>>6813099It is relative, that was kinda the point of this thread. I wanted to see what it means to different people.
You actually can define colours in definite terms though, using a spectroscope.
>>6813102A unique aspect of human communication and thought is the ability to create and work with abstract concepts. Languages themselves have a structure (grammar), and most words in a language can be defined as representing objects (e.g cat, stick, cloud etc.) but then you have words that do not represent a physical object or phenomena (e.g. number, rule, thought, any word that ends in `-ism') and you also have words that work within the framework of the language to define itself, these are usually the ones with cyclic definitions (e.g. define, explain, tell). The evolution of abstraction can be seen by looking at primitive languages, and how the idea of something like mathematics arose from the needs of counting objects, and having something to represent those objects' quantities.
You can easily show someone a picture of a cat and say this is a `cat', however you cannot show someone a picture of a `number', or a `rule', or a `thought', as these are abstract concepts, and we are then forced to define them in the framework of the language itself. This is probably the biggest bottleneck of human communication ability; the majority of a modern language's functionality is devoted to explaining things we cannot show. Because of this inadequacy of explanation everyone will have their own thoughts of what these abstract concepts are to them, interpreted through their own life and experiences. `Love' falls into that category, in my opinion.
