Dennett argues that qualia (i.e., the ‘what it’s like’ of experience) do not exist. One argument he suggests is
that if there were any qualia, they would have to be immediately apprehensible, in the sense that their
subjects could learn something of them just by having those experiences, without further investigation. But,
he further argues, on the basis of the Chase/Sanborne Maxwell Coffee case (and other cases), that
experience is NOT immediately apprehensible. Does this argument succeed? Why or why not? Consider
ONE possible reply to YOUR THESIS (the strongest reply you can think of) and try to refute it.
