Monist vs. Dualist Experiment?

[genkaus]

Ahhh! You mean like form and substance...perhaps I am getting through.

Umm... no. I'm asking you what you mean by "they" here?

---

Wrong again. The validity of evidence is in its ability to demonstrate that an idea about what is real is correct, WITHOUT TAKING AS GIVEN its correctness. Cuz that would be a circle, and circles are bad.

You are basically agreeing with what I just said.

I said that the validity of evidence is determined by logic - which means, presence of any logical fallacies would render it invalid.

You statement amounts to saying that circular reasoning would render the evidence invalid - which, being a logical fallacy, is automatically included in my statement.

You can't start by saying I'm wrong and then proceed to agree with me.

You: I know other people have qualia, because they act like they do.
Me: Prove they aren't just acting like they do.
You: People couldn't act like they do without qualia.
Me: Prove they couldn't act like they do without qualia.
You: Qualia are the brain function that make people act like they do, so when people act like they do, that's evidence of qualia.

Strawman Alert!

I've stated my position enough times already. So you don't have the excuse of misunderstanding it.

Me: I know I have qualia. I know my certain actions are the result of my qualia. I see no other rational explanation for those actions other than qualia. I see others acting similarly. Which is why I know they have qualia as well.

The problem is that your "evidence" cannot distinguish between the three simplest possibilities: 1) that every behavior of a certain nature implies qualia; 2) that any physical behavior can be reproduced through physical means, and therefore does not imply qualia; 3) that there's a mix: a behavior is sometimes a response to the experience of qualia, and is sometimes just a mechanical process not associated with qualia. Okay, so we go ahead and gather some of your "evidence:" somebody winks, nods knowingly, laughs politely at your bad jokes, etc. Which of the three possibilities does that evidence support? None, unless you ALREADY believe in one of those three.

Except, option 2 (and by extension 3) are not possibilities to begin with - no more than FSM pushing us down with his noodley appendages is a possibility. When we talk about the behavior of specific nature, that nature happens to require subjective awareness. There is no evidence to suggest that it can be reproduced through physical means without qualia.

You keep using science-y words like hypothesis and evidence. But your hypothesis isn't operationalized in a way that can lead to any meaningful conclusion, and your evidence fails to distinguish between any of the possibilities about what things do/don't have qualia. Don't believe me? Let's move this to a science forum. We'll outline your "hypothesis," your method, and the evidence you're looking for, and see what they say. I already know-- they'll tell you not to bring philosophy into their nice, objective, science.

Practicing science requires you to accept a particular philosophical outlook based on evidence - so no bringing philosophy into it is impossible.