From PhilPapers forum Philosophy of Mind:

2012-11-12
What would count as an explanation?
Reply to Bill Meacham

Hi John,

Not completely sure if I fully understand what you are saying, but it seems like everything you say is right, but you're missing the falsifiable predictions that we are about to achieve the ability to "eff the ineffable" using various week and strong methods, being made in the consensus dualism parent theory camp. (see: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/28 ).  In other words, the consensus prediction is, you'll very much be able to communicate (eff, if you will) new phenomenal qualitative information.  As in: "Oh THAT is what your redness is like!" said the zombie no more.

If you can reliably predict the necessary and sufficient conditions for when a redness experience exists, then both "the neural correlate is informed by red" and "red by the neural correlate" as they are one and the same quality and causal property of the same stuff - whether functional or material - enabling one to reliably internally say or externally predict - yes that is my redness.

Brent Allsop