Free will & the Conservation Laws

[Angrboda]

That if others behave as I would behave under the test, then they are experiencing the same things that I would be.  

That subtle shift in the question, again.  I;m not interested in whether or not their experience is uniform to my own.  I'm interested in whether or not they experience.  I -am- limited in my reference set...but we can only work with what we've got, and to demand otherwise or refuse to accept a conclusion on those grounds would be unreasonable.  

Ah yes, the olde 'if you don't agree with me you're being unreasonable' gambit. What I am saying is that you are externalizing your reference set. You're making the artifact of your reference set be the proxy that stands in for your reference set of phenomena. That's an unsound step. We can't assume that just because for you a certain behavior would be indicative of being aware that for another the same behavior is indicative of the same thing. That's projecting, and it's an assumption that isn't warranted.

But there's no way to know that this equivalence holds.  It in a way is claiming that there aren't alternative methods (besides experience) by which such behavior can be realized.

I think that there -are- ways to do that (I offered artifact of a conscious designer as an example)....my test doesn't claim any such thing, it's merely -one way- to get at an answer to a question by working with what we've got where it might apply.

And I'm claiming there are no such ways. If you have a counter-example, now is the time to pony up with a method other than assuming this equivalence. What have you got?

What if there are zombies who can pass the greater test without actually being aware?  Your test gives us no good reason to rule them out.

Then we have no good reason to rule them out....and every reason to consider them as aware as we are..and we'll have to confront that, rather than creating an imaginary partition which we cannot demonstrate, considering them "mimics" and ourselves something else.  

This is ridiculous! We'll have to consider them aware even though we know that, by definition, they are not aware? Surely there is something wrong with your procedure if it yields a false positive like this? Perhaps you aren't probing the correct indicator in plumbing the depths of behavior.