Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 1:25 am
In the case of "This apple is red", the subject is clearly "this apple" and the predicate is obviously "red". The language is telling us that the portion of reality we're describing is the apple. The predicate further indicates that we're really really only describing a single aspect of that apple, namely, its color. So, if we want to be precise, the subject of the statement "This apple is red" is the color of that apple.
This does not mean that the language that we're using is indicating that the word "color" means "color qualia that exists outside of minds".
It merely indicates that the word "color" is defined as a property of physical objects.
It indicates that the word "color" does not refer to color qualia, but rather, to
an aspect of physical objects that causes us to perceive them in certain ways under certain conditions.
Specifically, it indicates that the word "color" means "the texture of a physical object".
Red, green, blue, black, white, yellow, orange, magenta, etc. are merely different names for different textures.
In the same exact way, the visual symbols that our brains use to construct our visual perceptions of reality, what we call color qualia, are merely different visual symbols for different types of light ( color qualia do not represent textures, they merely represent light. )
As I had claimed [pragmatism aside] all philosophical issues are reducible to
Philosophical Realism [an evolutionary default] versus
anti-Philosophical-Realism.
There are many kinds of anti-Philosophical-Realism but is central theme is that it is NOT Philosophical Realism, i.e. a mind-independent reality.
That why you stated;
MA:
It indicates that the word "color" does not refer to color qualia, but rather, to an aspect of physical objects that causes us to perceive them in certain ways under certain conditions.
As per Philosophical Realism, both the aspect [textures] and its physical object exist as a mind-independent objective reality [fact] outside the human mind's perception, beliefs, opinions and judgments.
When asked what is this independent objective fact, people like Peter Holmes will merely blabber, that independent object fact is a feature of reality that is 'just-is', being-so, that is the case, a state of affairs, and the like without any other details and explanatory force. Why Philosophical Realists are so dogmatic with this mind-independent stance is driven by an evolutionary default of external-ness independent of internal-ness [mind].
The point is, what is reality CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent, somehow that reality that is perceived as external is 'entangled' with the human conditions. Note I am not using the term 'dependent' as it can be very misleading.
It is that what is reality cannot be disentangled from the human conditions.
- Reality is all-there-is.
All humans are part and parcel [not independent] of all-there-is - determinism [not absolute].
Therefore, reality cannot be absolutely independent from the human conditions.
Philosophical Realism that claims reality is independent of the human condition is not realistic, as in you claiming colors and its object are independent from the human conditions and humans are merely effected by the independent things via perception.
Anti-philosophical-realists [mine is Kantian] claimed reality and the things therein cannot be absolutely independent from the human conditions.
But human conditions are vulnerable to fallibility and varied which mean we could have 8 billion individual versions of reality, i.e. it is thus subjective.
To ensure objectivity, whatever reality, facts, truth, knowledge and objectivity must be conditioned upon specific human-based Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] of which the scientific FSK has the most credible and reliable thus most objective degree of reality and knowledge.
Note also, before any thing is perceived, known and described, it has to go through the prior process of
realization and
emergence; this is conditioned upon an inevitable history of 13.7 billion years of conditions since the Big Bang to the present.
Re Skepdick question, as I read it, he is asking what FSK are you conditioning your sense of reality? A trichromat or a tetrachromat or whatever which you must qualified with whatever your answer.
You just cannot claim, because 'I said so' as if you are God.
For any proposition [general] I state about color, in this case with a need for rigor, I will qualify it to the science-physic FSK - the most credible; i.e. it is because the science-physic FSK said so, not because I said so.
In this case, what is color is the color wavelengths reflected of the physical texture as qualified to the human based science-physic FSK; this is not mind-independent because the human based science-physic FSK is not mind-independent but based on a collective of subjective minds in consensus.
One can say
this color is "red" is true but only qualified within its defined human-based FSK and its conditions, i.e. redefining the names assigned to the various range of color wavelengths.