(0=0)=(1=1)

[Magnus Anderson]

So waht? There is no relationship (other than convention) between what we say about things; and what things are.

As I keep demonstrating this is blue; or this is blue.

As I said before, you are free to define words whatever way you want, but once you define them, whether or not they can be used to represent what's inside some portion of reality is not up to you -- it's not an arbitrary choice.

As an example, if you define the word "blue" to refer to what is normally meant by "red", the statement "This sentence is blue" is true and the statement "This sentence is blue" is false.

The visual spectrum literally contains all colors in reality. Saying that it doesn't determine what colors exist in reality literally amounts to saying "reality doesn't determine what colors exist in reality".

Then why can't you pinpoint it on the color spectrum?

Well, the problem is that the visual spectrum does not really contain all colors that exist in reality. It really only contains spectral colors. All other colors are emitted which is why you can't find them on the visible spectrum.

This literally contradicts everything you just said! If white is "out there" then the observer's trichromacy; or tetrachromacy (or any other quirks of their visual system) don't matter!

You're missing the point. It's a description of a thing that exists outside of human minds and it's a description of that thing in terms of what kind of effect it has on human minds. The word "white" actually describes the physical constitution of physical objects. It's not a word describing the light that gets reflected off these physical objects and it's not a word describing the effect of the reflected light on human minds (regardless of whether these minds belong to trichromats or dichromats.)

Let me try to give you an example. Let's take some symbol S and let's say the definition of that symbol is "A person who is annoying to John". That's an example of a symbol that is defined in such a way that it can only be used to represent human beings (and these exist outside of human minds, right?) but only those that have a particular effect on John's mind (that of annoyance.) You can't use that symbol to represent anything within John's mind. You also can't use it to represent annoyance. You can only use it to represent human beings -- but only those that are annoying to John (whether or not they annoy other people is irrelevant.) The word "white" is defined in a similar way. It refers to something that exists outside of human minds but that has a particular effect on human minds possessed by trichromats.

[wtf]

I'm reminded of the great Star Trek episode where two guys are condemned to violently fight each other forever inside a dimensional corridor in order to keep the rest of the universe safe.

Thanks @Skepdick and @Magnus for keeping the rest of the forum safe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Alternative_Factor

[Skepdick]

As I said before, you are free to define words whatever way you want, but once you define them, whether or not they can be used to represent what's inside some portion of reality is not up to you -- it's not an arbitrary choice.

Translation: once you define a word you are not allowed to redefine it; or use it polymorphically.

Rules, rules rules. More made up rules. And all made-up rules MUST be followed.

As an example, if you define the word "blue" to refer to what is normally meant by "red", the statement "This sentence is blue" is true and the statement "This sentence is blue" is false.

So if I define the word "true" to mean "false"; then is the sentence true; or false?

Well, the problem is that the visual spectrum does not really contain all colors that exist in reality. It really only contains spectral colors. All other colors are emitted which is why you can't find them on the visible spectrum.

All colors on the spectrum are "emitted'. They are all electromagnetic waves. Lack of emmissions is what we call "black".

But it's weird that you are not aware of the expressions "true white" and "true black". As opposed to just "white" and "black".

This literally contradicts everything you just said! If white is "out there" then the observer's trichromacy; or tetrachromacy (or any other quirks of their visual system) don't matter!

You're missing the point. It's a description of a thing that exists outside of human minds and it's a description of that thing in terms of what kind of effect it has on human minds.

I am not missing anything. Your apologetics are incoherent. Are you describing the cause; or are you describing the effect?

Seems you want to have your cake and eat it too.

The word "white" actually describes the physical constitution of physical objects.

It's not a word describing the light that gets reflected off these physical objects and it's not a word describing the effect of the reflected light on human minds (regardless of whether these minds belong to trichromats or dichromats.)

You are super confused about the entire thing. Neuroscience is resolute on this issue - color is entirely in your head and has nothing to do with the physical constitution of objects.

Color is how your brain interprets light.
"White" is how your brain interprets light of ALL color-frequencies at once.
"Black" is how your brain interprets absence of light.

Color-words don't correspond to reality. They correspond to your experieces of reality as perceived by your brain.

It's why the correspondence theory is nonsense. Much like direct realism philosophies.

