Sorry I wasn't clear. The sensation or experience of color exists only in the mind and such experience varies amongst individual humans, sometimes greatly in the case of people who are described as being color blind, and sometimes more subtly. Some people involuntarily experience a particular color when they hear certain sounds, letter or numbers. It's called synesthesia. Would you say that someone who experiences the sensation of red when he/she sees the letter 'A' could objectively claim that the color red is a property of the letter A?
I think you are failing to distinguish between colloquial langauge and scientific language. The music CD is a good example. It contains data which can be transformed and interpreted through a complex chain of processes to produce music. Whether you will like the quality of the sound cannot be determined from an examination of the data on the disc or from an examination of the recording properties of the disc, because the fidelity of the resulting music is dependent upon the quality of the CD player, the quality of the amplifier, the quality of the loudspeakers, the positioning of the loudspeakers in the room, the positioning of you, the listener, in the room, and the acoustic properties of the room.
We have no knowledge of data that cannot be linked to something tangible or concrete. They only becomes data when they are linked to something tangible.
Where are you going with this? This all makes little sense.
Why don't you first plan what you want to say, and then say it?
If you have nothing to say, like in this post, why say something and just keeping up an attitude, just to appear to be right?
I think you are failing to distinguish between colloquial langauge and scientific language.
What does that mean? Whenever you say something that doesn't make any sense, I have to understand it that you were using the language "colloquially"?
Poor, little trick. If you say something, that doesn't make sense, you can tell the other party:
"Oh, it was only meant colloquially."
Would be a great means for politics: " I promised to not raise taxes? Read my lips: I was talking colloquially, and not meaning it"
We have no knowledge of data that cannot be linked to something tangible or concrete. They only becomes data when they are linked to something tangible.
So you took something I said about data having to be linked to something tangible or concrete in order to be of value, and reformulated it, but in such a convoluted and cloudy way, that you destroyed any sense. What kind of debating style is this? It doesn't add anything, only destroys meaning.
Well, to set things straight for a last time.
Data is information written down by obeying certain rules. If you haven't gotten those rules, you can't read the data, but it's still data.
E.g. For many centuries it was impossible for European scientists to read Egyptian Hieroglyphs. All those texts in the several ancient, Egyptian writing styles can be called data. They were data even before they could be read/deciphered.
In 1799, during the Napoleonic campaign in Egypt, the Rosetta Stone was discovered. On it, the same text was written in ancient Greek and in two kinds of Egyptian hieroglyphic writing, hieroglyphs could be deciphered because of the known part, the ancient Greek text.
Now the data could be read, deciphered.
So, data is data, no matter if you can read them, or not. It just makes sense only when you know the rules for the deciphering.
Data is just a general term, the most general. The data on a music CD is generally data, but it is also music (in the same way as music is music when it is written down on paper in the form of musical notes. So your whole blabla about the transformation process doesn't add any information here, but it avoids the question you were pretending to treat.
You see, that's with all your posts. A lot of faking knowledge and faking arguments, without giving anything worthwhile.
You're just wasting my time.