I think the argument actually implies that p-zombies don't exist and therefore anything acting human is going to feel human from the inside. There isn't something special called "raw-experience" that we happen to have but that a p-zombie could not have.
We experience things in our mind, but reductionism implies that this experience has direct physical causes and effects and is therefore understandable and explainable by rational science. The experience of "red" has a specific physical description for each individual and, while it may be possible that two people disagree about whether a particular thing is "red", they could in principle study their brains until they found the precise points where their experiences/definitions diverged.
In practice, however, there is still a very strong sense of private language existing. We do not yet have the ability to reduce our internal experience into physical cause and affect, and so we have no way to truly understand how other people feel and experience. For instance, I could not adequately describe "red" to a blind person and a person who can see into the ultraviolet and infrared spectrum could not explain the colors "ultraviolet" or "infrared" to me. We lack a shared sensory framework, and further lack a shared mental model of ourselves that can understand what experience is like and therefore think accurately about what someone else actually experiences. For standard humans in the past it's arguable that private language actually existed. In the 21st century we have a chance to see private language dictionaries in our lifetimes.
Theres a difference between causation and reduction. The idea that qualia have physical causes is compatible with dualism, the idea that they are not ieducible to physics.
Knowing what causes non standard qualia, or where they diverge, still doesn't tell you how non standard qualia feel to the person having them.
For that reason, we are not going to have private language dictionaries any time soon. Looking at brain scans of someone with non standard qualia us not going to tell me what their qualia are as qualia.
[Cross-posted.]
1. Defining the problem: The inverted spectrum
A. Attempted solutions to the inverted spectrum.
B. The “substitution bias” of solving the “easy problem of consciousness” instead of the “hard problem.”
2. The false intuition of direct awareness
A. Our sense that the existence of raw experience is self-evident doesn’t show that it is true.
B. Experience can’t reveal the error in the intuition that raw experience exists.
C. We can’t capture the ineffable core of raw experience with language because there’s really nothing there.
D. We believe raw experience exists without detecting it.
3. The conceptual economy of qualia nihilism pays off in philosophical progress
4. Relying on the brute force of an intuition is rationally specious.
Against these considerations, the only argument for retaining raw experience in our ontology is the sheer strength of everyone’s belief in its existence. How much weight should we attach to a strong belief whose validity we can't check? None. Beliefs ordinarily earn a presumption of truth from the absence of empirical challenge, but when empirical challenge is impossible in principle, the belief deserves no confidence.