In that case wavelength has no wavelengthness, electromagetism has no electroness nor any magneticness. Funny thing is I have room in my head for the concepts of ‘magnetism’ and ‘wavelength’ only I don’t insist my appreciation of these terms are in any way due to a necessary dualism of brain/mind.SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:51 pmRed Electromagnetic Light has many Properties and one of them is Wavelength. However, Red Electromagnetic Light has no Property of Redness. The Redness is a creation of the Brain/Mind mechanism. The Brain/Mind mechanism presents the Redness Experience to us as a Surrogate for the Red Electromagnetic Light so that we can Detect the Red Electromagnetic Light.I Like Sushu wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 6:00 amSteve -
In reply to your last question ... NO. Or maybe you meant something different? I don’t know because you don’t, and haven’t, made yourself explicit enough. I’m only willing to guess so much.
If you don’t see that the concepts of ‘redness’ and ‘number/ness’ are ‘objects’ - in Husserlian terms - you don’t understand the point of the phenomenological investigation.
To add, you keep talking about ‘wavelengths’ yet these are ‘physical objects’ so you’re setting out the stall of ‘redness’ as both abstract and physical giving yourself an easy way to argue against any attempt to be nailed down. Either ‘redness’ is the wavelength or it isn’t. If it isn’t then does that mean red light isn’t red? See the issue here?
Your issue is epistemic at best, but the heart of the issue seems to be the linguistic knots you’ve tied yourself into.