I already have. Why won't you answer my question? Why do you trust a Geiger counter to tell you the local level of radiation? It doesn't resemble radiation at all. — Michael
How do you know this to be so?we are using the word "colour" to refer to something in particular — Michael
If your theory does not explain the way we use the word "colour" then what grounds could there be for your claiming it to be about colour?But the question under consideration isn't "what are all the ways that we use colour terms in our everyday lives?". — Michael
Why shouldn't we use the same word to refer to multiple, different things... indeed this seems to be exactly how colour words are used. They refer to multiple things that are quite different. — Banno
I've been at pains to deny most of this. The argument I have been making is that colour is not only "subjective", since there is considerable agreement as to the colour of the things around us.. Your not noticing and accounting for this is also "a serious difficulty with your position".I do think the fact that you can't admit to the simple fact that color is imposed on an external object and is asubjectiveinterpretation is a serious difficulty with your position. — Hanover
If your theory does not explain the way we use the word "colour" then what grounds could there be for your claiming it to be about colour? — Banno
Why shouldn't we use the same word to refer to multiple, different things... indeed this seems to be exactly how colour words are used. They refer to multiple things that are quite different. — Banno
Well, no, it isn't. The colour red of a sunset is not the very same as the colour red of the sports car out on the street.The question "is the colour red mind-independent" is using the singular compound noun "colour red" to refer to a single thing, — Michael
is not the vary same asDoes the color “red” exist outside of the subjective mind that conceptually designates the concept of “red?” — Mp202020
"Mind independent" serves only to befuddle....is the colour red mind-independent? — Michael
"Morning star" is a definite description, functioning as a proper name. it picks out an individual.As a comparison, when we ask what the Morning Star is we are referring to a planet and are asking what it is (not knowing that we are referring to a planet and not a star). We don't respond to such a question by arguing that the term "Morning Star" is also used to refer to the archangel Lucifer. — Michael
Yep. "colour" has different senses. But that is not what I am pointing out to you. I am pointing out that "red", in the sense of the colour word, does not refer to a single thing, but at the least to multiple different things.The term "colour" is also used to refer to the way quarks and gluons interact through the strong force, but that use is irrelevant to the question asked by the OP, and to the philosophy of colour in general. — Michael
Yep. "colour" has different senses. — Banno
I am pointing out that "red", in the sense of the colour word, does nto refer to a single thing. — Banno
And only the sense relevant to the question being asked is relevant, not any other sense. It is clear in context that the OP isn't asking if light or atoms reflecting light is mind-independent, and so any use of the word "colour" or "red" that refers to light or atoms reflecting light is irrelevant. — Michael
All the more reason not to take an analogy with individuals ("morning star") seriously. But what I have said applies to type.I am pointing out that "red", in the sense of the colour word, does nto refer to a single thing.
— Banno
The single thing is a type, not a token. — Michael
Oh, I quite agree. Odd that you think this worthy of mention. — Banno
What's the difference between seeing red and the mental percept that 620-750nm light ordinarily causes to occur?
— creativesoul
Nothing. — Michael
And what's the difference between hallucinating red and the mental percept that 620-750nm light ordinarily causes to occur?
Or between dreaming red and the mental percept that 620-750nm light ordinarily causes to occur?
— creativesoul
Nothing. — Michael
You have previously said that colours are both appearances and something else. Except by this you just mean that the word "colours" can be used to refer to both appearances and something else. — Michael
No mention of "appearance" in that. Indeed the use of quotes indicates that attention be paid to the word "red", as opposed to... the appearance? I read it as asking something like 'does our use of the word "red" refer to something that exists outside the subjective mind that conceptually designates the concept referred to by the word "red"?' And I think from the discussions I've had with Mp202020 that they would readily agree this was not the best wording.Does the color “red” exist outside of the subjective mind that conceptually designates the concept of “red?” — Mp202020
Only part of the machinery acts the same way - V4, apparently...Sure, the biological machinery acts the same. That's not an issue. — creativesoul
you are addressing something vastly different to what I have written. — Banno
I did? Where? I'd like the context. — Banno
And yet there are red pens."Red" does not exist outside the mind. — AmadeusD
To point out that red does not "exist" in "the" mind.If you position boils down to "Well, it doesn't matter - use it how you use it" then why are you here? — AmadeusD
What are we to make of this? Will we be good scientists and acknowledge the theory falsified, because Subject 1001 reports that they see blue? Or are we going to say instead that Subject 1001 is mistaken? — Banno
And yet there are red pens. — Banno
To point out that red does not "exist" in "the" mind. — Banno
That seems to apply equally to C4 fibres and pain as well as V4 and seeing red. — creativesoul
Now the word "red" is no longer in books, on paper, spoken aloud for everyone to hear, or on our screens... it exists only in the mind. — creativesoul
Which was what? — frank
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.