> We don't know what qualia are Actually, no. This is the one part of the problem we are clear on. Since this is an adequate excuse to give a lecture, here we

> We don't know what qualia are Actually, no. This is the one part of the problem we are clear on. Since this is an adequate excuse to give a lecture, here we go: Suppose I say "I am fat", and suppose you say of me "he is fat". In both of these sentences, the same thing is meant - an observation of the physical world was made, and excess lipids were detected. However, if I say "I am looking at a laptop", and you say "he is looking at a laptop", we don't mean the same thing. You mean that a particular physical state has been observed, with my eyeballs and brain directed laptopwards. Whereas what I mean... ...well, what I certainly don't mean is that I see any eyeballs, or brain. I don't observe any process of looking at all. I just look. What I mean by "I am looking" is completely different to what you mean by "he is looking" even though the two statements are formally similar. In other words, there are two wildly different, incommensurable uses of the word "am". One of them has a corresponding "is", one of them does not. So, getting back to qualia, there simply are no qualia. There are qualia that am, but as noted above, that doesn't imply that there are qualia that are.