> Either my qualia are objectively different from everyone else's Yes. I mean, not everyone else's, but certainly many. > What I find incredible is just how s

> Either my qualia are objectively different from everyone else's Yes. I mean, not everyone else's, but certainly many. > What I find incredible is just how similar everything tastes. Vaguely similar, maybe. Incredibly similar? That's either you ignoring or being biologically unequipped to tell the differences. > I just find it hard to believe that the difference is so great that people can find one repulsive and the other divine. They taste different. In some cases radically different. Cokes and Pepsis are reminiscent of each other, but the difference between them on, say, a multidimensional tartness-sweetness-bitterness spectrum is as great as the similarity between them on the cola-hotdog spectrum. It's not difficult at all for me to recognize why people might like the taste of one and not the other. If they were actually the same, the blind "Pepsi Challenge" wouldn't have worked as well as it did. Next you'll say that you think Heinz ketchup tastes like Hunts ketchup, something which is just logically untrue, as if the ingredients and their proportions don't matter. Are they both ketchup? Yes. Do they taste the same? No. They don't mix the same ingredients in the same proportions. When two things are different, is it reasonable to form preferences even if those preferences are sometimes circumstantial (A better on X, B better on Y)? Yes.