Right and Wrong, a digression...

I must admit, your answer caught me off guard. I didn't expect your reply to be so thoroughly naturalistic. I think you're the first person I've come across who compared the notion of happiness with the color red. Then again, we're probably not reading the same books ;-)

When you say "They [beauty, happiness] are words we use to express what we experience in our brains," it seems to me you've made a point about language, not happiness.

Of course, we use "words" to describe what we experience in life.

That thing that barks, and wags its tail, and chases after a ball when we throw it is called a "dog." I suppose we could call it a platypus or a tree or anger, but that wouldn't change the fact that dogs, do in fact, exist. When we speak of dogs, we're just appealing to what we all assume to be a shared understanding about what happens in our *brain* when we see, or otherwise perceive, that thing we call a dog.

I would also submit that the very idea of color is, itself, a concept. Color is the concept we use to describe what happens in our brain when we see things. But our ability to perceive it has nothing to do with its existence.

My question is this: How does the fact that our brains have some correspondence to our perceptions have any bearing on the existence of anything, as you put it, "as an independent concept?"

Hopefully, I'm not being too pedantic in my reply.