>Look, would you *at least* admit that if qualia were deniable, then we
>ought to deny them?
>
Of course.
Your arguments might have any merit if qualia were something that were
postulated to explain something. If they were like quarks, or black holes,
we could argue about the possibilities of their existence based on the data
we have to support the qualia hypothesis. But qualia are not the hypothesis,
they're the data. The entire world, all of science, every belief you have in
everyday life are the hypothesis.
You fail to answer the most significant questions I'm asking: do you notice
a difference between the way you experience events that happen to you, and
the way you experience events that happen to me? What is this difference?
Also: what premises do you use as a basis for all your beliefs?
If qualia do not exist, then the way we experience red, the particular
visual sensation associated with it, what is that? Is that the actual way
the wavelength of the light *really is*? Why does the function of
classifying the light as a wavelength have this particular illusory sense
associated with it?
>-Dan
>
> -unless you love someone-
> -nothing else makes any sense-
> e.e. cummings
>