Monist vs. Dualist Experiment?

[bennyboy]

Can't know - as opposed to don't know. And as I've said before, consistent application of this agnosticism means you can't know whether the 9/11 is real.

And you've consistently ignored my agreement with that statement, and my statement that these two cases of agnosticism are not equivalent.

Wrong. If qualia is a part of brain function, then knowing the differnce between someone who has qualia and someone who simply seems to is the same as knowing the difference between someone who has that particular function and someone who has some other function which resembles certain properties of having qualia. And that knowledge is scientifically relevant.

There's no way to establish if qualia is a part of brain function, except by your assumption-masked-as-hypothesis.

I have no problem accepting the fact that you are agnostic in regards to everything related to qualia. Don't take my pointing out your inconsistent application as your agnosticism as disbelief in your agnostic state. After all, all that is required for agnosticism is to remain ignorant of the evidence.

Theists do what you do. They say, "Look at the magnificent sunset. Only God could have done that." You say, "Look at the behavior. Only qualia could have done that." What neither of you have done is to establish that your "evidence" is attributable to, and only to, what you say it is.

Actually, you were the one who listed those alternatives - and in order for me to rule them out, they have to be ruled in first. Which means, for me to consider them, you have to establish them as valid and sensible possibilities. When discussing gravity, it is not up to me to disprove the hypothesis that it is caused by His Noodliness by pushing us down with his Noodly appendages, unless you prove it to be a sensible possibility in the first place.

That's a goofy parallel. I'm talking about systems which are integral to brain function, and how to identify which of those systems are necessary for qualia to really exist, and which are not. This is not making shit up just for giggles.

Why are they sensible possibilities? Because given qualia in the brain, one, some or all of those layers of functioning are required for qualia to exist. But we can only interface with functioning humans, specifically those who can communicate. We can't check a group of neurons, or atoms, for qualia. We can't check non-organic processing units for qualia.

Your solution is to define it away, "Qualia (according to me) is X, therefore wherever X is found, I've found evidence of qualia." Except you haven't demonstrated that qualia is X, and your "evidence" is therefore really only evidence that you are willing to beg the question.

Disproving all the hare-brained alternatives is not required.

If you want to say what qualia are, then you have to prove that's what they are. If you want to prove that a particular layer of function is sufficient to produce qualia, then you have to demonstrate that to be true.

You can call the alternatives to your arbitrarily-chosen level of function "hare-brained" if you want, but this does little to prove your positive assertions about the nature of qualia.