What makes you think that 'qualia' are a meaningful concept?
The problem, of course, is that qualia (or more generally, experiencing-ness) is not a concept at all (well there is a concept of experiencing-ness, but that is just the concept, not the actuality). A metaphor for experiencing-ness is the "theater of awareness" in which all concepts, sensations, and emotions appear and are witnessed. But experiencing-ness is prior to any and all concepts.
Read chapter 3, then come back and explain why a reductionistic explanation best accounts for the phenomena described there. Because if you are inconversant with the evidence, you simply have no rational basis to make any comment whatsoever.
You also seem to be playing some kind of semantic games with the word "reductionism" which I'll just note and ignore.
I keep posting the link, for a very simple reason.
Eliezer continues to post about the certainty of reductionism, while he has completely failed to investigate the evidence that reductionism cannot account for all of the observations.
He also continues to post snide remarks about the reality of psi phenomena. Again, he has completely failed to investigate the best evidence that he is wrong about this.
The post he wrote here shows a great committment to intellectual integrity. And I honestly believe he means what he wrote here.
I suspect at some point Eli's desire for the truth will overcome his ego identification with his current beliefs as well as his financial interest in preserving them.
I happen to have come across a PDF of Irreducible Mind which is temporarily available here.
Start with the introduction (the best part of the intro begins on page 23 (xxiii) ), then read chapter 3 which covers in detail a vast panoply of medical phenomena seen in clinical practice and in research which simply does not fit into the reductionistic framework.
Of course there are lots of other good books and thousands of important research papers, many of which are cited in the appendices of Irreducible Mind. But the advantage of this book, and especially chapter 3, is that the inability of the standard reductionistic dogmas to account for the evidence simply becomes crushingly obvious.
In the interest of helping folks here to "overcome bias", I should add just how creepy it is to outside observers to see the unswervingly devoted members of "Team Rational" post four or five comments to each Eliezer post that consist of little more than homilies to his pronouncements, scattered with hyperlinks to his previous scriptural utterances. Some of the more level-headed here like HA have commented on this already. Frankly it reeks of cultism and dogma, the aromas of Ayn Rand, Scientology and Est are beginning to waft from this blog. I think some of you want to live forever so you can grovel and worship Eli for all eternity. . .
I find Eliezer's (and many of the others here) total and complete obsession with the "God" concept endlessly fascinating. I bet you think about "God" more often than the large majority of the nominally religious. This "God" fellow has seriously pwn3d your wetware. . .
. . .I would not bother to voice my objection except that you are the leader of a project that if successful will impose on the entire future light cone decisions that will have the same unbendable and irreversible character that physical law now has.
How exquisite to read something like this in a thread attacking the absurdities of the narratives of religious beliefs. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Zenkat, I suspect a great deal of the venom towards Gould is also due to his opposition to certain positions on human population / IQ test differences.