The Frankish paper on diet qualia is available at no cost on his website under Articles.

Theoreticians, I've been researching some of Keith Frankish's work on this 'seeming' issue. He has lots of great information about stuff which he says is a 'common move in literature', and seems to be the same move James and Mike are attempting, when they talk about quale. One of his papers was entitled: [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810011001176 Quining diet qualia], in which he borrows the 'quining qualia' term from Dennett. Unfortunately, you have to pay to get that paper, but he has a great guest blog post [http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/2007/07/qualia-real-thing-by-guest-blogger.html here] on this. He refers to 'clasic qualia' as being 'ineffable, intrinsic, and private', which I seem to stress are important (although I prefer 'fundamental' to 'intrinsic'), which Mike and James seem to not consider are properties of what they think of as qualia? Anyway, I wondered if Mike and James would agree that their definition of 'qualia is this same 'diet' definition that Frankish talks about? It appears to me that Keith is a true qualophobe, and thinks we also don't have 'diet' qualia. So, perhaps, we'll need to come up with the following camp structure to include these types of people? * Representationalism * Qualophiles * Property Dualism / Classic Qualia * Diet Qualia / Representational Functionalism * Qualophobes.