Probably true.
I can think of cases where these two things may be reasonable.
Being driven ‘up the fucking wall’ is what I don’t get. It sounds like a little kid having a tantrum and not a mature intelligent adult. Maybe it’s a moment of frustration. I don’t see how it can be viewed as reasonable if it persists.
Interesting question and one to which I can only answer: no idea.
So! Shall we meet at dawn? Do you have your second? Have you cleaned and oiled your dueling pistol? 
How about noon and swords?
My apologies to iam if I’ve in any way offended. I really meant it as a compliment–I think everyone needs to find their own answers, don’t you?
Lol 
I prefer swords, rapiers if you please. Your chateau or mine?
I do think that, but I think that one of the best ways to do that is by asking others honestly, without having an answer.
No wo/man is an island!
I don’t see QM as something outside of us nor outside of thought, yet much like infinity it is not logically possible for a finite mechanistic entity [brain] to understand it.
Conclusion [after many years of consideration]; something else is involved in thought.
We will be replaced by robotic or otherwise computational mimics/puppets before we realise what reality truly is, what we truly are.
Are we rigorous enough in our thinking? don’t most everyone shy away from anything that attempts to take reason beyond logic!
Is there an intellectual embarrassment concerning what would quickly make us look foolish if we cannot establish a basis by current logical means. We realise the contradiction here I’d think, that naturally if the way we think about things does not explain both ours and the worlds essential nature, then we have to use a different way of thinking, one which will conflict with the current.
For example, why do we not follow the logic through as here [see also {1} below];
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=178096&p=2286578#p2286578
Philosophers are afraid to even use philosophy with rigor to understand genuine lines of inquiry. I am probably wrong in how I think of colour and consciousness, but we are never going to know the answer to that nor the questions in the op, because we aren’t even prepared to fully use logic let alone go beyond it and find a more fluidic manner of thinking about things, such that we can then tackle the questions at the heart of reality and hence philosophy itself.
[i]{1} Ok firstly we can agree that colour and sound etc are perceptual, but I’d say there is colour without sight or sound without hearing. This is because the perception of them derives imho from electrical signals rather than the original frequencies, this is why we can see something that is different to what light-waves determine. Examples can be found not only with what drugs do I.e. create false or otherwise imaginary inputs and present them to the perception, but also in optical illusions [inner and outer false correlation of perception to inputs].
It would be wrong to omit further rigour in our logic here; just as colour is not a property of light-waves, in the same way it cannot be said to be a property of neuronal electrical signals. In both cases we have an object forming a wavelength, then that gives [contains?] information from which the mind may perceive meaning about its environment. Electrical signals also may derive from other neuronal sources e.g. the memory and the imagination, which again presents information to the perceiver.
Crucially then, surely we must state that colour properly derives from information, as it is not a property of the signals as mentioned.
That both information and colour are not physical objects, they occur [in the least] as respective agents derived of them.
Additional; Weather or not that too is always the case is quite another question, when we consider fundamentals and origins it seems to me that we have to go beyond objects, then to background information and perhaps beyond that. So it would appear to be like this; I [1] {info} ≡ O {objects} ≡
I [2], where O changes the language of I [2].
Does all this mean that there is a fabric of reality - so to speak, whereby colour and info as consciousness or mind, are brought into being as requested? E.g. if the perceiver gets a signal where its information tells the perceiver that the colour ‘red’ is to be observed ~ either in the mind or as observed in the world, then the colour ‘red’ occurs?
Or rather than a fabric of reality, colour and info are mental/perceptual and we call that a quality of mind? Surely info is out there in the world and it seems equally strange to refer to a thing as mental qualia ~ there are only thing-ness’s, what does mental object or qualia even mean. [/i]