Memetic Horizon

     Qualia, defined as the unique and intense experience one has when taking in unique sensory input.  Unique as in unrepeatable by the individual or anyone else, sensory input as opposed to a mental construct or memory.  Qualia diverges from memes immediately by declaring "no contest" when attempting to define them.  Though the debate continues on how to define a memetic unit, the debate is not "is it defineable".  Qualia has been described as a non-physical phenomenon, which can have no effect on causal reality.  Mainly this has been argued by those who want to believe that physical and mental experience, i.e. consciousness, are distinct and seperate.  Of course there is no way that a physical world can experience (and therefore be effected by) a non-physical one.  Therefore any talk of non-physical phenomenon, albeit fascinating, is mental masturbation.
     Since there are some who do debate that qualia have a physical effect and there for physical in nature, and since our debate here is about real memetics hereon I will refer to qualia as a quantifyable unit on a neurological level just as memes are.  If we say that a thought is a meme then a quale would be a mental interpretation of external input through specific memes.  If a general given external input can be repeated and a given meme generally shared, then on some broad level a qualia could be repeated and experienced by different beings.  Here we have a conflict, either we are saying that qualia are not unique, or that qualia do not exist because causality says that even if something may not be repeated. it could be by definition.  In a very technical way we could say that nothing is repeatable truly, because of time-space differentiations, and that no two brains are completely the same with any significant comparison.  The scientific method does not require such exact reproductions, but would say, however unlikely, that it is still possible.  
     Here philosophy and science come so close to saying something profound and meaningful to the human experience but fail to mesh.  Sartre argued in Being and Nothingness that although sensory organs, and as an extension sensory data, could be quantified, but that on the discussion of beings-in-the-world it was moot.  His argument continues to define conscious-being by consious-being and claims that that counscious-being cannot exist without a body, its contingency.  Plato, in his argument of the "shadows on the wall of a cave" claims that mental constructs which consciousness perceives are beyond physicality, on the Ideal plane.  In Plato's argument the Ideals are unique, ineffable and eternal, but not experienced by humanity in this life, but a watered down version.  One could say that qualia are when we see more of the Ideal and less of the veneer. 
     Maybe Plato would have worked for Sony http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/QUALIA/