Monist vs. Dualist Experiment?

[genkaus]

Because I don't know for sure that function is the only determinant of actual qualia.

The only reason you are not sure is because you start with the assumption that there is something else involved in determining qualia, i.e. you start by assuming dualism.

The only way brain function could be exactly replicated is by making an actual brain. But then you'd have a brain, not a robot.

Not necessarily - function doesn't depend on the material constituents.

So you're talking about function of a certain NATURE-- self-reference, etc. but not of an identical mechanism. Just because we think certain kinds of data processing are involved in qualia doesn't mean wherever that kind of processing occurs there IS qualia. That pretty much defines a false syllogism.

Actually, I am talking about an identical mechanism. I'm not saying that a specific form of data-processing is involved with qualia - I'm saying that a specific form of data-processing IS qualia. Or qualia IS a specific form of data-processing. Which means, replicating that particular function would result in existence of qualia in machines.

What does "understand" mean? If you mean, process input and give a consistent output, fine. Otherwise, understanding implies qualia. But how are you to know which kind of understanding the robot exhibits? By asking it if it's "really feeling?"

I made it quite clear in the preceding sentence what I mean by "understand". If it can communicate intelligibly about the qualitative nature of the inputs it receives and processing of those inputs then it is displaying a kind of "understanding" that implies qualia.