Does it matter?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Therefore it it critical in this case we must research to find out the detail neural mechanics of such color blindness. Once we have done that [with advance neurosciences] then we can prevent the problem of color blindness in both you and me, where we will always see the same color even when the object changes color.

So, are you prescribing to the idea that there's one true color, and it's a problem if we don't all see that?

I don't think that's true. It could just be the expansive nature of our exploration and progress as humans.

PE stated,
"My OP implies that the wavelength is the same"
My reply is based that.

The above example can be applied to theists who believe in God and non-theists who don't.
Both stances are due to mental states which are supported by its respective neural connectivity in the brain.

I don't know about that. I think there are theists who don't actually believe in what they're doing/saying, but they have their individual reasons for following that particular social pattern -- just like any patterns that people may adopt in life.

I see it like wearing clothes and performing a role on the stage of life. What will you be? A king? A beggar? A theist? A politician? A free spirit? Does it matter? Will there be negative consequences in each case? Very likely.

That is possible but that is restricted to a small minority. For example one may convert to be 'theistic' to marry his girlfriend or other reasons thus their belief is pseudo. A person born into a religion may be labelled 'religious' by mere birth.

But when a person is triggered to be genuinely religious, that is represented by a certain pattern of neural connectivity.

[Lacewing]

when a person is triggered to be genuinely religious, that is represented by a certain pattern of neural connectivity.

Perhaps. I don't know. I think the genuinely religious are a minority. I think genuine people in general are a minority. There are all sorts of reasons (especially social pressure and ego) as to why people do what they do while they suspect/desire otherwise.

Familiarity is often chosen over truth... yes?

[Veritas Aequitas]

when a person is triggered to be genuinely religious, that is represented by a certain pattern of neural connectivity.

Perhaps. I don't know. I think the genuinely religious are a minority. I think genuine people in general are a minority. There are all sorts of reasons (especially social pressure and ego) as to why people do what they do while they suspect/desire otherwise.

Familiarity is often chosen over truth... yes?

I have stated, DNA wise all humans has the potential to be 'religious' and/or spiritual which is almost like the need to breathe. Such a compulsion is thus instinctive. This compulsion towards being religious is like but more fundamental than sex, hunger, and other primary instincts.

The potential is activated in the majority as active inclination for religion to relieve the anxieties of an inherent existential crisis.
Just like sex [where the majority are genuinely sexually active in various degrees with a minority of asexual, homosexuals, and others,]those who are genuinely religious are the majority in various degrees.

Being religious within the majority is a matter of degrees, i.e. from the fundamentalists to the so-so religious.
In this case the fundamentalists are the minority while the majority are not very serious into their religion, but they are still religious to a small degree as an insurance to be able to have eternal life in heaven or as an insurance against any surges of the existential crisis.

Within the majority of the religious there is a small minority of not-genuine or pseudo-religious due to various reasons, e.g. social and peer pressure, birth, marriage, political, etc.