Green or Blue = Bleen. This can be done using sensory connections that deliver the color data and can be shared and described using non-verbal communications: experiencing Green right now – left arm up, experiencing Blue – blink right eye twice, experiencing Bleen – roll eyes to the left and so on and so forth. Close your eyes now and tell me what those peculiar afterimages really are. Left over filament from the camera?

Coach DumFi (is that the same person as Coach Dumfi or not, I wonder?) has offered a non-answer here that is so wide of actually addressing your point that it makes me wonder whether he’s more concerned with just filling space with pseudo-intellectual ramblings than actually considering what others are actually saying…
Here, I think I get what you’re saying about colour – but I’d extend it even further, and say: try to explain a colour without actually using something of that colour as a first-hand example… the name of the colour is just another label, after all, and won’t actually communicate the experience of the colour itself to anyone who isn’t familiar with either the colour or the word. I’ve always found it funny how dictionaries will insist on having entries describing the ‘meaning’ of colour words, yet won’t actually admit the limitations implicit in the task to the point that they include little coloured patches as the ‘definition’. Printing costs aside, that would surely be the sensible (literally) approach.

I concur: Descartes was actualyl a proponent of the notion of the soul – the pineal gland being his suggested ‘interface’ between the nonphysical soul-stuff and the physical ‘automaton’ body. it was other, later philosophers who began to demolish the notion of nonphysical ‘soul-stuff’ being able to interact with a physical body. I’m still not sure that totally ‘does away’ with the idea of human souls, though – depends on how you choose to define ‘soul’, no?