If beauty doesn't require God, why should morality? (Bite me Dr. Craig.)

[Angrboda]

It is the appearance of experience which defines the experience. Any view of qualia which does not accept this is not a view of qualia at all.

Unsupported assertion.

No. Well-supported definition:

qualia is "an unfamiliar term for something that could not be more familiar to each of us: the ways things seem to us."

You're using the word "defines" in two different senses, one semantic, one ontological.

At the end of the day, all that matters is whether you have a logical argument for why qualia cannot be brain processes and nothing more than brain processes. So far what you've given me is "well they seem different" and "we mean different things when we refer to them." Neither is a logical argument for why qualia cannot be brain processes and nothing more than brain processes. Do you have such an argument or not?