Color is the very subject of this thread. If you cannot tell me what you mean by “color”, then you literally do not know what you are talking about, because color IS THE SUBJECT.
If that is what YOU mean when you say “color”, then in this thread, you are talking about a “property of an object”. You are NOT talking about a mentally assigned value or qualia. A property of an object can be objectively measured.
But is that what everyone else is talking about?
Probably not (hence senseless bickering).
I am pretty sure that everyone already knows what color is. Whether or not they can define it. It is certainly not true that you cannot know what something is without being able to express it using language or without being able to compare it to some other thing to which it is related.
You asked for a definition and I gave you one.
If you read my previous posts, instead of simply ignoring them, you would know that I am speaking of color qua quality.
My suspicion is that you are making no point whatsoever.
Logically you gave a definition by taking it from Google which in essence means that Google gave you one and therefore Google gave James a definition of Color/Colour - how about you offer one from your own brain/mind. I think that would be more interesting actually.
How are you “pretty sure that everyone already knows what color is”? That is a rather peculiar thing to say given that you can only be sure about what you know or would you disagree? I am not trying to be mean here Magnus - just trying to make some sense of what you are saying. I would be interested to know if you are completely sure about what you know.
Rational discourse it seems has become unlikely for the time being. Those who partake in this thread need to ask themselves a particular question if a plausible result for conversation is to be had. The beginning view, from what I see, falls upon being able to definitively give an answer(preferably to yourself) to whether you care about the original post.
Well, I didn’t think you were trying to be mean until you told me you weren’t trying to be mean.
He asked for a definition. I gave him one. He didn’t like it. Apparently, he’s asking for a specific definition. I don’t know what kind of definition he’s asking for and I don’t know for what purpose. In fact, I suspect he doesn’t know either.
We already know what color is. I am sure there is no ambiguity here. For those of us who have an experience of colors, at least.
One of the questions posed in the OP is whether qualities are real or not.
My approach is based on my judgment that we already know what qualities are but that we don’t know what the word “real” means.
OK Magnus. It seems to me that you care more about what you are saying than the original post however I have been known to be wrong on occasion.
Anyway, I have a question for Frankenstein:
Is the last word supposed to be interact instead of interest? My apologies if this seems like nitpicking.
Regarding your post Frankenstein, I found the opening sequence of words “Mary, Quite Contrary: Consciousness Unexplained” rather enjoyable to read - I like how it mirrors the same amount of syllables as the nursery rhyme - rather creative in my opinion. Is this opening sequence an object of your imagination or some other persons?
I will do my best to ask as many sensible questions as possible.
You have a very strange notion of what it means to care.
Apparently, the fact that I am not answering his questions – basically doing what he wants me to do – means I am not caring.
The fact that I am trying to solve – and not only trying to solve but also actively solving – the problems presented in his paper is not caring enough.
Apparently, what is caring enough is asking questions that have nothing to the with the content and everything to do with the form such as “did you mean interact instead of interest?” and “how did you come up with the title of your paper?”
Good thing you show to him how much caring you are by doing what you imagine to be caring.