"Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <email@example.com>
>> On what basis do you define qualia as non-Turing-computable?
> Well, they aren't, so why should I define them as Turing-computable?
The assertion that qualia are not computable is totally meaningless. Compare against the assertion that baseballs are non-computable or that qualia are NP-complete. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
> (Proof by blatant assertion.)
> I ain't goin' over this again; search the archives.
If you don't want to go into it then provide a direct reference. The above is just juvenile.