Qualia Is Not a Pseudoproblem: A Response to Balconi et al. (2026), 'The End of Qualia'
Corenia Tortolano
Knowledge Commons (Lakehead University) October 30, 2026 DOI: 10.17613/qvcgd-dnt96 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Commentary Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Key points | Argues that the editorial's case for retiring qualia is unsupported by the collection it introduces, that a malformed question does not license abandoning the phenomenon it names, and that first-person report underlies pain science, affective neuroscience, and clinical measurement. Concludes that eliminating qualia without a successor concept is abandonment rather than a solution. |
Abstract
A response to Balconi et al.'s (2026) Frontiers in Psychology editorial proposing that qualia be retired as a pseudoproblem in Kuhn's sense. The letter argues that the collection the editorial introduces does not support its eliminative frame; that a malformed question has never licensed abandoning the phenomenon it names; and that first-person report remains the foundation on which pain science, affective neuroscience, and clinical measurement were built — the reports came first, and the instruments followed them. It concludes that retiring qualia without a successor concept that performs its duties is not a solution but an abandonment.