> Now he tries to figure out how an iPhone works. He constructs theories based on what he knows. The theories are all shown, over hundreds of years, to be wrong

> Now he tries to figure out how an iPhone works. He constructs theories based on what he knows. The theories are all shown, over hundreds of years, to be wrong. Therefore, he is told, iPhones don't exist because when he constructs theories about them, they are wrong. But he directly observes the existence of the iPhone because he holds it in his hand. He knows they exist. He doesn't need a scientific theory to prove that they exist. Yes, that's the point. He has "experimental evidence" (aka something observable) right there in his hand. Understanding of how it works is immaterial for the question of existence (if you're not a constructivist :) So then we use that as analogy to look back at the question at hand: > From the direct observation of your experience of yellowness, which I think you must agree is something more than merely classifying the wavelength as being in a certain range, I would think you would know that qualia exist. That is enough evidence. Enough evidence of what? Certainly evidence of internal thoughts and feelings. I don't see how you can demonstrate anything beyond that, with or without an understand of how that "thing" might work.