Sorry if I paraphrase or if I sound confused. But... I would rather take it the other way for the discussion. :) I would rather say that we name the effect it

Sorry if I paraphrase or if I sound confused. But... I would rather take it the other way for the discussion. :) I would rather say that we name the effect it has on us (this looks "white" to me / I like this food), that we associate by simplification with the causal origin (it _is_ white / it is good). So when I say "the flag is white", I mean what I see, and communicate it in a way that invites someone's perception language to adjust to mine "yes, it is white". That is, two people adjust their own perception of the same causal property by the mean of their common language: we call white what we see as white. Although that could sound obvious, it introduces the possibility that the causal origin may behave, or be perceived, actually differently by two persons. And in this case, we face a potential misunderstanding between these two. Or am I mistaken? (edited for clarification/readability)