I am not surprised that you do not regard my post as an answer to your question, as I am still unclear on what your question is.
Color is simply different frequencies of light. That is all it is, as a thing that is not perceived. The subjective experience of color cannot occur without something perceiving it.
The same idea applies to a tree falling in a forest. Sound is vibrations in a medium (typically air, but it can be in water or some other thing). In the absence of anyone there to hear the tree falling, the air is still moved by the falling of the tree. But there is no subjective experience of sound, though there still is the movement of air that would likely be audible if someone were there to hear it. So, if by "sound" one means the vibrations of the medium (the air in this case), then there is a sound in the forest when a tree falls and there is no one there to hear it. If by "sound" one means the subjective experience of those vibrations, then obviously there would be no sound in that sense because there is no one hearing it.
The only way I can see someone saying that there is a problem with what I am saying is if they disagree with the modern scientific understanding of the world and say something like "to be is to be perceived" along the lines of what George Berkeley said (I am not directly quoting him, but am conveying the idea), but unlike Berkeley, saying there is no God. Berkeley was a metaphysical idealist, who said that only mind stuff exists, not physical stuff. But if you were saying something like this, it seems unlikely that you would be asking a question like the one you are asking.
Color is simply different frequencies of light. That is all it is, as a thing that is not perceived. The subjective experience of color cannot occur without something perceiving it.
The same idea applies to a tree falling in a forest. Sound is vibrations in a medium (typically air, but it can be in water or some other thing). In the absence of anyone there to hear the tree falling, the air is still moved by the falling of the tree. But there is no subjective experience of sound, though there still is the movement of air that would likely be audible if someone were there to hear it. So, if by "sound" one means the vibrations of the medium (the air in this case), then there is a sound in the forest when a tree falls and there is no one there to hear it. If by "sound" one means the subjective experience of those vibrations, then obviously there would be no sound in that sense because there is no one hearing it.
The only way I can see someone saying that there is a problem with what I am saying is if they disagree with the modern scientific understanding of the world and say something like "to be is to be perceived" along the lines of what George Berkeley said (I am not directly quoting him, but am conveying the idea), but unlike Berkeley, saying there is no God. Berkeley was a metaphysical idealist, who said that only mind stuff exists, not physical stuff. But if you were saying something like this, it seems unlikely that you would be asking a question like the one you are asking.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
