Monist vs. Dualist Experiment?

[genkaus]

The fundamental difference is that in one case, we are mapping the properties of supposedly external objects onto experience, and in the other, we are attempting to map the NATURE of experience onto properties the supposedly external objects. This is an unlike comparison. Qualia as an object (e.g. as we do now when we symbolize it into words and talk about it), and qualia as the subjective representation of properties of objects, are not the same thing.

You do get that I'm making an analogy, right? An analogy means that I'm pointing out similarities between two otherwise dissimilar concepts.

Given an issue that is intrinsically agnostic, one MUST make an arbitrary decision (or arbitrarily refuse to make a decision) about how to view the issue. I cannot know whether other entities actually experience qualia, and nothing I can do changes that fact.

But its not a fact that the issue is intrinsically agnostic - which has been my argument since the start. You are taking the point of contention as a given.

You've often referred to "evidence," to hypotheses and their varying likelihoods. But there's a glaring absence of the words "absolute, undeniable proof." That's because science is intrinsically agnostic, not intrinsically gnostic. It's founded on assumptions which themselves aren't provable, starting with the existence of the physical universe.

That is your second error. Gnosticism or agnosticism are terms defined within the context of epistemology and the axiomatic premises of science are under the purview of metaphysics. The concepts of proof, evidence or assumption do not apply to metaphysical premises because those notions are derived from those premises. The idea that the existence of physical universe is not provable and therefore it must be an intrinsically agnostic assumption is nonsensical because the very concept of gnosticism derives from that premise.

Why do we assume the world is real? Because a rock on the head hurts. Because the boredom felt during math class feels very vivid. Because the girl who finally said "yes" provides an experience so rich that I believe it couldn't be a product of the imagination.

Because its negation is self-contradictory.

Every interaction results in a change of state, which affects the subsequent unfolding of further interactions.

And how does that make it a form of data processing?