As a reductionist and a subjectivist I find little to dispute, and much to cheer, in the use of the comparative argument against objectivism. The best available form of objectivism is anthropocentric realism, and at the very least the comparative argument dispels much of the motivation for that position. I do not think they demonstrate failures either in neurophysiological reductionism or in subjectivism. Thompson, Palacios, and Varela clearly deny neurophysiological reductionism. Hence color vision contributes to the determination of the environment of an animal.
None are inconsistent with neurophysiological reductionism.
One hopes evolutionary theory will someday provide an answer. But whatever the answer is, it will not contradict neurophysiological reductionism as described. The term is paradoxical. Flowering plants are parts of the environment of many different animals. According to Thompson, Palacios, and Varela, some have incommensurable color spaces.