Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 10:59 am
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!
Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 10:59 am
"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.
Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 10:59 am
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.
Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 10:59 am
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.
Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 10:59 am
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.
Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 10:59 am
So if I the word "true" to mean "false"; then is the sentence true; or false?
See the above.
The above is incoherent.
Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 10:59 am
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"?
Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 10:59 am
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?
Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 10:59 am
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" ?
Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 10:59 am
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.
Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 10:59 am
By definition, the word "color" is something that belongs to the object.
By which definition?
Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 10:59 am
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.
Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 10:59 am
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.
Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 10:59 am
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!
Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 10:59 am
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.
Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 10:59 am
I have no idea what you are trying to say. Can you try again in English?
What's unclear?
Everything.