>This article makes color sound very confusing by not setting a clear scope at the beginning. The resulting ambiguity is the source of "philosophical discussion".
The scope of the article is quite clear, and is the second thing: "perception in the mind of a creature with light receptors".
The article mentions that this second thing doesn't coincide with a direct mapping from the first thing ("light in varying wavelengths and intensities"), because that (as measured mechanically) can produce different perceptions of color for the same measures of wavelength and intensity (depending on surrounding colors, overall lighting and several other factors).
The philosophical discussion (without quotes) is not settled by saying we only want to investigate color as the second thing ("the perception in the mind of a creature with light receptors").
There are far too many philosophical issues in this alone.
The scope of the article is quite clear, and is the second thing: "perception in the mind of a creature with light receptors".
The article mentions that this second thing doesn't coincide with a direct mapping from the first thing ("light in varying wavelengths and intensities"), because that (as measured mechanically) can produce different perceptions of color for the same measures of wavelength and intensity (depending on surrounding colors, overall lighting and several other factors).
The philosophical discussion (without quotes) is not settled by saying we only want to investigate color as the second thing ("the perception in the mind of a creature with light receptors").
There are far too many philosophical issues in this alone.