Consider: in the absence of external input, we produce images in our own brains. Memories, imagination. On the smallest of levels, consider how electrons interact with one another.
Of course these “virtual photons” are mathematical constructs: ‘something’ has to carry information and it just so happens that invisible photons (with certain special properties) fit the bill nicely.
Nevertheless, whether tangible or math convenience, there’s a ‘something’ transferring information within.
So, backing out: Stuff comes into our retina. Our cells are bleached and recover but meanwhile they’ve converted these photons into “processable signals” going down the optic nerve, splitting up into two paths, recombining after processing.
Sans the retinal/optic nerve input, the same process can occur internally using “native processable signals” from our memories, imaginations and whatnot.
So, are you inverting the degree of light?
Objectively, it appears you do not. The same measuring tools come up with the same answers.
Yet, can the brain come up with the colors it wants? Absolutely it can.
Any part of the process can be altered. Is it a glitch in the cognition? Perhaps. But despite external measuring tools showing the same answers, all that does is tell you the same tool created with the same standards is coming up with the same answer.
It is equivalent to coming up with the same answer by a person and 100 of their clones who were born at the same time, SOMEHOW had exactly the same experiences and the same perspectives at all times.
This is, of course, impossible because two clones can’t be in the same place at the same time and have the same perspective and inputs at all stages.
It’s honestly amazing two people agree with each other about anything at all, to be honest. Socialization is quite powerful indeed.
…rereading I can see a few ‘wonky’ bits in my writing above. Feel free to destroy them for me ’cause I can see spots already where it failed but I’ll let it stand and hope nobody notices.