The Three Angels of Truth

[Certainly real]

The problem with defining it as what someone internally sees, is that the name "red" is externally given to the person. So when Mommy points to an apple and says "red", whatever color the child sees, is [by definition] red. How else would they know to call it "red"?

I don't know how colour blindness works but hypothetically if some subject/object altered 620–750 nm 400–484 THz to something like 495–570 nm 526–606 THz before producing the final image then it would complicate things and make it so that despite the fact that the subject is looking at red, she/he/it is actually seeing green because internal mechanisms have altered 620–750 nm 400–484 THz to 495–570 nm 526–606 THz (if that is at all a hypothetical possibility) But this still doesn't produce something like: the box is red all over and green all over at the same time . Or something like the box is red whilst it is not red at the same time. The box is always the same colour. Internal interpretations won't change this external fact. They would just produce a different sort of statement. Looking at the box, Jack sees red, Jane sees green. The box is red but not green. It appears green to Jane because she is looking at the box behind green glasses. This is not the same as "the box is red and at the same time the box is green" (two contrary statements being true) which as you say, is always impossible.

[Magnus Anderson]

If red is defined as what someone internally sees when observing x, then it becomes a purely subjective or interpretive thing. Like beauty. In that situation it would have to be the case that statements such as "the box is red" would be in-comprehensive as red is a matter of interpretation and would need a subject before the statement can be considered as comprehensive enough to qualify as either true or false. In that case, two people can interpret x differently. But this still doesn't lead to two contrary statements as being true. At no point can the two people deny that x is x. They can only point out that their interpretation of x is different and this is not a case of contrary statements being true. This is case of two entirely different statements being true.

I agree with this.

In fact, I would go so far to say that JSS is wrong when he says that the word "red" refers to an EMR frequency range. When we say that an object is red we are not saying that the object is reflecting electromagnetic waves within certain frequency range. Rather, as you say, we are describing what we internally see -- what is otherwise known as quale or quality. The fact that the word "red" was invented long before people knew anything about electromagnetic waves supports this idea. Basically, what is red is red regardless of what kind of electromagnetic waves are emitted by the object.

But I agree with his main point that two contradictory statements cannot be both true.

Ecmandu's statement "X is red and X is not red" looks like a contradiction but it isn't really because what it states is in all likelihood captured by the statement "An apple looks red to some and green (i.e. not red) to others". That's hardly a contradiction.

[Fixed Cross]

James be the legend



A) Consistency/Coherence = self-valuing
B) Comprehensiveness = valuing + value
C) Relevancy = value