Free will & the Conservation Laws

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

Kindly point out where I claimed that anyone who -disagreed with me- was unreasonable?  To demand what neither of us does or even could possess, in the formation of a test whose purpose is to collect evidence...not a deductive proof, would be unreasonable.  To object by leveraging an impossible standard, would be unreasonable.  You and I both have limited, not full knowledge.  We have limited reference sets and limited abilities.  Can a test for experience, or -anything- for that matter,  be based upon reference sets we do not possess, or be run by reliance upon abilities we do not have?  No and no...and there is a formal logical fallacy to describe any demand for or objection based upon either.  

Again...... the test I offered was for a -human being-......I'm still not sure that projection is applicable as an objection, nor am I simply assuming that my behavior, indicative of x..is also indicative of x.....in another human being...and I do acknowledge that even our own experiences are not strictly uniform.  However, even if I were.......whats the problem.....do you have some other reference set?  Some other metrics to use?  

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?

I don't think we're talking about the same thing.  I was correcting you, by stating that I -did not- think or claim that there were no ways that such behavior could be realized, in the absence of experience.   My test can be gamed, like any test..and we can get a false positive.  I mentioned one such example, explicitly.  

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.

You got your criticism ever so slightly wrong..read what you quoted again.

You proposed a scenario in which a philosophical zombie passed a test that satisfies us in the case of human beings.  I responded with the only logically consistent answer available in that event.  We would be forced to consider philosophical zombies to be -as aware as human beings are-, if they met the criteria we used to determine or accept awareness in each other. To state otherwise would be special pleading.