Pleasure and Joy

[bennyboy]

But you're just proving that all dogs have tails. Now you have the task of proving that wherever there's a tail, there's necessarily a dog.

Actually, I never claimed that wherever there is a tail there is a dog. Put in other words I never claimed that experience is only possible with human minds.

I think you saw the syllogism in the most sensible way, but I wasn't talking about that: I'm saying that EVEN IF some people actually experience and have brain function X, brain function X cannot be taken as sufficient proof that someone actually experiences.

In fact, it's not even that. The truth is I have access to exactly one consciousness-- and I cannot infer from any physical similarity to me that anyone else actually experiences. I can only assume it.

Actually, you're not quite proving that all dogs have tails, because we don't have to infer the existence of tails from any aspect of the dogs' behavior.

We do - as a matter of fact. A dog can't wag his tail if he does not have one.

Maybe not. But if the brain is a physical mechanism and nothing more, then it can process data and output behaviors without actual awareness. Any physical machine that requires that special quality is really evidence for a soul, rather than a proof that there isn't one.

Again, you are correlating behaviors with brain function, not the actual mental experience.

No, I'm saying experience is a brain function. Therefore, I'm correlating behavior to both brain function and experience at the same time.

You can say whatever you want. But I don't accept it-- it must be proven.

So when you say, "All conscious people have brain function X," what you're really saying is, all people who (report their experiences/move their eyes/show emotion) have brain function X. At no point do you have access to the existential reality/unreality of their subjective experience.

When you say that dinosaurs existed, what you are actually saying is that existence of fossils suggest existence of dinosaurs - at no point do you have access to the existential reality/unreality of dinosaurs.

When you say that black-holes exist, what you are actually saying is that motion of certain astronomical bodies suggest its existence - at no point do you have access to the existential reality/unreality of their existence.

When you say that global warming occurs, what you are actually saying is that scientists have reported its occurrence - at no point do you have access to its existential reality.

When you say that the accused committed a crime what you are actually saying is that evidence and eye-witness testimony suggest that he committed the crime - at no point do you have access to the existential reality/unreality of the crime itself.

As I've said before - direct perceptual access to something is not required to establish its existence.

All those things are inferred purely based on what you can see, or believe that you COULD see, if you chose to go do it yourself. If you want to start attributing qualities to them that are not required to explain observations, then you are on weak ground.

I accept that the brain takes in light and processes touch, sound, etc. I accept that brains result in behaviors. I do not accept that any of these processes necessarily indicates actual experience. This must be assumed.

Why does it matter? Because it may soon come that man-made machines can simulate human behavior closely enough to elicit sincere emotional responses (love, anger, etc.) from actual humans. So should we strive to sustain these mechanisms and give them rights? No-- because it may very well be that they don't actually experience, in the way that we do.