When naïve perceivers judge 'red resembles orange more than blue,' they take themselves to be tracking objective surface resemblances, not classifying their own qualia—so the mismatch is a genuine error, not mere misdescription.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Misdescription(as used in this philosophical argument): Describing something in a way that gets it wrong—like calling something by a name that doesn't actually fit what it is.
naïve perceivers(as used in epistemology (the study of knowledge)): People who make everyday observations about the world without special training or philosophical reflection—basically, just regular people using their senses naturally.
objective surface resemblances(as used in metaphysics (the study of reality)): Real, measurable similarities between things that exist in the world itself, independent of anyone's personal feelings about them.
qualia(The passage presents two competing definitions to contrast the views): On the Cartesian picture: intrinsic qualities of inner ideas of which subjects are directly aware, necessarily shared by internal duplicates regardless of environment. On wide representationalism: representational contents of inner states whose nature is partly externally determined

Based on where you are in your exploration