I've also assumed that other people will most likely assume that I've assumed what others know or have assumed
This subject is hard to talk about.
One reason for this is that it seems (to me) that what I am trying to talk about is part of what enables me to talk about it.
I've tried to "define" what I am trying to talk about (here) many times, and this has so far shown to produce nothing "interesting". It all would sooner or later boil down to some sort of an "inefficient" semantic argument.
So, recently, I've been trying to "steer" other people's minds to the "proper impression"/state of my thoughts, by bombarding them laterally with certain mental constructs, hoping to keep the mind of the listener "in-line", or rather - in the "proper channel", which will (hopefully) inevitably lead him or her to my kind of thoughts. I guess this might be seen as a form of psychological manipulation, but I've found no other way to usefully talk about such things.
I don't see how "qualia" (along with some other "concepts") can be initially "defined" and "pre-cooked" productively, so I've chosen to take the "risk", and assume that other people's "understandings" or "impressions" of this concept would be "approximate" enough to allow for, at least moderately "interesting", philosophical development and construction.
So, I can keep on talking about it, but it might be much more "effective" if we simply started a discussion, thus hoping that your mind will be "stochastically" "steered" into a state "approximate" enough to mine to allow for the invitation of insights!