I don’t see the need to add some mystical third component, sounds to me like philosophers just made up something to talk about because they don’t get paid unless they have something to talk about.
From wiki:
Examples of qualia include the perceived sensation of pain of a headache, the taste of wine, as well as the redness of an evening sky.
Nothing here seems to be above and beyond simple developed response to stimuli, same as a meal worm.
To be honest though, if you're actually interested in discussing this your comment really isn't conductive to fruitful discussion (especially the part denigrating philosophers). If not, why even respond?
Those of us who believe neurons are all there is are simply arguing everything is just abstractions and associations, just neurons firing. What you call a subjective experience is a particular set of neurons firing as a response to stimuli. There is nothing more than that, and while you can form an abstraction in your brain that describes something more than that, this would be an example of an improperly trained neural net.
Quite the opposite, really. I simply refuse to put them on a pedestal by making arguments like you did saying, essentially, “philosophers have been saying this is complicated for hundreds of years, therefore it must be”. Which, as other have stated, is not a logical argument but a faith based one. It’s really quite the same as my friends HS theology class, in which a correct answer to “what evidence do we have of the existence of god” was “thousands of years of belief and study by renowned theologians”, aka. bullshit.
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Are you saying that sense data is the same as the subjective experience of it?