neurosphere

Bit of a harsh critique, though I appreciate reading people's comments on my writing. Ultimately, doing some writing over the past few months has taught me that I shouldn't necessarily underestimate people's ability to understand scientific concepts if only I take the time to explain them properly. I'm sorry that what I wrote wasn't sufficiently comprehensible :-( Also, I never took a philosophy class. None of what I said was meant to be pretentious or superior - I was just putting out there some concepts I found interesting.

It's not necessarily the case. Most animals would disregard whatever feeding they saw, and select the 'old' or 'new' food for their partner at chance level, indicating no awareness of satiation on one food

Yeah, that's true, paint is subtractive, as opposed to light. But isn't it still the case that all pigments can be achieved by mixing three primaries? Whereas in light mixing the primaries are considered to be red, green, blue, in pigment mixing they are considered to be cyan, magenta, yellow. Obviously please correct me if I'm wrong (no sarcasm implied), links would be useful.

I'm the author of the article, and I'm quite happy to see a response from a neuroscientist who studied this topic in the past. I wanted to ask you about point 3, because obviously I could have made a mistake. From what I understand (and what I have studied) retinal ganglion cells computing the S vs M and S vs M+L dimensions are the critical ones underlying coding of colour information along the blue-yellow and red-green axis. The additive axis, featuring amplitude information, from what I understand primarily concerns luminosity rather than colour discrimination. Without any of the ratio information, colour discrimination would not exist. Am I wrong? Would genuinely love to hear from you on this.