  The three features of the anti-representationalist scenario can motivate the conclusion that Invert is not systematically misperceiving the colors of things as follows. First, because Invert’s color vision is as useful as Nonvert’s for discriminating and identifying objects, surely it would be arbitrary to suppose that Invert’s color vision, but not Nonvert’s, is the source of pervasive illusions. Second, because Nonvert has been inverted since birth, a complicated system of causal connections between the colors of objects in her environment and states of her visual system has been in place for a long period. In particular, there is a reliable causal connection between the presence of a red object before Invert’s eyes and a certain neural event occurring in Invert; this sort of causal connection is plausibly sufficient to bestow the property of representing redness on this type of neural event. Third, because Invert and Nonvert belong to the same linguistic community, Invert’s word ‘red’ means red. So when Invert says (as she does), ‘Strawberries look red to me’, she means that strawberries look red to her. So, if strawberries do not look red to her, Invert is systematically in error about how things look, and this result is not  credible.[37]