Qualia defined in Wikipedia:
Philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett once suggested that qualia was "an unfamiliar term for something that could not be more familiar to each of us: the ways things seem to us".[2]
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder? If qualia is a real thing then what you see as the color blue could be what I see as the color red. We then have different favorite colors due to variations in how our eyes detect color. These little variations are the diversity which make each of us have a unique individualized perspective of reality.
Could this also apply to sexual attraction? Could this sexual attraction be the key to the evolution that created human life as we know it? Could qualia be the key to consciousness as we understand it? The key to intelligent life as we know it?
Much of the debate over their importance hinges on the definition of the term, and various philosophers emphasize or deny the existence of certain features of qualia. Consequently, the nature and existence of various definitions of qualia remain controversial in light of the fact that the existence of qualia has never been independently and scientifically proven as fact.
Qualia cannot be scientifically proven for the same reason we cannot use science to prove consciousness. What is light according to science other than a wave form pattern or specific vibration pattern? We can't actually see light as it really is because qualia makes it so each of us see each color a little bit different (in a unique way) and because of this our entire universe is inexact.
Science can determine what color is and where it exists on a spectrum, but it cannot experience how color feels to look at. It cannot sense the color blue and can only give a precise number representing blue on a spectrum. That number isn't different depending on who looks at it but the color blue we see is different depending on who looks at it. This also presents problems because on the quantum level we also have this inexact nature of reality and observer effects.
Although it does not actually mention the word "qualia", Thomas Nagel's paper "What Is it Like to Be a Bat?"[4] is often cited in debates over qualia. Nagel argues that consciousness has an essentially subjective character, a what-it-is-like aspect. He states that "an organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is something that it is like to be that organism—something it is like for the organism."[5] Nagel also suggests that the subjective aspect of the mind may not ever be sufficiently accounted for by the objective methods of reductionistic science. He claims that "if we acknowledge that a physical theory of mind must account for the subjective character of experience, we must admit that no presently available conception gives us a clue how this could be done."[6] Furthermore, he states that "it seems unlikely that any physical theory of mind can be contemplated until more thought has been given to the general problem of subjective and objective."[6]
Perhaps reality is merely the sum of all subjective experiences? The color blue experienced could be the color blue while the number representing the precise definition might be merely a number representing something which nothing in the universe can ever experience. Similar to how nothing in the universe can experience knowledge of the precise location of a particle in space and at best only do probability.
What is it like to be you?
This is a question which only you can ever answer if qualia is real. If qualia is not real then you can be cloned merely by copying exactly the information pattern representing your existence. In essence there are people who believe in the ability to theoretically upload you digitally. I'm skeptical of this as I would expect if qualia is real (we don't know or have a way to prove for sure) then the original you would maintain a subjective experience of being in that body while the copy might be a p-zombie. We have no way to determine using science which of the two will be able to experience subjective because science would have no ability to confirm subjective experience even exists for either version.
The Flirtation (1904), by Eugene de Blaas
Sexual attraction is attraction on the basis of sexual desire or the quality of arousing such interest.[1][2] Sexual attractiveness or sex appeal is an individual's ability to attract the sexual or erotic interest of another person, and is a factor in sexual selection or mate choice. The attraction can be to the physical or other qualities or traits of a person, or to such qualities in the context where they appear. The attraction may be to a person's aesthetics or movements or to their voice or smell, besides other factors. The attraction may be enhanced by a person's adornments, clothing, perfume or style. It can be influenced by individual genetic, psychological, or cultural factors, or to other, more amorphous qualities. Sexual attraction is also a response to another person that depends on a combination of the person possessing the traits and on the criteria of the person who is attracted.
Sexual attraction is the driver of mate selection. Mate selection is the driver of the evolution of intelligent life. Could sexual attraction be possible without qualia? Is there an objective set of criteria which is most beautiful to all? Can you imagine how intelligent life can evolve with no qualia? Is that the difference between biological life and AI?