>>13627892I think that's just a way to say that individual humans experience sense qualia differently, like someone with a stronger sense of smell reacting more strongly to any smell than someone with a weaker or normal one, or colorblind vs. full vision reacting to a painting of many colors, near-sighted vs. 20/20 etc...
The subjective qualia is experienced differently but the same senses are utilized
More interesting imo is how different the qualia and subjective experience are between people who think primarily in different ways like a visual thinker vs. aphantasic, the aphantasic is totally unaware of the sheer vividness and quality of the visual thinkers mental imagery, only perhaps being able to experience a modicum of similar experience in their dreams when asleep.
Or consider the primary "conceptual" (mentalese thinker) vs. primary verbal thinker, the latter cannot comprehend the experience of the former, to them their sense of self may even be tied up with their "inner voice" and anything else is incomprehensible, meanwhile the former cannot comprehend the experience of the latter, for them dialogue is only "heard" in the mind when recalling movie quotes or songs, and the "inner monologue" thinking was thought to be a literary or artistic convention used in books/shows to let the audience know what someone is thinking, and the lack of silence and inner quiet of the latter feels utterly alien to them.
The fact that only recently has it come to mainstream awareness that people have different thinking methods and experiences is incredibly interesting for the study of qualia. Most interesting to me is the mentalese qualia, that subtle "thought before thought", someone unaware of it might assume their thoughts begin at their inner dialogue and hence think "thinking" refers to that alone, and someone aware of it and thinking in that way since birth might consider "inner dialogue" wholly superfluous and unnecessary and slower than mentalese thinking
