I really dislike this article. It stretches the "What if your blue is my red?" concept too far, and makes it sound far more dramatic than it really is. Let me

I really dislike this article. It stretches the "What if your blue is my red?" concept too far, and makes it sound far more dramatic than it really is. Let me clear something up first. Our senses are ways of acquiring information. What we sense (i.e. colors, different pitches) are just the categories with which we sort them. As long as we can agree on some common definition (i.e. wavelength for a color), they have done their job. The talk about the subjectivity of color is misleading. The only thing that is subjective, is how our brain "parses" the information of these categories (i.e. my red vs. your red). But, because we can't share the brain's abstraction of color with one another, the discussion is meaningless. Thus, while there is an aspect of colors that is subjective, it is impossible to think about outside of your own, and thus the discussion of color in terms of wavelength is the only plausible discussion. ----- My problem with the article lies in the entirely inadequate account from the interviewee. Regarding her theory of color, she says: "... we need a way of theorizing subjectivity in such a way that we’ll just acknowledge that there are parts of our experience and our perceptual knowledge of things that are generated by the particular ways that we interact with the world." Which basically says "Our brains will parse the image differently, we need a way to discuss the results," and is pretty much useless. Then she claims that color is a combination of our interpretation of color and the properties of objects. Two possibilities: this might be just wrong, as she is conflating the color in the sense of wavelength and color in the sense of properties of objects that reflect light. These are clearly distinct. Alternatively, she is referring to the brain's interpretation of a scene given the information from the eyes. That is, given the "bitmap data" the eyes take in, the brain attempts to "parse" the scene, and adjusts colors for light sources. Well great, mystery solved, but we knew this already. So what exactly is her "theory" that she is contributing? To my understanding, the entire article is an attempt to confuse different meanings of the word color.