In UK atheists considred more moral than theists.

[Angrboda]

A realist or physicalist would counter that color is a property/properties of reflective bodies and their interaction with light that exists independently of any consciousness to perceive them.  If this is true, then color is in no meaningful way a phenomenon of consciousness, a construct, a side effect, or a feature of consciousness.  It is a feature of reality about which we possess representational content, but also, through our eyes, direct detection.  In essence, our eyes pick it up, but our brains are more focused on finding uses for that information than the detection and communication of information in the raw.  We construct utilitarian stories -about- color, but we don't construct color.  

And the physicalist would, in the main, be wrong. Color does not properly exist independent of consciousness because color itself is qualia. Light of specific wavelengths may or may not correlate with perception of color, it is still the perception upon which the identification of color is based. All other concepts of color, such as that it is specific wavelengths of light, are derivative of this fact. If we did not perceive certain wavelengths of light to correspond to the color red, we would not label that wavelength as red, or, at minimum, such a labeling would be an arbitrary assignment of a label to a phenomena. It is because those wavelengths of light give rise to the qualia of redness that we describe those wavelengths of light as being red.

---

---

Meh, colors are a phenomenon of consciousness.  They are a construct.  Suggesting that a color cannot be detected because there is not a construct available to consciousness is simply conflating multiple meanings of the word color.  Color is a side effect of light being perceived and processed by a brain.  So whether one can name a specific color or a new primary color is irrelevant because measuring the properties of light does not require the participation of biology and consciousness at that level.  That we can detect infrared light makes it clear that we can detect things that there is no conscious construct for.  The devices we use to detect such properties of light are themselves based upon things that we can observe and lead us to deduce the existence of infrared light.  I don't know what the original point was, but this nonsense about a new primary color seems nothing more than a red herring.  No, there is no construct in consciousness which corresponds to a new primary color or infrared light.  That doesn't mean we can't detect "color" (strictly speaking, we can't, because it's a feature of consciousness; I rather doubt that fact is relevant to whatever the original point was).

The mind can certainly create conscious construct for things that came to the mind entirely through a non-biological sensory instrumentality.   Such constructs can be a world seen with a different set of primary colors, or the forced pleasure of sucking Jesus cock forever after one has turned utterly to dust.   We certainly can imagine a forth color, such as UV or IR, and that is made easier and given guidance rooted in reality from imagine technology, even envision how they would change our visual milieu. The difference is it takes a different and more productively curious, and more critically skeptical of the unmeasurable, outlook to focus on envisioning a world seen through a different combination of colors demonstrated to exist as light carrying information, than to envision the pleasures of sucking Jesus cock after an end that one is too infantile to accept.

Perhaps, but it is also true that there is a fundamental difference between actual constructs of consciousness based upon perception and those one might imagine. The former are directly perceived, whereas the latter are inferred based upon independent perceptions. While they both may ultimately depend upon inference, in most epistemologies, direct perception is given a privileged status which imagination and inference do not enjoy.