What God is to the Universe is what your mind is to your body

[bennyboy]

No, I'm asking you whether or not seeing red is qualitatively or quantitatively different than what a camera is doing, for the third time.   

I don't know what a quantitative difference in color means to you, so I'm going with answer (a).

There's that arbitrary distinction again.  Unless you know -and can demonstrate- that qualia is not a term for information processing as it occurs in, say, -your- brain....then the question begs the question.  Hey, you may not be wrong...you;re just going to have to find another way to express it.  

Calling arguably the most important property of any system in the Universe-- the capacity for subjective experience-- arbitrary-- isn't really going to get you very far, as it is essentially a confession that qualia is so far from your world view that you don't even consider it relevant.

You have a misunderstanding of qm/our brains.  We are not qm creatures.  We do not have qm brains.  Perhaps there is such a thing as qm qualia (I wouldn't know) but it has little relevance to a human being, or a human brain.  

QM is the system upon which all else we know of supervenes. It is the most elemental level of organization that we currently know about. That's not a trivial thing.

Perhaps, similarly, there is such a thing as a molecular qualia, but here again that bears little relevance to human qualia, a human brain.  The last two seem legit...though it seems to be an issue of both, not one or the other.  Some things with nuerons do appear to have qualia, and it does appear that only certain types of information make their way into it. This, in itself, provides problems for the idea of a quantum or molecular qualia but doesn't outright rule them out...after all, if qm particles or simple molecules could be arranged such that they performed the function of nuerons, and then those arrangements cobbled together such that they form a analog of the brain,perhaps they too could experience qualia.  Perhaps there are even other arrangements of qm particles and molecules that could -also- experience qualia, things which -aren't- brain analogs...a conscious camera (or any other machine), or a conscious cosmic cloud, for example.   Hence, nuerology...................

Okay, there's a chain of supervenience in physics starting at QM, then subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, chains of molecules, etc. right up to full brain. Any of these levels could be the lowest at which the most elemental properties of mind emerge. I do not know what level that is, and neither do you. Brain waving doesn't work, because not all of these levels of emergence are specific to the brain, or even to integrated information processing.

I'm sorry that nuerolgy doesn't satisfy, there's really nothing more I can say on that count....except that you might not want to allow your disatisfaction with the explanations on offer to push you over the qm wooster edge

There's nothing wrong with neurology. It tells us a lot about how we think, and really shows how radically our experience can change based on brain function or changes in brain structure. It does not, however, give us any useful information about what other systems do/don't experience qualia, or on what level of physical organization the elements of mind supervene.

This is relevant to the OP. If the elements of mind supervene at the QM level, then the OP is reasonably close to the truth. If it supervenes only at the high-level organization of an animal brain, then the OP is wayyyy off.