[arthurus]

The whole argument is silly. I have to guess without reading the article that this was done with a Federal Grant-praise be to Washington. Sound is only vibrations in the air until the brain interprets those vibrations. Color is wave frequency as interpreted by the brain. The author is trying to scientize the old conundrum about a tree falling in the forest. It is definition and nothing more. If color is defined as wavelength of light then color is inherent in nature. If color is defined as the brain's interpretation of the wavelength of received light then color is a construct of the brain.

[Blennos]

Great points arthurus.

[Dark Knight]

I read the article, did not see a single reference to rods and cones. The physical nature of the difference between two separate light sense gathering cells is certainly a cause for something in light perception. Since the washout of color in night vision has a huge effect in actual experience, its absence in the article would seem to be more than an oversight...lol.

DK

The pictures were also confusing as to how they represent the concepts. Differences in green show green is not real? Perceptually a difference in gray that is not when taken out of context is a measure of color? I would have appreciated the context of using impressionists to show color variability with the mind...but I didn’t write the book.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

"The whole argument is silly."

It wasn't considered silly by John Locke, "Father of Classical Liberalism"

who wrote An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.

And for a more scholarly treatment:

John Locke