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.

[genkaus]

My acceptance matters precisely because my complicity (or that of anyone else) is required in order for your evidence to be presented as valid.

Wrong again. The validity of evidence is not determined by consensus but by logic. The consensus is a tool to minimize errors in logic.

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."

If dogs were the only known cause of wagging tails, this hypothesis would be a valid one.

A more correct analogy would be: "All the known instances of wagging tails are caused by animals, so any wagging tail can be regarded as prima-facie evidence of existence of an animal".

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.

That's because we already have evidence of other animals having wagging tails. The inadequacy of evidence in this case is the reasult of known and proven alternate possibilities.

The correct analogy here would be: All the known instances of wagging tails require an animal wagging it. Which is what makes a wagging tail an adequate and meaningful evidence for an animal.

If I choose to ACCEPT this flimsy evidence, it's an arbitrary choice, not a rational conclusion.

Exactly - if YOU choose to accept it. Acceptance of evidence on those terms is meaningless, which is why your acceptance is irrelevant.

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.

That's where you are wrong. As demonstrated earlier with the inconsistent application of your agnosticism, while your acceptance might be based on a hunch, others adhere to a higher standard.

[Neo-Scholastic]

You succintly state my position in the first phrase and then, for the rest of the post, proceed to ignore it and argue against something else altogether. You cannot pretend that you simply misunderstood it if you were able state it in the beginning.

Whether you realize it or not, Genkaus, you are exploiting an ambiguity in your position that allows you to have your cake and eat it too. If qualia, and other mental processes are functions, then what are you saying implements those functions other than brain processes? What exactly do you say performs the “functions” of sensation, apprehension, judgment, and reasoning? Is it the mental processes? Or is it the brain processes? Or is it the brain processes and the mental ones together? Or are they one and the same?

[genkaus]

Whether you realize it or not, Genkaus, you are exploiting an ambiguity in your position that allows you to have your cake and eat it too. If qualia, and other mental processes are functions, then what are you saying implements those functions other than brain processes? What exactly do you say performs the “functions” of sensation, apprehension, judgment, and reasoning? Is it the mental processes? Or is it the brain processes? Or is it the brain processes and the mental ones together? Or are they one and the same?

The brain performs the functions of sensation, apprehension, judgement and reasoning. Which is why those functions are referred to as brain processes. Since, on an abstract level, they can be considered independently from the brain, they are also referred to as mental processes. There is no ambiguity here.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Whether you realize it or not, Genkaus, you are exploiting an ambiguity in your position that allows you to have your cake and eat it too. If qualia, and other mental processes are functions, then what are you saying implements those functions other than brain processes? What exactly do you say performs the “functions” of sensation, apprehension, judgment, and reasoning? Is it the mental processes? Or is it the brain processes? Or is it the brain processes and the mental ones together? Or are they one and the same?

The brain performs the functions of sensation, apprehension, judgement and reasoning. Which is why those functions are referred to as brain processes. Since, on an abstract level, they can be considered independently from the brain, they are also referred to as mental processes. There is no ambiguity here.

So you are saying that they are the same thing differently described, one and the same.

[genkaus]

So you are saying that they are the same thing differently described, one and the same.

We are talking about more than two things here, so you'll have to be clearer.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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

[bennyboy]

My acceptance matters precisely because my complicity (or that of anyone else) is required in order for your evidence to be presented as valid.

Wrong again. The validity of evidence is not determined by consensus but by logic. The consensus is a tool to minimize errors in logic.

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: 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.

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.

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.

[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.

[bennyboy]

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.

WITHOUT TAKING AS GIVEN its correctness.

You are taking as given that certain behaviors necessarily imply qualia. It's not logical to take this position, as behaviors are mechanical by definition.

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.

That's a philosophical position, not a scientific or logical one. Until you can show anyone both qualia and its resultant behavior, you've got nothing. You say you have qualia-- fine, prove it.

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.

Stop. Forget about proving a behavior can't be reproduced without qualia. You haven't yet proven that there's a case where qualia exists, with or without any particular behavior to let you "know" about it. You're still running in circles:

-Only qualia can be responsible for particular mechanics (i.e. behaviors)
-I know qualia exist because I see those particular mechanics

A circle is a circle is a circle.

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

You've done nothing else. Your "evidence" shows that brains cause bodily motions, not that those brains are subjectively experiencing qualia. Don't believe me? Take me up on my offer-- we'll both make accounts on a science thread, and you can go explain how your knowledge of your own qualia stands as evidence that anything which behaves in certain ways must have qualia.

The gauntlet has been thrown.