>>13044966I'll make it simple for you.
We take a bite of an apple and a strawberry. They taste different.
They are composed of different chemicals in different arrangements. So then these chemicals, when they interact with our taste buds, elicit a different electron response, that shoots a different signal throughout our nervous system and brain, and the taste qualitatively feels different. The apple and the strawberry don't taste the same.
If the apple and the strawberry actually do taste differently, then what you are saying here is that the difference in the arrangement of the chemicals inspire a different experience when eating them, which is qualia, in which case you are arguing that qualia exists.
IF the qualia didn't exist, then the chemicals wouldn't elicit a different taste, because there is no taste, qualia doesn't exist. This is obviously bullshit as we do, in fact, taste the difference between apples and strawberries.
Associating these differences to the difference chemicals does not disprove the existence of the qualia. All you've done in that instance is associate the chemical with the associated qualitative experience - You've still asserted the existence of qualia.
The only way to deny the existence of qualia, would be to claim that apples and strawberries do not actually taste differently.
You yourself literally just used the term "chemical A interacting is qualitatively different from chemical B", i.e. you just asserted the existence of qualia.
Tl;DR take your meds.