Let me try to give you an example. Let's take some symbol S and let's say the definition of that symbol is "A person who is annoying to John". That's an example of a symbol that is defined in such a way that it can only be used to represent human beings (and these exist outside of human minds, right?) but only those that have a particular effect on John's mind (that of annoyance.) You can't use that symbol to represent anything within John's mind. You also can't use it to represent annoyance. You can only use it to represent human beings -- but only those that are annoying to John (whether or not they annoy other people is irrelevant.) The word "white" is defined in a similar way. It refers to something that exists outside of human minds but that has a particular effect on human minds possessed by trichromats.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Can you try again in English?

[Skepdick]

I'm reminded of the great Star Trek episode where two guys are condemned to violently fight each other forever inside a dimensional corridor in order to keep the rest of the universe safe.

Such impoverished metaphor. There's so many better examples in all of history and philosophy.

In the end, though the "battle" can't be won because 0=0 is a different unit to 1=1. But it has the same value.

Dualities everywhere. In this case - intensional vs extensional properties of ()

[Magnus Anderson]

Translation: once you define a word you are not allowed to redefine it; or use it polymorphically.

False translation.

You can redefine it all you want, but by redefining it, you change the proposition that is attached to the sentence. The sentence remains the same but the proposition attached to it changes.

"This sentence is black" is true if you define the word "black" to mean what it is normally meant by "black" and false if you define the word "black" to mean what is normally meant by "white". That's all fine. But you can't conclude from that that the attached proposition is both true and false. Why? Because by changing the definition of words that constitute that sentence, you change the proposition that is attached to that sentence. So instead of having one and the same proposition that is true and false at the same time, you have two different propositions, one that is true and one that is false.

So if I the word "true" to mean "false"; then is the sentence true; or false?

See the above.

All colors on the spectrum are "emitted'. They are all electromagnetic waves.

I meant to say "omitted".

You are super confused about the entire thing. Neuroscience is resolute on this issue - color is entirely in your head and has nothing to do with the physical constitution of objects.

Nah. The problem is twofold. First, we have scientists, among them neuroscientists, who do not really understand how definitions work (they focus way too much on the empirical side of things.) As such, they do not really understand how the word "color" is normally used. Second, we have people, such as you, who spend too much time reading and too little time understanding what they read. As a consequence, they either parot what they read or they draw strange conclusions.

By definition, the word "color" is something that belongs to the object. We say "The ball is white". We don't say "When we look at the ball, we experience white color". That's a hint as to how the word "color" is defined. No observation is required other than the observation of the concept that is attached to the word "color". You don't need to look inside other people's heads in order to see that colors aren't subjective. (Albeit, the word "color" can be, and sometimes is, defined that way. But that's irrelevant here.)

Color is how your brain interprets light.
"White" is how your brain interprets light of ALL color-frequencies at once.
"Black" is how your brain interprets absence of ALL color.

That's a subjective definition of the word "color". According to the objective one, the word "color" means something along the lines of "the property possessed by an object of producing different sensations on the eye as a result of the way it reflects or emits light". That's a Google definition. And it's the first definition they offer. As you can tell, it refers to "the property possessed by an object". In other words, it refers to the physical constitution of things.

Color-words don't correspond to reality. They correspond to your experieces of reality as perceived by your brain.

It's why the correspondence theory is nonsense. Much like direct realism philosophies.

Your experiences of reality are also part of reality. So even in this case, the correspondence theory works just fine. And "direct realism" is an entirely different thing.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Can you try again in English?

What's unclear?

[Skepdick]

You can redefine it all you want, but by redefining it, you change the proposition that is attached to the sentence. The sentence remains the same but the proposition attached to it changes.

That's not true!

Both of these sentences express the exact same proposition!

This color is blue.
This color is blue.

Depending on the definition of "blue" the truth-value of the proposition may vary, but the proposition is exactly the same!

"This sentence is black" is true if you define the word "black" to mean what it is normally meant by "black" and false if you define the word "black" to mean what is normally meant by "white".

Yes. That's a change of truth-value, not a change in proposition.

That's all fine. But you can't conclude from that that the attached proposition is both true and false.

I can! The truth-value of the proposition is a dependent variable. It depends on the relation between the term "black" and the color of this sentence.

Since such a relation both exists AND doesn't exist - the proposition is both true AND false.

Why? Because by changing the definition of words that constitute that sentence, you change the proposition that is attached to that sentence.

No, you don't.

So instead of having one and the same proposition that is true and false at the same time, you have two different propositions, one that is true and one that is false.

You have one and the same proposition. With different truth-values.

So if I the word "true" to mean "false"; then is the sentence true; or false?

See the above.

The above is incoherent.

