That isn't a test of reductionism, etc, since many of the alternatives make the same prediction. For instance, David Chalmer's theory that qualia are non-physical properties that supervene on the physical properties of the brain.
True, it isn't a particularly specific test that supports all the common views of most LW users. That is not its intended purpose.
The purpose is to establish that "qualia" are not ontologically basic building blocks of the universe sprung into existence alongside up-quarks and charmings for the express purpose of allowing some specific subset of possible complex causal systems to have more stuff that sets them apart from other complex causal systems, just because the former are able to causally build abstract model of parts of their own system and would have internal causal patterns abstractly modeled as "negative reinforcement" that they causally attempt to avoid being fired if these aforementioned "qualia" building blocks didn't set them apart from the latter kind of complex systems...
... but I guess it does sound kind of obviously silly when you phrase it from a reductionist perspective.
The purpose is to establish that "qualia" are not ontologically basic building blocks of the universe sprung into existence alongside up-quarks and charmings for the express purpose of allowing some specific subset of possible complex causal systems to have more stuff that sets them apart from other complex causal systems,
But it doesn't. It just establishes that if they, they covary with physical states in the way that would be expected from identity theory. Admitedly it seems redundant to have a non physical extra ingredient that nonetheless just shadows what brains are doing physicallly. I think that's a flaw in Chalmers' theory. But its conceptual, not empirical.
[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.