It seems to me that on this view, red is red, it just so happens that red is not to be identified with the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation. Rather, red is the sense experience we have when we look at a certain wavelength of electromagnetic radiation. It is logically incoherent to say that something could fail to be identical with itself.
The experience is not the same as the actual physical phenomena though. EM radiation of a certain wavelength may be seen as 'blue' to different eyes and brains and 'red' to others. The thing we call 'red' is different to the thing that causes the phenomena. Some animals don't see certain colours at all, like humans who don't see infra-red or ultraviolet or microwaves or radio waves or anything beyond the visible spectrum (which means 'the spectrum visible to humans').
For humans, it is right to say that certain wavelengths=certain experienced colour. To say that this wavelength is also red to non-humans is anthropocentric and distinctly untrue (not saying that you are saying this, just that its a possible implication). Something being absolute should probably be absolute outside of the human realm, shouldn't it?
Of course, here is the great epistemological question. No one can know if my red is the same as your red.
Why not just have one thread for name-calling theist/atheist arguments instead of letting nearly every thread be derailed by that?
Look at the title of this thread. Do we have to have another circle jerk where we all agree that Jesus is a reptile from Hades? Some people enjoy debating things. If you don't, the door is basically where you constantly send me when I even slightly doubt a touch of your statements.
I thought this thread was finally one where I won't get constantly flamed by the 'enlightened' spiritual bullies here. And its actually interesting with people talking to each other!
Sound waves is one sensory phenomenon which definitely has objective existence. In fact, they can shatter a building and blow up your ear drums and make you deaf, no matter if you can hear them or not. Still, we don't hear all sound waves.
Light in different wavelengths exists and nobody is disputing that. Colour is the value assigned within the brain to those wavelengths. The external world is the origin of this radiation but the brain itself is what makes sense of it. If you could somehow view the universe without your brain, you would not see colour- but the light of differing wavelengths would still exist. You seem to be arguing against reductionism in general, rather than the facts of the senses.
Sound is simply vibrations in the earthly medium. It doesn't exist in space, and would be incredibly different on every other planet which does not contain the same mix of gases such as oxygen and nitrogen as our atmosphere does which is the medium through which sound as we know it predictably propagates. So, it is really true to say that vibrations occur and spread throughout the terrestrial medium and that organisms that live in that medium evolved senses which vibrate sympathetically and translate these vibrations into electricity in the brain- unless you are arguing that the electrical impulses which convey sensory data are zapped into your head from outside. Animals do not hear music in the way that we do because their brain does not impose the same structure on it. Sound, like colour, exists in the raw form but it is up to the brain (of whatever animal) to filter/refine/interpret/discard it. As before, if you didn't have a brain but could play a symphony, you would be unlikely to hear the nuance of the notes, but a spectrometer would be able to tell you that vibrations of a certain frequency are occurring. The vibration occur 'outside', the actual music occurs 'inside'.
I think hearing may have evolved from the sense of touch which is basically once more a means of detecting vibrations. There is a huge difference in the experience of touch to the experience of hearing. And yet, they are in fact interpretations of the same basic phenomena. I wonder if that is why we can use touch-based metaphors to describe music and sounds- a certain note is 'sharp', a particular melody line sounds 'warm'. Anyway, just some side-thoughts.