All colors on the spectrum are "emitted'. They are all electromagnetic waves.

I meant to say "omitted".

That makes your position even more incoherent. If the visual spectrum doesn't enumerate all colors - then what does?

By which authoritative list of colors have you determined that white was "omited"?

Nah. The problem is twofold. First, we have scientists, among them neuroscientists, who do not really understand how definitions work (they focus way too much on the empirical side of things.)

The phrase "understand how definitions work" is incoherent to me. Definitions work however you want them to work. Surely?

As such, they do not really understand how the word "color" is normally used.

I have no idea how you are using the phrase "really understand"; and "normally used".

What determines "real understanding" and "normal use" ?

Second, we have people, such as you, who spend too much time reading and too little time understanding what they read. As a consequence, they either parot what they read or they draw strange conclusions.

I am not that kind of person. I am the kind of person who has been doing empiricism for 30 years; and only recently discovered the theory underlying the practice. I am an autodidact, you see.

On the other hand, you absolutely strike me as a person who only ever reads and doesn't do anything practical.

By definition, the word "color" is something that belongs to the object.

By which definition?

We say "The ball is white". We don't say "When we look at the ball, we experience white color".

That doesn't matter. What matters is what you are expressing.

You aren't expressing the color of the ball. You are expressing your experience of the ball.

That's a hint as to how the word "color" is defined.

Idiot. By your very own criterion.... we don't say "When we look at the ball we experience what is defined as white color".

Most people use words without concerning themselves with definitions.
All of your "definitions" appear to be posthoc rationalizations of your own use.

But if you have a look at how differently you use different words in different contexts it's obvious to any non-idiot that you don't have a single, fixed, definition for every word.

If you did - you'd be speaking like a robot in some formal language.

That's a subjective definition of the word "color". According to the objective one, the word "color" means something along the lines of "the property possessed by an object of producing different sensations on the eye as a result of the way it reflects or emits light". That's a Google definition. And it's the first definition they offer. As you can tell, it refers to "the property possessed by an object". In other words, it refers to the physical constitution of things.

So then by definition one of those definitions is wrong?

If truth is correspondence to reality, and a definition defines the location of color in the wrong part of reality.

That sounds like a false definition to me!

Your experiences of reality are also part of reality. So even in this case, the correspondence theory works just fine. And "direct realism" is an entirely different thing.

You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

Either color is a property of the object; or it's a property of your experiences of the object.

In one of those cases the word "white" corresponds to reality outside of your head.
In the other case the word "white" corresponds to reality inside your head.

In the latter case "white" is a self-referential statement. It refers to the interlocutor's state of mind, not the object.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Can you try again in English?

What's unclear?

Everything.

[Magnus Anderson]

That's not true!

Both of these sentences express the exact same proposition!

This color is blue.
This color is blue.

Depending on the definition of "blue" the truth-value of the proposition may vary, but the proposition is exactly the same!

Two propositions are identical if and only if they refer to the same portion of reality ("subject") and describe it in the same way ("predicate").

The above two propositions may have the same predicate but the subject is obviously different -- the first proposition refers to the color of the first sentence, the second proposition refers to the color of the second sentence.

Thus, they are NOT one and the same proposition.

Similarly, "Trump's hair is gray" and "Trump's hair is gray" can be said to be two different propositions if the word "gray" is defined one way in the first sentence and another in the second. So, even though the subject is the same ("The color of Trump's hair"), the predicate is different (even though represented with the same symbol, the same word, that word being "gray"), and thus, the two sentences represent different propositions.

[Skepdick]

Two propositions are identical if and only if they refer to the same portion of reality ("subject") and describe it in the same way ("predicate").

The above two propositions may have the same predicate but the subject is obviously different -- the first proposition refers to the color of the first sentence, the second proposition refers to the color of the second sentence.

Thus, they are NOT one and the same proposition.

Similarly, "Trump's hair is gray" and "Trump's hair is gray" can be said to be two different propositions if the word "gray" is defined one way in the first sentence and another in the second. So, even though the subject is the same ("The color of Trump's hair"), the predicate is different (even though represented with the same symbol, the same word, that word being "gray"), and thus, the two sentences represent different propositions.

I see!

So you agree, then that the proposition 0=0 is not the same as the proposition 1=1. Obviously they are both predicated on the equality symbol but they apply to different subjects.

And so you necessarily agree that the since the LHS (0=0) of the predicate "=" is not the same as the RHS (1=1) then (0=0)=(1=1) is false?