Free will & the Conservation Laws

[The Grand Nudger]

Rhythm: of course, I have good reasons to think other people do experience things and no good reason to think rocks do. That's why I'm very happy to make those assumptions.

Conclusions are reached by reference to good reason, not assumptions.  

But no, I can't ever test if a rock is having an experience. Some sort of experience could emerge from any properties of physical matter, as far as I know, not just consciousness. I only have literally one concrete example, and that is me, even after dealing with solipsism.

I think you can.  You may have some doubt about the test...I'm not sure what that doubt would be, but to claim that we cannot test for consciousness or experience is a gross misrepresentation of our limits.  

I have good reason to think experiences only come out of consciousness, so I have no problem assuming that is the case, given that I can't investigate this further. As a scientist, I just take these assumptions for granted. But by my fundamental philosophy, which is of no practical use except as mental exercise, I can't rule out me being the only conscious being.

Determining out of what experience or consciousness arises is not the same question as whether or not objects a, b, or c possess them.  You may not have an answer or a test for that first question..but that's not the question whose answer you stated could only be assumed, and only proven by assuming the conclusion itself.  You may not know, or be able to determine, the precise square inch of the sky where a drop of rain comes from.....but you are able to determine that rain is falling on your head.

Of course, there are an infinite number of other things I can't rule out, it doesn't mean I take them seriously. That's exactly why falsifiability is so important, and why this doesn't matter or influence my decisions/scientific method in any way.

-and again I suggest that whether or not an object is conscious -or- experiencing is a question that -can- be put to a test.  We do put it to a test.  We test machines, we test human beings.  

The mystery for me is the experience. I can accept, as a scientist, that "consciousness being the experience" is a very sensible and consistent explanation. All the evidence supports it, yet I'm trapped in one frame of reference. If I could somehow "be" someone else for a few minutes, or even "be" a rock, that would give be some data. Did I experience anything, or not, while I was them? Otherwise, all I can test for is consciousness and assume that is same as the experience. Which I'm perfectly happy to do, as I say.

Being someone else would give you no more data than you currently possess in that regard.  You would only know whether or not you, already taken by yourself to be conscious, would still be conscious if transported to another shell.  You would not then...know, if those shells were conscious when you were -not- there, -not- being them, any more than you know now.  I don't think that it can't be tested, but I do think this would be a poor test..if what you want to learn about is -other- minds. Is there something wrong with the test - "did you see anything just now, what did you see?". Will this not answer the question of whether a person is conscious or experiencing - regardless of their answer? Obviously it won't work for a rock, we'd have to get more creative, but lets take it one step at a time.