The knowledge of color could be empirical; we can match colors scientifically. But the concept of color is not an empirical matter; the use of the language surrounding color has its own logic. When I say "Is that color yellow", and the other agrees, it may not be the exact same yellow as a sample (we are not matching a color we see to our knowledge of the color) or I may even see it in a different light (our agreement is not based on exact agreement in perception), but it is not red or orange enough for us to bring that up, i.e., discussion of color can be vague as to its identity. Also, color does not have the same numerical identity as physical objects (you have six blocks, same red, but you only have six "reds" if the shades are different), nor can you "point to" the color of an object.

Now possibly because of some of these anomalies of the concept of color compared to the concept of objects, we feel there could be arbitrariness in the naming of colors. This could be true but how is it relevant? We could switch the names of dog and cat too.

Now possibly because of some of these anomalies of the concept of color compared to the concept of objects, we feel there could be arbitrariness in the naming of colors. This could be true but how is it relevant? — Antony Nickles

Hello there Antony Nickles. Thanks for your answer.

Yes I am agree with you that could be so arbitrary comparing or interpret the colours as a objects. Nevertheless, I guess it is pretty interesting how the "world" made a pattern about it, i.e. When we see an apple we say "red" because someone taught us in the school the basic vocabulary. But if randomly you say it is "blue" they would answer you have a Color blindness because you do not see the color pattern as someone previously explained. So you are "mistaken" if you see an apple "red" or "green". The point here is how we stand the patterns or principles in an abstract thing like colors. Like you well said we don't have to because they are not object. Nevertheless, if I say the Sun is "Purple" the people will categorised me as a color blindness.

Another interesting i.e when Descartes said "perfection is when even dreaming you are not mistaken, like geometry" but I guess someone previously had to taught me what is exactly maths and it is specific pattern of "geometry"

I think that Galen Strawson is right on this topic, he only mentions it but, the idea is that people can confuse "empirical" with what is "publicly observable" - what everybody can see and point to. But why should we use the word empirical solely in this manner?

If we do take "empirical" to mean "publicly observable" then we are in effect saying that our experiences play no role in our consideration of empirical data. But that is absurd, unless you favor eliminitavism. We need to include experience in what we call "empirical", to avoid confusions. So on this view, colours would be empirical data.

If we do take "empirical" to mean "publicly observable" then we are in effect saying that our experiences play no role in our consideration of empirical data. — Manuel

I think there is a confusion between “experience” as in our personal encounter, “How was your experience at Disneyland?” and the process of learning about something over time, “Let me decide, I have experience in these matters.” And my understanding is that when we are talking about empiricism, it is the later use of "experience". That it started with observation over time; knowledge was what could be directly seen, but that "empiricism" then changed to more than vision (other means of scientific observation), but it still wanted to be based on a certainess like being directly seen.

The interesting part of the quote from Locke is that he makes the jump from learning about the names of colors (something we see which we name) to equating that with learning about the cause of your feelings (something we teach you to fear).

"What you are trying to say is that complex terms like colours are not innate because we can teach children to misunderstand mixing them. I guess this is the same example of fearness. You can feel the fear because previously someone taught you what is darkness, witches, demons, etc."

He is saying that not only is color not innate but that fear is also not innate. Now some people will argue that the experience of color is innate, but that is unnecessary for the uses of the concept of color. Now we can call the fear of a bear "innate" (inherent in our humanness of being eatable) but I can also teach you to fear something not innate (witches, demons, etc.) because of your previous experience with fear. The concept of fear allows for transference because of the nature of feelings (its physical reaction, the ability to recall it viscerally, etc.)

The colour names are arbitrary terms applied to phenomena which falls within general limits that are defined by the term arbitrarily assigned to that scope of the phenomenon. So within the spectrum of "red" are myriad "reds", however all are "red enough" to qualify as "red". This follows for every other definable colour on the spectrum. "red" (spectrum)+"yellow"(spectrum)= "orange" (spectrum). However the actual labels are irrelevant, they are accepted as the colour spectrum assigned to them. They could be "Fish" (the colour formerly known as Red)+ "Beer" (the colour formerly known as Yellow)= "Pelican" (the Colour formerly known as Orange). If this were accepted nomenclature by enough people then the phrase " I think that pelican motorbikes look really cool" would make complete sense and the imagery created by that phrase would be of an orange colour motorbike.

I guess we are getting into the same point when exactly you pointed out this: They could be "Fish" (the colour formerly known as Red)+ "Beer" (the colour formerly known as Yellow)= "Pelican" (the Colour formerly known as Orange). If this were accepted nomenclature by enough people then the phrase
Well this is what I want to go for. It is so interesting how the human behaviour always wanted to put arbitrary words to phenomenons. In this example of colours we can see one of the principles of human acceptance due to customs.
If we say "red" to a colour is just because previously we were taught the phenomena in basic vocabulary.

Nevertheless, this is so paradoxical because there are people which literally sees "blue" instead of "green" and we classified these as "colour blindness" because they are wrong of their interpretation of colour phenomena. So we can say that basic vocabulary is the phenomenons are like a rule of law because you cannot change it by your own. It is so acceptable that instead of saying "red" we say "bike" but the people will not accept because it would make a chaos in their customs (Imagine how crazy it would be when colours are so relevant in all cultures around the world).

That is the beauty and fatal flaw in communication: Are we actually saying the same thing, not just using the same word? Example: "Shag carpet" in North America is a thick, long haired type of carpet. In Britain that same word use mean "Fuck carpet". Hardly the same thing, despite the same word.

I would suggest that colour blindness is not based on a wrong interpretation of colour phenomena, but seeing the phenomena in an alternate way. 30 years ago I was sprayed in my left eye with a chemical, ammonia I believe, and once I could see again I saw different shades of the same colour. My left eye shows everything as slightly more gray, like a fine coating of dust on it. So now I see a mix of shades, although the same colour, It has made me wonder though, which shade is accurate, and I have decided that both are accurate, however, the shades I see are likely not the shade you see, although all are accurate. Cool eh!

Sure, you can "teach" me to fear something not innate in a sense, given that today we don't believe in such things.

But it wasn't too long ago in historical terms that we did believe that witches and demons existed, so some of the properties associated with them must be innate to. Our skins can burn, demons burn skin, our senses deceive us, witches deceive our senses, etc.

Of course, all this in general depends on if you believe the empiricist account of learning is true, but I don't see good reasons to accept it as being accurate in basically any species.

Are we actually saying the same thing, not just using the same word?

@Book273

Literally this one of the most interesting facts in human knowledge. How the different languages can describe exactly the same but with different words. I also think as you perfectly explained that it is the beauty and the flaw at the same time. I am from Spain and Spanish language is full of extraordinary words that depends in which country you actually are, i.e. It is not same the Spanish vocabulary between Spain and hispoamerciano countries like Chile, Mexico, Costa Rica, etc...
Even is about the interpretation in the colour itself. Example: When a house with its floor and fences are made of clay we say is "rojizo" house. In Mexico or Chile they would say "colorado".
Putting emphasis as the same example of English words you wrote previously.

I see are likely not the shade you see, although all are accurate. Cool eh! wow! This one is so cool. Another different glance from the same reality. Nevertheless I so sorry for your chemical accident back in the day.

I am not. It has allowed me a perspective I would have otherwise not had. I still have excellent vision, just shade changes. A few days of pain is a small price to pay for such a gain!