Many commentators have raised issues concerning the idea that language evolved from manual gestures. I deal with these first, reiterating the points that speech is very different from animal vocal calls, and that cortical control over manual action provided the best platform for the evolution of intentional communication and language. I then deal with commentaries on the origins of handedness. The critical questions are whether there is indeed an evolutionary coupling between handedness and lateralized control of speech, and if there is, whether a prior lateralization of vocal control provided the nudge that gave most of us left-sided speech and right-handedness.

Byrne & Hilbert (B&H) give some excellent replies to the objections to realism about color. However, the particular form of realism they propose, based on opponent processing, prompts several challenges. Why characterize a color by its tendency to produce an intermediate brain signal, rather than in terms of the final effect – either a perception or a neural substrate for it? At the level of the retina, and even of the cortex, there are processes that partly parallel the structure of color experience; but the correspondence is not exact. Must we assume that there is any place in the brain where an exact structural correspondence is found? At the level of psychophysical functioning, there is indeed opponency; but it is not clear that this gives us the kind of type-reduction that B&H want.

The disagreement between “color realists” and “color eliminativists” is better seen as a disagreement over pedagogical policies, about how best to satisfy lay curiosity about “what color is,” than as a clash of substantive theories. To suppose otherwise is to endow the ordinary language term “color” with more authority than it can bear.

Byrne & Hilbert (2003; henceforth B&H) do not adequately explain how it is that phenomenal colors are physical colors, as their physicalism claims. This explanation requires more characterization of the relationship between the epistemology and nature of color than B&H provide. With this characterization, we can see that a physicalist need not accept unknowable color facts, as B&H do.

Color experiences have representational content. But this content need not include a propositional component, particularly for reflectance physicalists such as Byrne & Hilbert (B&H). Insisting on such content gives primacy to language where it is not required, and makes the extension of the argument to nonhuman animals suspect.

Byrne & Hilbert (B&H) combine physicalism about color with intentionalism about color experience. I argue that this combination leads to an “error theory” about color experience, that is, the doctrine that color experience is systematically illusory. But this conflicts with another aspect of B&H's position, namely, the denial of error theory.

Our reply is in four parts. The first part, R1, addresses objections to our claim that there might be “unknowable” color facts. The second part, R2, discusses the use we make of opponent process theory. The third part, R3, examines the question of whether colors are causes. The fourth part, R4, takes up some issues concerning the content of visual experience.