Now the fundamental question is whether there is "quality" and you are reasoning about it or whether there is other reasoning that you are reasoning about and this process of reasoning about reasoning is the phenomenon of "the feeling of quality."
For whichever side of the argument it supports and refutes, the things we're calling qualia can be reasoned
about (again, assuming we're referring to, for lack of better terms, the experiential aspect of percepts). In terms of sound, for example, the concept of pitch leads to a comparative equivalence class in human perception of the octave, which corresponds to something quite real--exact doubling of frequencies.
In terms of vision, the canonical qualia--color--can be compared with each other. For example, orange is closer to red than yellow is, and violet appears a blend of red and blue. These, as well, tend to have physical correlates.
For example, our color perception is driven by cones (rods play no role in color vision). S, M, and L cones are differentially sensitive across the spectrum. L is special in that it's sensitive across the entire spectrum, though preferentially towards long wavelengths. M is special in that it's sensitive primarily in the middle of the spectrum. S is special in that it's sensitive mainly for the shorter wavelengths alone. Pre-modern yet still popular monitor-inspiring color theory notwithstanding, these do not give us "RGB" lines; instead, their signals are combined. L+M mainly give our brightness metric, and L-M gives a "red/green" channel, and the brightness metric minus S a "yellow/blue" channel. With this layout, the red/green channel provides a "middle"/"outer" measure of the spectrum, and "yellow/blue" a "short wavelength"/"long wavelength" metric. As such, near the violet end of the spectrum, where M has dropped off faster than what L prefers, we get a bit of "red" color information, and that's where S sensitivity peaks triggering "blue". So we see violets... which are also
subjectively a mix of red and blue.
So these "qualia" seem to, at some point, break down into some form of physical correlate, but particular to the signals in our brains. Whether or not all such "qualia" act that way I've no clue, but color and sound are interesting test cases. Regardless:
- The fact that we can reason about them, and that subjective comparisons have physical correlates, is (a) noteworthy in itself, and (b) something that at least has potential to influence external behavior (such as answering questions)
- I'm not quite sure it matters whether you call these "qualia" or "other reasoning", as behaviorally they amount to the same thing. So for now I'm going to call these qualia, though I'm very wary of the singular "quale".
- For whatever it's worth, qualia are authoritative in classifications. For example, if we had a color theory based on "hard data" that said that x was red, but we look at it, and x appears blue, we have to throw out the color theory. That's not to say that physics doesn't cause colors, but that there should be some explanation for why we perceive colors in certain ways for a complete color theory, not just a raw "what the colors really are".
- And finally, green bugs me. It appears a mix of blue and yellow, yet, signal wise, they are different channels; furthermore, bluish yellow, presumably a distinct color, can be produced in labs (again, presumably). So why does green appear a mix of blue and yellow to me?
This is how I tend to attack questions such as qualia, as opposed to how it's been discussed in the thread pretty much by all sides--or at least as far as I'm able to understand. Hopefully I'm just making a simple mistake and someone can correct me, but if I'm on the right track, then the conclusion is obvious and clear:
I still have no clue what's going on.
(FYI, if anyone cares and happens not to know about it, I could provide sources for my color theory; however, since it's easy enough to google, don't be surprised if I cite "lmgtfy"--"opponent process" is a good magical word, as is "handprint").
