So, if I understand you correctly, the world is as follows: There are objects that emit "blue" light. And there are nervous systems which respond differently to blue and non-blue light. And some aspect of this differential response is "experiencing blue".

It seems to me that this functions as a way to avoid directly mentioning the problematic entity, i.e. shades of blue. There is a concession that, yes, objects in the external world aren't actually blue. One might suppose, then, that the thing which is actually blue is somewhere in the brain. But instead, by talking about "experiencing blue" as a unit, we get to focus on language ("how to describe the reflective properties of certain objects", "vocabulary of qualia", "verification conditions for claims about 'blue experience'", "reports of subjective experience"), cause and effect, information processing, anything but phenomenal blueness itself.