Monist vs. Dualist Experiment?

[bennyboy]

No. I've answered it by showing the equivalence.

No. You tried to. There's a difference.

Every description of qualia fits matches brain function - thus the hypothesis that qualia is brain function stands on solid ground.

Um no. Qualia is the subjective experience of light, sound and senses. Brain function is neurons transmitting signals from nerve endings for processing in the brain.

Except, unlike theists, I know of the existence of god and know of atleast one sunset for which he is directly responsible.

In other words, I know that qualia exists and I know that some of my behavior is caused by qualia. And that differentiates my proposition frm a theists.

That's true. And you claim to know that qualia is brain function, while insisting that the Cyberboy 2000 has qualia despite not having a brain.

For you to talk about that, you first have to accept that bran systems are necessary to create qualia - which you haven't.

That's right. This has always been an "even if given" argument. An interesting aside, as it were.

Given the basic nature of qualia - that is, it is always associated with complex sensory events, positing its existence at neural or atomic level becomes nonsensical.

A piece of concrete is not a building. And a neuron's contribution to our complex experiences is not the same as experiencing a cup of hot chocolate.

You've said you don't believe in supervenience, but you are talking very much like someone who does.

Except, I'm not the one doing the defining. And showing evidence for a tautology is never required.

Qualia is a property of experience, which requires existence of a mind. Which means positing existence of qualia at the level where mind doesn't exist is nonsensical and does not require disproving.

You can replace "qualia" with "mind" if you want. I'd categorize mind as the medium on which qualia are expressed. But you still have the same philosophical issues: you don't know if anyone else has a mind, and you are left only with your hunch that your own mind is sufficient evidence of others.

If you want to say what qualia are, then you have to prove that's what they are.

You mean proof as in definition - which has been available to you from the start.

No, I mean your interpretation of what is observable, and the process by which you draw inferences from it to put forward as positive assertions.