It seems to me that you’re the one conflating. You’re conflating the material basis for our experience of colour with our experience of it.

You’re conflating the material basis for our experience of colour with our experience of it. — AJJ

If I'm telling you that the experience and the light refraction off the object are two different things, I'm conflating them?

You’re saying this:

"It refracts light a certain way" is what color is.

I’m saying light refraction is only colour when it’s experienced in the mind, and that otherwise it’s simply particles bouncing around.

I’m saying light refraction is only colour when it’s experienced in the mind, — AJJ

Which is you conflating color with the experience of color.

I'm not conflating color with the experience of color.

You’re saying instead that the material basis for colour is the same as the experience of it. This is patently false. It’s like saying the material basis for pain is the same as the experience of it. We know this is untrue because we can observe the material basis for pain in others without ourselves experiencing it. Also we can understand the material basis for colour without experiencing it.

You’re saying instead that the material basis for colour is the same as the experience of it. — AJJ

First off, where did I write anything even remotely resembling that? Where did I write anything at all like the phrase "material basis" even?

You said this:

It refracts light a certain way" is what color is.

Light refraction is the material basis for colour, but is not itself a colour, which is a thing we experience in our minds.

Light refraction is the material basis for colour, but is not itself a colour, — AJJ

It is itself color. Color is not identical to the experience of color. You're conflating color (in general) and the experience of color.

It's like I'm explaining this to a retard. How many times do I have to explain the same simple thing?

I didn't say anything like "the material basis of." That's you reading your own confused crap into what I'm saying.

It what sense is light refraction corresponding to the colour red a colour if no one experiences it? Why is it not simply particles, bouncing around?

It what sense is light refraction corresponding to the colour red — AJJ

It's not "corresponding to the color red," it is the color red. That's not to say that it's the experience of the color red if no one is experiencing it. The experience and what it's an experience of are not identical. "Simply particles bouncing around" is what the color red is (with the bit in quotation marks not exactly right, but that's close enough for jazz).

In what sense is it the colour red if it isn’t experienced?

In what sense is it the colour red if it isn’t experienced? — AJJ

Why would you equate anything with the experience of that thing?

That's such a ridiculous approach, to figure that everything is identical to the the experience of that thing.

Seriously, it comes across as if one is dealing with a two year-old or something, where they can't handle understanding the difference between the experience of something per se and what's experienced.

I’m saying experience and the material basis for it are distinct. In what sense is the light refraction for red a colour if no one experiences it?

In what sense is the light refraction for red a colour if no one experiences it? — AJJ

The question makes no sense. Are you thinking that the only senses there are of anything are experienced senses?

I’m saying there is a material basis for our experience. I’m saying the material basis and our experience are distinct. I’m saying there is a distinction between the material basis for colour and our experience of it.

You say the material basis (light refraction) for red is the colour red. But the material basis for red does not look like red unless someone looks at it, because it’s simply particles, bouncing around. The redness appears only in our minds.

I'm not saying anything using the phrase "material basis" for one.

The light refraction is color.

The experience of color is different than light refracting off of an object.

Experience is a mental phenomenon, yes.

I know you’re not. I am. When I say “material basis for colour” I mean light refraction. I’m not introducing anything new, or anything you haven’t been saying, by saying “material basis for colour”.

Right. So how is it that the experience of colour is generated in something purely material? In something that is only light refracting particles?

So how is it that the experience of colour is generated in something purely material? — AJJ

The experience of color, and all mental phenomena, are identical to brain phenomena.

Or are you asking for something like the schematics of exactly what's going on in brains for this particular phenomena?

We’re able to observe brain phenomena. The person whose brain we observe has experiences based on those brain phenomena. How then are the experiences and the phenomena identical?

The person whose brain we observe has experiences based on those brain phenomena. — AJJ

They don't have experiences based on those brain phenomena. They have experiences which are identical to those brain phenomena. The experiences are what it's like to be the brain in question.

How is the experience of redness identical to particles that are not themselves red?

How is the experience of redness identical to particles that are not themselves red? — AJJ

Didn't I just explain over and over that the experience of a color is not the same thing as the color? So we'd not think that the experience of a color should be identical to the color, right?

The brain phenomenon of someone experiencing the colour red is not itself red. How then are the brain phenomenon and the experience the same thing?

The brain phenomenon of someone experiencing the colour red is not itself red. — AJJ

Right. Because we understand that the experience of a color is not identical to the color, right?

So what, the colour red enters the brain and we experience it? Does the brain not interpret the light entering the eyes and produce whatever signals? Are these signals red? They must be if that’s what we experience, and the signals and the experience are the same.

It seems obvious that the redness appears only in the mind, and not in the brain. The brain produces signals, which generate images in the mind. Therefore the brain and the mind must be separate.

They must be if that’s what we experience, and the signals and the experience are the same. — AJJ

From where are we getting "the signals and the experience are the same"?

Please learn to spot a paraphrase. “Signals” = brain phenomena.

Why would we be supposing that the experience or the brain phenomena are red?

You say brain phenomena are identical to experiences. If you have an experience of redness, and your experiences are identical to brain phenomena, then your brain phenomenon must simply be redness. If that sounds nonsensical to you, then you get my point.

If you have an experience of redness, and your experiences are identical to brain phenomena, then your brain phenomenon must simply be redness — AJJ

Is an experience of a color the same thing as the color?