simplest is because it is the color of blood and thats not a good thing to be seeing. Other examples vary on the things you saw when you grew up and what you associated them with etc.

People are quite close to being able to read minds by intercepting brain waves. I look forward to when this finally happens and I hope this will be one of the first things they use the technology for :) 

I am not an expert on this but I have a pretty good idea. There are actually two questions here. One is the actual lens of the eyes of other creatures can be mimicked so that scientists can "see" what the creatures eyes see. Scientists can also determine by the type of receptors other creatures have as to what type of light waves are actually sent to the brain. However, the second part of the question is exactly what do other creatures "perceive" in their brains from the light sensors and subsequent nerve paths that is sent to the brain. In other words... what creatures see in their minds. The answer to that may be deduced by the needs that rule any given creature's behavior. Do they need to see in order to stay safe, fed and propagate. Or do they "like" seeing what they see? For humans the answers are very varied and complex. For other creatures site fills needs. The needs to see their food source or the predators that feed on them. They need to see their potential mates and in some cases need to see the "sex show" their potential mates put on in order to pick what they think is their best mate. They need to see their food source so as to identify not only that it is there but what it is doing so that the creature can muster their particualar skills in acquiring their food. The same holds true for seeing their predators. In order to stay safe they need to be able to quite readily identify the danger and react in a way that keeps them safe. Doesn't always work but then that's life.