Morning thought:
When we view the world around us, we perceive various qualities in it: things are hot or cold, solid or liquid, pink or purple or other colors.
We tend to confidently attribute those qualities to the things that exhibit them, and think that it stops there. But this is a half-analysis.
What it misses is our own contribution to these qualities; that the quality is not a name for something that an object possesses, but for *our perception* of that object.
+
Our perception is, in turn, based on our sensory apparatus (eyes, ears, nose, tongue, various types of nerve endings); and also on our individual experience and habits of expression.
For instance, a glass of water has a certain measurable temperature. But for four different people who taste it, it may be hot or warm or cool or cold, based on their assumptions of what water should be like. None of them are wrong; but they're all talking about the way they perceive the water, not how it *is*.
+
Likewise, two people, seeing the same flower may say it's a different color, one saying "pink" and the other "purple." This could represent a difference in how their eyes perceive color; or, no less likely, a difference in they way they divide up the spectrum and the names they apply to the colors. Again, they are both talking about their perception of the flower, not an absolute quality inherent in the flower.
+
@DavidSalo
In support;
There is no pink light. https://youtu.be/S9dqJRyk0YM