But this doesn't resolve the qualia issue - how would feel like to have a 1-bit vision? How do you produce a set of rules that is transitive with the experience of vision?

I agree that that doesn't resolve the qualia issue. To begin with, we'd need to write a SeeRed() function, that will write philosophy papers about the redness it perceives, and wonder whence it came, unless it has access to its own source code and can see inside the black box of the SeeRed() function. Even epiphenomenalists agree that this can be done, since they say consciousness has no physical effect on behavior. But here is my intuition (and pretty much every other reductionist's, I reckon) that leads me to reject epiphenomenalism: When I say, out loud (so there is a physical effect) "Wow, this flower I am holding is beautiful!", I am saying it because it actually looks beautiful to me! So I believe that, somehow, the perception is explainable, physically. And, at least for me, that intuition is much stronger than the intuition that conscious perception and computation are in separate magisteria.

We'll be able to get a lot further in this discussion once someone actually writes a SeeRed() function, which both epiphenomenalists and reductionists agree can be done.

Meanwhile, dualists think writing such a SeeRed() function is impossible. Time will tell.