I think that a major problem here is one of the earlier questions I tried to have clarified, "What is the definition of color that is being used?"
That is a very good point. How many threads here have we seen this request made as a prerequisite to having a shared discussion?
In some ways, is it not sightly unusual that we are being asked to accept numerous definitions? In a way, I think it is. At times in this thread, colour has been defined by those not accepting the implied OP definition (colour as a brain experience only) as existing in at least 4 ways in 4 different places (in light, in objects, in the optic nerve and in the brain).
To my mind, the models that have colour, in different forms, in all 4 places are, I think, guilty of stretching definitions too far and just being confused, imprecise and profligate.
However, imo, the model that has it only in/of objects
and in/of brains (possibly the most naturally intuitive model for the average human) is arguably definitionally precise, because it is saying that objects have the
real, objective, actual colour and that the brain experience is merely a
secondary representation or psychological model of this. This is colour on a par with shape. It is also the distinction between 'red' and 'redness'. Red qualia are allowed, but only as mimics of 'true red'.
Even then, it might arguably be helpful and clarifying not to use the same term for what are very different phenomena with different properties.
But more fundamentally, and no matter how precise its two related but different definitions are, in my opinion it is simply wrong. I would quite strongly claim that objects are not in fact actually coloured at all. Imo, that is probably a mistake, and an illusion of perception (a form of mental projection), and the model that has objects as coloured is falling for it.
As for light, I'm not particularly convinced at all. Seems pretty unlikely, imo. Ditto the optic nerve.