Monist vs. Dualist Experiment?

[bennyboy]

I can appreciate your position of agnosticism, given current development in the cognitive sciences, but on what basis do you "suspect" that it may not be knowable at all? That seems a somewhat intellectually dishonest agnosticism if you're willing to kibitz on the matter that you say you intend to keep at arm's length.

I'm not only agnostic because I don't know things: we all don't know most things. I take it as a philosophical position, as well-- agnostic-ISM. I don't think we have access to the layer of reality "under" what we can observe.

This shouldn't be strange, since in good ol' science we have plenty of that. For example, why do things exist, rather than not existing? What caused the Big Bang? We just say it's nonsense, because time started with the Big Bang-- but what we're really saying is that we are part of the universe, and have access only to it, not to whatever underlies it.

Okay, so now to qualia. The only entity I know for sure to experience qualia, rather than just seeming to, is me. However, since I'm human, I'm willing to extend this property to other humans as a highly pragmatic assumption. Since I'm a mammal, and other mammals behave similarly to humans in many ways, and have similar physiology, I extend it to them, too. Since I'm an animal, and at least some animals behave similarly to mammals, and have similar physiology, I extend it to them, too-- kind of. Bugs, I'm not so sure, because their physiology and behaviors are very different than mine, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

This process is so natural to us that it seems simple common sense. We aren't even aware that it's a philosophical process, rather than an objective observational one. But this becomes more clear when we see what many OTHER people have attributed qualia and intent to: weather, God, a deck of cards, their old car that always fails on the most important days. Who hasn't said at some point things like, "Come on baby, start just one more time, and I'll take you to the shop tomorrow, I promise," and then been grateful (or enraged) depending on how that inanimate object "behaved"? Why do we do this? Are people retarded? No-- it's the same instinctive process of inferring qualia and intent from observable behaviors, without direct access to the reality underlying those behaviors.

As for intellectual dishonesty-- obviously, I disagree. If you can show me a way to know for sure what qualia are and what processes/structures cause them to exist, then great. But agnosticism is always the most sensible default position (I don't know until I do know), so the BOP is on anyone positively asserting knowledge-- and that burden has not yet been met. Look, for example, at genkaus' definition of qualia. Has this been proven to be factual? Has anyone even suggested a method by which it could be? Or is it just a projection of the world view he's already chosen: "(If physical monsism then) qualia must be a purely physical function."