Free will & the Conservation Laws

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm differentiating between consciousness and the experience, because in my case I have an experience. I can't be sure anyone else does. I think it's called the "problem of other minds", formally. Something like that. I think it's unsolvable. Of course, I assume other people do have experiences. It's a very sensible assumption. I'd have no reason to think they don't; I just can't be sure.

Not being sure isn't, quite, assuming.  We aren't sure about -anything- we haven't controlled the definition of. I think you do more than just assume.  A sensible assumption...you have reasons?  

Coming back to rocks: they have no way to communicate their experience, at least none that we know of. That doesn't mean they don't have any. I wouldn't find it any more absurd than us having experiences. It's just ours are in your face.

But this is all mental masturbation. I find it interesting, but it's useless.

You mean rocks don't do the things we associate with consciousness, with experience, they don't do what other conscious or experiencing agents do?  That sounds like a test, that sounds like a set of falsifiable metrics. I don't personally require you to solve any philosophical problem, but i think that in the wide gulf between certainty and assumption.......you're closer to the former than you are to the latter..in this regard. You're not simply assuming that I'm conscious, or that I have an experience. I've given you good reason to consider me conscious, an experiencer. The rock hasn't. If I looked like a human, and acted like a rock.....or If you found out in meeting me that I'm actually a rock sitting on a keyboard, you might reassess, eh? You -certainly- don't have to assume that I am conscious or experiencing in order to conclude that I am either.