That's fine, but experience alone doesn't lead us to the conclusion that what we experience is non-physical in nature. Experience only leads us to the conclusion that what we experience is yellow, or hot, or painful or whatever. It tells us nothing about the origin and/or nature of these experiences. Theory is required to make the leap to the definition that Status posted, which overtly stated that, in order to qualify as qualia, the content of an experience must not have any physical explanation. We can, of course, reason about our experiences and come to these conclusions in light of the theoretical framework that we develop. Most here think that they've reasoned to the conclusion that the contents of their experiences must be non-physical qualia. I think that their reasoning is not sound, and furthermore that there is absolutely nothing in my experience itself to lead me in either direction. I experience yellow, hot, and pain, not physical or non-physical.