As I described in my book 'Awareness and Consciousness -
Discovery, Distinction and Evolution - The New Upanishad', a Dr.
in UK has after 3 decades of investigation discovered a
tetrachromat woman
Exactly. A tetrachromat (represents color with 4 primary colors) is the opposite of (one more rather than rather than one less than a normal trichromat) a red/green color blind person (represent the same colors with 2 primary colors), more proof of diversity of qualia.
Evidently, the redness (detail) that she sees is very different
from the redness most of us see.
Hope I clarified.
OK, great, yes. You are showing that your theory is not qualia blind, and that you can model diversity of qualia. So that would mean that your theory belongs as a supporting sub camp to "
Representational QUalia Theory" since your theory is consistent with the general ideas described in that camp.
However, we may have a problem with saying anyone 'sees' redness. Because seeing, and all kinds of perception are different than direct apprehension. Perception and seeing are necessarily substrate independent, and require correct interpretation, or can be mistaken, because they are done from afar, across a chain of multiple different sets of intrinsic properties. Redness is an intrinsic property we directly apprehend, so does not require a dictionary and our knowledge of it cannot be mistaken, it just is.
But I'm still not fully grasping what it is you are predicting redness might be. Can you provide any insight into that?
Brent