The answer to that is in the reply you quoted. Did you not see it? Did you not already know it from past discussion?
All of the examples you list where colour vision differed were either afterlife visions or gave no context that allowed the reader to determine whether they were or not. All the examples that clearly showed perception of the physical world did not mention any difference in colour vision - let alone a dramatic one.
Perhaps you should ask yourself why you are so determinedly - and poorly - arguing this point.
It still requires supporting evidence for justification, even when applying Occam’s razor.
So, I need to justify in advance which possibilities are worth considering, exclude those that challenge our current understanding of the fundamental features of nature, and only accept what already has supporting evidence? How, then, do we test the limits of nature or open new fields of investigation under such constraints? Would that not risk introducing scientific bias? The hypothesis of manufactured memories also requires supporting evidence, lest it be treated differently because it aligns with a physicalist interpretation?
The explanation is that perception is the result of brain function and, when the brain is functioning abnormally, abnormal perception occurs.
Do you have a better explanation? A tip: An explanation that entails the existence of entities, forces or processes that are not known to exist is not a better one. It’s a worse one.
Not necessarily. Dark matter is one such entity. We have no idea what dark matter is, except that it interacts with other matter only through gravity. But what it has that the alternatives to the brain as explanation of consciousness lacks is that it’s a parsimonious explanation for some high-quality data. Non-material souls seem carefully designed to be undetectable by any means, and consciousness as a fundamental feature of reality also seems to have no predicted detectable consequences.