I totally agree, that would be an invalid conclusion. But that is not my point, my point is that we might not actually experience qualia, that our believe in us experiencing qualia is a confusion caused by our brain. If that were the case, there would be nothing an artificial would or even could be lacking, its experience of qualia - or rather the lack of it - would be identical to ours. The only difference would be that humans would claim to experience qualia - while they actually don't - while an artificial intelligence would not experience qualia either but also not claim to do so, at least unless the artificial intelligence also replicates the false human claim and claimed to experience qualia, which would be trivial to do.

If we only care about externally observable behaviour, then yes, they can be equivalent, but I don't think that's all we should care about.

I can only repeat my challenge, not sure if I wrote it to you before or whether it was in another thread. Try to make precise what this non-external thing is or provide evidence for its existence. Just come up with one sentence that says something about it that is neither trivial nor so fuzzy that it could mean anything and nothing. If you can do that, I will immediately switch to your side of the argument. If you do not want to reply to all my points, reply to this one, it's the central one. But be warned, you will have to pass quite a high bar with respect to non-triviality and non-fuzziness to convince me.

Why such distrust in your own brain? :)

Because my brain is telling itself and every other brain asking about it, that it is conscious and experiences qualia while the very same brain is unable to explain what those words even mean.

I think (the existence of) your own immediate subjective experience is evidence, and compelling evidence at that.

I totally disagree here, my brain telling my brain that my brain has some special thing going on is kind of the worst evidence possible. On an intuitive level I am as convinced as you are that I am conscious and experience qualia but once I start looking at it rationally this conviction starts fading.

Over the course of history, many things have been inaccessible to science, and then science has progressed.

Can you think of an example where we were not only unable to understand something but were even unable to describe the thing we could not understand? I have the feeling that there might have been a few such things but ad hoc I can not name any.

Qualia seem to be associated with only some processes in the brain (others are entirely subconscious), some of the time (attention can be redirected). This gives some hope of finding correlations between qualia and brain activity, which AIUI is a major topic in neuroscience currently.

Does that mean that you would be willing to attribute full consciousness to a CPU with some RAM if it ran some software creating the same patterns in memory as they occur in our brains?