I saw the pixels — Sapientia

How many were there?

It's pretty simple guys, red is either something there can be a fact of the matter about at some level or it is not. And there either exists a science of colour that is not nonsensical or there does not. If every human being in the world right now put on red tinted glasses that would not in the slightest change the scientific understanding or abrogate the scientific meaning of the term "red". — Baden

What's the scientific meaning of the term "red"? Does it differ from the meaning of the term "red" when I look at image I posted earlier and say "I see a picture of red strawberries"?

There's two ways of looking at it. I made it clear in my first post. I'm not saying either is nonsensical on its own terms. However, if you claim that to be red is just to look red, that's equivalent to saying there can be no science of colour. But there is. So, you're wrong.

Sure it is. If you appear red then you're red. — Michael

Nope. If you can get away with that, then I can get away with stuff like this: I think I saw a ghost, so I saw a ghost. But that's codswallop.

What else would it mean to be red? Perhaps "have a surface that reflects light at a wavelength of ~620–740nm" or "appears red to most people in ordinary lighting conditions"? — Michael

I know enough to rule your meaning out, even if I don't give a detailed alternative.

However, if you claim that to be red is just to look red, that's equivalent to saying there can be no science of colour. — Baden

Not if by "red" I mean what I mean when I say "I see a picture of red strawberries". If by "red" I mean something like "has a surface that reflects light at a wavelength of ~620–740nm" then obviously it's not an appearance, and there can be a science of colour, but then it's also obviously irrelevant if the scientist is wearing red-tinted glasses – because he'll use some machine to measure the wavelength, not his eyesight.

I know enough to rule your meaning out. — Sapientia

Then what does it mean to be red?

"How can you see the cup if you can't see the atoms? You cannot. The cup would not appear to you if not for the many tiny atoms which form the object which we recognise as a cup."

It's not absurd at all, it's a perfectly legitimate way of speaking. — Baden

No, as I said, they're not analogous. The pixels are visible to the naked eye, but the atoms are not.

I'm aware a scientist wearing red-tinted glasses wouldn't have a problem reading a number off a screen. I think you know my example was meant somewhat humorously. Anyway, if you accept there is a science of colour then you accept that to be red is not just to appear red.

Anyway, if you accept there is a science of colour then you accept that to be red is not just to appear red. — Baden

No, because the word "red" when I use it here is referring to what it refers to when I say "I see a picture of red strawberries", and this thing it's referring to is an appearance.

I'm not denying that the word can also be used to refer to something that isn't just an appearance (e.g. a surface that reflects a certain wavelength of light).

Nope. If you can get away with that, then I can get away with stuff like this: I think I saw a ghost, so I saw a ghost. But that's codswallop. — Sapientia

Seems perfectly ordinary to talk about people seeing things that aren't really there.

Never hear of a retina screen? I guess I must have a better phone than you. :P But even when the pixels are theoretically visible, we don't generally see them, we just see the words. As I said before, I don't think it's illegitimate to say you see pixels, but it's not nonsense to say you don't either.

They do in this context. — Michael

If by that you mean only the way that you're using them, then sure. In that context, they mean the same thing.

And I can create a context in which thinking means doing, such that thinking that I've jumped off a cliff means that I've jumped off a cliff. :-}

What else shall we conflate? Walking and running? Sinking and rising? Smelling and hearing? Take your pick.

@Michael - Philosophical gerrymandering.

How many were there? — unenlightened

Irrelevant.

If by that you mean only the way that you're using them, then sure. In that context, they mean the same thing.

And I can create a context in which thinking means doing, such that thinking that I've jumped off a cliff means that I've jumped off a cliff. :-}

What else shall we conflate? Walking and running? Sinking and rising? Smelling and hearing? Take your pick. — Sapientia

I'm not conflating. I'm explicitly avoiding conflation by drawing a distinction between being red in the sense meant when we say "I see a picture of red strawberries" and in the scientific sense of "has a surface that reflects light at a wavelength of ~620–740 nm".

Then what does it mean to be red? — Michael

There doesn't have to be a single meaning. There can be multiple meanings, and some can be more sensible than others. I have highlighted the shortcomings of your meaning, so we should seek a better one - one that is more flexible and which doesn't lead to seeming absurdity.

Philosophical gerrymandering. — Baden

I don't see how. It should be obvious in the context of the illusion with the strawberries that the word "red" isn't referring to a surface that reflects light at a wavelength of ~620–740 nm, given that the issue is that it doesn't reflect this wavelength of light and yet we see it as red.

