The answer usually implicit in the literature is 'All three' (as opposed to 'None').[1] This is probably the more natural way of understanding qualia terminology, given the explanation so far, and is the one adopted in this article.
(At least, this is the usual way qualia terminology like '\(Q_{R}\)' is understood).
Suppose that philosophers in this counterfactual situation introduced qualia terminology in the way it was introduced in section 1.
Further suppose that Nonvert and his neighbor Invert use qualia terminology as introduced in section 1 above.
4. Of course, it might be objected that the explanation of qualia terminology just given is too vague, and so fails to convey a unique meaning.
The premise in need of most defense is P3.[45] When qualia terminology was introduced in section 1, it was tacitly presupposed that spectrum inversion was not rife.
If, on the other hand, their qualia terminology is meaningful, then presumably '\(Q_{R}\)', as they use it, refers to something other than a quale.
If their qualia terminology is meaningless, then it is hard to see why our terminology is better off we use '\(Q_{R}\)' just as it is used in the counterfactual situation.
Qualia terminology can be introduced in a similar manner for other sorts of visual experiences (seeing differently shaped patches, for instance), for other perceptual modalities, for bodily sensations, and for thoughts, imagery, emotions, and so forth.
Suppose that Humbert is semantically (and otherwise) competent, has normal color vision, is a member of our linguistic community, and uses qualia terminology ('\(Q_{R}\)', '\(Q_{G}\)', etc)., as introduced in section 1 above.
