Monist vs. Dualist Experiment?

[bennyboy]

I agree that to this point, the parallel doesn't hold. HOWEVER, you still have the problem that there's no way to establish your evidence really serves as evidence for what you want it to.

I don't accept that behavior, for example, is sufficient evidence to establish that an organism (or other system) actual experiences qualia. Your problem is that there really isn't any kind of evidence that's any better, and that also avoids begging the question.

Your acceptance doesn't matter. Any reason as to why it wouldn't be sufficient?

My acceptance matters precisely because my complicity (or that of anyone else) is required in order for your evidence to be presented as valid. Your scientific hypothesis is a false syllogism: "I know this wagging tail to be caused by a dog, therefore all wagging tails are evidence of a dog."

It's true that dogs can have wagging tails. But this does not make a wagging tail adequate (or very meaningful) evidence of a dog. If I choose to ACCEPT this flimsy evidence, it's an arbitrary choice, not a rational conclusion. And my willingness to believe that any particular physical structure really experiences qualia is based purely on a hunch, as necessarily is yours or anyone else's. No science, here-- only some hunches with a sciencey hat on and some minus that unnecessary frill.