Monist vs. Dualist Experiment?

[genkaus]

There's an important difference. I've actually seen planes and buildings and explosions. My agnosticism about 9/11 is only about whether or not the video I watch is a real recording (as opposed to a complex conspiracy). My agnosticism about qualia is INTRINSIC to the way I gain knowledge, not something happenstance to my geographic location at the time of (supposed?) events.

If your agnosticism about qualia was intrinsic to the way you gained knowledge then you would be similarly agnostic about 9/11 or the moon landing. Something that you accept, by the way, when you say that "My agnosticism about 9/11 is only about whether or not the video I watch is a real recording". If that is truly the case, then you have to accept that you are agnostic about 9/11 and the oon landing as well - so ultimately, there is no difference.

No I'm not. I said I'm willing to extend that assumption to other people because of their physiological and behavioral similarities to me, and also to mammals, and to other animals, and to single-celled organisms. Extending this assumption is a process based on social instinct and philosophical pragmatism.

And you are similarly just extending the assumption that the videos and photos you see of the events you cannot directly observe are real. Which means, the same way you cannot know whether others are capable of qualia, you similarly cannot know whether those events actually occurred - only extend a pragmatic assumption that they did. That would be an intellectually honest position for you - "I don't know if the towers were brought does by terrorists, I'm just assuming they were."

It also supports the third, since you'd still need a specific arrangement of "atomic qualia," which are associated with matter, to have ideas and physical experiences.

You need a specific arrangement of "atomic qualia" to have ideas and physical experiences? That's the first I'm hearing of it. Any evidence to support this?

What if you take all qualia and remove them from the mind? Is there still something there, or nothing but the sound of one hand clapping?

What say you? Is there a difference between mind and qualia, or is "qualia" just a word for the mental state at a given time?

Wrong - there is still something left. Qualia specifically refers to subjective experience, i.e. awareness of the inner working of the mind itself. The awareness of external events is not a part of it and exists independently of qualia.

The philosophical positions I mentioned are all logical positions based on reconciling the subject/object relationship that people experience. They are all simple positions about the relationship between the mind of a person and the things he perceives.

The other things you have added aren't simple positions: they're rich mythologies full of cultural influence.

Whether or not something is "logical" is determined by the premises taken as true. Which is why those positions are about as logical as other forms of creationism and the question of simplicity or complexity is irrelevant.

As for evidence: the "evidence" you are talking about is already founded on philosophical questions, so ragging on philosophical positions is hypocritical-- intellectually dishonest, so to speak. Don't believe me? What scientific evidence can you provide to prove that qualia exist? None. You conflate the meaning of an unobservable thing with an observable thing, label the observations (which are all based on your philosophical assumption) "evidence," and call it a point well made. Except no matter how confident you are, the fact is that you can't see my mind, or experience any of my experiences.

But what I can see is your behavior - and I know that that behavior is not possible without subjective experience.

There is no intellectual dishonesty here - I accept the philosophical premises upon which science is based and use those to evaluate all the other philosophical positions. Which is why I regard your goal-directed behavior as evidence for qualia.

Every firing of every neuron is a function. You are assuming that qualia live in the course functions of entire systems. But for all we know, it is those microscopic functions that determine actual experience.

Both statements say the same thing - qualia are determined by neural functions. So, all we have to do is identify the specific functions and replicate them in a non-biological medium.

What you call reasonable knowledge IS an assumption.

No, it isn't.

First of all, you have described the process I described-- generalizing self-knowledge to an extension of the assumption of qualia in others.

The only difference is what I call a pragmatic assumption, you call evidence. In this context, I believe my term is more appropriate. Using a property of a thing to establish other instances of that thing is still a false syllogism.
-Grape juice is purple. Therefore if I see a purple liquid, it must be grape juice.
-Dogs have tails. Therefore, if I see a tail, it is great evidence that there's a dog around somewhere.

That so called "difference" is the difference between knowledge and agnosticism. And no, your "term" is not more appropriate.

If the only occurrence of purple was with a grape juice then concluding grape juice when you see purple would be a reasonable conclusion.

If the only occurrence of tails was with dogs, then using the tail as evidence for dogs is valid.

Similarly, since the only existence of qualia is associated with brain function, then concluding qualia where there is function is valid. That's the crucial middle step you ignore in your accusations of false syllogism.

More importantly, that is how evidence works. If I find that gun-powder residue is the result of someone firing a gun and I find a person with gun-powder residue on his hands, then the statement that he has fired a gun is not a "pragmatic assumption", it is one based on evidence.