There doesn't have to be a single meaning. There can be multiple meanings, and some can be more sensible than others. I have highlighted the shortcomings of your meaning, so we should seek a better one - one that is more flexible and which doesn't lead to seeming absurdity. — Sapientia

So what did you mean when you said that a thing can appear red even if not (or vice versa)?

This is the gerrymandering. My objection was to the statement "to be red is just to appear red" not to the statement "to be red is just to appear red when what I mean by red is...". You don't get to define "red".

There's two ways of looking at it. I made it clear in my first post. I'm not saying either is nonsensical on its own terms. However, if you claim that to be red is just to look red, that's equivalent to saying there can be no science of colour. But there is. So, you're wrong. — Baden

What may be indicated here is that the "science of colour" is inconsistent with "colour" as we commonly use the word. If the scientist says that "red" refers to a very specific range of wavelengths, yet we see "red", and refer to a thing as "red" under all sorts of different conditions, then there is such an inconsistency.

Sure, that's what my first post on all this pointed too.

Then it's probably not the case that one is right and the other is wrong, there is just a difference. Since these are two very distinct ways of using "coulour", or "red", then what would be wrong would be to equivocate.

Seems perfectly ordinary to talk about people seeing things that aren't really there. — Michael

That talk may be ordinary, but if you saw a ghost, that would be extraordinary. So that talk doesn't reflect reality, otherwise it would be a relatively ordinary occurrence to see ghosts.

This ordinary talk is a better reflection of reality: "I thought I saw a ghost", "That looked like a ghost".

Never hear of a retina screen? I guess I must have a better phone than you. :P But even when the pixels are theoretically visible, we don't generally see them, we just see the words. As I said before, I don't think it's illegitimate to say you see pixels, but it's not nonsense to say you don't either. — Baden

My phone has a retina screen. But although I cannot differentiate one pixel from another with extreme precision, I am nevertheless seeing a number of pixels, am I not? That's what those dark shapes are.

My phone has a retina screen. — Sapientia

But you said:

The pixels are visible to the naked eye, but the atoms are not. — Sapientia

Why are unindividuated pixels more visible than unindividuated atoms?

I am nevertheless seeing a number of pixels, am I not? That's what those dark shapes are. — Sapientia

"I am nevertheless seeing a number of atoms, am I not? That's what that cup is."

This is the gerrymandering. My objection was to the statement "to be red is just to appear red" not to the statement "to be red is just to appear red when what I mean by red is...". You don't get to define "red". — Baden

I get to decide what I mean by "to be red is just to appear red" when I use it. That you can use that statement to mean something else is irrelevant.

If you were to say that a chair is something we sit on it would be absurd of me to respond with "but Warren Buffett is a chair, but he's not something we sit on" simply because "chair" can also mean the highest officer of a board of directors. Rather than you gerrymandering, I'd be equivocating. So too with the roles reversed here.

How many were there?
— unenlightened

Irrelevant. — Sapientia

Indeed! And it is irrelevant that there were any pixels at all. The same meaning could be conveyed with brush strokes, finger-painting, or carved in tablets of stone. All that is relevant is the structure, not the substrate. Identical pixels, differently arranged, would convey a different meaning or no meaning. Which is why it makes sense to say that to see pixels is to see nothing; to see something is to see a structure, not pixels, but the relationships of pixels. Hence the old saw about not seeing the wood for the trees.

Why are unindividuated pixels more visible than unindividuated atoms? — Baden

What are the dark shapes? Do atoms have colour? I see the dark shapes, and the dark shapes are pixels, therefore I see the pixels, or I see the pixels as dark shapes. The number of pixels are black and are a certain shape, and what I see is black and a certain shape. What's the difference?

There was a blind woman on the old pf for a while, who presumably did not see pixels, but still managed to reply to them.

If your meaning is idiosyncratic or controversial or even simply debatable then you need to highlight that immediately or people will respond to the regular meaning. And to expect them to respond to the unqualified statement as if it were the qualified one would be to expect them to accept your meaning.

What are the dark shapes? Do atoms have colour? I see the dark shapes, and the dark shapes are pixels, therefore I see the pixels, or I see the pixels as dark shapes. — Sapientia

Do you really still want to insist that when I look at a screen with no individuated pixels (or even barely individuated ones) on it that it's nonsense for me to say "I don't see pixels, I see words". If no, we've nothing left to argue about. If yes, then all I have left to say is that that's a very unreasonable attitude.