I still don't see what language has to do with this. The fact that we can form concepts about something and divulge that information through language has nothing to do with wether or not it exists. In fact, your argument presupposes (without any evidence) that language, the information it carries, and concepts we create exist themselves. To a non-theist that can't be a given. You say that "the world 'is,'"Thadeyus wrote:*Flicks metaphysical elastic band @ Icthus' head*
The world 'is'. We agree on this? We are transferring information through the medium of our shared language. There are inherent ideas/concepts etc literally built into said language that have meanings tied to them within our backgrounds/education/upbringing etc (The whole gamut of living/growing up/education etc). Within the shared definitions of our inherited language are words with meanings/definitions attache. hence something is 'green'...or 'red'. I type said words, you read them and there emerges a pattern within your mind from which you draw understanding.Icthus wrote:I don't quite get what you mean. You say that "colour is an intrinsic part of said element in said spectrum," but this is exactly the opposite of what most materialist philosophers actually argue (that color as common sense understands it exists only subjectively in the human mind and that there is nothing in the physical characteristics of the visible spectrum that is identical to what we see when we look at it. In other words, visible light has certain properties we construe as colour, but the idea that there is something a "colour" "looks like" is an illusion).
*Flicks metaphysical elastic band @ Icthus' head*
Except when I type a word (Purple) your mind automatically assigns 'something' to said word (Go on, DO NOT think about the purple elephant behind you. I dare you!) Colour is an inherent property of the way light refracts from everything. It's a break down of the whole spectrum emitted (Generally by the fusion ball about which we orbit) into what is reflected/refracted. Again getting back to 'The world is'.Icthus wrote:I don't exactly follow the logic between introducing a discussion of language into the issue, but it may be my fault for mentioning "what we term color." I am not referring to language per se but to colour as common sense understands it (i.e. that something "looks" red, or green, or what have you). Although no one is denying that the visible spectrum exists, most materialist philosophers would deny that colour is inherent in anything (to do so, even when it has been attempted, will almost without exception lead to a position bearing more resemblance to something like Aristotelianism), being merely a subjective projection by the human mind (which I might add, an eliminativist, who I hold to be the most consistent materialist, would consider to be an illusion itself).
(Go on, DO NOT think about the purple elephant behind you!)
*Flicks metaphysical elastic band @ Icthus' head*
Colours, sounds etc may have 'subjective' mental constructs attached to them....but, since we are typing about/transferring shared information and have communal understanding of said information/concepts being transmitted. (As I said, the concepts/ideas/information is part of the very construct of the information we are sharing) they exist and we experience them. Our development/education.society etc give us the mental tools to do anything with them.Icthus wrote:The point of Kurieuo's fifth point is to highlight the way that the mechanistic conception of the world often employed by materialists inherently rejects what we perceive in the world as merely the product of our own minds, that only what can be described by physics exists. Under physicalism waves and particles exist but colours, sounds, scents, etc only exist subjectively. It is possible, for instance, for scientific equipment to detect light at the frequency corresponding with "red," but it cannot "see" red as qualia aren't actually real. This leads to a great deal of trouble as A) it is difficult if not impossible to form a cogent worldview if the reality of the world as you perceive it doesn't correspond with reality as it is and B) it requires such things as qualia, the content of language, and intentionality to be swept under the rug somewhere, which is quite problematic.
So...colour (which ever part of the spectrum you like) exists as inherent properties of that which is light interacting/reflecting/refracting with/from/against everything around us.
(DO NOT think about the purple elephant behind you!)
*Flicks metaphysical elastic band @ Icthus' head*
and I don't disagree with that (it would be silly to do so), but that doesn't mean that the world in your head, the patterns in your mind, the common conceptual frameworks shared by humans, etc also exist. If I were an eliminativist, for example, I would think that not only do colours and sounds not exist, but that your mind is merely an illusion (even less, in fact, since an "illusion" implies that something exists to be fooled), and since, in my humble philosophical opinion, eliminativism is the most consistent form of materialism were I an atheist I'd be forced to reject your notions about the ontology of semantic content as silly.
I am not an atheist, however, and I actually do agree with you (being an Aristotelian) that colour, sound, scents, and other features of the universe are quite real and can't be simply cast aside, but with (I believe) a majority of philosophers I don't think that their existence can be neatly reconciled with the sort of physicalism that Kurieuo was addressing in the initial post. If you wish to posit a way that materialists can do so without giving up on the cherished belief that the only facts that matter are the physical facts, then you are free to try, and I won't argue with you.
I know not what constitutes a "metaphysical" elastic band (I suspect it is a misnomer) but fortunately for myself, I am not a realist with regards to such dubious entities and am therefore quite secure in the knowledge that I shall not be hit by one. Having thus sidestepped your barrage I bid you adieu.